Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.i. Request to Adopt & Resolution in Support of the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant Applications for the Steeple Center Senior Housing and the South Gateway DistrictAGENDA ITEM: Request to Adopt a Resolution in Support of the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Grant Applications for the Steeple Center Senior Housing and the South Gateway District AGENDA SECTION: Consent PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 6. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution; Development Grant Application for the Steeple Center Senior Housing; Pre development Grant Application for the South Gateway District. APPROVED BY: n of RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a Resolution Identifying the Need for Livable Communities Demonstration Account Funding and Authorizing Applications for Grant Funds. 4 ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: August 1, 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ISSUE Two applications for grant funding from the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account have been submitted for 2011. A development grant application has been submitted to assist in the site preparation and infrastructure relocations for senior housing in the location of the former St. Joseph's School. A pre development grant application has been submitted to develop a specific area plan for the South Gateway District. A City Council Resolution in support of both applications must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by August 15. SUMMARY Annually, the Metropolitan (Met) Council awards grants through their Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA). There are two grants available through the LCDA, a development grant to assist in the actual construction of a project and a pre development grant which provides funding for planning and investigation of an area before actual construction would occur. The LCDA program allows each individual city to submit up to six grants each year. Staff has submitted two grants, one for a development grant to construction senior housing at the former St. Joseph's School and one for a pre development grant to plan for the development and redevelopment of the South Robert Trail corridor between CSAH 42 and CSAH 46. Staff has submitted a development grant application to assist in the construction of senior housing in the location of the former St. Joseph's School that staff titled Steeple Center Senior Housing. The City currently has released a request for qualifications (RFQ) to locate a developer of the senior housing. Last year, the City had received a grant from the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) to assist in the demolition of the school. The LCDA grant requests $440,000 to assist in the relocation of the natural gas substation, to provide for an alternative stormwater system, and streetscaping including decorative lights, sidewalks and benches. Staff has submitted a pre development grant for the South Gateway District. The South Gateway District is an hourglass shape area that is designated for commercial uses in our Comprehensive Plan. The north half of the district is bounded by County Road 42 to the north, the Union Pacific rail line to the east and south, and Chippendale Avenue to the west. The south half of the district is bounded by County Road 46 to the south, the rail line to the west and north, and extends to the half section line east of South Robert Trail. The north half of the district is developed but has significant sites in need of redevelopment such as the Carlson Tractor business or the Rick's Auto site. The south half of the district is predominately agricultural land but has sites in need of clean up such as the former Rosemount Village dump. The grant funds will be used to hire consultants to conduct a market /feasibility study for the area and to create alternative stormwater guidelines. The grant requires a $1 local match for every $4 of grant funds but allows the matching funds to be provided through in -kind services. Staff has proposed the local match to be the wages and benefits of the staff working with a task force to develop the plan, the actual writing of the plan, and any ordinance revisions necessary to implement the plan. If the grant is awarded, staff is proposing to begin the planning process with the formation of a task force in early 2012 and complete the plan and necessary ordinance revisions by the end of 2012. If the grant is not awarded, development of the plan will be delayed until additional funding is identified for the consultant fees. Per Met Council requirements, staff has prepared a single resolution for both grants including the prioritizing of the two grants. Since the Steeple Center would be an actual project and the City currently has an RFQ out for the project, Staff has assigned the Steeple Center Senior Housing as its #1 priority. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution in support the Livable Communities Demonstration Account development grant for the Steeple Center senior Housing and pre- development grant application for the South Gateway District. 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2011 A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE NEED FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION ACCOUNT FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS the City of Rosemount is a participant in the Livable Communities Act's Housing Incentives Program for 2011 as determined by the Metropolitan Council, and is therefore eligible to apply for Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds; and WHEREAS the City has identified proposed projects within the City that meets the Demonstration Account's purposes and criteria and is consistent with and promotes the purposes of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act and the policies of the Metropolitan Council's adopted metropolitan development guide; and WHEREAS the City has the institutional, managerial and financial capability to ensure adequate project administration; and WHEREAS the City certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement; and WHEREAS the City agrees to act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the grant application submitted on July 15, 2011; and WHEREAS the City acknowledges Livable Communities Demonstration Account grants are intended to fund projects or project components that can serve as models, examples or prototypes for development or redevelopment projects elsewhere in the region, and therefore represents that the proposed projects or key components of the proposed projects can be replicated in other metropolitan -area communities; and WHEREAS only a limited amount of grant funding is available through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Demonstration Account during each funding cycle and the Metropolitan Council has determined it is appropriate to allocate those scarce grant funds only to eligible projects that would not occur without the availability of Demonstration Account grant funding; and WHEREAS cities may submit grant applications for up to six projects during each funding cycle for LCDA Development Grants and Pre Development Grants combined, but, using the cities' own internal ranking processes, must rank their projects by priority so the Metropolitan Council may consider those priority rankings as it reviews applications and makes grant awards. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due consideration, the governing body of the City: Priority Project Name Grant Amount Requested 1 Steeple Center Senior Housing $440,000 2 South Gateway District $23,500 1. Finds that it is in the best interests of the City's development goals and priorities for the proposed projects to occur at these particular sites at this particular time. 2. Finds that the project components for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought: (a) will not occur solely through private or other public investment within the reasonably foreseeable future; and (b) will not occur within two years after the grant award unless Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is made available for these projects at this time. 3. Ranks the project funding applications, according to the City's own internal priorities, in the following order: 4. Represents that the City has undertaken reasonable and good faith efforts to procure funding for the project component for which Livable Communities Demonstration Account funding is sought but was not able to find or secure from other sources funding that is necessary for project component completion within three years and states that this representation is based on the following reasons and supporting facts: (a) The City expended significant funds in acquiring the land of the former St. Joseph's Church and School. (b) The City expended additional funds in developing the previous two phases of redevelopment (Robert Trail Library and the Steeple Center). (c) The City has used significant TIF funds for other redevelopment in Downtown Rosemount (Waterford Commons 2008 LCDA Grant). (d) The City is committed to constructing the Senior Center to complement the Senior Housing. (e) The Steeple Center Senior Housing is an underserved housing type in Rosemount as determined by a Maxfield Market Study. (f) The South Gateway District's existing commercial buildings do not serve the current commercial market. (g) There are significant underdeveloped and undeveloped parcel within the South Gateway District. (h) The South Gateway District Pre- development Grant will encourage the investment in and redevelopment of the District by the private market 5. Authorizes its City Administrator to submit on behalf of the City applications for Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account grant funds for the project components identified in the application, and to execute such agreements as may be necessary to implement the project on behalf of the City. ADOPTED this 1s day of August, 2011, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk William H. Droste, Mayor Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2011 Development Grant Application 1. Project name 2. Applicant City's application contact Title Phone Email 3. Project location City Address intersection 4. Amount requested Steeple Center Senior Housing City of Rosemount a City, County or Development Authority Kim Lindquist Community Development Director 651- 322 -2020 kim .lindquist @ci.rosemount.mn.us Rosemount a Developing city SW Corner of South Robert Trail and 143rd Street West $440,000 Understanding LCDA Project expectations LCDA grants are awarded competitively based on what outcomes are proposed to be delivered as well as how they are delivered. It is the applicant's responsibility to be familiar with and take into account all program requirements. Completing the LCDA application The 2011 LCDA Application Guide provides step -by -step instructions for completing this application. 1 A. Provide a brief description of the Project. The project will include redevelopment of the northern half of the St. Joseph's Church complex. It is anticipated that a 60 -80 unit senior housing project along with public senior center will be developed adjoining the newly transformed Steeple Center. B. Provide a brief description of the grant funded activities, explaining how they serve as a catalyst, a gateway or place- making component or a connecting element for the Project. Relocation of a natural gas substation placed in the most logical spot for the senior housing building; on -site stormwater quality achieved through a rain garden or other device; amenity enhancement such as decorative street lighting, public sidewalk connections, public benches and creation of place- making public plaza. C. Describe how the proposed Project will address LCDA regional goals and the statutory requirements. Introduction of senior housing will bring more dense development into the City's Downtown where retail and commercial services are within walking distance. A future park and ride (funded 2013) is in Downtown and walkable. Local transit route also provided. Senior housing brings new housing type, services, and value to Downtown. D. Describe expected future phases of this development. *Note this is one of ONLY TWO PLACES in the application where you may include or discuss future development. It is anticipated through additional public redevelopment initiatives in Downtown that private investment in existing structures and new redevelopment opportunities will occur. The senor housing, senior center, Steeple Center, and public plaza will preclude future development on the site. E. Describe adjacent or prior development only if it is directly related to the Project. The City acquired land for construction of the Robert Trail Library on the southern 1/3 of the site. The library opened in 2009. Building upgrades have been made to the Steeple Center, to allow public assembly use. The Waterford mixed use project (2010) is the first significant public /private partnership redevelopment project in Downtown. F. Describe the innovation and demonstration value of this Project. Reuse of obsolete site land use (old church and school). Redevelopment into housing opportunity creates high density in developing community with transit linkages and walkable commercial development. Enhances Downtown core economically and financially. Integration of senior housing into existing residential neighborhood. Additional population reinforces further private sector investment in Downtown. Redevelopment opportunity to address water quality despite increased lot coverage. A. Describe how Project elements are designed to optimize their function and compatibility to each other and to the entire Project, through location and orientation of buildings, location of parking or other Project design characteristics. The tight site will require shared parking for the three primary uses. Parking is anticipated in the center of the site, shielding vehicles from the western neighborhood and presenting a 3- story structure to the adjoining minor arterial, Hwy 3. B. Describe how land uses and elements within the Project are selected, arranged or designed to optimize their compatibility and support of each other and the Project. The long -term goal of the Steeple Center is as an arts and cultural facility. This will complement the senior center use and provide activity opportunities for the seniors who will reside in the housing. C. Describe how land uses and elements within the Project are selected, arranged or designed to be compatible with and support adjacent land uses or neighborhoods. Senior housing is compatable adjacent low density residential. The senior project will benefit from close proximity to Library, Downtown commercial services, and future park and ride Businesses will benefit from additional Downtown population. D. Does the Project add green space? Z Yes No If yes, how? The project will include some public plaza space for community benefit. E. Does the Project enhance connections to existing green spaces and other natural areas, within the Project footprint or adjacent to it? Yes No If yes, how? There is an access to Central and Erickson Parks on the east side of 143rd St and S Robert Trail. The construction of senior housing at the Steeple Center will allow the residents additional recreational opportunities within the parks. F. Does the Project use natural resources and features, where feasible and appropriate, as community assets and amenities? Yes No Inapplicable If yes, how? G. Does the Project go beyond the local standard for sustainable design practices? Yes No If yes, how? H. Describe innovative concepts and features this Project will demonstrate: Design Public infrastructure Z Integration Z Connections Place- making Other Explain: Provides water quality currently lacking in the obsolete development. Proposal integrates public and private uses to achieve project synergy. Allows better internal connection between uses and public connections to nearby public uses: library and school campus.Project will enhance civic profile of Steeple Center. A. How will the Project use land more efficiently or increase the density of the Project site? Current use is 1 1/2 level school and pavement in disorganized manner.Project will increase housing units on site and organize parking to make more efficient and to benefit multiple site uses. B. List the number and type of existing and /or planned uses for the Project. Do not use ranges round as necessary. Type of Use Square footage or Square Square acreage to be Footage or #Existing Footage or retained from Acreage for Uses Acreage existing uses #Planned Uses planned uses Residential Commercial Retail Restaurant Office Government/ Civic Arts /Cultural Entertainment Open Public Space 2 1 3.16 1.2 Other (list below): 6929 1 2 1 C. How do the planned uses maximize the potential of the site? Redevelopment of the site will permit grouping of complementary land uses on one site and allow for shared parking and public spaces for the various on -site uses. The senior housing project will be more dense than existing site development. Senior housing will include 2 to 3 stories to allow more units on site and most likely underground parking. These modifications coupled with the Steeple Center, senior center and public plaza area are a more intense use of the 3.16 acre site. Connections to Transit A. Describe how the Project will strengthen regional transit connections both existing and planned. The project location is one block from the 420 bus route (runs along 145th Street) and about 1/4 of a mile from the 476R and 478 express routes (runs from the Community Center). B. How will residents, workers and /or customers of this Project site have access to transit? The 420 flex bus route can serve residents along with Metro Mobility services. Close proimity to existing park and ride at community center and from future one Downtown. C. Describe how the Project will link to the local and regional transportation systems based on its relation with the Project: A TIA designated by DEED (i.e., 53 station areas along the Northstar commuter rail line, Hiawatha LRT, Central Corridor LRT, Southwest Corridor LRT, Cedar Avenue BRT or the I35W BRT); or One -half mile radius of a park- and -ride facility on an express commuter bus or express bus route or within a one quarter mile radius of a fixed stop on a high- frequency bus route; or One -half mile radius of a stop on future arterial BRT corridors, stations under study along the Bottineau, Rush Line or Red Rock transitways; or potential stations along future transitways where no mode or stations have been identified. The project site is on South Robert Trail and therefore would link with the Robert Street Corridor which is set to begin an alternatives analysis (AA) this year. The site is 1,035 feet from the new (2013) Downtown park and ride site. D. Identify and describe Project elements that will support or connect to transit. Sidewalks ►i4 Paths trails Bike racks Street Transit shelters Pedestrian waiting facilities Other The site is connected by sidewalk to the MVTA 420 flex route and by a trail to the Rosemount Community Center where the MVTA 476R and 478 express buses operate. The site is connected by sidewalks to the new park and ride site. Other connections E. Describe how the Project will increase or improve connections between jobs and housing. The project will bring more jobs into the Downtown which is conveniently located for future workers from community. F. How will proposed land uses within the Project site connect, support or complement future phases? The Senior Housing and Senior center will be the last phases of the former St. Joseph's Complex redevelopment. G. What other major infrastructure is necessary to support this Project, if any? None Select Select Select Explain: Explain: Explain: Explain: H. Identify and describe Project elements that will support or connect the proposed uses within the site to each other and with adjacent land uses. Streets existing Streets new Streets realigned Sidewalks Paths /trails Other Other: A plaza is proposed as a part of the development and requested for grant funding to support and connect the Senior Housing with the Robert Trail Library and the Senior Center. A. Jobs Describe the jobs that will be created as a result of this Project. 1. Office Professional Skilled Construction Select Select Select Select Select Select B. Natural Resources 1. Identify and describe conventional volume control and pollutant remo Improved site runoff Local stormwater detention Regional stormwater detention Other 2. Identify and describe innovative and low- impact development (LID) methods that will be employed to achieve stormwater control through the integration of natural hydrologic functions. Rain gardens Anticipated stormwater detention will be rain garden. Infiltration swales Pervious pavement Native vegetation Underground stormwater retention filtration structures Green roofs Other Type Living FT PT wage 2 2 2 1 3 6 11 0 140 140 stormwater management techniques that will be used for rate and /or val. redevelopment will permit improved water quality as compared to existing condition; no quality currently. on -site system will be needed for rate control; either as rain garden or underground retention or both. Regional system will provide water quality. Native plantings will occur on site. Additional stormwater quality and rate may be achieved through underground system. C. Housing 1. Housing density /acre 3. 2. Current housing mix Indicate the type(s) of a. Planned multi- family rental housing 7 c. Planned townhouse or rowhouse 7 d. Planned single family homes e. Planned senior housing Planned multi- family ownership housing f. Planned other housing Affordability mechanisms Does planned housing provide: 6. Will planned housing use: How does the Project support the applicant's Housing Action Plan? Current /existing Planned Housing type None Select Select Select Select housing planned for the Proj 0 per acre 30 per acre Quantity ect. market rate units affordable units AMI affordable units AMI buildings stories market rate units affordable units AMI affordable units AMI buildings stories market rate units affordable units AMI affordable units AMI market rate units affordable units AMI affordable units AMI market rate units 70 affordable units AMI affordable units AMI Homeownership to first -time homebuyers Preservation of existing affordable housing Housing for the homeless Minnesota Green Communities Minnesota GreenStar Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines Explain Other Rent level Select Select Select Select Select AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI AMI Policy 5c to locate high density housing with access to collectors and arterials, Policy 5d to locate high density housing in Downtown, Policy 5e to provide opportunities for seniors to live near their childern and families, A. List all property identification numbers and attach a map showing parcel boundaries as an attachment. (PINs may be attached rather than individually entered.) 34- 42500- 010 -10; 34- 66500- 000 -11; 34- 66500- 000 -20; 34- 66500- 000-40; 34- 66500- 00 -50; 34- 66500- 000 -70 B. Is the Project within the No boundaries of or subject Yes to an area, neighborhood, corridor or other similar plan adopted by the municipality in which the Project is located? Name of plan: Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount Type of plan: Planning Document Describe how the Project implements the plan Continues redevelopment of obsolete site and meets goals of Plan. C. Is the site within a designated development district or an approved development (PUD)? Z No Yes Name of plan: Type of plan: D. Status of site control Full site control achieved Explain Entire site is City owned. E. Status of the site plan Other Explain Conducting RFQ process to obtain development partner. Grant responses based upon previous concept plan. F. Is the developer acquiring the site from the applicant? No Yes Is the site being sold at fair market value? No Yes A. Describe the public input process to date. The Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount was created in 2004 through a public process that included a 13 citizen committee and numerous public meetings. B. Did the Project change in response to public involvement? Yes No If yes, specifically how? In 2007, a 23 citizen St. Joseph's Task Force was assembled to further evaluate the redevelopment of the former St. Joseph's Complex. Senior housing was investigated. C. How have elected officials or city council supported the Project? The City Council has adopted the Framework and St. Joseph's report and the Port Authority has purchased the site. The City Council financed the senior housing market study. D. Describe any known public opposition to the project. None. E. Describe city review or regulatory processes used or developed for this Project, such as zoning codes, form -based codes, design or development standards. Downtown Design Guidelines were approved in conjunction with the Framework and in 2010 the City adopted a performance -based Downtown zoning district. F. Will it be necessary to modify or create local regulations to allow Project innovation? Yes No If yes, in what specific ways? What is the status of those changes? G. Address each of the following: Comprehensive plan No change needed amendment Environmental review No change needed (EAW, EIS, AUAR) Zoning changes No change needed variances (list cite current needed) Status of design No change needed standards Status of Needed underway development standards Market studies City has adopted Feasibility studies No change needed The Development Standards will be determined through the RFQ review and selection process. The City has completed a senior housing market study for this project in 2011. A. List the type and nature of partnerships involved in the Project Partner name City of Rosemount Dakota County CDA Developer Metropolitan Council Type Government Government For profit Government Click to select Comment Provide Grant Funds RFQ has been sent Provide Grant Funds B. Developer(s) Developer name Currently Unknown Commitment RFQ submittal required August 18, 2011. C. Architect(s) engineer(s) Name Currently Unknown Commitment RFQ process will determine A. Redevelopment Demolition of 1 buildings and reconstruction of 2 buildings Current zoning Proposed new zoning Status of new zoning DT: Downtown DT: Downtown Approved B. Infill development Current zoning Proposed new zoning Status of new zoning Click to select C. New development Current zoning Proposed new zoning Status of new zoning Click to select A. LCDA funds are not intended to serve as gap financing. To be eligible for LCDA funding, the grant award must be a catalyst to move the Project forward. Explain specifically how LCDA funds are essential for the Project to commence development or redevelopment by 12/31/2014. The project's centerpiece is senior housing but the intent to to create a public space for the community while enhancing the senior housing and senior center component. The grant will permit creation of a site plan consistent with the City's Downtown vision. B. If awarded, does the applicant or any tier subrecipient intend on using LCDA grant funds as a loan to capture low- income housing tax credits? No Yes C. List all previous Livable Communities awards related to this Project. Include Livable Communities Demonstration Account, Local Housing Incentives Account, Tax Base Revitalization Account, Acquisition for Affordable New Development and Inclusionary Housing Account awards. LCA fund Award $1,587,500 Year 8 200 Proiect name Stonebridge Core Block East LCDA Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Total previous LCA investment A. Complete and attach the Sources and Uses file (in Microsoft Excel). Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Land Outcome Project /phase completed B. If any of the following funding sources will not be used within the 36 -month term of an LCDA grant award, explain why that sources will not be used. Yes No explain Yes No explain Yes No explain Local taxes Local bonding authority Other local sources: Senior Center Construction Other non -local sources: Dakota County CDA Met Council Yes No explain C. Tax revenue Is the applicant planning on using TIF for this Project? Yes ►5 No Will a TIF district be created? Is the Project site already in a TIF district? TIF analysis complete? To what is the increment pledged? Yes No Yes No Yes No Steeple Center Senior Housing: 2011 LCDA Grant 2010 Aerial Photos Grant Application Type: Tax Base Revitalization Account 143RDS'� T.'W THS W r •V 111111 I t ry a O� ..�i uiiiii L I J --1451 ST W.' iciplin L 4 m J A ,,,m„, AMP< L' m IMO ;I d 0 375 750 ft. Created: Jul 14, 20'1 Session URL: http: /gis.metc. state. mn.us /imf /imf.jsp ?session =43304 2010 Aerial Photo. O Aero.Metric Inc.. Locul Road.* T. Lawrence Group. 2 2007 DISCLAIMER OF ACCURACY The Metropolitan Council does rat warren or represent that the GIS Oata or the vmages Caned Rpn GIS data are error -free compete. current or accurate See compote 91101a0me, htlp //9e matt Mate me uvnoticeC Steeple Center Senior Housing: 2011 LCDA Grant Planned Lanka Use Grant Application Type: Livable Communities Demonstration Account 0 375 Created: Jul 14, 2011 w a 0 a z 146TH ST W 750 ft. Planned Lind Use Agricultur, I Rural or Large -Lot Residential Single Family Residential Multifamily Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Mixed Use. in Multi Optional Development Park and Recreation Open Spal:.e or Restrictive Use Rights -of -Way (i.e., Roads) Railway (inc LRT) Airport Vacant or .Jnknown Open Wat .if Sewers Lift Station Gravity Forcemain Siphon Regional Trails Trail Status Existing Planned Proposed Roads, Railroads, Transit Bus Stops Bus Routes Principal Arterial A MinorAugmentor A Minor Reliever A Minor Expander A Minor Connector B Minor Major Collector Minor Collector Railroads Session URL: http: /gis. mete. state.mn.us /imf /imf.jsp ?session =43310 2010 AcnaI Photos L. A ro•Metnc lne.. Loco Roads ©The Lawrence Group. 2007 DISCLAIMER OF ACCURACY The Metropolitan Council does not warrant or represent that the GIS data or Me sears derived Irons GIS data l are error -free. wml ete. current or accurate See eanpkse Ishp ms mete state mn us ne0ce/. THREE STORY 60 UNIT INDEPEDENT LIVING ARAGE ENTRY ENTRY ONE STORY SENIOR CENTER EXISTING ENTRY I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 95 STALLS EXISTING CHAPEL NAYS 1010 ININ18A[I.18 aaawea.1114iarravoo Rosemount Senior Housing Rosemount,Mimemooa Dakota County HRA 0 10 30 Concept Site A April 15, 2011 afield Research Inc MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Kim Lindquist Community Development Director FROM: Mr. Matt Mullins Ms. Amanda Janzen Maxfield Research Inc. RE: Preliminary Demand Estimate for Senior Housing in Rosemount, Minnesota Introduction/Purpose and Scope of Research This memorandum provides a preliminary assessment of the potential market support for senior housing in Rosemount, Minnesota. Specifically, adult ownership, adult rental (affordable and market rate), congregate, assisted living and memory care product types are considered in this analysis. The methodology used to calculate demand in this memorandum is proprietary to Maxfield Research but is consistent with methodologies used by analysts throughout the senior housing industry. It is important to note that demand estimates and conclusions contained herein are preliminary and are intended only to broadly assess the depth of demand for senior housing in Rosemount. A more thorough investigation of the characteristics of the primary draw area, outlined in a Full Feasibility Study, would reveal more specific factors that would impact demand and appropriate market positioning. This memorandum delineates a primary draw area, or Primary Market Area "PMA for senior housing in Rosemount and presents an overview of the demographic and economic characteristics of this area. It then defines the various types of senior housing available in today's market and inventories existing and pending senior housing projects in the PMA. Finally, it presents demand calculations for adult ownership, adult rental (affordable and market rate), congregate, assisted living and memory care senior housing based on demographic, economic, and competitive market factors that would impact demand. The preliminary assessment concludes with a calculation of the number of senior housing units that could be supported on a site in Rosemount. 612 338 -0012 (fax) 612-904-7979 615 First Avenue NE, Suite 500, Minneapolis, MN 55413 www.maxfieldresearch.com Ms. Kim Lindquist City of Rosemount Preliminary Conclusions MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. TABLE 11 DEMAND SUMMARY SITE IN ROSEMOUNT 2010 2015 Total Units t 1,1 l'iZ g l i 2010 2015 Market Rate Active Adult Ownership 0 0 Active Adult Rental 21 28 Congregate 33 43 Assisted Living 34 39 Elderly Waiver 8 8 Memory Care 19 22 Total Units 86 104 Affordable Active Adult Affordable 33 30 33 30 Source: Maxfield Research Inc. April 15, 2011 Page 29 Our preliminary assessment of the factors impacting demand for senior housing, including demographic, economic, and competitive variables, shows market support for additional units in the PMA. Table 11 provides a summary of demand that could be captured by a development on a high quality site in Rosemount. It should be noted that our conclusions are preliminary and do not consider the quality of a particular site for a senior housing development, price and positioning of the subject project, or other important factors (i.e. architectural, marketing and management issues) that would likely impact the market feasibility of the subject development. •pity of Ros mount 2011 LIDA Grant Steeple Ce i ter Senior Housing ry MI ,/j-) A144 01 I j 101 •s• 41 74 s 'Rosemount (CurrentEx Waterforlcomm 4 ons (2007 LCDA rant) a rrol Is 1 Voods Park Schr4iz Pond Pa Rosemount I Schwarz Pond Pa Cam field Park Rosemount MS i Steeple Cen gior,Housing ill T Osernount Elern I I 44 ir?'•4 •i 1 •1 .4_._ t 1 ir ss Post OP A _4 i .0 °ffiC 4 00 ).t-'rl slalt. L 111.1=.:-.• Alp! .:47 1 AP i a Ji- 111 I 2w. iP, 1.1 11111 I s v i l 17 ff ti de. st 1 R., Kr s .w i,..5 -.a As. ...0 It .1.• 1,s e 6 4 4 d1 4. Li t r *Ars it OMB INI 41 4 4. It7 7 m,..•r:,„:4,„!4- 4 11 1.TP• _i 1 t-i 1 git. 4.4.44. 1 4 "i t t yl 415404 t r: cl.; I 1 No' $1,1. 4 .04 1• 4 it it. sr Ir1CSNIlf.)r —arts -4 -t r i ii•ielFiB 74 v :71. J. ir I ..ii W fi 4 r1, ir ,1■• 9 *it 4. i',.. .1 Brockway Park CONNEMARA T Erickson Park 0 500 1,000 IFeet 4111 010 478R 478 Express Parks Future 476R 8, 478 Express Route 11:1 Downtown Boundary INA. 420 Bus Route FILE: a:GIS/City/Maps/Departmental Maps/CommunityDevelopment/Eric/Senior Housing Concept A A July 2011 pity of Rosemount 2011 LISA Grant Steeple Center Senior Housing ROSEMOUNT 1117 4 Future Rosemoj nt Depot Park Ride (2013 CMAQIFunds) Central Park Erickson Park 250 500 Feet 4 %.M1 470R 478 Express Parks d Future 478R 478 Express Route el Downtown Boundary 4420 Bus Route FILE: /T:GIS /City /Maps/Departmental Maps CommunityDevelopment /Enc /Senior Housing Concept A A July 2011 cu !Click to select !Click to select Click to select !Click to select !Click to select !Click to select !Click to select Placemaking elements or improvements !Furnishings for parks, plazas or other public areas !Public sidewalks: new or reconstructed Lighting for parks, plazas or other public areas Stormwater management improvements Public telecommunication lines: extension or modification Uses (Uses for the requested LCDA- eligible costs: Plaza between Senior Housing, Senior Center, Robert Trail Library, and Steeple Center Benches and Sidewalks within Plaza Public Sidewalk Street Lights to Match Downtown Design and Electrical Undergrounding Raingardens under parking lot stormwater treatment Relocate MERC Natural Gas Substation Description 17,500 7,500 70,000 95,000 200,000 50,000 LCDA Project name:I Other public Private ffl EA EA EA EA EA EA 17,500 7,500 70,000 95,000 200,000 50,000 Total Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select City estimates City estimates City estimates City estimates City estimates Contractors' estimates Estimate methodology D 2011 LCDA Development Application Uses WV 65:8 ITOZ/9Z/L0 2011 LCDA Development Application Uses NV 65:8 ITOZ/9Z/L0 Senior Center Construction Senior Housing Construction Building Demolition Land Acquisition Placemaking elements or improvements 'Furnishings for parks, plazas or other public areas 'Public sidewalks: new or reconstructed Lighting for parks, plazas or other public areas Stormwater management improvements Public telecommunication lines: extension or modification 'Uses Uses for the Project that will commence within 36 months Senior Center Construction Senior Housing Construction Demolish the former St. Joseph's School Purchase former St. Joseph's Parish and five homes along Cameo Avenue Plaza between Senior Housing, Senior Center, Robert Trail Library, and Steeple Center Benches and Sidewalks within Plaza Public Sidewalk Street Lights to Match Downtown Design and Electrical Undergrounding Raingardens under parking lot stormwater treatment Relocate MERC Natural Gas Substation Description so so so so' $o so $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o so $o so $0 $0 so tal- CD $17,500 $7,500 000`OL$ $95,000 000`00Z$ $50,000 Project name: LCDA $o $o $o $0 $o $0 $0 so $o $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $o $450,000 so $360,000 $3,635,725 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other public Stepple Center Senior Housing $o so $0 $0 $0 Sol $0 $0 so so $o $0 so so $o so $0 so $6,800,000 so $0 $o $o so 50 $o so Private $01 $0 $0 $0 Sol $01 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 $o $0 $0 $450,000 $6,800,000 $360,000 $3,635,725 $17,500 $7,500 $70,000 $95,000 000 $50,000 Total Estimate methodology Click to select Click to select Click to select 'Click to select Click to select 'Click to select 'Click to select 'Click to select 'Click to select 'Click to select 'Click to select 'Click to select 'Click to select 'Click to select 'Click to select 'Click to select 'Click to select 'City estimates 'City estimates City estimates Bidding City estimates City estimates City estimates City estimates City estimates Contractors' estimates 2011 LCDA Development Application Uses NV 65:8 ITOZ/9Z/L0 U a) ID N O Y 0 0 O IA- O N 0 in N r. 1A 00 t0 rl rl i• 8 0 O O 00 t0 4^ in N r. M 3 4 N O S O f V1 L N N l.n 00 l0 1 e-1 0) a) 0 7 O to V1 N N. V1 00 l0 -1 .-I VT U 0 1- 0 V► R tropolit Ca unc Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2011 Pre Development Project Grant Application 1 1. Project name South Gateway District 2. Applicant City's application contact Title Phone Email Rosemount a City, County or Development Authority Kim Lindquist Community Development Director 651 322 -2020 kim .Lindquist @ci.rosemount.mn.us 3. Project location City Address intersection Rosemount a Developing city South Robert Trail from CSAH 42 to CSAH 46 4. Amount requested $23,500 Definition of terms The Pre Development Project is the set of Grant Funded Activities for which funding is requested in the application. The Project Area is the specific geographic area in which LCDA Pre Development Project activities will be conducted and is the site of the future development or redevelopment Project. The Future Development Project is the future development or redevelopment that through its design and execution will deliver benefits such as housing, connections, and /or jobs to the region. Affordable Housing is ownership or rental housing affordable to households earning 60% or less of Area Median Income (AMI). Developed Communities are cities where more than 85% of the land is developed, infrastructure is well established and efforts must go toward keeping it in good repair. Developing Communities are cities where the most substantial amount of new growth about 60 percent of new households and 40 percent of new jobs will occur. Transit Improvement Areas (TIA) are specially designated tracts of land that encompass a half -mile radius around transit stations that support bus rapid transit, light rail transit or commuter rail that have the potential to increase ridership and stimulate new commercial and residential development that have been designated by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. Fifty -three TIAs have been designated along the routes of Northstar Commuter Rail, Hiawatha Light Rail, Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, I -35W Bus Rapid Transit, Central Corridor Light Rail and Southwest Light Rail Lines. R tropolit Ca unc Livable Communities Demonstration Account 2011 Pre Development Project Grant Application 1 A. Provide a brief, overall description of the Pre Development Project. Include a brief description of the Grant Funded Activities, explaining how they will support and help implement the future development Project described in 5.C. The pre development project will create the Development Framework for the South Gateway District including a market/feasibility study, area specific alternative stormwater design guidelines, and the zoning code revision necessary to implement the Development Framework.The project area serves as a gateway to Rosemount for all travelers heading north on South Robert Trail including commuters from Farmington, Empire Township, and Northfield. The north half of the project area is developed with commercial and light industrial uses, many of which are over 25 years old. The south half of the project area is a mix of farm fields, a former village dump, a car repair business, and a natural gas storage facility. The Framework will create a development plan that will evaluate what businesses and uses are suitable to remain in the north half of the project area while creating a redevelopment strategy for the other parcels and buildings. The Plan will also evaluate the best and highest development scenario for the south half along with addressing Brownfield clean up and redevelopment. Being the south entrance to the City and having numerous rush hour drivers passing by each day, the City sees the potential to add important tax base while providing additional jobs for our residents and the other communters thereby reducing commuter trips. B. Identify the Project Area. (The Project Area must be a specific geographic site that the applicant plans to develop or redevelop in accordance with the LCDA program criteria.) The project area is 210 acres of land located along both sides of South Robert Trail (Minnesota Highway 3) between CSAH 42 (150th Street) and CSAH 46 (160th Street). The project area is one mile long by one half mile wide. The north half of the project area is bounded by CSAH 42 on the north, the Union Pacific rail line to the east, Chili Court to the south, and Chippendale Avenue to the west. The south half of the project area is bounded by the Union Pacific rail line to the north and west, the SW Qtr of Sect. 32 boundary to the north and east, and CSAH 46 to the south. C. Describe any planning, visioning or other activities that have been completed for the Project Area, or portions of the Project Area. List or describe the products of these activities, such as planning documents, area or neighborhood plans, etc. 2006: Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the south half of the district from industrial to commercial. 2007: Phase II environmental review and development response action plan (DRAP) for the former Rosemount dump; acquired the abandoned South Robert Trail right -of -way from Mn/DOT. 2008: Preliminary Plat for Business Park land east of South Robert Trail. 2009: adopt the 2030 Comprehensive Plan including the identification of the South Gateway District as one of four redevelopment areas. D. When is development expected to commence in the Project Area? Development in the South Gateway District has already begun with reinvestment in Rosemount Market Square retail along CSAH 42 and recent commercial development on Chippendale Avenue. The South Gateway is large enough and has city services in place to develop multiple phases simultaneously. In the north half, the southwest corner of S. Robert Trail and CSAH 42 is expected to redevelop first. In the south half, it is anticipated that the intersection of S. Robert Trail and Canada Circle will be developed first, including a street connection to Boulder Trail. A. Land Uses 1. Intensify land use by adding buildings or other uses and increase density to a level that maximizes the potential of the location. The north half of the project area is developed mostly with buildings constructed from 1961 through the early 1980s. There are high levels of vacancies for retail in buildings that no longer suit retailers' needs such as the former farm implement dealership on the southwest corner of South Robert Trail and CSAH 42. The south half of the project area is a mix of agriculture and brownfields. The South Gateway District will be redeveloped into uses that are more suitable to the mature mixed use community that Rosemount has become. The alternative stormwater infrastructure guidelines will focus on infrastructure that is suitable and preferred for intense, high impervious surface land uses such as are expected and planned for the South Gateway. Traditional stormwater ponds are land intensive and the alternative stormwater infrastructure will be more efficient by allowing more land to be used for development and less for stormwater management. 2. Improve the balance between jobs and housing, and establish a connected development pattern between housing and centers of employment, education, retail and recreation uses. The South Gateway District is surrounded by the residential neighborhoods to the west and northwest, commercial strip development existing to the west and planned to the east along CSAH, the mixed use Downtown Rosemount located directly north along South Robert Trail, and business park/industrial use located to the east. Educational uses are less than a mile away to the north with the Rosemount High, Middle, and Elementary Schools and about a mile to the east on CSAH 42 with the Dakota County Technical College (DCTC). The development and the redevelopment of the South Gateway District will improve the jobs- housing balance by providing jobs and employment centers near the existing residential developments. Rosemount High School and DCTC can provide workers trained and educated specifically for the businesses located in the South Gateway. 3. Diversify housing options within the future development site, neighborhood, and community. The Development Framework for the South Gateway District and the market/feasibility study will evaluate the potential of mixed use buildings and senior housing to transition from the residential neighborhood to the west and efficiently use the services and businesses located within the District. Mixed use housing in Rosemount has been developed at 16 to 30 units an acre and senior housing has been designed at 24+ units per acre. 4. Develop land uses linked to the local and regional transportation systems. Specify if the proposed future development Project will be located within: A TIA designated by DEED (i.e., 53 station areas along the Northstar commuter rail line, Hiawatha LRT, Central Corridor LRT, Southwest Corridor LRT, Cedar Avenue BRT or the I35W BRT); or One -half mile radius of a park- and -ride facility on an express commuter bus or express bus route or within a one- quarter mile radius of a fixed stop on a high- frequency bus route; or One -half mile radius of a stop on future arterial BRT corridors, stations under study along the Bottineau, Rush Line or Red Rock transitways; or potential stations along future transitways where no mode or stations have been identified. Identify: The South Gateway District is located within a half mile of the Rosemount Depot Park and Ride which will be constructed with 2013 CMAQ funding. The South Gateway District includes South Robert Trail which is the preferred route for the Robert Street Corridor transitway. 5. Enhance major state transportation investments, such as new interchanges, ramps, or major road improvements; or regional investments including transitways. The South Gateway District is bounded by the principal arterial CSAH 42 to the north, by the minor arterial CSAH 46 to the south, and bisected by the minor arterial South Robert Trail (Mn Hwy 3). The development and redevelopment of the South Gateway District will provide for access management through planning to utilize the limited accesses while reducing individual access onto these arterials. The development and redevelopment will increase the tax base and employment opportunities along these state and regional transportation investments. Continued participation in the Robert Street Corridor would be planned to maximize the transit ridership from this job center, particularly if Downtown Rosemount is connected to the future UMore development. 6. Achieve development that provides optimal convenience for pedestrian access to transit. MVTA's 420 flex route runs throughout the day along 145th Street West and County Road 42 on the north side of the project area. The flex route status allows the route to change the course of the bus as needed to serve the north half of the project area. With the 2013 CMAQ fund, the Rosemount Depot park and ride will be constructed less than 1/2 mile north of the project area in Downtown and will include express bus service to both Minneapolis and St. Paul. The City's Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan will include connections between residential neighborhoods, commercial and job centers such as the South Gateway, and transit such as the Rosemount Depot. The City participates in the Robert Street Corridor, connecting Downtown Rosemount and Downtown St. Paul via the transitway. 7. Provide opportunities to employ natural resources, where doing so is feasible and appropriate, as community connections, assets and amenities. The alternative stormwater guidelines will call for the use and construction of stormwater infrastructure that is most suitable for the high intensity, high impervious surface development while taking advantage of the sandy soils of the area. Stormwater management for the area can be used in combination with naturally landscaped areas. Depressed medians in parking lots can use storm water to maintain native vegetation in the area. Above ground storm water management facilities can enhance local habitat by designing it as a wetland treatment system rather than being a typical pond. These factors can enhance natural resources and become an asset to the community. B. Local planning and implementation processes 1. Implement the applicant city's local comprehensive plan. The creation of an area plan for the South Gateway was specifically identified in the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The redevelopment section of the Land Use Plan on page 74 identifies the South Robert Trail (South Gateway) as one of four redevelopment areas within Rosemount. Land Use Goals 3.C. (page 79) is intended to create a specific area plan development and redevelopment of the commercial properties along South Robert Trail between County Road 42 and County Road 46. The grant funds will be used to fulfill these Comprehensive Plan goals and plan for the development per the land use designations adopted in the 2030 Comprehensive plan. 2. Assist the applicant city achieve its negotiated affordable and lifecycle housing goals. The Development Framework will explore transitions between residential neighborhoods to the west and the business park/industrial uses to the east. The Development Framework will examine the suitability of mixed use or congregate housing in the South Gateway to use the land most efficiently and provide this transition. The City has identified two markets that are in the need of additional housing: young adults who have left their parents' home but have not yet formed their own families; and senior citizens. The mixed use housing, particularly with rental housing, would provide housing stock for both markets while the senior housing would provide housing for only the senior citizen market. 3. Implement any redevelopment plans, corridor, transit station area, or other local plans applicable to the identified Project Area. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the South Robert Trail (South Gateway) as one of four redevelopment areas within Rosemount. Describe how the Grant Funded Activities will assist the applicant achieve the objectives listed in section 6. The Framework created with the grant funds will create the redevelopment and corridor plan necessary to implement the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Action Plan. The market/feasability study will assist in attraching developers and the stormwater design standards will help ensure that the redevelopment does not have an adverse imapct on the natural environment. A. Describe innovation and demonstration potential either within the future Project or the Pre Development Grant Funded Activities. The South Gateway planning project is innovative because of the mix of new greenfield development and brownfield redevelopment. In most areas of Minneapolis, St. Paul, or most first ring suburbs, any new development occurs as redevelopment or brownfields. In most area outer suburbs, most development occurs on greenfield sites where the former farm or dump site is the most difficult development challenge. In the South Gateway, the Development Framework will describe how to intensify the redevelopment and brownfield sites while also planning for additional greenfield development working on project integration and an overall vision. B. Describe any circumstances that capitalize on unique development opportunities or advantages offered by the Project Area. Many of the existing business and land owners are interested in redeveloping their properties. Some developers have been interested in these sites, although no specific development is imminent. It is beneficial to create this Development Framework before the commercial market rebounds to limit the potential loss of high intensity development.Without working with the property owners, sites may remain or be developed in an underutilized manner. 1. Would these opportunities be jeopardized or potentially lost if the applicant does not proceed with the Grant Funded Activities within the 24 -month grant term? Without this Framework and associated market/feasability study, commercial development may proceed further to the east where greenfield development opportunities exist instead of investing in redevelopment in central Rosemount. That would be inefficient since this area is served by utilities, transit, and other public resources and is located adjacent to existing housing, employees, and customers. A. Describe the involvement of local leadership, the political commitment, community involvement, or involvement with other partners to date regarding activities in the Project Area. The South Gateway District has included intergovernmental partnerships with Mn /DOT for South Robert Trail and the purchase of the former right -of -way, and Dakota County's departments of environmental management and transportation. The environmental management department has been involved in the funding and development of the Phase II and DRAP for the former dump and the transportation department has been involved in the planning, construction, and access management of CSAH 42 and CSAH 46. The City Council has provided support through adopting the Comprehensive Plan including the policy to develop a specific area plan for the South Gateway. The development scenario of the Development Framework will be created through a task force formed from elected and appointed officials, residents, area land owners, and area businesses. B. Describe local leadership, political commitment and community involvement that will be continued or enacted in the future to carry out the activities funded by this request. The City Council has provided support through adoption of the Comprehensive Plan including the policy to develop a specific area plan for the South Gateway. The development scenario of the Development Framework will be created through a task force formed by elected and appointed officials, residents, area land owners, and area businesses. The task force will also be involved in creation of the design standards of the Development Framework. C. Describe how you plan to include or coordinate with appropriate private and public partners to implement the future development Project in the Project Area. The development scenario of the Development Framework will be created through a task force formed by elected and appointed officials, residents, area land owners, and area businesses. The City has been working and will continue to work with local business owners, developers, and land owners in the designing and marketing of the South Gateway Area. The City will continue to look for additional intergovernmental partnerships to add value and resources to the South Gateway District. A. Describe the status of current efforts to date to prepare the Project Area for development. In the north half of the project area, the City has been working with the land owner to market and design their development and redevelopment projects. On the south half, the City has developed a DRAP for the former dump, has acquired the abandoned right -of -way from Mn/DOT, and has approved a preliminary plat to the east. The City is also negotiating a development agreement with the developer and land owner that would include the construction of the extension of Boulder Trail and associated infrastructure to the intersection of South Robert Trail and Canada Circle. B. Describe how this Pre Development Project grant request fits into the sequence and progress of the components /tasks needed to implement the future Project. Identifying the uses are feasable and that the market can support is necessary to focus the City's resources and economic development activities into those businesses and mixed use developments that can redevelop the South Gateway District. Without the grant funded activities, the City will be forced to react to each potential business on a site by site basis without having the foresight of which business and mixed use development are compatable and complementary to each other. C. Indicate for the Project Area whether any of the following will be needed, are underway, or are completed. Use the space below to provide a description or explanation as needed. Comprehensive Plan amendment Completed Adopted in 2009 Environment Reviews Not needed Would occur following the development of the Framework based on the EQB standards based on the size and intesity of the re /development. Zoning changes and variances Underway Would use the matching funds to complete. Design standards Underway Would use the matching funds to complete. Development standards Underway Would use the LCDA Grant and matching funds to complete. Market studies Underway Would use the LCDA Grant to complete. Feasibility studies Underway Would use the LCDA Grant to complete. 9 D. Is the Project Area currently within a designated TIF or other development district, or an approved development (e.g. PUD)? Yes No E. Does the applicant or any of its entities or partners own the Project Area site or a developable portion or phase of the Project Area? 1. If No, are steps being taken to gain site control? Yes No F. Has the applicant selected a developer for the Project Area? 1. 2. Yes No If yes, name and type of contract or commitment The current land owners have been market their properties currently and some have contracts with builder /developers approaching potential businesses. If no, has the applicant been working with a developer on future development plans for the Project Area? G. To the best of your knowledge, are there other proposed uses for the project site? 0 No Yes describe: South Gateway District Rosemount Pre development Grant Application Provide a brief description of the specific future development or redevelopment project that will be built as a result of your pre- development project activities. The South Gateway District contains 77 acres of undeveloped and 42 acres of underdeveloped Community Commercial land and 9.5 acres of undeveloped Regional Commercial land. Assuming that 5% of the Community Commercial land is developed as high density housing (20 units per acre) and the remain 95% is developed at a 0.25 floor to area ratio (FAR), the future development of the South Gateway District would result in 120 housing units and 1,300,000 square feet of retail, office, and hospitality uses. South Gateway District: 2011 LCDA Grant 2010 Aerial Photos Grant Application Type: Tax Base Revitalization Account 0 1 91;1 0 3800 ft. Created: Jul 15, 2011 Session URL: http: /gis.metc. state. mn.us /imf /imf.jsp ?session =46192 2010Aenal Photos .0 Aero Metric Inc.; Lc nl Roads r9 The Lawrence Group. 2007 DISCLAIMER OF ACCURACY. The Metropolitan Council does nol warrant or represent that the GIS data or Ma images de hltp: /gis.molc slale.mn.us /noticel: ed from GIS data I are error-free. complete, current or accurate. Sea complete disclaimer South Gateway District: 2011 LCDA Grant Planned Land Use Grant Application Type: Livable Communities Demonstration Account ..Y► i 1111 z co ,(p9 3 V JO W a$ a oo Q a Z W mg: Z U w m a lL i sa DAKOTA SOUTH GATEWAY DISTRICT 160TH 5 0 1500 3000 ft. Planned Land Use Sewers Roads, Railroads, Transit Agricultura Lift Station a Bus Stops Rural or Large -Lot Residential Gravity —e— Bus Routes Single Family Residential Principal Arterial Forcemain El Multifamily Residential Siphon AMinorAugmentor Commercial A Minor Reliever Industrial A Minor Expander Institutional Regional Trails AMinorConnector Mixed Use Trail Status B Minor r Multi Optional Development Existing Major Collector Park and Recreation Planned Minor Collector Open Space or Restrictive Use Proposed Railroads Rights -of -Way (i.e., Roads) a. Railway (inc. LRT) Airport Vacant or Unknown PI Open Water Created: Jul 14, 2011 Session URL: http: /gis.metc. state. mn.us /imf /imf.jsp ?session =43394 2010 Aarial Photos OAero-Metric Inc.; Local Roads v7 The Lawrence Group, 2007. DISCLAIMER OF ACCURACY The Metropolitan Council does not warrant or represent that the OM Pate or the' images Eehred from Gl$ este I are error -tree, complete, current or accurate. See complete Madame,. 0000'llgia.metc.etate mn uvnoecel; 2010 LCDA Pre- development Grant South Gateway District 1 ROSEMOUNT p 138TH ST p r U.133TH ST W r ..139TH STW.... i a a cc 140114 STW. g Q.. Legend South Gateway District 2030 Land Use AG Agriculture DT Downtown NC Neighborhood Commercial RC Regional Commercial CC Community Commercial AGRAgricultural Research RR Rural Residential LDR Low Density Residential TR Transitional Residential MDR Medium Density Residential HDR High Density Re:lidential PI Public/Institutional IM PO Existing Parks/Op:in Space BP Business Park LI Light Industrial GI General Industrial Wivi Waste Management B N 0 4G0 1300 CO 1 2C0 1 BCC Prepared By EHZ 07/16 /2010 A. wl q a:r 151ST T4°! er f 152N 153FDS Dg N11 c 154T2-1tT� 1551HS[W A Lt TH S T 'fit 1 CENT C 43RD ST •RAN way 0 148TH •153R0 S T w 155TH S l.`J il 1ELL TR 2-t ST II! L. 147TH 149TH 50TH ST W 145TH ST 148TH S F ar;a H CT N1: 157TH STS t, ;`1...:_ 11‹; J l 58TH ST i".,_ r j, 1 r CT W 8- ULDE T 1 1 160TH ST VF (CSAH 46) f11 160TH ST IN (CBAH 46) File TIGIS "vCltydc,lapsiDepartmedtal M3pslCommunityDevelopment EncvGrant Apphcafions 20101CDA '2010PreDev_SouthGateway mxd Jul 13 2010 Sources for the Project that will commence within 36 months Attachment XX: Sources and Uses Date saved: 07/26/2011 11:04 AM Est rt ated commitment date j Jan 11 Project name: Wfl V$ 23,500 I008'L 00E' I E 1 1;1. saes Pending Committed Total Sources Gap (Expected total development cost Source I 'Metropolitan Council LCDA Pre Development Grant 'City of Rosemount Sources for the Project that will commence within 36 months Attachment XX: Sources and Uses Date saved: 07/26/2011 11:04 AM E V a 69 v (0 co E N N O U (0 c 0 V O O O O 69 64 c (0 Q c c a) E a) O) (0 c (0 E 1 a) a) U V7 U V= U a) a N N O O N 69 69 O O 0 `O U a) E a O a) a) N c a (0 O L- C (0 N a O 69 O O 69 O (0 m c c a) E a) n E 0) O C co (0 C 0) c N O) O O O 4J U a) N 0 U V Y U a) a) N 0 U U 2011 LCDA Pre-Development Sources and Uses Total Estimate methodology Contractors' estimates Contractors' estimates City estimates satewgsa Click to select Click to select 1 Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select I Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select Click to select 1Click to select (Click to select I 1Click to select 1Click to select OOS'LI$ 000'9$ 00S`Z$ 00E`S$ 1o$ los 1 o$ dos los 10$ 1o$ 10$ lo$ 10$ 10$ 10$ 05 0$ 0$ 0$ 05 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 00£'T£$ 00E`IE$ 0$ I Private I 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 05 105 0$ 105 1 dos los 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 05 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 1 Sources aauaJama Other public I 0$ 0$ 005`Z$ 00E`S$ 0$ 0$ 1 0$ 1o$ 105 105 1 1 105 1o$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 1 0$ 05 I o$ 1 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 008'L$ Dal :aweu ;oaroad 00S'Lt$ 000'95 0$ 05 05 0$ 0$ los 105 0$ 105 105 105 0$ 0$ 05 05 o$ o$ 1 o$ 1 o$ 0$ 1 05 o$ 1 05 1 o0s'£z$ Uses for the Project that will commence within 36 months Description Market /Feasibility Study for the South Gateway District South Gateway Alternative Stormwater Infrastructure Design Guidelines Development Framework for the South Gateway District Revisions to existing Zoning districts or Creation of the South Gateway District ;sash( Alternatives analysis Site- specific surface water management plans Preparing detailed redevelopment and corridor plan Developing zoning and land use implementation tools 2011 LCDA Pre-Development Sources and Uses AGENDA ITEM: Case 11- 23 -PP; 11 -24 -PUD Request by Pulte Group for the Approval of the Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Resolutions; Ordinance; Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan Agreement; Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision; Planning Commission Executive Summary Dated June 28; Excerpt from the Draft June 28 Planning Commission Minutes; Craig and Conny Mahoney Email Dated July 25; Illustrative Site Plan; Development Plan; Preliminary Plat; Grading Plans; Utility Plans; Landscape Plans; Shoreland Impact Zone; Shoreland Open Space; Table IX -1: Wetland Management and Protection Requirements; Wetland Impact Exhibit; Mitigation Table; Buffer Averaging Analysis Exhibit; Buffer Averaging Analysis Table; Exception Ghost Plat; City Engineer's Memorandum dated June 23; Park and Recreation Director's Memorandum dated June 22; Park Concept 1; Fire Marshall's Memorandum dated June 17; McMenomy History Email Dated July 23; Pulte Fee Reduction Request Dated July 22. APPROVED BY: p the Prelimina (PUD) Master Ordinance B City of RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a Resolution approving Plat for Marshes of Bloomfield. Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Planned Unit Development Development Plan with Rezoning for Marshes of Bloomfield. Motion to adopt an Ordinance B -217, an Ordinance amending Rosemount Zoning Ordinance for Marshes of Bloomfield. 4 ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting Date: August 1, 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Motion to approve the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan Agreement for Marshes of Bloomfield and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into the Agreement. Motion to Approve the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision for Marshes of Bloomfield and authorize the Mayor to Sign the Decision. ISSUE Pulte Group has requested a preliminary plat, planned unit development (PUD) master development plan and rezoning to R -1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Development Plan to develop 182 single family homes on 156.4 acres. PLANNING COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planning Commission summary reviews the details of the subdivision request. This Council memo will highlight modifications to the proposal since the Planning Commission meeting, including issues raised during the public hearing. There are some items the developer is requesting which are also highlighted with a staff recommendation about the requests. For background or issues which were noncontroversial, the Planning Commission Executive Summary has been provided as an attachment to this document for the City Council reference. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 28, 2011 On June 28, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing regarding Marshes of Bloomfield. At that hearing, ten people spoke, nine of which were residents and one who was a representative of Northern Natural Gas (NNG). Of the nine residents, five of the residents were from the Meadows of Bloomfield neighborhood, two were from the rural residential area northwest of the site, one was a large lot owner south of Bonaire Path, and the last was Mike McMenomy, one of the four McMenomys who own the property to the east of the site. The eight residents other than Mr. McMenomy shared many of the same concerns• the development is too dense; they want the wetlands, woods, and wildlife preserved; the project would result in additional traffic and speeding on Bonaire Path; the school system cannot support the additional students; and there is no housing market for these additional single family homes. Staff and the developer responded to many of these concerns. In the Comprehensive Plan, the property is designated Low Density Residential which allows development between one (1) and five (5) units per acre. The Pulte proposal is 1.16 units per acre which is on the low end of that range. The rezoning of the property to R -1: Low Density residential is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and reducing the development by half as requested by some residents would result in a density that is below that cited in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff reviewed the subdivision layout, explaining how the design attempts to minimize the impacts on woodland, wetland, and wildlife while meeting Plan density targets. Staff also explained that the speed limit on Bonaire Path is dictated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation not the City. Also, as part of the alternative urban areawide review (AUAR) prepared for this area and as part of the design for Bonaire Path, the development of this property and others was accounted for in the final roadway design. Staff explained that the school district commented during development of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicating that Rosemount is growing while school enrollment in Eagan and Apple Valley are declining. The District noted they can accommodate the short term growth projected in Rosemount 2 by adjusting attendance boundaries of existing schools. Finally, staff stated that Rosemount has less than 100 vacant single family lots remaining, available for building, and that is about a one year supply of construction. Mr. McMenomy stated that he is concerned that the proposed Autumn Path is shown half on the McMenomy family property and half on the Pulte property and he is afraid that it would be expected that the McMenomys would pay for half of the road. Mr. McMenomy stated that they do not have plans to develop currently and do not want the road, and that his family is still paying on the assessment for the Bonaire Path improvements. It should be noted that the project does not need to have Autumn Path extended until phases 1 and 2 are completed. If Bacardi is extended Autumn Path might not be required for some time. Leeland Mann of Northern Natural Gas (NNG) stated that he has not received the plans for this development and he is concerned with the design because the roads and trails do not cross perpendicular to the pipeline. After the meeting, Fran Hagen from Westwood, the engineering consultant for Pulte, stated that he emailed the plans to NNG over a week before but that it was to a staff member other than Mr. Mann. It was explained to the Commission that Pulte will need to address the NNG and other utilities' concerns, but that the utilities will have another opportunity to review the plans with the future Final Plat approval. It was noted that typically, approval from utility companies is an administrative process that is worked through with staff and the developer. If the project would be altered too much from the approved project, the developer would need to come before the City again for a project amendment. The Planning Commission asked if Pulte would have a homeowner's association (HOA). Ian Peterson of Pulte stated that the development will have an HOA. The HOA will maintain the private infrastructure including the pool, development signs and landscaping, and maintain and monitor the wetlands and wetland buffers. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat and PUD with rezoning on a four (4) to three (3) vote. The three Planning Commissioners that voted against approval were Commissioners Demuth, Irving and Miller. Commissioner Demuth stated that she voted against the development because she doesn't support the development of this property and would not have supported including this property for development in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners Irving and Miller stated that they voted against the development because of the concerns expressed by Mr. Mann from NNG and the inability to project at this time what modifications would be needed to address the NNG concerns. The members questioned what the changes to the plat would occur to address the issues and how that could impact Horseshoe Lake and the adjoining wetlands. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Craig and Conny Mahoney (13075 Bacardi Avenue, directly west of the proposed development) have emailed concerns about the density of the development, the inconsistency of the urban sized lots with the rural residential lots to the north and west, and the potential that they would be subject to assessments for the future improvement of Bacardi Avenue due to the Pulte development when they do not need any roadway upgrades for their single family house. This email is attached to this report. SUMMARY Approximately 160 acres of land in two parcels located at the northeast corner of Bacardi Avenue and Bonaire Path was owned by Adam LaFarve but had been foreclosed on by the mortgager. The properties encompassed all of Horseshoe Lake and the northern half of Mare Pond. Mr. LaFarve had 3 his house on 20 acres of land on the northwest shore of Horseshoe Lake and that parcel has been sold by the mortgage holder to a private resident. The remaining parcel (142.6 acres) was farmland encompassing three- quarters of the Horseshoe Lake shoreline and the northern half of Mare Pond and was foreclosed by Klein Bank. Klein Bank has been negotiating the sale of the property to Pulte for the development of a single family subdivision. Pulte has also included an adjacent parcel (Christopher and Sarah Sorsoliel) into the plat, adding another 13.8 acres. The preliminary plat includes a total of 156.4 acres of land and has about 2,200 feet of frontage onto Bacardi Avenue and 1,900 feet of frontage onto Bonaire Path. The preliminary plat illustrates 182 lots on the 156.4 acres of land in six phases. (The Parks Commission is recommending elimination of one lot to facilitate park development, reducing the number of lots to 181.) The 156.4 acre property includes twenty one (21) waterbodies for a total of 33.8 acres. In addition to the waterbodies, Pulte is providing 3.0 acres of collector right -of -way and 52.9 acres of open space including wetland buffers, stormwater infrastructure, woodlands, pipelines easements, and a greenway corridor. The net acreage for development under the developers design (home sites, local roads, and associated infrastructure) is 66.7 acres, or 43% of the overall property. Background Owners: Klein Bank and Christopher and Sarah Sorsoliel, current owners; Pulte Group, future owner Residential Developers: Pulte Group Preliminary Plat Acres: 156.4 Acres Comprehensive Plan Design.: LDR: Low Density Residential Current Zoning: AG Agriculture Requested Zoning: R -1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development Housing Front Elevations Within the Planning Commission Executive Summary, staff had recommended a three and one half (3.5) foot brick or stone wainscoting on all front facade similar to the homes constructed by Centex in Bloomfield and Meadows of Bloomfield and similar to the recommendation for DR Horton in Prestwick Place 2 Recently, DR Horton had requested another option for front elevation enhancement and approval was granted allowing either wainscoting or a front porch extending across at least 30% of the front facade including the garage. Pulte has requested the same front elevation options, which is reflected in the attached PUD agreement. Lot Coverage Pulte has requested that the PUD include a 35% lot coverage allowance similar to Prestwick Place 2nd Due to the other PUD exceptions, such as the reduced lot width, reduced front and side yard setbacks, and reduced lot sizes, a number of Pulte's largest home models would not be able to fit onto many of the lots. To support this argument, Pulte has provided (and staff included as an attachment) a spreadsheet showing that their largest home model with the associated driveway and a future 14 by 16 foot addition would total 3438 square feet of lot coverage. At the standard 30% lot coverage, 103 (or 58 of the 182 lots would not allow this home model. If a 35% percent lot coverage was granted, only 13 (or 7 of the lots would not accommodate this largest home model. Staff is not supportive of a blanket hard surface coverage increase. There are differences between the Marshes project and the Prestwick Place 2n which leads staff to this conclusion. In Prestwick Place 2 lots are smaller within a subdivision with no wetlands or woodlands. It is expected that Prestwick Place 2n would be a dense neighborhood while Marshes of Bloomfield has significant open space, wetlands, and woodlands that would provide an expectation of some separation between the homes. 4 There are a number of lots within Marshes of Bloomfield that are over 18,000 square feet that at 35% would allow over 6,300 square feet of lot coverage. To balance both the issue of separation and Pulte's concern, staff is recommending that within the PUD all lots smaller than 12,000 square feet may have 35% lot coverage while all lots 12,000 square feet or greater shall have no more than 30% lot coverage. This standard would allow 93% of the lots within the subdivision to accommodate the largest home model with driveway and future additions. It should be noted that there are several home models that would be available on the smaller lots; the developer didn't want to limit too many lots to particular house styles. Sidewalks The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that the sidewalk be moved to the north side of Street E to connect with the park and future neighborhood pool site. They also recommended connecting the sidewalk within the cul -de -sac at the east end of Street E to the trail within the Autumn Path and connecting the trial around the lake with the sidewalk on the west end of Street E. All these changes have been made but one additional issue has arisen due to the changes The trail from the lake to the west end Street E crosses Lot 1, Block 4. Staff has prepared a condition within the approval that Lot 1, Block 4 is reduced in size by moving the property line 10 feet south of the stormwater pipe installed in the northeast corner of said lot. This would place the trail and stormwater pipe on public property and wouldn't reduce the lot size below 10,000 square feet. Phases, Bacardi Avenue, and Autumn Path The development of Marshes of Bloomfield is proposed to be conducted in six phases. The first two phases can occur without construction or improvement of either Bacardi Avenue or Autumn Path. With the development of Phase 1, a short term access to Bacardi Avenue would be constructed that is 28 feet wide with a bituminous curb. When Phase 3 would be constructed, that short term access would be removed and replaced with the permanent access as shown on the plans, with sanitary sewer and water lines within the right of way. Because the sanitary sewer and water for Lot 1, Block 15 and Lot 6, Block 16 would not be included until Phase 3, they would be unbuildable until Phase 3. The developer and the City Council need to be aware that either Bacardi Avenue would need to be improved or Autumn Path would need to be constructed before a third phase could be approved. When Phase 3 would be developed, Bacardi Avenue would need to be improved and paved including a trunk sewer line. If this would happen before the properties west of Bacardi developed, then the City Council will need to consider acquiring additional right -of -way for the west half of Bacardi Avenue along with the possible assessment of project costs to the owners west of Bacardi Avenue in order to facilitate the completion of a project. If the City Council at that time is not supportive of initiating a right -of -way acquisition process or assessing the improvement costs, then Pulte would not receive approval for Phase 3. It may be possible that Pulte could redesign the phases to delay Phase 3 and construct a Phase 5 first, but that would require the construction of Autumn Path and may require condemnation and assessment of the McMenomys for up to half the cost. If the City Council would not approve the condemnation or assessment for Autumn Path, then the developer needs to be aware that no phases beyond Phase 2 would be approved. Wetlands Pulte is proposing to impact 0.61 acres of wetlands to construct this development. To accommodate the impact, Pulte has to meet requirements of both the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the City's Wetland Management Plan (WMP). The two processes do not have the same rules and 5 requirements but Pulte has proposed a mitigation plan that meets both requirements. In addition, Pulte is requesting to fulfill an existing wetland obligation of 0.4 acres of wetland replacement from the Centex (now Pulte) development in Bloomfield. In both cases there is a requirement that the City find that the developer cannot avoid impacting wetlands prior to allowing filling and a mitigation plan. In this case the property is severely restricted by the number and location of wetlands and lakes. Staff believes it is not possible to provide public infrastructure necessary for development of urban lots without impacting some on -site wetlands. Similarly the ability to create private lots off of public roads further intrudes into wetlands or wetland buffers. The WCA permit requirement requires two to one (2:1) mitigation for wetland impacts but allows the mitigation to be fulfilled through a combination of new wetland creation, preserving existing buffers around high quality wetlands, and the creation of wetland buffers around new wetlands. The proposal would create 1.86 acres of new wetlands, but WCA rules allow only 75% of the constructed wetland area to count toward mitigation. The WCA application provides for the mitigation to occur through 1.27 acres of replacement (construction), 0.53 acres of new native buffer, and 0.06 acres of existing buffer for a total of 1.86 acres of mitigation which is more than the 2 to 1 requirement. Staff is supportive of this proposal because it provides some additional replacement in case there are some difficulties during the construction or establishment of the wetland and wetland buffers. Staff has recommended that the City Council approve the WCA Notice of Decision. A deed restriction will be recorded over the 1.86 acres of mitigation. The City WMP also requires a two to one (2:1) replacement, but past City Council policy had required that the replacement occur solely through new wetland creation. The 1.86 acres of wetlands proposed to be created will fulfill the 1.22 acres (0.61 acres of impact times two) of replacement and the 0.4 acres of replacement needed from Bloomfield (total of 1.62 acres). The 0.24 acres constructed beyond the two to one requirement is also encouraged by staff in case any difficulties arose during construction. In addition to wetland replacement, the City WMP regulates wetland buffers but allows buffer averaging. Buffer averaging would allow buffers to be reduced on one side of a wetland if the buffer is expanded on another side of the same wetland. Puke proposes to provide buffer averaging in two parts. First, Pulte is proposing to impact 19,605 square feet of buffer due to roads and provide 34,929 square feet of new buffer in compensation. Second, Pulte is proposing to reduce the buffer on private lots to the 10 foot rear yard drainage and utility easement. To accomplish this, Pulte has impacted 28,407 square feet of buffer for homes and provides 158,757 square feet of new buffer to compensate and meet buffer averaging standards. Staff is supportive of this additional buffer provided to accommodate for any buffer that may be impacted due to the construction of the Interpretative Trail Corridor of park improvement. Additionally, Pulte has provided a table that shows that all the individual wetlands have a larger buffer after development than before, except one. The one wetland is Wetland T located on the far north side of the development and is located mostly on properties to the north where Pulte could not expand the buffer. City Conservation Easements are required to be recorded over all the wetlands, wetland buffer, and stormwater infrastructure. Stormwater Management There are two stormwater issues that remain unresolved and will need to be resolved prior to approval of a final plat. First, Pulte has proposed an infiltration basin on the east side of the property, but there has been no infiltration testing to confirm that it will accommodate the infiltration needed for 6 Pulse Proposal Staff and Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation Location Area Location Area Unencumbered Outlot C 7.37 Acres Lot 10, Block 5 0.49 Acres 45 Foot Wide Trail Easement 1.88 Acres Unencumbered Western 2/3 of Outlot C with Island 4.01 Acres Total 9.25 Acres Total 4.50 Acres development. Prior to approval of a final plat, testing will need to occur to confirm the infiltration rates. If it does not infiltrate the appropriate amount of water, then Pulte would be responsible for an off -site ponding fee to cover the costs of the City ponding and infiltrating the water somewhere else in the City. Second, Pulte is not proposing to infiltrate the northern 80 acres of the site flowing into Horseshoe Lake. Staff has included a condition that Pulte pay for a portion of the stormwater lift station and infrastructure to pump the additional water in Horseshoe Lake off -site to be infiltrated. Westwood has stated that they may be able to find a location to infiltrate the additional water within the 80 acre area. If Pulte can test and show that the infiltration can occur prior to final council action, the current project conditions can be modified or removed. If not, Pulte would have to pay for a portion of the lift station and associated infrastructure. Ownership of the Oudots The Parks and Recreation Department is proposing acquisition of Outlot C which contains Horseshoe Lake and the future park. The Public Works Department would require either ownership of 105 feet around the well site (or an equivalent easement) on Outlot L, but does not require ownership of Outlot L in its entirety. The remaining outlots can be owned by the HOA with restrictive covenants covering the maintenance of these outlots including the preservation of the existing and native vegetation and an easement for the Interpretive Trail Corridor. Parks and Recreation The Parks and Recreation Director prepared a memorandum attached to this report that summarizes the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation and the preferred park design. The park design would include the elimination of Lot 10, Block 5 to the park and the construction of a playground, a "green" half basketball court, both the Interpretative Trail Corridor and an unpaved trail around the western two- thirds of Horseshoe Lake, and pull-in parking stalls along Street E. The development of 181 lots (including the removal of Lot 10, Block 5) would require 7.24 acres of parkland. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the City accept 4.5 acres of parkland, collecting fee -in -lieu of the 2.74 acres of parkland, and that the developer pay for the installation of the pull-in parking stalls. The fee -in -lieu of park dedication is recommended to be divided equally over the 181 lots and paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. If a building permit was issued in 2011 that would be equivalent to $1,286.75 per building permit. The Resolution approving the Preliminary Plat requires that Pulse dedicate 4.5 acres of parkland to include the parks shown north of the intersection of Street E and Street F, the area of Lot 10, Block 5, the 45 foot wide shoreline area west of the park, and the island in Horseshoe Lake. The shoreline east of the park will be owned by the HOA with a 30 foot wide trail easement to loop the trail around the lake. Parkland 7 McMenomy Public Comment Mike McMenomy, one of four McMenomys that own the property to the east, testified at the public hearing of his concern that the extension of Autumn Path is onto his family's property. He provided a history of infrastructure improvements around his property including the assessment his family is paying for the improvement of Bonaire Path. He is concerned that his family would be responsible for paying for half of Autumn Path when his family is not planning on developing at the moment. As previously noted, Autumn Path is not required for the first phases of the project. However, the applicant may not be able to develop beyond phase 2 if Bacardi or Autumn Path are not extended. Autumn Path is a collector road identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan to provide development access to both the Pulte and McMenomy properties. In 2006, when the McMenomys had been working with Pulte on a concept plan to develop their property, the Autumn Path extension was shown on the property line with the McMenomy and the then LaFarve property. The Preliminary Plat alignment is shown meandering across the property line because there is a windrow of significant trees (27 plus inch bur oak trees) along the property line and the meandering will preserve many of those trees. The suggested roadway alignment places approximately half of Autumn path on the Pulte property and half of Autumn Path on the McMenomy property. Ian Peterson, Pulte's representative, has provided an email (attached to this report) explaining the communication between Pulte and the McMenomys. Mr. Peterson has not been having direct contact with Mike McMenomy, but has been talking with Mike's brother Terry, one of the other four owners of the property. Mr. Peterson has also been talking with Ed McMenomy, Mike and Terry's nephew. Northern Natural Gas Leeland Mann of Northern Natural Gas (NNG) attended the Public Hearing for the development and testified that he is concerned by the project design as it relates to the NNG easement. It is unusual that a staff member from a utility company attend a public hearing. Westwood (Pulte's engineering consultant) had provided the Preliminary Plat plans to all three pipeline companies (NNG, Koch Pipeline, and Magellan Pipeline) before the Planning Commission meeting, but it was sent to a different NNG staff person than Mr. Mann. Westwood has been meeting with Mr. Mann since the Planning Commission meeting to discuss his stated issues. NNG and the other utilities will have an opportunity to review and comment on the plans during the final plat and construction plans approval process. Construction will not be able to occur until NNG and the other utilities have issued a crossing permit. The Engineering Memorandum conditions the plat approval on Pulte receiving appropriate permit approvals from the pipeline companies. Should the requirements of any of the pipeline companies, including NNG, significantly modify the preliminary plat and PUD, the developer would need to come before the City for an amendment. Development Fees The City Fee Schedule requires the payment of trunk area fees to fund capital improvements associated with the construction of the city's trunk sewer, water, and storm water systems. For the trunk sewer and water fees, the per acre rates are calculated and based on a gross acreage of the development area. For the trunk storm water fee, the rate is calculated and based on a net acreage. The net acreage is defined as "gross acres of developable property minus pond acreage (at high water level) and wetlands at delineation line, rounded to the nearest one tenth (1 /10` of an acre." 8 Pulse has requested that the City Council consider not charging the Marshes of Bloomfield development on a gross area basis per the adopted Fee Schedule but instead charge the development on a significantly lower net developable area basis. (the Pulte letter is the last attachment in the packet) This request would result in a $952,017 reduction in City Fees paid by Pulte and an equal deficit in the City's core fund accounts for sanitary sewer, water, and storm water. The basis for the establishment of per acre rates for the trunk sewer, water and storm water fees is the estimated projected costs for the development and construction of future trunk systems to support development within the city over the undeveloped area of the city. In the long run, a reduction of fees to a developer now and in the future would require an analysis of the city's long term costs and associated fee rates. As the projected costs of future capital improvements will not decrease with this or future requests, a reduction in the area to collect fees from will require an increase in the per acre rate to maintain the same funding levels Based on past practices, staff is supportive of some reduction of the area included in the fee calculation. In past projects, areas dedicated for parks have not been included in the calculations for the sewer, water, and storm water trunk area fees. Additionally, given the uniqueness of this property with two larger lakes (Horseshoe Lake and Mare Pond), staff is proposing that the areas of these lakes along with the park area be removed from the gross area for purposes of calculating the trunk area sewer and water fees. Per the fee schedule for the storm water area fee, the two lakes along with the stormwater ponds and wetlands would already be deducted from the area to obtain a net area. Consistent with past practice, staff is also proposing to deduct the park area from the area for calculating the storm water fee. For the trunk sewer and water area fees, this reduction would reduce the sanitary sewer and water areas by 30.3 acres and the stormwater area by 50 acres. Staff is not supportive of the removal of woodlands, wetland buffers, and other open spaces from the area charges that are included in the trunk area charges for other developments. These types of amenities are often preserved on site and help raise the value of the individual lots and make the project more desirable. In this case, much of the open space is dictated by land that is difficult to develop due to site encumbrances such as pipeline easements. The City should not be penalized for the presence of undevelopable land; rather the land value should reflect the ability to net a certain density on the site. The three fee structures are provided in the table below. The staff proposal would result in a total trunk area fee of $1,685,644 which is a $280,323 reduction from a strict interpretation of the City Fee Schedule. 9 Fee Schedule Staff Proposal Pulse Request Area Trunk Fee /Acre Gross Acres Amount Modified Acres Amount Net Acres Amount Sanitary Sewer $1,075 156.4 $168,130 126.1 $135,558 66.7 $71,703 Water $6,500 156.4 $1,016,600 126.1 $819,650 66.7 $433,550 Stormwater $6,865 113.8 $781,237 106.4 $730,436 66.7 $457,896 Total Trunk Fees $1,965,967 $1,685,644 $963,149 Pulse has requested that the City Council consider not charging the Marshes of Bloomfield development on a gross area basis per the adopted Fee Schedule but instead charge the development on a significantly lower net developable area basis. (the Pulte letter is the last attachment in the packet) This request would result in a $952,017 reduction in City Fees paid by Pulte and an equal deficit in the City's core fund accounts for sanitary sewer, water, and storm water. The basis for the establishment of per acre rates for the trunk sewer, water and storm water fees is the estimated projected costs for the development and construction of future trunk systems to support development within the city over the undeveloped area of the city. In the long run, a reduction of fees to a developer now and in the future would require an analysis of the city's long term costs and associated fee rates. As the projected costs of future capital improvements will not decrease with this or future requests, a reduction in the area to collect fees from will require an increase in the per acre rate to maintain the same funding levels Based on past practices, staff is supportive of some reduction of the area included in the fee calculation. In past projects, areas dedicated for parks have not been included in the calculations for the sewer, water, and storm water trunk area fees. Additionally, given the uniqueness of this property with two larger lakes (Horseshoe Lake and Mare Pond), staff is proposing that the areas of these lakes along with the park area be removed from the gross area for purposes of calculating the trunk area sewer and water fees. Per the fee schedule for the storm water area fee, the two lakes along with the stormwater ponds and wetlands would already be deducted from the area to obtain a net area. Consistent with past practice, staff is also proposing to deduct the park area from the area for calculating the storm water fee. For the trunk sewer and water area fees, this reduction would reduce the sanitary sewer and water areas by 30.3 acres and the stormwater area by 50 acres. Staff is not supportive of the removal of woodlands, wetland buffers, and other open spaces from the area charges that are included in the trunk area charges for other developments. These types of amenities are often preserved on site and help raise the value of the individual lots and make the project more desirable. In this case, much of the open space is dictated by land that is difficult to develop due to site encumbrances such as pipeline easements. The City should not be penalized for the presence of undevelopable land; rather the land value should reflect the ability to net a certain density on the site. The three fee structures are provided in the table below. The staff proposal would result in a total trunk area fee of $1,685,644 which is a $280,323 reduction from a strict interpretation of the City Fee Schedule. 9 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat, the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan and Rezoning, and the WCA Notice of Decision for Marshes of Bloomfield. 10 Marshes of Bloomfield 1 ;y9 ®11IIOiiII/11 21111 mASrIt5 a� 13Lco tEL -1 k '.411 p al :•itJ' JiER ac+rH«ST 3 1.1.31" H S Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Mao Scale 1 inch 1600 feet A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MARSHES OF BLOOMFIELD WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received a request for Preliminary Plat approval from Puke Group concerning property legally described as: Oudot A, MALLARD POND 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, DAKOTA COUNTY, Minnesota. TOGETHER WITH CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2011 That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point 1196.6 feet west of the southeast corner; thence a deflection to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 633.00 feet; thence a deflection to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 50 feet; thence a deflection to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 628.40 feet; thence a deflection to the left 97 degrees 49 minutes 40 seconds, a distance of 1163.85 feet to the south line of said Northeast Quarter; thence east along said south line a distance of 420 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, on June 28, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the Preliminary Plat for Marshes of Bloomfield; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2011, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat for Marshes of Bloomfield; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2011, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat for Marshes of Bloomfield, subject to the following conditions: 1. Recording of a Master Development Plan Planned Unit Development Agreement at the time of Final Plat recording. 2. Pulse will provide a well site within the Preliminary Plat. The well site will need to be a minimum of 0.25 acres with a minimum dimension of 105 feet by 105 feet and have a permanent access onto a local public street. 3. Developer installed trees shall be planted outside of the public right -of -way except for the entry medians and the maintenance of these trees shall be the responsibility of the individual homeowners or the homeowner's association. 4. Add the plant species abbreviations next to the plant symbols on the landscape plans. 5. Trees installed on individual lots shall be planted in a location that does not interfere with curb stops or individual sewer or water connections. RESOLUTION 2011- 6. Conservation easements shall be granted over all wetland buffers not located on public lands. 7. Approval of the Shoreland Ordinance Planned Unit Development by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 8. Move the northeast property line of Lot 1, Block 4 to a location 10 feet south of the stormwater pipe to remove the trail and pipe from the private property. 9. Remove the 28 foot wide street standard section from the details sheet. 10. Provide a natural landscape and maintenance plan for the outlots that the homeowner's association will implement. 11. Lot 1, Block 15 and Lot 6 Block 16 may not receive building permits during Phase 1 or Phase 2 because the sewer service will not be provided until Phase 3 construction. 12. Development of the site beyond Phases 1 and 2 are dependent upon the provision of necessary public utilities and infrastructure for access and city utility services. 13. Create and record a restrictive covenant on the retaining wall located on private property that ensures that it is the homeowners cost and responsibility to maintain the retaining walls. 14. The applicant submits a letter of credit or cash escrow, as per MN Rule 8420.0522 Supb. 9, in the amount of $65,000 to be held until certification of successful replacement and the completion of monitoring, as per MN Rule 8420.0820, to ensure successful replacement. 15. The applicant submits a letter of credit or cash escrow, as per the Rosemount Wetland Management Plan, in the amount of $16,000 to cover the cost of monitoring the Marshes of Bloomfield replacement wetlands for the duration of the monitoring period as per MN Rule 8420. 16. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the City Engineer's Memorandum dated July 27, 2011. 17. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Park and Recreation Director's Memorandum dated July 27, 2011. 18. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Fire Marshall's Memorandum dated June 17, 2011. 19. Remove Lot 10, Black 5 and add that area to the parkland to the east. 20. The applicant is responsible for 7.24 acres of parkland dedication. The applicant will pave the parking stalls for the park and dedicate 4.5 acres of land for park dedication including the park north of the intersection of Street E and Street F, the area of Lot 10 Block 5, the 45 foot wide shoreline area west of the park, and the island within Horseshoe Lake. The remaining 2.74 acre responsibility will be fulfilled through the payment of fee -in -lieu of park dedication at the time of building permit issuance at the rate established by the City Council at that time. 21. The applicant will record a 30 foot wide public trail easement over the trail shown on the eastern shoreline of Horseshoe Lake. 22. Compliance with the conditions of Dakota County Plat Commission Approval. 23. The one year expiration period on the validity of a preliminary plat will be fulfilled upon the approval of the first final plat. It is understood that this preliminary plat includes multiple phases that may occur over a number of years. Each subsequent final plat phase must be consistent with this preliminary plat. 2 ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk William H. Droste, Mayor 3 RESOLUTION 2011- ADOPTED this 1St day of August, 2011, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REZONING FOR MARSHES OF BLOOMFIELD WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Pulte Group requesting a planned unit development (PUD) master development plan with rezoning concerning property legally described as: Outlot A, MALLARD POND 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, DAKOTA COUNTY, Minnesota. TOGETHER WITH CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2011 That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point 1196.6 feet west of the southeast corner; thence a deflection to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 633.00 feet; thence a deflection to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 50 feet; thence a deflection to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 628.40 feet; thence a deflection to the left 97 degrees 49 minutes 40 seconds, a distance of 1163.85 feet to the south line of said Northeast Quarter; thence east along said south line a distance of 420 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, on June 28, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the requested application; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2011, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested applications, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2011, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan of Marshes of Bloomfield and the Rezoning from AG Agricultural to R1 PUD Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to: 1. Deviations from the R -1 zoning district are granted to allow a 75 foot minimum lot width, 25 foot front yard setbacks for most lots, 20 foot front yard setbacks for lots with wetland buffers; 7.5 foot side yard setbacks, and 9,250 square foot minimum lot size, and 35% lot coverage for lots12,000 square feet and under. 2. The alternative front elevation design including approximately three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting or a front porch extending over 30% of the front facade including the garage is required. 3. The private neighborhood pool site shall require a Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan approval before construction. ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk William H. Droste, Mayor 2 RESOLUTION 2011- 4. Wetland buffer averaging is allowed per the roadway and utility buffer averaging analysis and the household buffer averaging analysis. All areas within the wetland buffers that do not have natural vegetation shall be seeded and established with a wetland buffer seed mix. 5. Fences are not allowed in wetland buffers. 6. Structural setbacks for lots with wetland buffers located on them are reduced to twenty (20) feet. 7. Minimum building setbacks from the OHWL mark of Horseshoe Lake and Mare Pond shall be 75 feet. 8. Approval of the Shoreland Ordinance Planned Unit Development by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 9. Development of the site beyond Phases 1 and 2 are dependent upon the provision of necessary public utilities and infrastructure for access and city utility services. 10. Create and record a restrictive covenant on the retaining wall located on private property that ensures that it is the homeowners cost and responsibility to maintain the retaining walls. 11. Move the northeast property line of Lot 1, Block 4 to a location 10 feet south of the stormwater pipe to remove the trail and pipe from the private property. 12. The applicant submits a letter of credit or cash escrow, as per MN Rule 8420.0522 Supb. 9, in the amount of $65,000 to be held until certification of successful replacement and the completion of monitoring, as per MN Rule 8420.0820, to ensure successful replacement. 13. The applicant submits a letter of credit or cash escrow, as per the Rosemount Wetland Management Plan, in the amount of $16,000 to cover the cost of monitoring the Marshes of Bloomfield replacement wetlands for the duration of the monitoring period as per MN Rule 8420. 14. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the City Engineer's Memorandum dated July 27, 2011. 15. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Park and Recreation Director's Memorandum dated July 27, 2011. 16. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Fire Marshall's Memorandum dated June 17, 2011. ADOPTED this 1St day of August, 2011, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. 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 property from AG Agricultural to R -1 PUD Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development that is located north of Bonaire Path and east of Bacardi Avenue within the City of Rosemount legally described as follows: ATTEST: Outlot A, MALLARD POND 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, DAKOTA COUNTY, Minnesota. TOGETHER WITH That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point 1196.6 feet west of the southeast corner; thence a deflection to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 633.00 feet; thence a deflection to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 50 feet; thence a deflection to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 628.40 feet; thence a deflection to the left 97 degrees 49 minutes 40 seconds, a distance of 1163.85 feet to the south line of said Northeast Quarter; thence east along said south line a distance of 420 feet to the point of beginning. Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described in said Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled "Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount," shall not be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning map on file in the Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 1s day of August, 2011. Amy Domeier, City Clerk City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B -217 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE Marshes of Bloomfield CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H. Droste, Mayor Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2011. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS MARSHES OF BLOOMFIELD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DECLARATION made this 1 day of August, 2011, by the Pulte Group (hereinafter referred to as the "Declarant WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Subject Property and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions imposed by the City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as the "City in connection with the approval of an application for a master development plan planned unit development for a residential development on the Subject Property; and 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 master development plan planned unit development would not have been approved; and 1 WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the master development plan 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 Subject Property shall conform to the following documents, plans and drawings: a. City Resolution No. 2011- Attachment Two b. Development Plan/Overall Preliminary Plat (Revised 06/29/2011), Attachment Three c. Preliminary Plat (Sheets 4 and 5 of 36; Revised 06/29/2011), Attachment Four and Five d. Preliminary Grading Plans, (Sheets 6 through 14 of 36; Revised 06/29/2011), Attachment Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, and Fourteen e. Preliminary Utility Plans (Sheets 15 and 16 of 36; Revised 06/29/2011), Attachment Fifteen and Sixteen f. Preliminary Landscape Plans (Sheets 17 through 20 of 36; Revised 06/27/2011), Attachment Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen and Twenty g. Buffer Averaging Analysis, Attachment Twenty One 2 all of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part hereof. 2. Development and maintenance of structures and uses on the Subject Property shall conform to the following standards and requirements: a. Maintenance of the stormwater basin, infiltration basin and associated stormwater infrastructure necessary for the long term operation and function will be performed by the City. All other maintenance including but not limited to garbage collection, or landscape replacement or the like shall be the responsibility of the of the private property owners. All maintenance of the stormwater basin and infiltration basin shall be the responsibility of the City after the basins have been established. b. Maintenance and replacement of trees and landscaping other than that associated with the stormwater basin and infiltration basin described in standard a. shall be the responsibility of the adjoining homeowners' association. c. The alternative front elevation design including approximately three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting or a front porch extending over 30% of the front facade including the garage is required. d. The private neighborhood pool site shall require a Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan approval before construction. e. Fences are not allowed in wetland buffers. f. All areas within the wetland buffers that do not have natural vegetation shall be seeded and established with a wetland buffer seed mix. g. The applicant submits a letter of credit or cash escrow, as per MN Rule 8420.0522 Supb. 9, in the amount of $65,000 to be held until certification of successful 3 replacement and the completion of monitoring, as per MN Rule 8420.0820, to ensure successful replacement. h. The applicant submits a letter of credit or cash escrow, as per the Rosemount Wetland Management Plan, in the amount of $16,000 to cover the cost of monitoring the Marshes of Bloomfield replacement wetlands for the duration of the monitoring period as per MN Rule 8420. 3. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council of an amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that permits such other development and use. 4. In connection with the approval of development of the Subject Property, the following deviations from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved: a. Section 11 4 5 F. 1. R 1 Minimum Lot Area: The minimum lot area shall be 9,250 square feet. b. Section 11 4 5 F. 2 R 1 Minimum Lot Width: The minimum lot width shall be 75 feet. c. Section 11 5 F. 4. R 1 Minimum Front Yard Setback: The minimum front yard setback shall be 25 feet for lots without wetland buffers and 20 feet for lots with wetland buffers. d. Section 11 4 5 F. 5. 11 Minimum Side Yard Setback: The minimum side yard setback shall be 7.5 feet. e. Section 11 4 5 F. 9. R 1 Maximum Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be 35% for lots less than 12,000 square feet. 4 f. Section 11 -7 -2 C. Building Setback from OHWL: The building setback from the OHWL of Mare Pond and Horseshoe Lake shall be a minimum of 75 feet. g. Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan Section IX. B. Structural Setback from Wetland Buffers: The structural setback for lots containing wetland buffers shall be a minimum of 20 feet. In all other respects the use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the requirements of the Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Declaration and the City Code of Ordinances. 5. This Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions provides only the Subject Property only master development plan planned unit development approval. Prior to the improvement or development of the Subject Property, beyond the rough grading, a final development plan planned unit development approval pursuant to Zoning Code Section 11 -10 -6 C. 5. of the Subject Property is required and an addendum filed with County Recorder to this Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. 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 may be 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 have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 145 STREET WEST ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 651- 423 -4411 6 DECLARANT Pulte Group By Its The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2011, by the for and on behalf of a by and on behalf of said Notary Public Attachment One Legal Description Outlot A, MALLARD POND 2 ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, DAKOTA COUNTY, Minnesota. TOGETHER WITH That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point 1196.6 feet west of the southeast corner; thence a deflection to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 633.00 feet; thence a deflection to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 50 feet; thence a deflection to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 628.40 feet; thence a deflection to the left 97 degrees 49 minutes 40 seconds, a distance of 1163.85 feet to the south line of said Northeast Quarter; thence east along said south line a distance of 420 feet to the point of beginning. TOGETHER WITH CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2011 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REZONING FOR MARSHES OF BLOOMFIELD WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Pulte Group requesting a planned unit development (PUD) master development plan with rezoning concerning property legally described as: Outlot A, MALLARD POND 2ND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, DAKOTA COUNTY, Minnesota. That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point 1196.6 feet west of the southeast corner; thence a deflection to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 633.00 feet; thence a deflection to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 50 feet; thence a deflection to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 628.40 feet; thence a deflection to the left 97 degrees 49 minutes 40 seconds, a distance of 1163.85 feet to the south line of said Northeast Quarter; thence east along said south line a distance of 420 feet to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, on June 28, 2011, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the requested application; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2011, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested applications, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2011, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan of Marshes of Bloomfield and the Rezoning from AG Agricultural to R1 PUD Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to: 1. Deviations from the R -1 zoning district are granted to allow a 75 foot minimum lot width, 25 foot front yard setbacks for most lots, 20 foot front yard setbacks for lots with wetland buffers; 7.5 foot side yard setbacks, and 9,250 square foot minimum lot size, and 35% lot coverage for lots12,000 square feet and under. 2. The alternative front elevation design including approximately three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting or a front porch extending over 30% of the front facade including the garage is required. 3. The private neighborhood pool site shall require a Planned Unit Development Final Site and Building Plan approval before construction. ATTACHMENT TWO RESOLUTION 2011- 4. Wetland buffer averaging is allowed per the roadway and utility buffer averaging analysis and the household buffer averaging analysis. All areas within the wetland buffers that do not have natural vegetation shall be seeded and established with a wetland buffer seed mix. 5. Fences are not allowed in wetland buffers. 6. Structural setbacks for lots with wetland buffers located on them are reduced to twenty (20) feet. 7. Minimum building setbacks from the OHWL mark of Horseshoe Lake and Mare Pond shall be 75 feet. 8. Approval of the Shoreland Ordinance Planned Unit Development by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 9. Development of the site beyond Phases 1 and 2 are dependent upon the provision of necessary public utilities and infrastructure for access and city utility services. 10. Create and record a restrictive covenant on the retaining wall located on private property that ensures that it is the homeowners cost and responsibility to maintain the retaining walls. 11. Move the northeast property line of Lot 1, Block 4 to a location 10 feet south of the stormwater pipe to remove the trail and pipe from the private property. 12. The applicant submits a letter of credit or cash escrow, as per MN Rule 8420.0522 Supb. 9, in the amount of $65,000 to be held until certification of successful replacement and the completion of monitoring, as per MN Rule 8420.0820, to ensure successful replacement. 13. The applicant submits a letter of credit or cash escrow, as per the Rosemount Wetland Management Plan, in the amount of $16,000 to cover the cost of monitoring the Marshes of Bloomfield replacement wetlands for the duration of the monitoring period as per MN Rule 8420. 14. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the City Engineer's Memorandum dated July 27, 2011. 15. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Park and Recreation Director's Memorandum dated July 27, 2011. 16. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Fire Marshall's Memorandum dated June 17, 2011. ADOPTED this 1St day of August, 2011, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk William H. Droste, Mayor 2 ATTACHMENT THREE CBS, ATTACHMENT FOUR 1 a`. z? ATTACHMENT FIVE ATTACHMENT SIX a. ATTACHMENT SEVEN ATTACHMENT EIGHT T OM 0'1� [S6 9 S6 O !�7 O C96I 1.8E ry 01 /6' 696 O Co t96)OM 1, 0 666 0 6l96 t)0 6 696 01 I, ATTACHMENT NINE i v pn fit J ATTACHMENT TEN ATTACHMENT ELEVEN 6 1 4 w m 11 fj ATTACHMENT TWELVE Cl I d r k._ o i -,t r N "ire AV 3eoe d (P 8 ATTACHMENT THIRTEEN 00 964 1 1 8 A..- i T9. ATTACHMENT FOURTEEN 11 1111111 11. 1 immalemma 9 14 1W A■ 3 410* lot\o tI 4* n11111 r g, 40 C!' l' i-- 18 II ;1 0 i I ia I 2 1 i t f 7 N...........iN ..5-- A L 1 7--= _P ..3..,,.. 3 m ,M 0 --L- ann:Zy Ihm .2 ATTACHMENT FIFTEEN I ATTACHMENT SIXTEEN 1m an :.b ATTACHMENT SEVENTEEN 1 if Is iv I lp aT.TsTuTaTis�w m. 11i1 iry ivlvl�a va vv vv Ww -v ATTACHMENT EIGHTEEN ATTACHMENT NINETEEN 3 3 I a I a a ia 88 „gyi 95 i X P CI ATTACHMENT TWENTY 01 a a ATTACHMENT TWENTY -ONE Applicant Name Pulte Homes of Minnesota Project Name Marshes of Bloomfield Date of Application 6/1/11 Application Number 1916 -17 1 Attach site locator map. Local Government Unit (LGU) City of Rosemount Address 2875 145th St W Rosemount, MN 55068 Type of Decision: Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Wetland Boundary or Type No -Loss Replacement Plan Exemption Banking Plan Sequencing Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation (if any): Approve Approve with conditions Deny Summary (or attach): A TEP meeting was held on June 29, 2011. The TEP Findings of Fact and summary notes are attached. Date of Decision: August 1, 2011 Approved Approved with conditions (include below) Denied LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary): Pulte Homes of Minnesota is proposing the construction of the Marshes of Bloomfield Planned Unit Development in Rosemount, MN, on two parcels in the NE 1/4 of Section 21 and SE 'A of Section 16, Range 19 West, Township 115 North. The construction of the development is proposed to impact 0.62 acres of wetland consisting of both Type 2 and Type 3 wetlands. The project will be required to replace the wetlands at a 2:1 ratio or 1.24 acres. Additionally, Pulte Homes of Minnesota is responsible for a deficit of 0.4 acres of wetland mitigation from the Bloomfield Vineyards project. Pulte Homes is proposing to account for that deficit with the mitigation at the Marshes of Bloomfield project. Correction Notice: The Date of Application was incorrectly entered as 7/1/11 on the Notice of Application; the correct Date of Application is 6/1/11. Mitigation for the Marshes of Bloomfield wetland impact and the remainder of the Bloomfield Vineyards wetland impact is proposed via concurrent on site project specific replacement. The original wetland replacement plan and Notice of Application contained replacement credit calculations that were modified following the Technical Evaluation Panel meeting on June 28, 2011 (see TEP findings of fact noted above BWSR Forms 7 -1 -10 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION Page 1 of 3 and attached). The revised replacement plan proposes to replace wetland impacts via 1.27 acres of wetland creation credit, 0.53 acres of native upland buffer credit, and 0.06 acres of preserved upland buffer credit for a total of 1.86 acres of mitigation credit. Summary of Wetland Replacement Credits (Total of 1.86 acres) Wetland Creation Total of 1.27 acres of credit o Mitigation Site 1: 0.55 acre at 75% 0.42 acre o Mitigation Site 2: 0.70 acre at 75% 0.52 acre o Mitigation Site 3: 0.44 acre at 75% 0.33 acre Preserved Upland Buffer Total of 0.06 acre of credit o Mitigation Site 1: 0.47 acre at 10% 0.047 acre o Mitigation Site 2: 0.14 acre at 10% 0.014 acre o Mitigation Site 3: 0.08 acre at 10% 0.007 acre New Native Upland Buffer Total of 0.53 acre of credit o Mitigation Site 1: 1.07 acre at 25% 0.29 acre o Mitigation Site 2: 0.56 acre at 25% 0.14 acre o Mitigation Site 3: 0.38 acre at 25% 0.10 acre Summary of Wetland Replacement Allocations Marshes of Bloomfield: 1.24 acres replacement required Wetland Creation: 0.87 acres (1.27 total acres minus the 0.4 acres required for Bloomfield Vineyards) Upland Buffer: 0.59 acre TOTAL 1.46 ACRES REPLACEMENT Bloomfield Vineyards: 0.40 acres wetland replacement credits required Wetland Creation: 0.40 acres TOTAL 0.40 ACRES REPLACEMENT The total required mitigation for Marshes of Bloomfield and Bloomfield Vineyards is 1.64 acres. The Marshes of Bloomfield Replacement Plan provides 1.86 acres of replacement credits; therefore there is an surplus of 0.22 acres of credit. The applicant is not applying to deposit surplus credits in the State Wetland Bank. The Marshes of Bloomfield Replacement Plan application dated May, 2011, as amended (amendment memo from Arcadis, dated July 25, 2011, is attached) in response to the TEP meeting referenced above, is approved on the following conditions: 1. The Department of Natural Resources officially waives jurisdictional permitting authority to the City of Rosemount for wetland impacts to DNR Public Waters (as per the email from Craig Wills, DNR Hyrdologist, included in the amendment memo from Arcadis, referenced above) within the Marshes of Bloomfield Project area prior to any wetland impact; 2. the monitoring, maintenance, and performance standards as given in Appendix D of the May 2011 Marshes of Bloomfield Replacement Plan application are adhered to for the duration of the monitoring period as defined by MN Rule 8420, as amended. Non native or invasive vegetation (including, but not limited to, reed canary grass, hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife, buckthorn, thistle, spotted knapweed and leafy spurge) must not comprise greater than 25% coverage of replacement wetland or upland buffer; 3. the applicant submits a letter of credit or cash escrow, as per MN Rule 8420.0522 Supb. 9, in the amount of $65,000 to be held until certification of successful replacement and the completion of monitoring, as per MN Rule 8420.0820, to ensure successful replacement. BWSRForms 7 -1 -10 Page 2 of 3 Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 5 provides notice that a decision was made by the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. If additional details on the decision exist, they have been provided to the landowner and are available from the LGU upon request. Name Title Signature Date August 1, 2011 Phone Number and E -mail For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank: Bank Account Bank Service Area County Credits Approved for Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest .01 acre) Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan is conditional upon the following: Financial Assurance: For project specific replacement that is not in- advance, a financial assurance specified by the LGU must be submitted to the LGU in accordance with MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 (List amount and type in LGU Findings). Deed Recording: For project specific replacement, evidence must be provided to the LGU that the BWSR "Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants" and "Consent to Replacement Wetland" forms have been filed with the county recorder's office in which the replacement wetland is located. Credit Withdrawal: For replacement consisting of wetland bank credits, confirmation that BWSR has withdrawn the credits from the state wetland bank as specified in the approved replacement plan. Wetlands may not be impacted until all applicable conditions have been met! LGU Authorized Signature: THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO THE MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. Applicants proceed at their own risk if work authorized by this decision is started before the time period for appeal (30 days) has expired. If this decision is reversed or revised under appeal, the applicant may be responsible for restoring or replacing all wetland impacts. This decision is valid for three years from the date of decision unless a longer period is advised by the TEP and specified in this notice of decision. 3. APPEAL OF THIS DECISION Pursuant to MN Rule 8420.0905, any appeal of this decision can only be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal, including applicable fee, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice to the following as indicated: Check one: Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send petition and fee (if applicable) to: Appeal of LGU governing body decision. Send petition and $500 filing fee to: Executive Director Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 BWSR Forms 7 -1 -10 Page 3 of 3 NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. NE Bemidji, MN 56601 Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 1201 E. Hwy. 2 Grand Rapids, MN 55744 Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 261 Hwy. 15 South New Ulm, MN 56073 4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES SWCD TEP member: Brian Watson BWSR TEP member: Ken Powell LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): Phil Olson DNR TEP member: Melissa Doperalski DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member) WD or WMO (if applicable): Travis Theil, Vermillion River Watershed JPO Applicant and Landowner (if different) Members of the public who requested notice: Corps of Engineers Project Manager BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan decisions only) 5. MAILING INFORMATION >For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: www.bwsr. state .mn.us /aboutbwsr /workareas /WCA areas.pdf >For a list of DNR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us /wetlands /wca/DNR TEP contacts.pdf Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: http: files .dnr.state.mn.us /aboutdnr /dnr regions.pdf >For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www.mvp.usace. army. mil /regulatory /default.asp ?pageid =687 or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District, ATTN: OP -R 180 Fifth St. East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101 -1678 >For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 6. ATTACHMENTS In addition to the site locator map, list any other attachments: TEP Findings of Fact and Summary for June 28, 2011 TEP meeting "Response to TEP Findings of Fact Marshes of Bloomfield" amendment memo from Arcadis BWSR Forms 7 -1 -10 Page 4 of 3 :r1111111a Data Sources: MNDNR (Topographic Map) Westwood Professional Services (Property) 2,000 0 2,000 nt Legend 11 Project Area MARSHES OF BLOOMFIELD SITE LOCATION NOVEMBER 2010 FIGURE 1 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Sequencing Findings of Fact Date: June 28, 2011 LGU: City of Rosemount Project Name or Number. Marshes of Bloomfield: 1916 -17 LGU contact: Jed Chesnut Location of Project: 16 115 19 t/4 '/a '/4 Sec. Twp. Range I. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT AVOIDANCE 1) Is the project wetland dependent? yes no (If yes, proceed to Item II of this form) 2) Has the applicant provided documentation describing at least 2 good faith alternatives that would avoid wetland impacts? (e.g. no- build, alternate sites, alternate project configurations) yes no (If no, then sequencing requirements are not met and the permit cannot be approved) 3) Have all feasible and prudent alternatives that would avoid impacts to wetlands been considered? yes no (If no, then sequencing requirements are not met and the permit cannot be approved) H. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT MINIIVIIZATION (8420.0520, Subp. 4) 1) Has the applicant sufficiently demonstrated efforts to minimize impacts to wetlands by considering the following? Spatial requirements of the project Individual and cumulative impacts Locations of existing structural or natural features Alternative project configurations Project purpose relative to the proposed impacts Site constraints Confining impacts to the fringe of the wetland(s) Site design relative to natural features Value, function, and distribution of wetlands on the site Others as necessary yes no (If no, then the LGU shall note the applicant in writing of its objections to the project. If the application is not withdrawn or modified to satisfy the LGU's objections within 30 days, then the statement of objection shall constitute a denial of the application.) III. DETERMINATION OF IMPACT RECTIFICATION (8420.0520, Subp. 5) 1) Has the applicant proposed to repair, rehabilitate, or restore to pre- project conditions any temporary impacts associated with the project? yes no N/A (tf no, then sequencing requirements are not met and the permit cannot be approved) IV. DETERMINATION OF REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF IMPACTS OVER TIME (8420.0520, Subp. 6) 1) Will additional wetland impacts be reduced or eliminated by maintaining, operating, and managing the project in a manner that preserves and maintains the remaining wetland functions and values? yes no (If no, then sequencing requirements are not met and the permit cannot be approved) V. UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS (8420.0520, Subp. 7) 1) Will unavoidable wetland impacts be replaced in accordance with M.R. 8420.0530 to 8420.0630? yes no (If no, then sequencing requirements are not met and the permit cannot be approved) VL SEQUENCING FLEXIBILITY (8420.0520, Subp. 7a) 1) Has sequencing flexibility been requested? yes no (If yes, explain compliance with MN Rule 8420.0520, Subp. 7a) Explanation: 2) Will the proposed replacement wetland provide equal or greater functions and values than the impact wetland? yes no (If no, then sequencing flexibility cannot be implemented) Based on the information above, is sequencing adequately addressed? ®YES El NO uthorized LGU Official Marshes Bloomfield WCA Seq_FOF 062811.doc (December 2002) Marshes of Bloomfield Technical Evaluation Panel Summary of TEP meeting and Findings of Fact Date of Meeting: June 28, 2011 TEP members present Eric Zweber, City of Rosemount Jed Chesnut, WSB Associates on behalf of City of Rosemount Brian Watson, Dakota SWCD Jeremy Duehr, Arcadis on behalf of applicant Pulte Homes Minnesota Summary The TEP met to review the WCA Wetland Replacement Application for the Marshes of Bloomfield Development in Rosemount, MN. The applicant is proposing to fill 0.62 acres of wetland and mitigate at a 2:1 ratio requiring 1.24 acres of wetland replacement. The TEP concurred that sequencing has been adequately addressed. The TEP discussed Actions Eligible for Replacement Credit for both wetland creation and upland buffer. o Wetland creation is eligible for 75% credit when it meets design standards, etc. The proposed creation sites would count for the 75% credit o Wetland buffer is eligible under the following conditions: Buffer must be adjacent and contiguous to replacement wetland receiving credit; Buffer is eligible for credit when established around an existing high value wetland that is connected to the replacement wetland. Only Wetland B (connected to Mitigation Site 1) met this requirement since it has a management class of Preserve, the other two wetlands with proposed created wetland areas have a Manage 2 classification; The proposed upland buffer varies between preserving nonnative buffer for 10% credit and creating native dominated buffer for 25% credit; The TEP recommended allowing the maximum 50% credit for the newly created native upland buffer that is proposed around and contiguous with Mitigation Site 1, which is connected to Wetland B, a Preserve wetland; All other newly created native upland buffer will be eligible for the standard 25% credit. The TEP concurred with and provided a recommendation to the City of Rosemount to allow the applicant to vary the upland buffer standards under Mn Rule 8420.0522 Subpt. 6.C. The TEP concurred that the proposed trails can be located in upland buffers that are eligible for credit but will be subtracted from the buffer area calculation. o Specifically for the upland buffer around Wetland B that is eligible for credit as described above: the upland buffer eligible for credit will consist of buffer within the City's required 75 foot wetland buffer, excluding the proposed trail, and the infiltration area (to the normal water level). The legal description of the trail within the buffer eligible for credit must be recorded in the Declarations of Restrictions and Covenants and specifically excluded. The TEP recommended that, if there are sufficient replacement credits for the site, the buffer on the opposite side of the trail from Wetland B not be used for replacement credit. This could make the Declarations of Restrictions and Covenants easier to file since the legal description of the trail could be difficult to describe and therefore record. Replacement is proposed to be a combination of wetland creation and upland buffer creation and preservation o Wetland Creation Total of 1.40 acres Mitigation Site 1: 0.57 ac 75% 0.44 acres Mitigation Site 2: 0.81 ac 75% 0.60 acres Mitigation Site 3: 0.48 ac 75% 0.36 acres o Upland Buffer Total upland buffer credit calculations are pending recalculations of areas eligible for credit. o The application will eventually need to be amended to reflect changes in wetland replacement areas. The TEP discussed the Declarations of Restrictions and Covenants and emphasized that the documents must be filed for all mitigation areas being counted as replacement credit. The TEP recommended that the applicant investigate the ability of the restrictions to be filed for upland buffer area that is currently shown within a pipeline easement. The current plan shows wetland replacement areas 1 and 2 directly adjacent to storm ponds but does not clearly show a physical separation, which is required under Mn Rule 8420. The TEP recommended that the plan be revised to show the contours that indicate the physical separation between the stormwater pond and the replacement wetlands. Based on review of the grading plan at Replacement Site 3, the replacement wetland is contiguous with the adjacent stormpond at an elevation of 948 ft. A physical connection would disqualify Replacement Site 3 as eligible for replacement credit. The TEP recommended amending the plan to provide and show physical separation between Mitigation Site 3 and the adjacent storm pond. There are currently DNR Public Waters impacts a jurisdictional decision is pending and may affect the overall impact and related mitigation calculations. The creation of Replacement Site 1, as shown on the Plan, may require a permit from the DNR due to the proposed connection to a DNR Public Water. This may affect the WCA approval /permitting process depending on the actions of DNR Waters. The plan, as reviewed by the TEP on June 28, 2011, shows outlet structures at elevations approximately two feet below the delineated wetland line in wetlands B,H, I. This would be considered a wetland impact via drainage, therefore the TEP recommended revising the plan avoid the impact. An exhibit clearly showing the areas eligible for replacement credit (upland buffer and new wetland), calculated acreages of wetland replacement, average buffer widths for the upland buffers eligible for credit, in addition to all other required information, was requested from the applicant. In accordance with 8420.0800, the landowner must provide "as- built" information upon completion of replacement sites. Then upon receipt of this information, the City must certify that the construction specifications have been met before any wetland monitoring can begin. As part of the Marshes of Bloomfield Replacement Plan application, the applicant is proposing to account for 0.4 acres of wetland replacement deficit from the Bloomfield Vineyards project. The 0.4 acres will have to be debited from the wetland creation replacement credits; the buffer credits are not eligible. ARCADIS MEMO To: Copies: Jed Chesnut, WSB Associates Eric Zweber, City of Rosemount Ian Peterson, Pulte Homes From: Jeremy P. Duehr, J.D., PWS Date: July 25, 2011 ARCADIS Project No.: 01300023.0000 Subject: Response to Technical Evaluation Panel Findings of Fact Marshes of Bloomfield aWocuments and setlingsktuettrYny documentslprajectepulte'rosenauntjpalwca_comnentsetcN 10725_marshes_rOc.docx ARCADIS U.S., Inc 430 First Avenue North Suite 720 Minneapolis Minnesota 55401 Tel 612 339 9434 Fax 612 336 4538 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide responses to the findings of fact issued by the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) on July 12, 2011. The attached exhibit depicts the revised wetland and upland buffer replacement areas required under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The revisions were made according to TEP findings of fact. Pulte is proposing to replace impacted wetlands at the required 2:1 ratio via three wetland replacement areas as well as new and preserved upland buffers. The project will result in 0.62 acre of wetland impact, which requires 1.24 acres of replacement. An additional 0.4 acre of replacement will be provided to satisfy a replacement deficiency at the Bloomfield Vineyards. The replacement plan has been revised to provide replacement credit for the wetland creation areas, upland buffers that are adjacent to the wetland replacement areas, and for upland buffer within 75 feet of Mare Pond, a high quality wetland with a City of Rosemount management classification of preserve, which is adjacent to Mitigation Site 1. The required 1.64 acres of replacement credits will be generated via 1.27 acres of wetland creation credit, 0.53 acre of native upland buffer credit, and 0.064 acre of preserved upland buffer credit for a total of 1.86 acres. The specifications for seeding and maintenance of the replacement areas is found in Appendix D of the May 2011 wetland permit application. The trail that is proposed around Mare Pond is located within the upland buffer that is eligible for credit. The trail footprint has not been included in the upland buffer areas proposed for replacement credit. The TEP did indicate that it would allow up to 50 percent credit for newly created upland buffer; however, the applicant is able to meet its replacement requirements using the Page: 1/2 ARCADIS typical 25 percent credit determination provided by WCA. The native upland buffer credit will be received if, at the end of the 5 -year monitoring period, the native buffers do not contain more than 25 percent non- native invasive vegetation. The legal description of the wetland creation areas and upland buffer areas receiving replacement credit will be recorded in the Declarations of Restrictions and Covenants prior to construction. The trail will be explicitly excluded in the Declarations of Restrictions and Covenants. The replacement credits provided in each replacement area are: Wetland Creation Total of 1.27 acres of credit o Mitigation Site 1: 0.55 acre at 75% 0.42 acre o Mitigation Site 2: 0.70 acre at 75% 0.52 acre o Mitigation Site 3: 0.44 acre at 75% 0.33 acre Preserved Upland Buffer Total of 0.064 acre of credit o Mitigation Site 1: 0.47 acre at 10% 0.047 acre o Mitigation Site 2: 0.14 acre at 10% 0.014 acre o Mitigation Site 3: 0.08 acre at 10% 0.007 acre New Native Upland Buffer Total of 0.53 acre of credit o Mitigation Site 1: 1.07 acre at 25% 0.29 acre o Mitigation Site 2: 0.56 acre at 25% 0.14 acre o Mitigation Site 3: 0.38 acre at 25% 0.10 acre The grading plans for the proposed Marshes of Bloomfield development have been further revised to address TEP comments. Elevation contours have been added to clearly show a physical separation between the replacement wetlands and adjacent stormwater ponds. Proposed stormwater structures have been moved above all delineated wetland boundaries to avoid direct and indirect wetland impacts. Pulte is requesting that the City condition its approval of the wetland permit application on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) waiving its jurisdictional permitting authority to the City for impacts below the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of DNR waterbodies within the Project Area. The DNR, in its June 29, 2011 email, indicated it would waive its jurisdiction to the City for impacts below the OHWL (see attached). The DNR also indicated that it would reserve its permitting authority for the placement of outfalls or outlets below the OHWL. At this time, no outfalls or outlets are proposed below the preliminary and official OHWL as determined by the DNR. c: daamrents aid sett ngslduetemy documenteprojects\pube*o djpa\wca cnnunentertc1110725 marshes rbc.docx Page: 2/2 Legend Dwontwowarron 1 .•••••1 i 1•••••••••••1 V V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v.vvvv:v�+.v vvvvvvv:: v vv. DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND FILL WETLAND FILL 0.33 ac WETLAND DRAINAGE WETLAND DRAINAGE 0.29 ac WETLAND MITIGATION/REPLACEMENT M -1 0.42 oc credit M -2 0.52 ac credit M -3 0.33 ac credit REPLACEMENT CREDIT 1.27 ac NEW NATIVE UPLAND BUFFER M -1 0.29 oc credit M -2 0.14 oc credit M -3 0.10 oc credit REPLACEMENT CREDIT 0.53 oc EXISTING UPLAND BUFFER M -1 0.047 oc credit M -2 0.010 oc credit M -3 0.007 oc credit REPLACEMENT CREDIT 0.064 ac TOTAL CREDITS PROVIDED 1.86 ac (3: 1) Duehr, Jeremy From: Wills, Craig (DNR) [craig.wills @state.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 3:17 PM To: Jed Chesnut; Duehr, Jeremy Cc: Eric Zweber (eric.zweber @ci.rosemount.mn.us); Phil Olson Rosemount; Andy Brotzler Rosemount Subject: RE: Marshes of Bloomfield DNR Waters Jed, Yes is the answer, but, based on the direction I received yesterday, I will not be able to waive until after the potential shutdown is over. If no shutdown, I would be able to waive quickly.. We would still need to talk about permitting any outfalls /outlets below the preliminary OHW. Craig Wills Area Hydrologist- South Metro Waters, Central Region 651259 -5757 From: Jed Chesnut [mailto:jchesnut @wsbeng.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:01 PM To: Wills, Craig (DNR); Duehr, Jeremy Cc: Eric Zweber eric .zweber @ci.rosemount.mn.us); Phil Olson Rosemount; Andy Brotzler Rosemount Subject: Marshes of Bloomfield DNR Waters Craig, The applicant has calculated the impacts to DNR Public Waters and has provided the attached exhibit that indicates there is 3,755 square feet of impact to DNR Public Waters. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that other impacts below the OHWL have been removed. His correspondence is inserted below: Please find attached an exhibit showing that Pulte is only proposing to fill 3,755 square feet or 0.08 acres of wetland H below the DNR OHWL of 952.2, for the construction of street S. The exhibit shows that the previously proposed impacts below the OHWL for stormwater infrastructure and homes have been revised so that they are above the OHWL. Based on your correspondence below and the quantity of DNR PWI impact, would the DNR consider waiving jurisdiction to the City of Rosemount for the wetland permitting of the Marshes of Bloomfield project? Thank you, Jed Chesnut Wetland Natural Resource Specialist p:763.231.4854 1c:612.518.2083 WSB Associates, Inc. 1 701 Xenia Ave. S., Suite 300 1 Minneapolis, MN 55416 i This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, please delete this email from your system. Any use of this email by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. WSB Associates, Inc. does not accept liability for any errors or omissions which arise as a result of electronic transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard copy. From: Wills, Craig (DNR) mailto:craig.wills @state.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:38 PM To: Duehr, Jeremy Cc: Jed Chesnut Subject: RE: Wetland H OHW Jeremy, Based on on -site field inspection, photos, and the survey of the flags, it would appear the preliminary OHW would be the average of the 3 flagged tree's, 952.2' (1988 datum). Please let me know if there would be any changes to the previously submitted set of plans. As we also discussed, putting in outfalls /outlets below the OHW would also trigger a permit. Based on the potential for a shutdown, I would suggest you communicate to your client that we would not have a complete application by the this Thursday. As is required, we must send out complete application for a 30 day review and comment period. As I have indicated to Rosemounts consultant, I do not believe we would be waiving impacts to WCA. However, if the road impacts were the only impacts and they were Tess than 10,000 sq feet, there is the potential for DNR to waive. Please keep in mind that there does seem to be plenty of room for the roads to around and not in the protected water wetlands. Craig Wills Area Hydrologist- South Metro Waters, Central Region 651259 -5757 From: Duehr, Jeremy [mailto:Jeremy.Duehr @arcadis- us.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 2:53 PM To: Wills, Craig (DNR) Cc: Chad Onsgard; Cory Meyer; Fran Hagen; Ian Peterson Subject: FW: Wetland H OHW Craig: Thank you for meeting me in Rosemount on Wednesday to stake a preliminary OHW for Basin #19032100. As you requested, the points you flagged have been surveyed. They are provided in the attached pdf. The vertical datum is 1988 NAVD. We look forward to your preliminary determination of the OHW. Please let us know if you need any additional information. Regards, jpd Jeremy P. Duehr, J.D. I Sr. Scientist I Jeremv.DuehrC arcadis- us.com 2 ARCADIS U.S., Inc. 1 924 Vista Ridge Lane I Shakopee, MN, 55379 T. 952.496.24991 M. 952.215.7836 www.arcadis us.com Professional Registrations PWS, 20081 FP -C, 3029 1 WDC, 1158 ARCADIS, Imagine the result Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Cory Meyer mailto :Cory.Meyer @westwoodps.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 2:20 PM To: Duehr, Jeremy; 'Chad.Onsgard @PulteGroup.com' Cc: Fran Hagen; Craig Morse Subject: RE: Wetland H OHW Jeremy, Here are the surveyed points for Wetland H. Vertical datum is 1988 NAVD. Please forward on to Craig. Cory From: Duehr, Jeremy [mailto:Jeremy.Duehr @arcadis us.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:15 AM To: Cory Meyer; 'Chad.Onsgard @PulteGroup.com' Subject: Re: Wetland H OHW Cory, As I mentioned yesterday, the DNR has placed 3 flags that need to be surveyed for the DNRs preliminary OHW determination. The flags are pink pin flags placed near the base of 3 boxelder trees above the wetland edge. Pink pin flags are hanging from tree branches above the flags. 2 flags are on the eastern edge of the wetland. They both appear to be within or close to the SW exception. The 3rd flag is on the NW corner. We will need to provide Craig Wills of the DNR with the 3 points and the datum they were shot in. He will then provide us with the elevation we should use until something more rigorous can be determined. Let me know if you have additional questions. Chad- please let Cory know if it is ok for him to survey the points. Thanks, -jpd Jeremy P. Duehr ARCADIS -US 952.215.7836 NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates. All rights, including without limitation copyright, are reserved. The proprietary information contained in this e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is intended for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail in error and that any review, distribution or copying of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message and any files transmitted. The unauthorized use of this e- mail or any files transmitted with it is prohibited and disclaimed by ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates. Nothing herein is intended to constitute the offering or performance of services where otherwise restricted by law. 3 9 ROSEMOUNT PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Meeting Dates: June 28, 2011 Tentative City Council Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM: Case 11- 23 -PP; 11 -24 -PUD Request by Pulte Group for the Approval of the Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Development Plan; Preliminary Plat; Grading Plans; Utility Plans; Landscape Plans; Tree Protection Plans; Shoreland Impact Zone; Shoreland Open Space; Table IX -1: Wetland Management and Protection Requirements; Wetland Impact Exhibit; Roadway and Utility Buffer Averaging Analysis; Household Buffer Averaging Analysis; Exception Ghost Plat; City Engineer's Memorandum dated June 23; Park and Recreation Director's Memorandum dated June 22; Fire Marshall's Memorandum dated June 17. AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing AGENDA NO. 5.e. APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Recommend that the City Council Approve the Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan and Rezoning to R -1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: 1. Deviations from the R -1 zoning district are granted to allow a 75 foot minimum lot width, 25 foot front yard setbacks for most lots, 20 foot front yard setbacks for lots with wetland buffers; 7.5 foot side yard setbacks, and 9,250 square foot minimum lot size. 2. Pulte will provide a well site within the Preliminary Plat. The well site will need to be a minimum of 0.25 acres with a minimum dimension of 105 feet by 105 feet and have a permanent access onto a local public street. 3. The home design front elevation shall include a minimum of three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting. 4. The private neighborhood pool site shall require a Site Plan Review before construction. 5. Developer installed trees shall be planted outside of the public right -of -way except for the entry medians and the maintenance of these trees shall be the responsibility of the individual homeowners or the homeowner's association. 6. Add the plant species abbreviations next to the plant symbols on the landscape plans. 7. Trees installed on individual lots shall be planted in a location that does not interfere with curb stops or individual sewer or water connections. 8. Wetland mitigation areas shall be expanded to total 1.64 acres. 9. Wetland buffer averaging is allowed per the roadway and utility buffer averaging analysis and the household buffer averaging analysis. All areas within the wetland buffers that do not have natural vegetation shall be seeded and established with a wetland buffer seed mix. 10. Fences are not allowed in wetland buffers. Conservation easements shall be granted over all wetland buffers not located on public lands. 11. Structural setbacks for lots with wetland buffers located on them is reduced to twenty (20) feet. 12. Minimum building setbacks from the OHWL mark of Horseshoe Lake and Mare Pond shall be 75 feet. 13.Approval of the Shoreland Ordinance Planned Unit Development by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 14. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the City Engineer's Memorandum dated June 22, 2011. 15. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Park and Recreation Director's Memorandum dated June 22, 2011. 16. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Fire Marshall's Memorandum dated June 17, 2011. 17. The applicant will dedicate land for park dedication, subject to final acceptance by the Parks Commission with the remaining in payment of fee -in -lieu of park dedication at the time of building permit issuance at the rate established by the City Council at that time. 18. Development of the site beyond Phases 1 and 2 are dependent upon the provision of necessary public utilities and infrastructure for access and city utility p services. ISSUE Pulte Group has requested a preliminary plat, planned unit development (PUD) master development plan and rezoning to R -1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Development Plan to develop 182 single family homes on 156.4 acres. SUMMARY Approximately 160 acres of land in two parcels located at the northeast corner of Bacardi Avenue and Bonaire Path was owned by Adam LaFarve but has been foreclosed on by the mortgager. The properties encompassed all of Horseshoe Lake and the northern half of Mare Pond. Mr. LaFarve had his house on 20 acres of land on the northwest shore of Horseshoe Lake and that parcel has been sold by the mortgage holder to a private resident. The remaining parcel (142.6 acres) was farmland encompassing three- quarters of the Horseshoe Lake shoreline and the northern half of Mare Pond and was foreclosed by Klein Bank. Klein Bank has been negotiating the sale of the property to Puke for the development of a single family subdivision. Pulte has also contacted the owners of an adjacent parcel (Christopher and Sarah Sorsoliel) and have proposed to add their 13.8 acres parcel into the preliminary plat submittal. The preliminary plat includes a total of 156.4 acres of land and has about 2,200 feet of frontage onto Bacardi Avenue and 1,900 feet of frontage onto Bonaire Path. 2 The preliminary plat illustrates 182 lots on the 156.4 acres of land in six phases. The 156.4 acre property includes twenty one (21) waterbodies for a total of 33.8 acres. In addition to the waterbodies, Pulte is proposing to dedicate 9.25 acres of parkland to the City, 3.0 acres of collector right -of -way, and includes an additional 43.6 acres of open space including wetland buffers, stormwater infrastructure, woodlands, pipelines easements, and a greenway corridor. The net acreage for development (home sites, local roads, and associated infrastructure) is 66.7 acres, or 43% of the overall property. Pulte has stated that the houses will be generally two story homes with three car garages priced in the low to middle $400,000's. Staff has provided a recommendation that a minimum of a three and one half (3.5) foot high wainscoting of brick or stone be installed on the front elevation of the homes. The development includes a proposed private, neighborhood pool on Outlot M near the southwest shore of Horseshoe Lake and adjacent to the proposed parkland dedication. The private pool site requires a separate Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission before it can be constructed. The development design includes preserving a minimum of a 45 foot wide wooded, natural corridor around Horseshoe Lake, maintenance of the wooded area adjacent to Bacardi Path, and plans the design of the Autumn Path extension on the east side of the property which meanders to save the existing heritage bur oak trees in the windrow between the Pulte development and the McMenomy property to the east. The proposed development would surround a 15 acre exception property on three sides which is owned by Norman Brucker. The proposal would provide for three potential accesses and sewer and water connections to the Brucker property should Mr. Brucker or a future owner chose to develop later. Surrounding Land Uses North Agriculture and Large Lot Single Family Houses (Low Density Residential Designation) West Agriculture and Large Lot Single Family Homes (Transitional Residential Designation) South Single Family Residential (Low Density Residential Designation) East Agriculture (Low Density Residential Designation) Background Owners: Residential Developers: Preliminary Plat Acres: Comprehensive Plan Design.: Current Zoning: Requested Zoning: Klein Bank and Christopher and Sarah Sorsoleil, current owners; Pulte Group, future owner Pulte Group 156.4 Acres LDR: Low Density Residential AG Agriculture R -1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development Residential Densi 3 Units Gross Acres Additional Collector Right -of -way Lakes, Wetlands, Parks, Tree Preservation and Stormwater Ponding Net Acres Units per Acre Marshes of Bloomfield 182 156.4 3.0 86.7 66.7 2.73 The preliminary plat illustrates 182 lots on the 156.4 acres of land in six phases. The 156.4 acre property includes twenty one (21) waterbodies for a total of 33.8 acres. In addition to the waterbodies, Pulte is proposing to dedicate 9.25 acres of parkland to the City, 3.0 acres of collector right -of -way, and includes an additional 43.6 acres of open space including wetland buffers, stormwater infrastructure, woodlands, pipelines easements, and a greenway corridor. The net acreage for development (home sites, local roads, and associated infrastructure) is 66.7 acres, or 43% of the overall property. Pulte has stated that the houses will be generally two story homes with three car garages priced in the low to middle $400,000's. Staff has provided a recommendation that a minimum of a three and one half (3.5) foot high wainscoting of brick or stone be installed on the front elevation of the homes. The development includes a proposed private, neighborhood pool on Outlot M near the southwest shore of Horseshoe Lake and adjacent to the proposed parkland dedication. The private pool site requires a separate Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission before it can be constructed. The development design includes preserving a minimum of a 45 foot wide wooded, natural corridor around Horseshoe Lake, maintenance of the wooded area adjacent to Bacardi Path, and plans the design of the Autumn Path extension on the east side of the property which meanders to save the existing heritage bur oak trees in the windrow between the Pulte development and the McMenomy property to the east. The proposed development would surround a 15 acre exception property on three sides which is owned by Norman Brucker. The proposal would provide for three potential accesses and sewer and water connections to the Brucker property should Mr. Brucker or a future owner chose to develop later. Surrounding Land Uses North Agriculture and Large Lot Single Family Houses (Low Density Residential Designation) West Agriculture and Large Lot Single Family Homes (Transitional Residential Designation) South Single Family Residential (Low Density Residential Designation) East Agriculture (Low Density Residential Designation) Background Owners: Residential Developers: Preliminary Plat Acres: Comprehensive Plan Design.: Current Zoning: Requested Zoning: Klein Bank and Christopher and Sarah Sorsoleil, current owners; Pulte Group, future owner Pulte Group 156.4 Acres LDR: Low Density Residential AG Agriculture R -1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development Residential Densi 3 Sin le Family Housi 20 foot front yard setbacks on lots that have rear yard wetland conservation easements Street and Sidewalk System The proposed development includes one access onto Bacardi Avenue about 1,300 feet north of Bonaire Path. Bacardi Avenue is currently a gravel rural section road. Bacardi Avenue would not need to be upgraded to a paved, urban roadway until the existing 15" truck sanitary sewer line would be extended to allow construction for the third phase of development. Pulte is requesting that the access to Bacardi Avenue be installed with the first phase of development for access reasons. In discussions with the Fire Marshal, he is comfortable allowing proposed Phases 1 and 2 to be constructed with the only access from Bonaire Path. It is requested that temporary turn- arounds be constructed at both ends of the two phases. It should be noted that the applicant only controls the eastern half of Bacardi Avenue with the western half controlled by a variety of property owners located west of Bacardi. Without being able to purchase needed right of way for the Bacardi upgrade, the City Council will need to decide if condemnation would be appropriate to facilitate further development or whether the developer will only be allowed to develop Phases 1 and 2 until Bacardi Avenue right of way can be obtained. A condition of approval notes that development will be limited to installation of necessary public utilities and infrastructure. The developer will be responsible for one -half of the construction cost of Bacardi Avenue upgrade. The development also proposes two accesses onto Bonaire Path, one located at the boundary of the Sorsoleil /Brucker property about 1,300 feet east of Bacardi Avenue. The other access to Bonaire Path would be from the future Autumn Path extension which is classified as a minor collector in the Comprehensive Plan. Bonaire Path was improved to an urban roadway in 2006 and Mr. LaFarve was assessed for that improvement. Pulte would be responsible for half of the cost of the Autumn Path extension, which will include the cost of construction and also right of way acquisition. Similar to Bacardi Avenue, the property owner does not control the land to the east which is needed to extend Autumn Path. The proposed Phase 5 North would not be able to be developed without either the extension of Autumn Path or the development of the former LaFarve homestead to the west to provide an access to Bacardi Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan also shows a minor collector roadway connection to Bacardi Avenue that runs south of Horseshoe Lake. Due to the low density of the development and the impact that the collector would occur to the existing wetlands, staff is supportive of re- routing the future collector road north of Horseshoe Lake, most likely north of the existing homestead site. 4 R -1 Low Density Residential Zoning Proposed 75 -foot Wide Lots Minimum Lot Width 80 Feet 75 Feet Minimum Lot Size 10,000 Square Feet 9,250 Square Feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 Feet 25 Feet 20 Feet' Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 Feet 7.5 Feet Maximum Lot Coverage 30% 30% Sin le Family Housi 20 foot front yard setbacks on lots that have rear yard wetland conservation easements Street and Sidewalk System The proposed development includes one access onto Bacardi Avenue about 1,300 feet north of Bonaire Path. Bacardi Avenue is currently a gravel rural section road. Bacardi Avenue would not need to be upgraded to a paved, urban roadway until the existing 15" truck sanitary sewer line would be extended to allow construction for the third phase of development. Pulte is requesting that the access to Bacardi Avenue be installed with the first phase of development for access reasons. In discussions with the Fire Marshal, he is comfortable allowing proposed Phases 1 and 2 to be constructed with the only access from Bonaire Path. It is requested that temporary turn- arounds be constructed at both ends of the two phases. It should be noted that the applicant only controls the eastern half of Bacardi Avenue with the western half controlled by a variety of property owners located west of Bacardi. Without being able to purchase needed right of way for the Bacardi upgrade, the City Council will need to decide if condemnation would be appropriate to facilitate further development or whether the developer will only be allowed to develop Phases 1 and 2 until Bacardi Avenue right of way can be obtained. A condition of approval notes that development will be limited to installation of necessary public utilities and infrastructure. The developer will be responsible for one -half of the construction cost of Bacardi Avenue upgrade. The development also proposes two accesses onto Bonaire Path, one located at the boundary of the Sorsoleil /Brucker property about 1,300 feet east of Bacardi Avenue. The other access to Bonaire Path would be from the future Autumn Path extension which is classified as a minor collector in the Comprehensive Plan. Bonaire Path was improved to an urban roadway in 2006 and Mr. LaFarve was assessed for that improvement. Pulte would be responsible for half of the cost of the Autumn Path extension, which will include the cost of construction and also right of way acquisition. Similar to Bacardi Avenue, the property owner does not control the land to the east which is needed to extend Autumn Path. The proposed Phase 5 North would not be able to be developed without either the extension of Autumn Path or the development of the former LaFarve homestead to the west to provide an access to Bacardi Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan also shows a minor collector roadway connection to Bacardi Avenue that runs south of Horseshoe Lake. Due to the low density of the development and the impact that the collector would occur to the existing wetlands, staff is supportive of re- routing the future collector road north of Horseshoe Lake, most likely north of the existing homestead site. 4 The development includes seven local roads, two of which are proposed to be permanent cul -de -sacs and three are proposed to have temporary cul -de -sacs until the neighboring properties develop. The two permanent cul -de -sacs meet the City Code because the cul -de -sac at the north end of Street K limits impacts to the wetland and woodlands to the north and the cul -de -sac at the west end of Street E is because the City limits access spacing onto collectors (Autumn Path). The temporary cul -de -sac on Street B would provide a future street connection to the Brucker property. The temporary cul -de- sacs on west side of Street E and the west side of Street G will serve as street accesses to the former LaFarve homestead when that property develops. All local streets have the City standard of a 60 foot wide right -of -way, 32 foot wide street curb -to- curb, and a sidewalk on one side of the street. Staff is supportive of the local street system as designed. The Parks and Recreation Director has proposed that the sidewalk at the cul -de -sac on the east end of Street E be extended to the Autumn Path extension. Phasing Pulte Group has proposed to develop the subdivision in six (6) phases of 33, 41, 32, 33, 17, and 26 lots each. The first phase is located in the southwest corner of the development with an access to Bonaire Path to the south. The second phase would develop the southeast corner of the subdivision, provides a street stub to Norman Brucker's property, and in the future would connect to the Autumn Path extension. The third phase would develop the northwest corner of the site just to the north of the access to Bacardi Avenue. Bacardi Avenue would have to be upgraded to permit Phase 3 to move forward. The fourth phase would develop the lots on the south side of Horseshoe Lake and include the dedication of the parkland on the south shore and a street stub to the former Adam LaFarve homestead. Phase 5 South would develop the lots to the southeast of Horseshoe Lake and include a temporary sanitary sewer lift station to serve Phase 5 South and Phase 5 North until the ultimate City lift station is construct in the future development of properties to the north. Phase 5 North develops the homes northeast of Horseshoe Lake but would not able to develop until either the former Adam LaFarve homestead to the west develops or Autumn Path is constructed from the south. Wetlands The property has twenty one (21) existing waterbodies: two of which are designated as a wetland and a lake. The City's Wetland Management Plan (WMP) classifies wetlands into four categories in decreasing quality: preserve, manage I, manage II, and manage III. Of the twenty-one wetlands, four (4) wetlands are labeled preserve, zero wetlands are manage I, eleven (11) wetlands are manage II, and six (6) wetlands are manage III. The higher quality the wetland category, the larger the wetland buffers required by the WMP. Additionally the higher the quality the more effort required to avoid impacts, and the larger amount of wetland mitigation required if impacts cannot be avoided. WMP Table IX -1: Wetland Management and Protection Requirements is attached to the Executive Summary and describes the standards for each type of wetlands. Of the six (6) wetlands impacted by the proposed preliminary plat, two (2) wetlands are partially impacted and four (4) wetlands are completely filled and will not exist after the project. The two (2) partially impacted wetlands are both classified as manage II wetlands, while two (2) of the fully impacted wetlands are manage II and the two (2) remaining fully impacted wetlands are manage III. Staff believes that the preliminary plat is laid out to try to avoid wetland impacts. Further the other site constraints, pipeline easements and their locations, site topography, exiting vegetation, size and location of preserve wetlands and lakes, makes total avoidance of wetlands while allowing economical development of the property improbable. Finally, the plan limits impacts that do occur to the lowest quality wetlands. The total wetland impact is 0.62 acres. 5 Under the WMP, manage II and manage III wetlands require new wetlands created to mitigate the impact at a two to one (2:1) ratio which would require 1.24 acres of new wetlands. Pulte has an outstanding deficiency from their development of Bloomfield of 0.4 acres of mitigation and they wish to compensate for that deficiency through mitigation in this development creating a total mitigation requirement of 1.64 acres (1.24 0.4). Pulte has proposed to fulfill the mitigation through 1.4 acres of new wetlands and 2.07 acres of public value credits through upland buffers. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) recognizes credits through upland buffers. Because of the shortage of wetlands within the community, City staff has always stressed maintenance of wetlands and mitigation on site. Because of that philosophy, staff does not believe that 1.4 acres of new wetland meets the intent of the WMP and has recommended that the applicant expand the newly constructed wetlands to 1.64 acres. This will allow the 2 to 1 mitigation anticipated by the WMP. Additionally, staff is recommended processing the WCA permit with recognition of the public value credit. Development around wetlands requires a conservation easement to be placed over the naturally vegetated area around a wetland as a wetland buffer to provide water quality benefits, reduction of the risk of erosion, discourage human interference, and provide wildlife habitat. Preserve category wetlands require a seventy -five (75) foot wide buffer, while manage II and manage III wetlands require only a thirty (30) foot wide buffer. Understanding that all buffers may not be maintained equally around the entire wetland during development, the WMP allows for buffer averaging. Buffer averaging would allow a buffer to be reduced on one side if it is expanded on another side of the wetland. The applicant has prepared two exhibits to request approval of buffer averaging. The first is an exhibit showing 19,800 square feet of buffer impacts caused by roadway and utilities and proposes 25,214 square feet of additional buffer to allow averaging. The second exhibit shows all the wetland buffers that are on individual lots and interior to the lot but not contained within the required ten (10) foot rear yard drainage and utility easement. The applicant is requesting to average this total area of 29,261 square feet of wetland buffer by establishing 139,731 square feet of additional wetland buffer. Staff is comfortable approving the wetland buffering association with the road and utility installation. As mentioned previously, the site is constrained to the point that some wetland impacts, and wetland buffer impacts, are needed to permit financially feasible development. Staff is also recommending accepting the household wetland buffer average. For similar reasons, development of the site is difficult and prompts some impacts. Further the buffers impacted, and subsequently created, are over and above what was impacted on a per wetland basis. In other words any wetland where a buffer was reduced has an expanded buffer on its perimeter that is greater than the area impacted. The only exception is in the far north where Street G affects the buffer but the wetland is almost wholly contained on the property to the north. In this instance the developer does not have enough land around the wetland to expand the buffer. Wetland buffer monuments will be installed at the edge of the ten (10) foot rear yard drainage and utility easements to provide a clear, linear edge to maintain the natural wetland buffer vegetation. The ten (10) foot buffer does not further limit homeowner's abilities to develop their property because structures (other than fences) are not allowed within the drainage and utility easement. Additionally, staff has prepared a condition that prohibit fences within wetland buffer and that a conservation easement will be required over the buffer area further reinforcing that no private structures should be placed in the buffer. A recommended condition of approval is that structural setbacks to wetland buffers would be reduced to twenty (20) feet. 6 Shoreland District The development has two lakes that are regulated by the City's Shoreland Ordinance: Mare Pond located on the south side of the development and bisected by Bonaire Path; and Horseshoe Lake on the north side of development. About 75% of the Horseshoe Lake shoreline is located within this development and the remaining shoreline is located on the property to the north. Both lakes are classified as Natural Environmental Waters and require the most strict development standards in the Shoreland Ordinance. Sewered Natural Environmental Waters Development Standards The City's Shoreland Ordinance has been approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and any deviations or variances to the Shoreland Ordinance must be approved by the DNR through their planned unit development (PUD) standards. The DNR reviews and approves a PUD based on how much shoreline is publicly owned, how much of the shoreline impact zone (the area within 75 feet of the lakes) is disturbed, and how much open space is within the development. To accommodate these standards, the developer will dedicate a minimum of forty-five (45) feet surrounding the lakes to the City, has limited the grading or other impacts to the shoreline impact zone to less than 50% of the zone, and has proposed only 150 lots within the 1000 feet of the shoreline when 438 lots would be allowed. Based on these considerations, staff is supportive of Pulte's requested PUD standards but conditions the approval of the preliminary plat on the DNR approval. Tree Preservation The City has a Tree Preservation Ordinance that classifies trees into three different categories and has progressively greater replacement rates for the higher value tree types. Trees that are softwoods less than twelve (12) inches in diameter or hardwoods less than six (6) inches in diameter are not significant and do not need to be saved and would not require replacement. Softwoods greater than twelve (12) inches in diameter and hardwood trees between six (6) and twenty six (26) inches in diameter are significant trees. It is expected that some significant trees would be removed during development and 25% of the total site caliper inches of significant trees can be removed without replacement. The significant tree caliper inches removed beyond 25% of the total need to be replaced at a rate of 0.5 calipers inches per 1.0 caliper inches removed. Hardwood trees twenty seven (27) inches in diameter or greater are classified as heritage trees and all are encouraged to be preserved. No heritage trees can be removed without replacement and the replacement trees removed must be replaced at a rate of 1.0 caliper inch per 1.0 caliper inches removed. Tree Preservation 7 Shoreland Ordinance PUD Request Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square feet 9,250 square feet Lot Width 110 feet 75 feet Building Setback from OHWL 150 feet 75 feet Building Setback from Street 20 feet 20 feet Lowest Floor Elevation above OHWL 3 feet 3 feet Shoreland District The development has two lakes that are regulated by the City's Shoreland Ordinance: Mare Pond located on the south side of the development and bisected by Bonaire Path; and Horseshoe Lake on the north side of development. About 75% of the Horseshoe Lake shoreline is located within this development and the remaining shoreline is located on the property to the north. Both lakes are classified as Natural Environmental Waters and require the most strict development standards in the Shoreland Ordinance. Sewered Natural Environmental Waters Development Standards The City's Shoreland Ordinance has been approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and any deviations or variances to the Shoreland Ordinance must be approved by the DNR through their planned unit development (PUD) standards. The DNR reviews and approves a PUD based on how much shoreline is publicly owned, how much of the shoreline impact zone (the area within 75 feet of the lakes) is disturbed, and how much open space is within the development. To accommodate these standards, the developer will dedicate a minimum of forty-five (45) feet surrounding the lakes to the City, has limited the grading or other impacts to the shoreline impact zone to less than 50% of the zone, and has proposed only 150 lots within the 1000 feet of the shoreline when 438 lots would be allowed. Based on these considerations, staff is supportive of Pulte's requested PUD standards but conditions the approval of the preliminary plat on the DNR approval. Tree Preservation The City has a Tree Preservation Ordinance that classifies trees into three different categories and has progressively greater replacement rates for the higher value tree types. Trees that are softwoods less than twelve (12) inches in diameter or hardwoods less than six (6) inches in diameter are not significant and do not need to be saved and would not require replacement. Softwoods greater than twelve (12) inches in diameter and hardwood trees between six (6) and twenty six (26) inches in diameter are significant trees. It is expected that some significant trees would be removed during development and 25% of the total site caliper inches of significant trees can be removed without replacement. The significant tree caliper inches removed beyond 25% of the total need to be replaced at a rate of 0.5 calipers inches per 1.0 caliper inches removed. Hardwood trees twenty seven (27) inches in diameter or greater are classified as heritage trees and all are encouraged to be preserved. No heritage trees can be removed without replacement and the replacement trees removed must be replaced at a rate of 1.0 caliper inch per 1.0 caliper inches removed. Tree Preservation 7 Significant Trees Heritage Trees Total Inches 22,557 796 Inches Removed 10,730 257 Removal Allowance 5,639 n/a Replacement Required 5,091 257 Replacement Ratio 0.5/1.0 1.0/1.0 Inches of Replacement Required 2,546 257 Shoreland District The development has two lakes that are regulated by the City's Shoreland Ordinance: Mare Pond located on the south side of the development and bisected by Bonaire Path; and Horseshoe Lake on the north side of development. About 75% of the Horseshoe Lake shoreline is located within this development and the remaining shoreline is located on the property to the north. Both lakes are classified as Natural Environmental Waters and require the most strict development standards in the Shoreland Ordinance. Sewered Natural Environmental Waters Development Standards The City's Shoreland Ordinance has been approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and any deviations or variances to the Shoreland Ordinance must be approved by the DNR through their planned unit development (PUD) standards. The DNR reviews and approves a PUD based on how much shoreline is publicly owned, how much of the shoreline impact zone (the area within 75 feet of the lakes) is disturbed, and how much open space is within the development. To accommodate these standards, the developer will dedicate a minimum of forty-five (45) feet surrounding the lakes to the City, has limited the grading or other impacts to the shoreline impact zone to less than 50% of the zone, and has proposed only 150 lots within the 1000 feet of the shoreline when 438 lots would be allowed. Based on these considerations, staff is supportive of Pulte's requested PUD standards but conditions the approval of the preliminary plat on the DNR approval. Tree Preservation The City has a Tree Preservation Ordinance that classifies trees into three different categories and has progressively greater replacement rates for the higher value tree types. Trees that are softwoods less than twelve (12) inches in diameter or hardwoods less than six (6) inches in diameter are not significant and do not need to be saved and would not require replacement. Softwoods greater than twelve (12) inches in diameter and hardwood trees between six (6) and twenty six (26) inches in diameter are significant trees. It is expected that some significant trees would be removed during development and 25% of the total site caliper inches of significant trees can be removed without replacement. The significant tree caliper inches removed beyond 25% of the total need to be replaced at a rate of 0.5 calipers inches per 1.0 caliper inches removed. Hardwood trees twenty seven (27) inches in diameter or greater are classified as heritage trees and all are encouraged to be preserved. No heritage trees can be removed without replacement and the replacement trees removed must be replaced at a rate of 1.0 caliper inch per 1.0 caliper inches removed. Tree Preservation 7 Tree Type Size Number Caliper Inches Ornamentals 2 inches 100 200 inches Deciduous 3 inches 582 1,746 inches Deciduous 4 inches 104 416 inches Coniferous 7 -8 ft tall (3.75 in) 93 349 inches Coniferous 10 -14 ft tall (6 in) 137 822 inches Total n/a 1,016 3,533 inches 2,803 inches of tree replacement is required for the trees that are removed for the development. The development of 182 lots requires that the developer plant one tree per lot at a minimum 2 caliper inches per tree. This landscape requirement has a total of 364 caliper inches. The total tree installation requirement for the development is 3,167 caliper inches. The applicant proposes to install 1,016 trees for a total 3,533 caliper inches. The distribution of tree types is in the table below. Trees Installed by the Develover Landscaping The City Code requires that one tree be installed per single family lot developed, which would require 182 trees at a minim size of two (2) caliper inches. Because of the tree preservation ordinance, the developer is also required to install an additional 2,803 caliper inches of trees which they are fulfilling through planting 834 trees resulting in a total of 1,016 trees being planted. The landscape design for the subdivision will generally plant two trees per lot and focus the remaining landscaping to the Bacardi Avenue and Bonaire Path accesses and the edges of the development. Staff is supportive of landscape plan but has provided three recommended conditions. First, that the trees be planted outside of the public right -of -way (except for the entry medians) and are to be maintained by either the homeowner's association or the individual homeowners. Second, that the individual tree species be identified on the landscape plan. Third, that the trees be planted in locations that do not interfere with the public infrastructure. Storm wa ter Management This property is unlike many of the recent developments within the City. The City requires that stormwater systems have both a ponding (retention) and infiltration system. On most properties within Rosemount, the sandy soils provide adequate infiltration to meet the City requirement. On this property, the clay soils do not infiltrate stormwater adequately to meet the City standards. The developer has found only one site Outlot H) on the eastern boundary of the property that appears to have sandy enough soils to provide infiltration. A percolation test needs to be conducted to confirm that the infiltration requirements can be met. Results from recent soil borings indicate that favorable percolation test results will be obtained. An additional issue remains regarding the infiltration area on Outlot H. Based on the topography of the site and the location of Outlot H, the northern 80 acres of the site does not drain to Outlot H. In order to meet the infiltration requirements for this area and the site, it will be necessary to install a storm lift station from Horseshoe Lake to Outlot H. In addition, the City's Surface Water Management Plan indentifies the future development of a system to facilitate drainage from properties west and north of the property to Horseshoe Lake. The need to accommodate this stormwater and the intent to construct a lift station from Horseshoe Lake to the south has been discussed with the developer. The cost of this system will be funded by the developer and the City on a pro -rata basis to be determined with final plans. 8 The remaining components of the stormwater system are generally acceptable. It appears that a number of the stormwater ponds need to be re- graded to provide a minimum average depth of 4 feet and there are some emergency overflows that need to be evaluated at a finer scale than 2 foot contour grading plans can provide, but neither issue should impact the layout of the lots or roads within the preliminary plat. Detailed stormwater comments from the City Engineer have been provided to Pulte's design engineer, Westwood. Parkland and Interpretative Trail Corridor The City Code requires that parkland be dedicated to the City at a rate of one (1) acre of land per twenty five (25) units developed. Pulte's 182 unit preliminary plat would require 7.28 acres of parkland. Pulte is proposing to meet this requirement through the dedication of a 6.95 acre park around three- quarters of Horseshoe Lake and 2.30 acres of land for the Interpretative Trail Corridor from the corner of Bacardi Avenue and Bonaire Path to the Horseshoe Lake Park and east to the Autumn Path extension. The Interpretative Trail Corridor is identified in the Comprehensive Plan from Shannon Park Elementary to the Mississippi River and the connection to Horseshoe Lake is a key trail connection identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Horseshoe Land Park contains a connection to Street E at the intersection of Street F, a minimum of a 45 foot wide corridor around the lake, and includes the island in the eastern half of the lake. The park is intended to be more passive than active recreation and will not contain a soccer or baseball field. The Parks and Recreation Commission is concerned that the park does not have enough flat upland that could provide for a playground, sun shelter, parking lot, and a basketball court. The Parks and Recreation Director is recommending that Lot 10, Block 5 be removed and dedicated as additional parkland. A Northern Natural Gas pipeline runs through the park from the southwest to the northeast and further confines the use of the park The paved Interpretive Trail Corridor will run to the east through the upland portion of the park from the intersection of Street E and Street F and along the north side of the gas line easement and the south side of the stormwater pond to the Autumn Path right -of -way. The Autumn Path right -of -way and the trails that will be installed with collector road will give the City options on how the Corridor will continue through the development of the McMenomy property and over to the Outdoor Recreation Complex (ORC) located at the northeast corner of Akron Avenue and Bonaire Path. Additionally, a gravel trail is proposed along the south and west shore of Horseshoe Lake and the Parks and Recreation Commission has recommended a floating boardwalk to the island within the lake. The previous owner had installed a gravel path about 10 feet wide all the way around the lake. Pulte does not show that trail continuing to the east and north side of the lake. The Parks and Recreation Director does not recommend accepting the east and north shore of the lake as parkland if a gravel trail cannot be extended along the shoreline. The Parks and Recreation Commission will review the preliminary plat on Monday, June 27 and staff will provide a verbal update of those discussions at the Planning Commission meeting. The current condition of approval recognizes some land will be dedicated as part of the project with additional fees being levied if the land dedication does not met the 7.28 acre requirement. Additional Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and Fire Marshall Comments The City Engineer's, Park and Recreation Director's, and Fire Marshall's Memorandums are attached to this Executive Summary. The major issues raised in these memorandums are included within the Executive Summary. 9 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan, and Rezoning to R -1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development subject to the condition stated in the Recommended Action. 10 Excerpt from the Draft June 28 Planning Commission Minutes e. Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan and Rezoning (11-23-PP, 11-24-PUD). Senior Planner Zweber began summarizing the information provided in the staff report. Pulte Group has applied for preliminary plat and planned unit development master development plan and rezoning to construct 183 single family units on 156 acres. The rezoning request would be to rezone the property from AG- Agricultural to R -1 PUD- Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development. Andi Moffit, Manager of the Environmental Group at WSB Associates, explained the wetland management plan and how it works. She touched on the wetland conservation act and city wetland management plan, the four classifications of wetlands, detail of wetland buffers. Commissioner Miller questioned the amount of mitigation that was within the development versus outside of it. Ms. Moffit responded that all mitigation was proposed to be within the site development. Commissioner Miller also questioned other stormwater and buffering issues that may jeopardize the quality of water. Mr. Zweber explained that those issues would be discussed during the next portion of his presentation. He continued the summary of the staff report. Commissioner Miller questioned if there would be a home owner's association (HOA) for the project. Mr. Zweber replied that the City would be requiring a HOA as part of the approval. He stated the Commission could add the requirement to the proposed conditions listed in the motion. Chair Powell questioned if the proposed buffer would essentially overlap the 10 foot drainage and utility easement. Mr. Zweber replied yes. Ian Peterson, Vice President of Pulte Homes, provided more information on the project. He added that a home owner's association would be established. He provided additional information on the wetland management and the front elevation architectural themes. Commissioner Miller questioned the long term monitoring of the wetlands. Mr. Peterson stated they will continue to work with WSB on the wetland issues. He explained more about the five year monitoring program. He noted that Ms. Moffit will be providing input on the expectation for monitoring the wetlands. The process will be addressed in the final plat stage and disclosures will be given to the home buyers. Commissioner DeMuth stated she did not support the applicant's request for an increase in the maximum lot coverage. She did not want stormwater directed to Horseshoe Lake. Mr. Zweber explained the two part PUD process as listed in the ordinance. The standards that the City would deviate from would be discussed as part of the final development plan and the infiltration issues would be resolved with the final plat. Commissioner DiNella questioned if the HOA will file a declaration with Dakota County that spells out what is required with regards to wetland management. Mr. Peterson replied yes and that a disclosure statement will be provided to owners stating they received the declaration. 1 Chair Powell questioned if the applicants requested 429 assistance. Mr. Peterson replied yes. Mr. Zweber pointed out that the financing will be determined during the final plat process. The public hearing was opened at 9:49 p.m. Randy Kaiser, 12919 Bolivia Avenue, Rosemount, stated he felt the Commission is off track from the rezoning of the property. He opposed the whole project and shared concerns about the wildlife sanctuary. Jackie Young, 12895 Bengal Avenue West, Rosemount, spoke about the quality of life in Rosemount and the unique parcel of land being discussed. She did not want paved streets, sewer or water brought to the site. She did not support the rezoning. Roger Hamilton, 13555 Athena Way, Rosemount, stated he would like to see the project less developed and preserve the marshes and creatures. Lisa Czyz, 13545 Atrium Avenue, Rosemount, was concerned about the rezoning, wetlands, wildlife and creatures. She would love to see Rosemount grow but felt this development was premature. Chris Peterson 13563 Athena Way, Rosemount, shared concerns about the school system being impacted and other safety and construction concerns with Bonaire Path. Sarah Gutierrez, 13552 Atwater Court, Rosemount, requested that the Commission reduce the amount of development for the project. She also shared concerns about the price points of the proposed homes. Todd Durscher, 2058 Bonaire Path, Rosemount, expressed his concerns with the speeding along Bonaire Path. Mike McMenomy, property owner to the east, stated his concerns with payment for half of Bonaire Path improvements and the location of the future road. Further comments were given regarding the assessments and alignment of the road between his property and the subject property. Leland Mann of Northern Natural Gas expressed concerns about the trails beside the pipeline easement and had further concerns about the wetlands. Tracey Larsen, 13561 Atwater Path, Rosemount, expressed concerns about people willing to buy the homes after the development disturbs the area. Randy Kaiser, 12919 Bolivia Avenue, Rosemount, expressed concerns about the traffic on Bonaire Path. Lisa Czyz, 13545 Atrium Avenue, Rosemount, stated there could not be a market for homes in this area. MOTION by Ege to close the public hearing. Second by DiNella. 2 Ayes: 7. Nays: None. Motion approved. The public hearing was closed at 10:21 p.m. Chair Powell asked staff to address the rezoning, road reconstruction, potential future assessment and transportation issues. Mr. Zweber stated the plans for development support the comprehensive plan. He explained that the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2009 and showed the land use map to the Commissioners while explaining the anticipated development and future road extensions. He also explained the location of the future road between the subject property and the McMenomy property. Project Engineer Olson provided more information about Bacardi Avenue including the state aid funds and the pedestrian updates to Bonaire Path. Mr. Zweber stated that the school districts provided comments on the comprehensive plan stating that while the Rosemount portion is growing the Eagan and Apple Valley portions are declining. He provided information on the current single family housing lot inventory in Rosemount. He noted there are less than 100 single family lots remaining and based on the current growth that would last one year. He added that developers are here because the market can support it. Chair Powell talked about the MUSA boundary and the planning for the City's infrastructure system. Project Engineer Olson added that Bonaire Path was designed and built per the comprehensive plan for the property developing and utilizing the road. The speeds on Bonaire Path are set by MnDOT and outside the regulation of the City. Commissioner DeMuth questioned the price point of the neighborhood. Chair Powell requested that the applicant provide the information. Mr. Peterson explained the price points, housing styles and floor plans. He also provided pictures of the plans. Commissioner DiNella thanked the public for their comments. He stated he was a previous member of the City's Port Authority and noted how hard they worked along with the Community Development Director to bring more commercial and retail businesses to Rosemount. He further stated that unless Rosemount has more roof tops that a big box retail will not be located in Rosemount. He also explained the tax burden. He ended by saying he is the president of a HOA in his neighborhood and supports the project having an HOA for the protection of home values. Commissioner Irving was concerned about the issues raised by Mr. Mann. Mr. Zweber agreed that while it is an issue that the preliminary plans shows just the concept. He added that the final plan will show the ultimate development and how it will occur. Mr. Zweber explained the process for moving forward. Mr. Irving stated the he was still concerned about it jeopardizing the project. Commissioner Miller expressed concerns about the traffic. Mr. Zweber explained that before the comprehensive plan was adopted that the City went through the AUAR process and completed a traffic model of the area. Mr. Zweber explained the motions as presented. Chair Powell clarified the changes to conditions 3 and 19. 3 MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council Approve the Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan and Rezoning to R -1 PUD: Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions modifications to 3 and 19: 1. Deviations from the R -1 zoning district are granted to allow a 75 foot minimum lot width, 25 foot front yard setbacks for most lots, 20 foot front yard setbacks for lots with wetland buffers; 7.5 foot side yard setbacks, and 9,250 square foot minimum lot size. 2. Pulse will provide a well site within the Preliminary Plat. The well site will need to be a minimum of 0.25 acres with a minimum dimension of 105 feet by 105 feet and have a permanent access onto a local public street. 3. The home design front elevation shall include a minimum of three and a half (3.5) feet of brick or stone wainscoting or City Council approved front elevation enhancements 4. The private neighborhood pool site shall require a Site Plan Review before construction. 5. Developer installed trees shall be planted outside of the public right -of -way except for the entry medians and the maintenance of these trees shall be the responsibility of the individual homeowners or the homeowner's association. 6. Add the plant species abbreviations next to the plant symbols on the landscape plans. 7. Trees installed on individual lots shall be planted in a location that does not interfere with curb stops or individual sewer or water connections. 8. Wetland mitigation areas shall be expanded to total 1.64 acres. 9. Wetland buffer averaging is allowed per the roadway and utility buffer averaging analysis and the household buffer averaging analysis. All areas within the wetland buffers that do not have natural vegetation shall be seeded and established with a wetland buffer seed mix. 10. Fences are not allowed in wetland buffers. Conservation easements shall be granted over all wetland buffers not located on public lands. 11. Structural setbacks for lots with wetland buffers located on them is reduced to twenty (20) feet. 12. Minimum building setbacks from the OHWL mark of Horseshoe Lake and Mare Pond shall be 75 feet. 13. Approval of the Shoreland Ordinance Planned Unit Development by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 4 14. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the City Engineer's Memorandum dated June 22, 2011. 15. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Park and Recreation Director's Memorandum dated June 22, 2011. 16. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the Fire Marshall's Memorandum dated June 17, 2011. 17. The applicant will dedicate land for park dedication, subject to final acceptance by the Parks Commission with the remaining in payment of fee -in -lieu of park dedication at the time of building permit issuance at the rate established by the City Council at that time. 18. Development of the site beyond Phases 1 and 2 are dependent upon the provision of necessary public utilities and infrastructure for access and city utility services. 19. Home Owner's Association is required. Second by DiNella. Ayes: DiNella, Ege, Powell, Kolodziejski. Nays: Demuth, Irving, Miller. Motion carried. Mr. Zweber requested that the Commissioners who voted against the project to state their reasons for the official record. Commissioner Miller stated he voted against the project based upon the information provided by Mr. Mann, the impacts to the horseshoe area lots and the wetlands and that he was unclear as to what would happen with the easement to the trail and future development. Commissioner Irving concurred with his concerns. Commissioner DeMuth stated it was a unique piece of property like Evermoor. She did not support the Evermoor development and therefore would not support this development either. She added that she was not part of the current comprehensive plan or the process. She added there was plenty of land to the east that could be developed. 5 Zweber, Eric From: Conny Mahoney [cmahoney58 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 12:45 PM To: Zweber, Eric Subject: 2030 Land Use Plan July 25, 2011 Eric Zweber: My husband, Craig Mahoney, stopped in to see you last week regarding the development of land on Bacardi and BonAire and Akron. We reside on the west side of Bacardi across from the proposed development. Our concerns for the very wooded and marshy lands that skirt Bacardi on the east is why you would every allow LDR housing here, when you can put all the houses you want into an existing field like the area on Bonaire and Akron without destroying trees and wetlands? We also have been told that these will be protected, but by what degree, will there still be 5 -7 houses on an acre of land in this thick woods? That would certainly be a waste of trees and natural lands. The area we are in, which is zoned TR and the north areas are RR Residental are plotted out for 5+ acre lots and housing that is already established, why do we have to give up nice wooded areas like mentioned above to LDR, which will ruin the trees and populate this area with more people than should be there. I feel that larger lots should be able to take advantage of wooded areas. My other concern is that if you proceed with a plan for LDR on the east side of Bacardi, that the City have the developer take on the responsibility of all road improvements now and spread it to the new home owners as that is why and who Bacardi will eventually be paved for. The cost majority (per ft of land owned) SHOULD NOT go to the few people who have the good fortune of having land, but to the MANY people who the road will service. My husband and I will not be able to be at the next council meeting to voice our opinions. As much as would love to, we will out of the state. We thank you for taking our concerns into consideration in our absence. Thank you The Mahoneys Craig Conny Mahoney 13075 Bacardi Avenue Rosemount, MN 55068 651- 423 -1577 1 emai II 4 4. q :I;b 'rte .1�`.' I POND C rI EX,STlNG yy ,-4 41' WETI AND 1 w 1 0 tit 4 d 0 o to 9 0 �eS N 4} d WETLAND MiTIGAiION; BONAIRE PATH CO RD 38 Ira* ■■Q f 1 73 vorro EXCEPTION T U T U M w ptii[c Wy tv, o ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA N v 0 100 200 400 111 l i 11 a t§i Ijn gzi.4 a a fE X _I A 7 sl rl 0 I a 1 .75'7- (away) t-u.vd Nrtrunv s sj s 8 11 tt N -71NINV-17111V0111 8 z arwatit anyryts. E v s sp \Y t.i \I h t J or \I i/ t, s- i .1 I� •C7 X aF U (Wand) Fu w^ va ininv .d .z 2559 411 E i 1 I t 109E K 425 b b 533 >t•• i Rt Ery I I �s I i z I fit g g E i g3E I u 8 0 o i 0 S 0 F U CG z 0 V O 0 z ll�la�IQ� >p��i I'i1 F J. ►lii 146, Alaragir At1 .N C A T ba '4 O C Z i o tt, ag 7 a 4.4 '4••••■ I 1' V 2 N P -7 7 7- 1 7 -...3M.....- it .7 4 1 0 1 1 1 (6 i --9'Zisl.' isi 7 ,,,,,,.■-il .5. --aziegiziaaf—r- .7■.ra.f riiir— It ,,i'li litirL jjjiL 9” ;tit k nt 60— A i 954 "N`V.,„121a 14 "'"■*7 e 1 N xooz we in r 6'696 p 1 N •S s. 8 II i o f ti r I a g v an==ti g6 h J W 0 5 ct 5 111 t anuan .lP�eoe.g v_- ter.. �.e A 8 ss ,14 1 8 1. 1 I 111V 9St 'a DIA f ape F4 —r 4 I I I I II z 0 v y b cu I Ea 0 CtS ,Iw 473 Iji ail 11 Lel U 8 Y a ii; 7� B 0aR v 111 x�$ jtivv l rix r IX@ s t ii; ;t (CIr1) .j1 i z 0 4a is r aE otk 'dam y u -or t1 b; Ill 1 1 lj i t A_.. .1` Y I L 1 ,0. a ..r 1 i 1 SS z N t l 3 S .2 5 514. a e5� it f� 11 OA r As oa VAA 40 0 klo ioi 961 0 iito y it I tirit i rip 1': 4, oat akcA R 8 m 2 3 0 I co EA SE �f f jl ►�a ea Q y th I C 1 5 k II co Q-J cr) cc it e S 1 a v vvigirmv o ko c ti N 4,0-1 40.(A4 ict 1 tag Safi X s 0. Y. O aJ cn 1 z 0 0 te 1 P. 1 11 b 0 z h Mitigation Standard 3:1 replacement ratio with a minimum 1.5 acres of New Wetland Credit and maximum 1.5 acres of Public Value Credit for every acre impacted. 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of New Wetland Credit and a maximum of 1 acre of Public Value Credit 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of New Wetland Credit and maximum of 1 acre of Public Value Credit 2:1 replacement ratio with a minimum of 1 acre of New Wetland Credit and maximum of 1 acre of Public Value Credit Storm Water Management Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required; consider diversion if possible Sediment and nutrient pretreatment required Sediment pretreatment required Pretreatment to NPDES standards (per Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules) is required if these standards apply to the project W etland Buffer Requirements 75 feet 30' minimum if buffer averaging is allowed Monuments required 50 feet 30' minimum if buffer averaging is allowed Monuments required 30 feet 15' minimum if buffer averaging is allowed Monuments required 15 feet for non agricultural areas only 15' is the minimum buffer standard Monuments not required M anagement Strategy Maintain wetland and existing functions, values and wildlife habitat. Apply'stricii avoidance standards. Maintain wetland without degrading existing functions, values and wildlife habitat. Sequencing is applicable Maintain wetland functionality Apply some sequencing flexibility Allow maximum sequencing flexibility S core u) N '7r c0 0 c0 O c0 N O N Management Class a) a) 4) a) 0) as c ca Manage 11 a) an co c as COME, KIM 30 5/31/11 36551 WETUAta IMP/Cr )(1-1(131 tri\PAcrEb KiElLA/Z5 WE'r14 )NittiTitkcfEL\ ammo, en re Per 7 n Eden Prairie, Niannenote 55144 Legend O _O ODO 0 0 0 V V V V V V V vvvvv v vvvvvvvv v7 7 7 V 7 7' V v v v v v v v DELINEATED WETLAND BOUNDARY EXISTING WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND FILL WETLAND FILL 0.33 oc WETLAND DRAINAGE WETLAND DRAINAGE 0.29 ac WETLAND MITIGATION/REPLACEMENT M -1 0.42 ac credit M -2 0.52 ac credit M -3 0.33 ac credit REPLACEMENT CREDIT 1.27 oc NEW NA T/ VE UPLAND BUFFER M -1 0.29 ac credit M -2 0.14 ac credit M -3 0.10 ac credit REPLACEMENT CREDIT 0.53 ac EXISTING UPLAND BUFFER M -1 0.047 oc credit M -2 0.010 ac credit M -3 0.007 ac credit REPLACEMENT CREDIT 0.064 ac TOTAL CREDITS PROVIDED 1.86 ac (3: 1) •1 a BUFFER AVERAGING 4TALYSLSt 4 M H0050. &,pFtIZ LOSS 28,4045� I�oAD wAY rer( wsS 19 Nousati eoFFt2 AcPUUE 8 454 sc. RoAtowty 20 Fea REaACE ieSt 1929 Mal 0 •ILNO S Oalftellelv WPM TX M:� 1 1 i 4. i u__...L.0,„, i DA 0- 4--(c44 'Vr il i r,47 'r lo vo ifl l i 41 Imp Ii M ift, 1 41 1 sii imi 41 'I' i a I, I m i ll II r i;!:, fill! Li g at; /pi 4 Wetland: Buffer Impacts Compensatory Buffer Areas Net Change in Buffer Area (sf) (ac) Roads (sf) Lots (sf) Roads (sf) Lots (sf) B 0 4,702 0 22,917 18,215 0.42 F 0 1,095 0 19,539 18,444 0.42 H 4,807 1,882 5,158 29,596 28,065 0.64 I 0 0 0 16,673 16,673 0.38 J 728 0 4,585 3,640 7,497 0.17 K 404 905 4,995 5,171 8,857 0.20 L 1,613 914 20,191 5,940 23,604 0.54 0 0 5,312 0 8,436 3,124 0.07 P 0 77 0 1,218 1,141 0.026 R 0 195 0 13,275 13,080 0.300 S 0 13,325 0 32,352 19,027 0.44 T 12,053 0 0 0 (12,053) 0.28 Totals: 19,605 28,407 34,929 158,757 145,674 3.34 Marshes of Bloomfield Wetland B .iffer Averaging Analysis City of Rosemount By: Westwood Professional Services, (Revised 7/7/2011) DATE: July 27, 2011 TO: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner MEMORANDUM CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Andrew Brotzler, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Chris Watson, Management Analyst Kathie Hanson, Planning Department Secretary FROM: Phil Olson, Assistant City Engineer RE: Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary Plat: Plan Review 9 ROSEMOUNT PUBLIC WORKS SUBMITTAL: Prepared by Westwood Engineering, the Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary PUD Submittal, dated May 31, 2(111 and updated June 29, 2011. Engineering review comments were generated from the following documents included in the submittal: Preliminary PUD Submittal (36 pages) dated May 31, 2011 and updated June 29, 2011, comprised of the following: o Existing Conditions o Development Plan /Preliminary Plat o Preliminary Grading Plan, Preliminary Utility Plan, and Preliminary Landscape Plan o Preliminary Profiles o Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan o Preliminary Tree Inventory Plan Stormwater Runoff Calculations, dated May 24, 2011. Existing and Proposed Drainage Area Map, (4 pages) dated May 24, 2011. Geotechnical Evaluation Report (41 pages), dated December 28, 2010. Buffer Averaging Analysis: Lots (1 page), dated June 16, 2011. Buffer Averaging Analysis: Roads (1 page), dated June 16, 2011. Northwest Corner Sanitary Sewer Extension (1 page), dated June 17, 2011. South Exception Parcel Ghost Layout (1 page), dated June 16, 2011. Wetland Permit Application (report), dated May 2011. Wetland Assessment Report, dated May 31, 2011. Shoreland Impact Zone Analysis (1 page), dated May 31, 2011. Shoreland Open Space Density Analysis (1 page), dated May 31, 2011. DEVELOPMENT FEES: 1. The developer will be financially responsible for up to one -half of the cost to upgrade Bacardi Avenue and the extension of Autumn Path. A feasibility report detailing the costs and financial responsibilities will be required prior to approval of a final plat. 2. Additional development fees are required with final plats based on the current Schedule of Rates and Fees. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Northern Natural Gas, Koch Pipeline, and Magellan Pipeline all have gas pipelines within the proposed development. Crossing permits and grading permits are likely required from the gas companies for the proposed improvements. The developer is required to work with the gas companies to execute all required permits. Pothole elevations are required for each utility crossing and roadway crossing the pipelines to verify that the improvements can be constructed as proposed. Any design changes required by gas companies shall not result in any nonconforming lots. 2. The proposed stormwater management plan will require additional infiltration testing data to verify that the rate control design is in conformance with the City requirements. The infiltration testing shall be completed at the proposed grading plan elevations. It should be noted that a clay layer is shown in the boring logs at 942, which is at the bottom of the infiltration area. Additionally, the proposed design assumes that the City's maximum allowed infiltration rate of 3 inches per hour will be used provided that testing results support this rate. An infiltration rate of 3 inchers per hour doubles the City standard of 1/12 acre -foot per acre per day to a time period of two days. This modification of the infiltration requirement was discussed with the developer. 3. The proposed submittal does not address how runoff from the northern 80.7 acres of the site is routed to the proposed Infiltration Area 22. This issue will require further discussion after the infiltration testing results have been reviewed. A storm sewer lift station, forcemain, and gravity storm sewer is proposed to manage the White Lake watershed runoff with this system in the future. The implementation of the proposed drainage system is a modification to the SWMP and was discussed with the developer at a meeting on January 18th, 2011. Costs associated with the trunk system would be City costs and costs associated with the development (the northern 80.7 acres) would be developer costs. 4. Conservation easements shall be required over all stormwater ponds, infiltration basins, wetlands, and buffers. Signage for conservation easements shall be provided by the developer and an extended 5 year maintenance warranty shall be required to ensure establishment of the naturally vegetated areas. Costs associated with the establishment of the naturally vegetated areas and the 5 year maintenance period shall be a cost of the development. 5. The low floor freeboard to groundwater elevations could not be fully evaluated at this time as piezometer readings were not available. Piezometer readings are required to be completed and forwarded to the City to for review prior to approval of the grading plan. 6. The landscaping plan should not propose trees over storm sewer pipes or within emergency overflow routes or overland flow routes. The trees and shrubs in these areas shall be moved. Additionally, trees located on individual properties shall not be planted near the sanitary sewer and water service lines. These trees shall be positioned a minimum of 15 feet from the service lines. 7. The developer shall record a conservation easement in the name of the city over all stormwater basins, infiltration basins, wetlands, and wetland buffers. 8. Retaining walls will be reviewed with the final grading plan on a case by case basis for the installation of fences. 9. Phase 2 will require the construction of an access to Bacardi Avenue. A temporary paved access with bituminous curb and gutter will be allowed until sanitary sewer is extended on Bacardi Avenue with Phase 3. At that time, the access as proposed will be required to be constructed. 10. If it is deemed that Outlot I will be deeded to the City, a landscape plan with naturally vegetated areas and a 5 year maintenance period is required. PUD SUBMITTAL PLAN COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERALL PRELIMINARY PLAT SHEET 3: 1. Drainage and utility easements over storm sewer outside the property boundary or right of way will be required. The pipe outside of the future right of way on the northeast corner will be required to be encompassed by an easement. PRELIMINARY PLAT NORTH SHEET 4: 1. Lots 16 -19, Block 9 require an easement to 947.5 to encompass the overland flow route to the east. PRELIMINARY PLAT SOUTH SHEET 5: 1. Lot 9, Block 12 requires a wider easement on the rear yards to encompass the overland flow route and emergency overflow. 2. The emergency overflow route from the rear yard of Lot 3, Block 20 to Street T should be shown on the grading plan and encompassed by an easement on the plat. 3. Lots 1 -3, Block 12 require a wider easement on the rear yards to encompass the overland flow route and emergency overflow. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SHEET 7: 1. The grading outside of the property boundary on the north side of the development will require authorization from the property owner. 2. Lot 18, Block 2 requires an easement to encompass the overland flow route to the west. 3. Additional storm sewer is required at the north end of Autumn Path. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SHEET 8: 1. An outlet control structure is required for the outlet of Infiltration Area 22. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SHEET 9: 1. The storm sewer outlet from Basin #1518 should use clay collars /plugs to eliminate and seepage along the bedding under the pipe. 2. The easement on the rear yards of Lots 1 -13, Block 12 should be increased to encompass the overland flow route. 3. The overland flow route, including the retaining wall, on Lots 1 and Lot 2, Block 20 should be encompassed by a drainage and utility easement. 4. An outlet control structure is required for the outlet to Wetland I. 5. The EOF of Autumn Path near station 18 +20 should be shown on the plan. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SHEET 10: 1. The EOF on Lot 3, Block 20 should be shown on the plan and should be encompassed by a drainage and utility easement. 2. The overland flow route, including the retaining wall, on Lot 4, Block 20 should be encompassed by a drainage and utility easement. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SHEET 11: 1. An outlet control structure is required for the outlet to Wetland O. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SHEET 12: 1. The EOF from Wetland E8 to the east is shown as 958.50. Additional drainage and utility easement is required to encompass the area to the EOF elevation in the rear yards of Lots 7- 10, Block 7. It appears that the building pad of Lot 8, Block 7 would be inundated with an EOF of 958.50. 2. The EOF between Lot 6 and Lot 7, Block 7 should be shown on the plan. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SHEET 14: 1. The trail grades on the south side of Pond 1A are required to be revised to a maximum of 5% a slope. 2. The trail cover over the 18 -inch outlet pipe from Infiltration Area 9 should be a minimum of 1.5 feet. The trail may need to be raised. 3. The EOF between City Pond 3 and Basin #1533 should be shown on the plan. 4. Grading is required for the trail at the existing low point located north of the Northern Natural Gas pipeline and south of Street S (within Wetland B). A culvert will likely be required to maintain drainage. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN SHEET 16 SOUTH: 1. Storm sewer is shown on Autumn Path extending to the east to serve the low point created by the road approximately 205' north of Bonaire Path. A revised layout is required to connect this low point with the proposed storm sewer located within Autumn Path and which outlets to Pond 6. Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 651 322 -2015. To: 4 ROSEMOUNT PARKS AND RECREATION M E M O R A N D U M Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Eric Zweber, Senior Planner Jason Lindahl, Planner Andy Brotzler, City Engineer Phil Olson, Project Engineer From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Date: July 28, 2011 Subject: Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary Plat The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed a draft development plan for the LaFarve Property in December of 2010. After reviewing the plan, the Parks and Recreation Commission provided staff with direction to consider the development of a neighborhood park with an emphasis on natural resource based recreation, which is consistent with the City's 2008 Parks Master Plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission recently reviewed the preliminary plat and recommended the City Council approve the plat with the following conditions: Remove Lot 10 on Block 5 from the development plan and include the land in the public park area. The trail along Bonaire Path east of the exception parcel should not be considered part of the greenway trail and should be built within the Bonaire Path right of way as part of the public improvement project and paid for by the developer. The parks dedication requirement for 182 units is 7.28 acres of land. Because it has been recommended that lot 10 on Block 5 be removed, the parks dedication for 181 homes would be 7.24 acres. The developer has proposed dedicating more than the required amount of land needed to meet their parks dedication obligations. The Commission is recommending that the developer provide a combination of land and cash to satisfy the parks dedication requirements. The Commission recommended that the City consider accepting more land than required, but that parks dedication credit would not be given for all of the land. Based on the plans that have been submitted, the parks dedication credit should be satisfied with 4.5 acres of land credit and 2.74 acres of cash in lieu of land, the cash dedication would be paid at the time of building permit, and the developer would pay for the construction of the parking lot in the public park. In general, the areas of land that would be considered for parks dedication credit are the lakeshore property on the south and north sides of Horseshoe Lake, the portion of the neighborhood park (west of the Wetland U) and the small island just north of the future neighborhood park. It is not recommended the developer receive park dedication credit for the greenway trail easements identified in Outlot I. It has been suggested that the City will accept this property from the developer with hopes of managing the land in cooperation with Dakota County. The City should continue to work with Dakota County to place a conservation and recreation easement on the shoreline property of Horseshoe Lake. The City should continue to develop plans for the neighborhood park based on park concept plan #1 (attached) that was developed by Hoisington Koegler Group Incorporated. Please let me know if you have any questions about this memo. c OM a IOW C1 ati dnui .oriboN uorfiu!..9011 '1 1 ON 1 itinottinoN JO XID 4 4 Ma K. 14 k c 0 C K. 1 .t e 14 ac 0 1 44 14. KC 14 44 .4. I.. c t '1 C. K. C) V 'C 6 4 't kJ 'M (Zi ■I 14 h.. P 15, O 141 2 k •.1 14. u oc 0 k 0 k 't k4 (jtj (.5 1 1 1 1 I A tysi lunowasoN 3 1B1 °S.- ck Mut C7 -e M E M O R A N D U M To: Eric Zweber, Planner From: John Kendall, Fire Marshal Date: June 17, 2011 Subject: Marshes of Bloomfield ROSEMOUNT FIRE DEPARTMENT Upon review of the Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary PUD Submittal dated 5/31 /11 provided for review by Westwood Professional Services Inc. on behalf of Pulte Group the Fire Marshal offers the following comments: The Preliminary PUD Plan as submitted substantially meets the minimum requirements of the 2007 MN State Fire Code. Any changes to the Final Plan will require further review. Facilities, building or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved access road with and asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of at least 75,000 pounds. July 22, 2011 Honorable Mayor Bill Droste Council Member Mark DeBettignies Council Member Matt Kearney Council Member Kim Shoe- Corrigan Council Member Jeff Weisensel Rosemount City Hall 2875 145 Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Re: Marshes of Bloomfield Preliminary Plat Consideration by City Council August 1, 2011 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Minnesota Pulte Homes is extremely excited to present our Preliminary Plat submission of the Marshes of Bloomfield before the City Council on August 1, 2011. We believe the property is one of the most unique parcels in the City of Rosemount encompassing 156 acres of land, two lakes, nearly 44 acres of open space, and will be the home to 182 single family homes. Klein Bank currently owns the property, taking the property back from Mr. Adam LaFavre through foreclosure proceedings nearly one year ago. While the "Bloomfield" naming theme may be a familiar ring to many from previous projects done by Centex Homes from 2001 through 2008, we wanted to share with you the brief history of Pulte Homes and Centex Homes. In August of 2009 Pulte Homes acquired Centex Homes on a national level, combining two of the largest national home builders into one entity. While Pulte Homes operates under the Pulte Group name, we have created three distinct brands of homes for our buyers: 1. Centex Homes: for the first time homebuyer 2. Pulse Homes: for the move up and multiple move up homebuyer 3. Del Webb: for the active adult homebuyer The Marshes of Bloomfield will be developed under the Pulte Homes brand, targeting the move up and multiple move up buyer. With our strong history of developing Bloomfield and Meadows of Bloomfield under the Centex Homes name, we are confident that the Marshes of Bloomfield will be equally as successful as both of the previous projects were, driving more rooftops to Rosemount helping to accelerate the demand for commercial and retail development. In the Marshes of Bloomfield we will offer seven single family home floor plans ranging from 2,400 square feet to 3,000 square feet. Each floor plan will offer at least three different and unique elevations ranging in architectural themes from Craftsman, Farmhouse, Cottage, and Heartland. We are proud to offer our new "Life Tested Home Designs" in many of our floor plans which takes living spaces from a "fixed and formal' plan to designs which are more open and flowing. As the plans become more open, they become more accepting of the uses to which the homeowner assigns rather than trying to force their life into "pre- determined" spaces. With that in mind, we have designed plans to create more flex and practical spaces such as: Page 1 of 3 Description Acres Net Developable Acres Total Amount Lakes Wetlands 33.8 Acres Open Space: preserved woodlands, greenway and trail corridors, wetland buffers, wetland mitigation, storm water pondinq and infiltration 43.2 Acres Public Park Dedication 9.2 Acres Rio ht of way dedication for Barcardi Avenue and Autumn Path 3.5 Acres $433,550 Storm Water Area Trunk Fee Net Residential Development Area 66.7 Acres $457,896 Total Site 156.4 Acres Area Trunk Fee Acre Net Developable Acres Total Amount Sanitary Sewer Area Trunk Fee $1,075 66.7 Acres $71,703 Water Area Trunk Fee $6,500 66.7 Acres $433,550 Storm Water Area Trunk Fee $6,865 66.7 Acres $457,896 1. Planning Centers off of the kitchens to be used for bill paying budgeting, family organization, homework or computer rooms. 2. Flex space on the main level that can be used as a music room, multi -media room, arts and crafts center, or a main level bedroom. 3. Larger informal kitchen and dining areas that can accommodate an 8 to 10 person table, larger kitchen pantry, and other storage areas. 4. Expanded laundry rooms and mud rooms. While we are extremely excited to be back in Rosemount, a stable community with excellent schools and a strong commitment to its residents, this unique site presents a few challenges for development. We have navigated most of the unique challenges to date including reviews by various agencies ranging from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Northern Natural Gas Company, Koch Pipeline, Magellan Pipeline, and various other agencies governing the twenty jurisdictional wetlands on the site. We have had numerous discussions with City Staff regarding the challenges of developing such a unique site and have in fact shared much of our financial information with them to assist us in determining how best to navigate the development costs. Additionally, Klein Bank has participated in many of these meetings and has reviewed our financial information and has itself written off much of the value of the land in order to come to a point of sale. However, even with the concessions being made on the sale price, we are seeking your flexibility on a few City fees in order to make this project financially viable. As stated previously, the entire site is 156 acres in size of which we are proposing to dedicate 89 acres to the City including lakes, wetlands, open space, etc and develop only 67 acres for residential development. The table below is a quick summary of the site acreage breakdown: We are specifically seeking flexibility on the Area Trunk Fees as it relates to Gross Acres (156 acres) versus Net Acres (67 acres being developed). We believe with such unique site characteristics (the vast area of open space including wetlands, preserved woods, trail and greenway corridors, storm water ponding, storm water infiltration, and pipeline easements) that calculating Area Trunk Fees on a Net Acres basis will make this project financially f easible. We believe that the development of this property on a Gross Acres Area Trunk Fee basis is simply cost prohibitive. Therefore, we would like to propose the following Area Trunk Fee schedule: In addition to the above fees, we will be paying for one half of the costs for the improvements to Bacardi Avenue (north south roadway along the western property line), one half of the costs for the improvements to Future Page 2 of 3 Autumn Path Extension (north south roadway along the eastern property line), as well as the standard 5% of construction costs fees to the City of Rosemount. The City will also be obtaining 9.25 acres of land for park dedication giving it frontage for a trail system along the shores of Horseshoe Lake and Mare Pond. With a total land development investment, including the acquisition cost, of nearly $17,000,000, building permit fees to the City of approximately $364,000 ($2,000 per home average building permit fee), and estimated value of 182 single family homes of $72,800,000 (with an average sales price of $400,000 per home), we believe our commitment to the City of Rosemount and the Marshes of Bloomfield is unparalleled. We sincerely appreciate your consideration in this matter and are looking forward to the successful development of the Marshes of Bloomfield. If you have any questions please feel free to call me directly at 612.328.5252. Sincerely, Pulte Homes of Minnesota LLC Ian C. Peterson Vice President of Land Cc: Mr. James P. Knutson, Vice President Klein Bank Mr. Richard C. Palmiter, Vice President CB Richard Ellis Page 3 of 3 Zweber, Eric From: Ian Peterson [Ian.Peterson @PulteGroup.com] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:39 PM To: Zweber, Eric Subject: McMenomy History Eric, Hope this helps: In January 2006 Pulte Homes (prior to the merger of Centex Homes and Pulte Homes, and please remember my history is with the Centex Homes until August 2009 when Pulte acquired Centex; also keep in mind no original Pulte Homes land people are with the company) entered into a Purchase Agreement with the McMenomy Family to purchase 393 acres at then 2005 2006 pricing. Pulte was to close on the property no later than November 30, 2007. Pulte did extensive planning on the McMenomy property including depicting the north south collector of Autumn Path much as it is depicted today. In November 2007 Pulte Homes terminated the contract with the McMenomy Family. In December 2010 Terry McMenomy and our Division President, Mary McDaris, had conversations regarding the Klein Bank property and a brief history of the Pulte McMenomy prior deal; not sure of all the conversations that took place or the level of details, but Terry indicated that if we were interested once again they would be willing to sell. At the Planning Commission Meeting I exchanged lengthy conversations with John McMenomy in the lobby prior to our consideration which took quite a while due to the architectural issue that night, all cordial, and he shared the history of Pulte previously as well as the family dynamics of John, Terry, and sister wanting to sell and Mike not interested in selling. I have spoken with Terry McMenomy three times in the past 2 months regarding his desire to sell the property and his 2 siblings desire to sell the property, but Mike not wanting to sell. Other family dynamics were shared regarding how they originally got Mike to sell which isn't the point of this email nor for public record, but needless to say the family controlling the property doesn't see things the same way. More recently in conversations with Terry, and I will forward the email, he wanted to know if we would be interested in purchasing the property once again and sent along many of the previous plans Pulte had prepared; again depicting the extension of Autumn Path in a very similar fashion as is shown today. That in a brief summary is the history, I have never spoken with Mike or the sister, but have spoken to both Terry and John. Additionally in December 2010 I had lengthy discussions with cousin Ed McMenomy about various sites he controls as well as a brief history of this site which he has no financial interest in. Please look for the email Terry sent to me, I will forward along. My desire is not to get into a McMenomy Pulte history at the Council Meeting. Thanks, Ian I Pulte PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS BELOW IAN PETERSON 1