HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.l. Evermoor Crosscroft 3rd Addition Major Planned Unit Development Amendment (D.R. Horton, Inc.) 9 ROSEIvlOLII"Y]T EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Meeting Date: January 2, 2008
rAGENDA ITEM: Case 07- 38 -AMD Evermoor Crosscroft 3rd AGENDA SECTION:
Addition Major Planned Unit Development New Business
Amendment (D.R. Horton, Inc.)
PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, AICP AGENDA NO.
Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Major Amendment To The Planned APPROVED BY:
Unit Development Agreement For Evermoor
Crosscroft 3 Addition, 11 -27 -07 and 10 -23 -07
PC Excerpt Minutes, Site Map, Resident
Comments, Revised Crosscroft 3rd Addition
Landscape Plan, Plat, Home Elevations, Floor
Plans That Do Not Fit On The Four Lots.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution approving a major Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Amendment to allow an increase in the impervious surface coverage from thirty (30)
to thirty -five (35) percent for four (4) lots in the Evermoor Westport neighborhood
legally described as Lots 16 and 18, Block 2 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 of Evermoor
Crosscroft 3 Addition, subject to conditions.
2. Motion to authorize the mayor and city clerk to execute an amendment to the PUD
agreement for Evermoor Crosscroft 3 Addition.
SUMMARY
Applicant: D.R. Horton, Inc.
Location: North of Connemara Trail, between the water tower and Crosscroft
Avenue.
Area: 20.85 acres
Comp. Guide Plan Desig: TR Transitional Residential
Current Zoning: R -1, Low Density Residential Evermoor Planned Unit Development
(PUD)
The applicant, D.R. Horton, Inc, requests approval of a major Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Amendment to allow an increase in the impervious (hard) surface coverage from thirty (30) to thirty -five
(35) percent for four (4) lots in the Evermoor Westport neighborhood.
This item was last before the City Council on December 18, 2007. At that meeting, the Council pulled this
item from the Consent agenda and asked staff to provide additional information. In response staff has
added a table illustrating the changes this amendment will have on the selected lots as well as additional
background information on similar amendments granted for the Evermoor Glendalough neighborhood in
2004 and 2005.
The original PUD establishes architectural standards and home designs for the neighborhood. In this case,
D.R. Horton agreed to build twelve (12) different home plans including: the Berkshire 2, Concord, Concord
2, Colonial, Gleneagle, Breamer, Chesapeake, Hancock, Hampton 2, Dover, Legacy and Aberdeen. Front
elevations for each of these homes are attached for your reference.
Since platting this neighborhood in 2006, the applicant discovered that the thirty (30) percent lot coverage
standard limits the number of approved home plans that will fit on several lots. Changes in the building
code have also impacted some of the viable house plans. A redesign of these styles would have to occur to
comply with the new codes. Without the redesign, the number of house plans available for the 4 lots is
further diminished. According to the applicant, the limited options available are not selling well. As a result,
the applicant now requests an increase in the lot coverage standard to allow more home options for their
customers. In this case, a major PUD amendment is necessary because the applicant's request deviates from
the underlying R -1, Low Density impervious surface coverage standard. The Council should be aware that
the hard surface coverage addresses the house footprint, driveway and any accessory structure initially built
or later by the homeowner. In previous cases within the City, the initial house and driveway complied with
the hard surface coverage but future consideration for a patio, shed, or deck created a non conforming
situation. Staff would prefer to avoid this situation if possible.
Imperious Surface Coverage Analysis
Lot Block Lot Size 30% Lot Coverage 35% Lot Coverage Difference Size of Area
Lot 16, Block 2 11,050 3,315.0 3,867.50 552.50 23.5' X 23.5'
Lot 18, Block 2 11,181 3,354.3 3,913.35 559.05 23.6' x 23.6'
Lots 2, Block 4 11,079 3,323.7 3,877.65 553.95 23.5' x 23.5'
Lot 3, Block 4 11,052 3,315.6 3,868.20 552.60 23.5' x 23.5'
The table above shows that a five (5) percent increase in the impervious surface coverage for the four (4)
selected lots will add approximately 550 square feet of hard surface area to each lot. For example, this area
could be about 23.5' x 23.5 feet or the approximate size of a two -stall garage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
This item was before the Planning Commission on both October 23 and November 27, 2007. Draft excerpt
minutes from those meetings are attached for the Council's reference. During the October meeting, the
Commission heard presentations from both staff and the applicant as well as conducted a public hearing.
Staff's presentation identified the rationale for the city's impervious surface standard, the PUD's limitations
on housing options and summarized the public comment received prior to the meeting. Staff noted that
while the Engineering department does not believe approval of the request would have a negative impact on
the existing storm sewer system, the issue is of the applicant's own creation and there is no technical reason
to grant the request.
2
The applicant noted that changes in the Building Code along with the slow down in the housing market has
combined to limit the marketability of some lots. Three residents spoke during the public hearing focusing
their comments on three topics: the new drainage way installed as part of this development, landscaping to
screen the development and the timeliness of this request. In the end, staff recommended approval of the
applicant's request with the conditions that it is limited to five lots and subject to the condition that the
applicant replaces any dead landscaping originally approved for the development and adds landscaping to
provide a more effective screen along the western property line.
After some discussion, Chairman Messner supported the staff recommendation subject to conditions of
replacing dead landscaping and increasing site landscaping to provide better screening. Commissioner
Howell stated that although only a slight increase is requested, she felt builders need to be more creative and
offer more incentives rather than rely on the city to changes its standards. The Commission then voted two
(2) to two (2) and the motion was not approved.
Chairman Messner offered several options including more discussion amongst the Commission to try to
come to a consensus, tabling the item until the full Commission could vote on the issue, or moving the item
forward to the City Council with a split recommendation. Given these options, the applicant requested the
Commission table the item until the full Commission could act on the application and to allow more time to
work with neighboring property owners to address their concerns. The Commission then unanimously
continued the item.
The item was back before the Commission on November 27`''. During that meeting, the Commission heard
a brief presentation from staff regarding the efforts of the applicant since the last meeting. Staff noted that
the applicant has altered their request from five (5) to four (4) lots and offered to replace two trees lost
during construction of the adjacent drainage way as well as install six (6) new maple trees to provide
additional screening for the neighborhood to the west. Staff concluded by reaffirming their
recommendation for approval and noting that as a result of the applicant's efforts, two of the three residents
that testified during the public hearing now support the request.
The Commission discussed the item and had questions for both staff and the applicant. Commissioner
Howell reiterated she could not support the request based on the fact that she believes builders need to be
creative and come up with incentives to sell their products rather than look to the City to make changes in
zoning standards. Chairperson Messner stated his opinion is that given the PUD process and the change in
the building code that eliminated one of the floor plans, he agrees that it is better to have variety in the
neighborhood rather than have all homes have the same floor plan. Also, he stated the drainage issue has
been taken care of and the additional screening would be beneficial so he supports the recommended action.
The applicant, Mr. Ron Mullenbach, responded that the applicant's request is not solely about market
conditions although it is a factor. He gave an explanation of how D.R. Horton began with three floor plans
for the neighborhood and ended with only one due to the change in the building code eliminating one floor
plan and one other simply not selling. He further stated that they do not want four homes in one area
having the same floor plan, which is why they are requesting an increase in the impervious surface to allow
for a variety of available floor plans. Mr. Mullenbach stated the development did not create drainage
problems on the property; the drainage problems were pre existing which the City has appropriately
addressed. He further explained that there is an open outlot that D.R. Horton plans on deeding to the
neighborhood association in the north. The association plans on using the outlot for community gardens.
Mr. Mullenbach stated that D.R. Horton has already planted an additional 46 trees that were not on the
original landscape plan.
3
After some discussion, Chairman Messner motioned to recommend the City Council approve an increase in
the impervious surface coverage standards from thirty (30) to thirty five (35) percent for the four selected
lots subject to conditions. The Commission voted three (3) to two (2) and the motion was approved.
BACKGROUND
Crosscroft 3' Addition was approved by the City just over one year ago in June of 2006. That approval
rezoned the neighborhood from R -2, Moderate Density PUD to R -1, Low Density PUD and re- platted it
from sixty -seven (67) detached "Lifestyle" townhomes into twelve (12) "Lifestyle" townhomes and thirty
five (35) single family homes. The re -plat included a 3.4 acre outlot Outlot D) containing a wetland which
is covered by a conservation easement preventing any future development.
The rezoning and re- platting of this neighborhood resulted in a change in the required impervious surface
coverage standard from forty (40) to thirty (30) percent as well as reduced the unit count from sixty -seven
(67) detached "Lifestyle" townhomes to twelve (12) "Lifestyle" townhome and thirty -five (35) single family
lots with an average lot size of 14,477 square feet. The applicant believes that even with thirty -five (35)
percent impervious surface coverage they request, the reduced unit count and dedicated wetland open space
will insure that the overall development will not exceed thirty (30) percent coverage (see attached narrative).
There is precedent for granting this request. In 2004 the City approved a PUD amendment for Glendalough
Phase One establishing a thirty -five (35) percent impervious surface coverage standard for all lots and up to
forty (40) percent on selected lots. In 2005, the City approved another amendment extending the thirty -five
(35) percent impervious surface coverage standard to all lots in Evermoor Glendalough Phase Two. These
amendments were approved based on the findings that the Glendalough neighborhood as narrower lots,
lesser setbacks and recessed garages and these factors tend to create longer driveways that increase
impervious surface coverage. It is also important to note, the applicant has worked with staff to reduce their
request down to four specific lots, rather than the whole neighborhood as was done with Glendalough.
DISCUSSION
There are three main reasons for communities to have impervious surface coverage standards. The first is
related to storm sewer design capacity. The impervious surface of an area establishes the amount of
stormwater run off produced by a given development pattern. The higher the impervious surface, the
greater the amount of storm water run off. Staff uses the ordinance standards to design the City's
stormwater treatment facilities including catch basins, pipe dimensions and infiltration pond size to protect
against flooding. If all developments exceeded the ordinance hard surface requirements the existing
stormwater design standards could not adequately handle all the drainage. Therefore the City tries to
maintain the ordinance criteria to ensure there is adequate infrastructure for development. However, this
request creates a minor deviation from the ordinance standard and according to the City Engineer would
not have any impact on the City's overall system or the regional system in the area.
The second is to provide open space. This open space serves both important recreational and
environmental functions providing for outdoor pastime as well as natural water infiltration. As noted
above, the potential increase in hard surface is approximately 550 square feet. It is unclear that this area is
great enough to impact environmental or recreational opportunities for the future homeowner.
4
The third reason for communities to have impervious surface coverage standards relates to aesthetics.
Green open space is a key characteristic of the typical suburban development pattern. Historically, this
green open space is an important reason why many people choose to live and invest in a single family
suburban home. Again, it is staff's belief that the amount of hard surface increase would not be obvious to
neighborhood residents.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of an impervious surface coverage increase from thirty (30) to thirty -five (35)
percent for Lots 16 and 18, Block 2 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 of Evermoor Crosscroft 3` Addition,
subject to conditions. In exchange for this concession in the PUD, the applicant offers to plant six (6)
new maple trees to enhance screening along the western property line. While the applicant acknowledges
that the factors limiting their ability to market homes in this neighborhood are of their own creation, staff
fords an increase of five (5) percent in the impervious surface coverage for the four smallest lots in this
neighborhood should not have a significant impact on the three reasons for impervious surface coverage
standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution.
5
Page l of l
Jason
Some thoughts that I've discussed with my sales agent:
Due to a lack of sales of these particular units, D.R. Horton has had to discontinue the Colonial and Gleneagles
floor plans. They remain available floor plans in Westport only because of the lot fit issue.
The Colonial is no longer attractive to buyers since the recent building code change that increased stair tread
sizes. This has pushed the stairs too close to the front entry and made the foyer too small.
We completed a Gleneagle spec home in Westport on Lot 4, Block 2, Evermoor Crosscroft 3rd Addition and it has
sat empty even with substantial price cuts, while other specs have sold. This was spec'd on this lot due to
impervious surface /fit issues.
Our most popular plan is the Chesapeake on a walk -out lot. Due to impervious surface issues, the Chesapeake
does not fit on many of the walk -out lots, so an increase on all lots would help that situation.
Due to setback issues, the only home that will fit on Lot 13, Block 2 is the Gleneagles so we are locked in to
building one on this lot.
Yes, we backed ourselves into this corner, but at the time that this was designed we did have homes that would fit
each lot, but the building code change all but eliminated the Colonial as an option, and the market started going
south after our approvals. In a good market we could get the homes sold on these lots, but cannot under the
current conditions.
As part of the approval, we upgraded our architecture to include front porches, etc. This additional hard surface
has made the lot fits more difficult.
Re- platting does not work: Lot 4, Block 4 is too small to lose lot area, otherwise we run into the same impervious
surface issue on that lot. Due to setbacks, we could only lose a couple of feet from Lot 5, Block 4, which is not
enough to solve our problem on Lots 2 and 3, Block 4
I asked for the increase in impervious on all lots for three reasons: 1) for ease of administration City staff would
know that the whole neighborhood is the same, instead of having to look back at specific legal descriptions; 2) so
all homeowners would be treated equally when they start to ask for pools, patios, etc. in the future; and 3)
because it seemed reasonable based on the Glendalough precedent and the fact that we previously had approval
for 70% impervious over the same ground with the same storm water system. However, if the City prefers to do
this on a case by case basis, we understand and would ask for consideration on the following lots:
o 13709 Crossmoor Avenue (Lot 15, Block 2): Only Gleneagles and one Concord 2 elevation would fit (not
including Colonial)
o 13723 Crossmoor Avenue (Lot 16, Block 2): Only Gleneagles and one Concord 2 elevation would fit (not
including Colonial)
o 13789 Crosscroft Place (Lot 18, Block 2): Only Gleneagles and one Concord 2 and one Legacy elevation
would fit (not including Colonial)
o 13724 Crossmoor Avenue (Lot 2, Block 4): Only Gleneagles and one Concord 2 elevation would fit (not
including Colonial)
o 13710 Crossmoor Avenue (Lot 3, Block 4): Only Gleneagles and one Concord 2 elevation would fit (not
including Colonial)
Hope this helps. Let me know if you'd like us to look anything over. Thanks.
Ron Mullenbach
D.R. Horton, Inc. Minnesota
20860 Kenbridge Court #100
Lakeville, MN 55044
952- 985 -7827 (Office)
952 -985 -7400 (Fax)
10/18/2007
Page l of l
Lindahl,Jason
From: Ron A Mullenbach [ramullenbach @drhorton.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:15 AM
To: Lindahl,Jason
Subject: Evermoor Crosscroft 3rd Addition
Attachments: _1119074959_001.pdf; Letter Bob Wetherbee 11- 01- 07.pdf
Jason
I've included a revised landscaping plan (attached) intended to mitigate for the concems raised by the
homeowner at 13770 Shannon Parkway at the October 23, 2007. As we discussed on -site, the concems is
believed to be the sight lines between the main floor of the home on Shannon Parkway (one -story rambler) with
the main and second floor of the home on Crosscliffe Path. To attempt to screen this sight line, and that of the
adjacent home to the north, I am proposing to plant six additional maple trees which are fast- growing and have a
higher thick canopy. I also reviewed the existing plantings and noted that two of the trees that were originally
planted were lost as part of the storm sewer project. Those two missing trees will also be replaced. I think it is
important to note that the screening that was put in place is substantial, nearly 20 shrubs and trees behind Mr.
Cool's house alone, but needs some time to mature. I did attempt to contact Mr. Cool on two different occasions
to discuss the landscaping (by leaving a phone message and personally stopping by his home) but have not
heard back from him.
As was always planned, the outlot between the single family homes and the detached townhomes has been
seeded and mulched and will be re- seeded in Spring. Prior to the October 23 meeting we had final graded the
area, but were not able to seed and mulch due to the almost two weeks of on and off rainfall we had just prior to
Halloween. Once the ground dried, we were out to complete the restoration. If drainage is moving through this
area then the site grading is working according to the approved grading plan.
One additional informational item is a copy of some of our floor plans that do not fit on the lots in question
(attached). I have hatched the areas of the front porches to illustrate the hard surface added by these features,
which were included specifically for this neighborhood (along with the cedar fronts) as part of the craftsman
architecture. As you can see, the areas of the porches are significant and coupled with the additional 10 feet of
length of the driveways contribute to the hard surface issue.
I've also attached the November 1, 2007 letter from Bob Wetherbee in which he withdraws his objection to the
PUD.
It should also be noted that prior to the next meeting, weathering permitting, we will have begun construction on a
Concord II on Lot 15, Block 2, which is one of the lots in question. This could reduce our request to just four lots.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Ron Mullenbach
D.R. Horton, Inc. Minnesota
20860 Kenbridge Court #100
Lakeville, MN 55044
952 985 -7827 (Office)
952 985 -7400 (Fax)
11/19/2007
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2008
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR EVERMOOR CROSSCROFT 3 ADDITION
D.R. HORTON, INC.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from D.R. Horton, Inc. requesting PUD Major Amendment approval concerning
property legally described as Evermoor Crosscroft 3 Addition; and
WHEREAS, the amendment would allow an increase to the impervious surface coverage from thirty (30)
to thirty -five (35) percent for four (4) lots in the Evermoor Westport neighborhood legally described as
Lots 16 and 18, Block 2, and Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, of Evermoor Crosscroft 3 Addition, subject to
conditions; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to replace two trees lost during construction of the adjacent
drainage way as well as install six (6) new maple trees to provide additional screening for the neighborhood
to the west; and
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2007 and November 27, 2007, the City of Rosemount Planning
Commission reviewed the application and recommended approval of the amendment by the City
Council; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2007, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission's recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement for Evermoor
Crosscroft 3 Addition, subject to:
1. Execution of the Major Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement for
Evermoor Crosscroft 3 Addition
2. The applicant is to replace two trees lost during construction of the adjacent drainage way and
install six (6) new maple trees to provide additional screening for the neighborhood to the
west.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of January, 2008, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
RESOLUTION 2008-
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
2
AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
EVERMOOR CROSSCROFT 3 ADDITION
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
THIS DECLARATION made this day of 2008, by and
between D.R. Horton, Inc. Minnesota, a Delaware corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the
"Declarant and the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the "City
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property described as follows:
EVERMOOR CROSSCROFT 3 ADDITION, hereinafter referred to as the "Subject
Property and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to a Planned Unit Development Agreement,
Crosscroft 3td Addition, Single Family Homes DR Horton, Inc., dated June 8, 2006, and
recorded with the Dakota County Recorder as document number 2439510, on June 21, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as the "Planned Unit Development Agreement and
WHEREAS, Declarant wishes to amend the Planned Unit Development Agreement as
hereinafter provided, which amendment has been approved and consented to by the City of
Rosemount, acting through its City Council, as evidenced by the duly authorized signatures of its
officers affixed hereto.
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 Planned Unit
Development Agreement except as modified herein.
a. The Planned Unit Development Agreement is amended by adding the following:
4. The use and development of Lots 16 and 18, Block 2 and Lots 2 and 3,
Block 4 of Evermoor Crosscroft 3` Addition shall conform to the following
Impervious Surface coverage standard.
a. The four (4) properties listed above may contain up to thirty -five
(35) percent impervious surface coverage. This amendment extends an additional
five (5) percent of Impervious Surface coverage to these four (4) lots above the
thirty (30) percent allowed by the underlying zoning district standard. Nothing in
this amendment should be interpreted to extend this additional five (5) percent
impervious surface coverage allowance to any other lot within the subject
property.
1
2. Except as modified by paragraph 1 of this Amendment, the Planned Unit Development
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
3. The obligations and restrictions of this Amendment 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 Amendment 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.
DECLARANT
By
Its
(SEAL)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2008, by the for and on behalf of
a by and on behalf of said
Notary Public
2
This Amendment is approved and consented to by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
By:
William H. Droste, Mayor
And by:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2008,
by William H. Droste and Amy Domeier, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, for and on behalf
of the City of Rosemount, a Minnesota corporation, by and on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
City of Rosemount
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
651- 423 -4411
3
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 27, 2007
5.b. Evermoor Crosscroft 3rd Addition Major PUD Amendment (07- 38 -AMD). Planner
Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, D.R. Horton, Inc, requests approval of a major
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow an increase in the impervious (hard)
surface coverage from thirty (30) to thirty -five (35) percent for four (4) lots in the Evermoor
Crosscroft 3 Addition (Westport). This item was last before the Planning Commission during
the October 23, 2007 meeting. With only four members present, the Commission voted two (2)
to (2) two for staffs recommendation, therefore the motion was not approved. At the applicant's
request, the Commission then voted to table this item until the November 27 meeting in hope of
having the full Commission present to act on this item and to allow the applicant more time to
work with neighboring property owners to address their concerns. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the
changes to the application and how the concerned residents now feel about the matter.
Commissioner Schultz asked Mr. Lindahl if he had spoken to any of the residents. Mr. Lindahl
replied that he spoke with one resident, Larry Baker, who was more neutral on the matter in the
beginning but now is more satisfied with the project.
Commissioner Howell asked if the application was not approved, whether or not the additional
landscaping would get completed. Mr. Lindahl stated that the existing landscaping that is damaged
will get replaced because the City has a landscaping security to replace them. However, he stated,
the additional landscaping is something the applicant is offering as part of the application.
Applicant, Ron Mullenbach, D.R. Horton, approached the Commission and stated that in having
conversations with City staff, he understands there is some precedence in this type of application
in the Evermoor Glendalough area. Mr. Mullenbach stated that he believes the major concern of
the residents is the sightlines and landscaping. He stated D.R. Horton will try to enhance the
screening above the existing low lying plants.
Commissioner Howell stated while she has nothing against the applicant and what they are trying
to accomplish, she believes that regardless of the market conditions, sellers need to be creative and
come up with incentives to sell their products rather than have the City make changes to the plans
to make it easier. She further stated that there are several builders in Rosemount who are having a
tough time due to the current market, and if everyone tries to have the plans adjusted to help sell
their product, then the plan will no longer exist. Commissioner Howell stated she could not
support the application.
Mr. Mullenbach responded that the applicant's request is not solely about market conditions
although it is a factor. He gave an explanation of how D.R. Horton began with three floor plans
for the neighborhood and ended with only one due to the change in the building code eliminating
one floor plan and one other simply not selling. He further stated that they do not want four
homes in one area having the same floor plan, which is why they are requesting an increase in the
impervious surface to allow for a variety of available floor plans. Mr. Mullenbach stated the
development did not create drainage problems on the property; the drainage problems were pre-
existing which the City has appropriate addressed. He further explained that there is an open
outlot that D.R. Horton plans on deeding to the association of the neighborhood to the north.
The association plans on using the outlot for community gardens. Mr. Mullenbach stated that
D.R. Horton has already planted an additional 46 trees that were not on the original landscape
plan.
Commissioner Howell asked about the waterflow concerns one resident had at the last meeting.
Mr. Mullenbach replied that the outlot next to the catchbasins needs to be regraded. He stated
that it was graded in early October with the intentions of seeding the area and then with the
additional rainfall in October, they were unable to complete the work before having a problem
with the waterflow from the exposed area.
Commissioner Palda asked Mr. Mullenbach that if this application is not really a financial issue,
then why in a letter from Mr. Mullenbach did it state "in a good market, we could sell these
homes Mr. Mullenbach replied that he was referring to the one home that isn't selling for
whatever reason and it has to do with the market condition with respect to that floor plan, but not
otherwise.
Chairperson Messner stated his opinion is that given the PUD process and the change in the
building code that eliminated one of the floor plans, he agrees that it is better to have variety in the
neighborhood rather than have all homes have the same floor plan. Also, he stated the drainage
issue has been taken care of and the additional screening would be beneficial so he supports the
recommended action.
MOTION by Messner to recommend the City Council approve an impervious surface
coverage increase from thirty (30) to thirty -five (35) percent for Lots 16 and 18, Block 2
and Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 of Evermoor Crosscroft 3' Addition, subject to the
conditions listed below. In exchange for this concession in the PUD, the applicant
offers to plant six (6) new maple trees to enhance screening along the western property
line.
1. Installation of two trees (one (1) maple and one (1) spruce) to replace these trees that
were lost as a result of installing the new drainage way.
2. Submission of a landscape security equal to one hundred and twenty five (125) percent
of the value for the six (6) new trees to insure they survive at least one growing season
as required by ordinance.
Second by Schwartz.
Ayes: 3.
Nays: 2 (Howell,Palda). Motion was approved.
As follow -up for this item, Mr. Lindahl stated this item will go before the City Council on
December 18, 2007.
EXCERPT FROM MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 23, 2007
5.b. Evermoor Crosscroft 3` Addition Major PUD Amendment (07- 38 -AMD). Planner
Lindahl presented this item. The applicant, D.R. Horton, Inc, requests approval of a major
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow an increase in the impervious (hard)
surface coverage for all lots in the Evermoor Crosscroft 3r Addition (Westport) from thirty (30)
to thirty -five (35) percent. As a PUD, this neighborhood has required home plans. Since platting
this neighborhood in 2006, the applicant discovered that the thirty (30) percent lot coverage
standard limits the number of approved home plans that will fit on several lots. According to the
applicant, the limited options available are not selling well. As a result, the applicant now requests
an increase in the lot coverage standard to allow more home options for their customers. In this
case, a major PUD amendment is necessary because the applicant's request deviates from the
underlying R -1, Low Density impervious surface coverage standard. Mr. Lindahl stated that staff
is recommending approval of the increase to only a few of the lots, being Lots 15, 16 and 18,
Block 2 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 of Evermoor Crosscroft 3r Addition.
Applicant, Mike Suel, from D.R. Horton, Inc., approached the Commission. Mr. Suel stated that
when this development began, D.R. Horton had three homes that would fit on these lots, but
today's building code changes with respect to stairs required the company to make the foyers
larger. This change took the Colonial plan from the choices available, which left only two plans.
Mr. Suel stated that one of the two plans will not sell which only leaves one plan and having the
same plan for every home doesn't seem like the type of neighborhood the City is looking for. Mr.
Suel stated D.R. Horton is requesting a variance or amendment and will accept only the five lots
recommended by staff but thought it would be easier to maintain the whole neighborhood.
Chairperson Messner asked how many different variations D.R. Horton could offer with the 35%
coverage ratio. Mr. Suel replied they could get nine different plans to fit.
Commissioner Palda asked when the mentioned building code change took place. Mr. Zweber
responded that the change took place at the first of the year in 2007.
Commissioner Howell stated she realizes the market is difficult but feels that D.R. Horton could
try to be creative and offer incentives with the plans they currently have available. She asked Mr.
Suel if D.R. Horton has tried to make upgrades, or redesign plans, or consider changing them
without changing the amount of impervious space. Mr. Suel replied they have finished
reproducing house plans and floor plans in anticipation of what the buyer wants but they are also
restricted by a PUD agreement. They have added landscaping, upgraded cabinets and upgraded
the carpet.
The public hearing was opened at 7:07p.m.
Ryan Kroells, 3750 Crosscliffe Path, stated he was the first homeowner in the neighborhood. He
feels that if the Commission allows D.R. Horton the amendment on these five lots, they'll just
come later and ask for variances on the remaining lots. He asked how close will the houses be to
each other. Mr. Kroells stated he feels this is just another oversight by D.R. Horton and should
have been addressed in the very beginning.
Craig Cool, 13770 Shannon Parkway, stated his house backs up to the lots in question. He stated
the backs of the houses look like apartment buildiings. He has a great concern with water runoff
due to a ditch that was put in behind the houses. He requested the Commission not approve the
amendment because of the runoff issue. He stated that if more hard surface area is allowed, there
is not going to be enough opportunity for water to drain where it's supposed to go and it will go
into his backyard. Also, Mr. Cool stated that the builder was going to improve the screening
between the houses but have not done anything worth the money they've spent.
Brent Preator, 3759 Crosscliffe Path, approached the Commission and also commented on the
water flow issue. He stated he feels the developer needs to take greater care with the water flow
issues.
There were no further public comments.
MOTION by Messner to close the public hearing. Second by Schultz.
Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:12p.m.
Chairperson Messner asked how the requested increase in impervious surface would affect the
setbacks of the homes. Mr. Lindahl stated that the PUD dictates the setbacks are five (5) feet on
the garage side and ten (10) on the house side and that the requested amendment would not
affect the setbacks.
Chairperson Messner feels there should be a condition recommending additional landscaping on
the west border of the development before the item goes to council.
Chairperson Messner stated the biggest issue or concern has to do with the runoff issue that
already exists. Project Engineer Dawley stated that previous improvements were made in this
addition consisting of a pipe on the west corner which borders the edge of Mr. Cool's property.
Mr. Dawley stated that Mr. Cool's property did have flooding problems prior to the installation
of the piping and ponding completed last year. Mr. Dawley stated the Engineering Department
does not believe the increase in impervious surface would impact Mr. Cool's property with
respect to stormwater runoff.
Commissioner Howell stated her opinion that although only a slight increase is requested, she
feels the market is what it is and a seller needs to be creative to sell its product, not rely on the
City to change the standards to accommodate for the fill of more homes.
Chairperson Messner asked if there are specific elevations approved as part of the PUD
agreement. Mr. Lindahl replied that elevations approved in the PUD agreement were part of the
packet for the Commissioners' reference. These homes approved for this development
consisted of twelve homes, three of which currently fit the five lots in question, and two of
those three are most viable. Mr. Suel approached the Commission and stated that with the
change in the building code, the floor plan got bigger and limited the homes available.
Chairperson Messner mentioned then that another option would be to amend the PUD with
new elevations. Chairperson Messner then stated that it would be his position to be in favor of
increasing the impervious surface on the five lots with the condition on the revised landscape
plan to improve the screening and stormwater control.
MOTION by Messner to recommend the City Council approve an impervious surface
coverage increase from thirty (30) to thirty -five (35) percent for Lots 15, 16 and 18,
Block 2 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 of Evermoor Crosscroft 3r Addition, subject to the
following condition:
1. The applicant shall install additional landscaping to provide a more effective
screen along the western property line. A revised landscape plan detailing this
additional landscaping shall be approved by staff prior to action on this item by the
City Council, with addition changes in the screening.
Second by Schultz.
Ayes: 2. Nays: 2. (Howell, Palda) Motion was not approved.
Chairperson Messner stated the Commission could extend the discussion to see if there was a
way to get a vote at tonight's meeting, could table the item with the hope of having a full
Commission at the next meeting, or could move the item to the Council with a deadlocked
recommendation which is not usually the preference. He further stated he had no additional
comments on the issue. Commissioner Howell stated she felt that if this request is approved for
D.R. Horton, then other builders will come to the City with changes to make it easier to sell
their homes and it shouldn't be up to the City to make changes to assist them.
Mr. Suel approached the Commission and stated he would prefer the Commission table the item
to give D.R. Horton a chance to review the landscaping and drainage issues.
MOTION by Messner to table this item to the November 27, 2007, Planning
Commission meeting.
Second by Schultz.
Ayes: 4. Nays: None.
As follow -up for this item, Mr. Lindahl stated staff will discuss with the applicant the items
raised at this meeting and will bring the item back to the November meeting.
S
Ii1Ab t 0 Atil Y
*Ma 11 1111 attiosilz. •,4*-4,,,*
alli
1111. 4
10,....e.1.00.1i 4Kift.. ao Obi
4. ftegliw st
it imos =taw wl*
l a or icyi v a o lar♦ I J�f 111 -■sik11-7-
Ans limi *03
a m g. 64
r fr 4 r
*-St ILI
a�
N
rE:
ryright D rounded to nearest foot N
2007, Dakota County
drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, and
e offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes
Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are
id, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department.
Date: October 9, 2007 Parcels Updated: 10/4/2007 Aerial Photography:
Robert S. Cynthia K Wetherbee
13630 Crossglenn Path
Rosemount, MN 55068 .L
1 L4
Comment on 2007 October 23 Public Hearing l
City of Rosemount Planning Commission 1 4
Rosemount City Hall
2875 145 Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 d t
RE: D.R. Horton proposal to increase max hard surface from 30 to 35%
Ref: Public Hearing Notice for Hearing on 2007 October 23rd
To whom it may concern,
Per the letter from the Planning Commission received on Saturday, October 12 as a
property owner within 350 foot radius of the subject property, I offer the following
comments for consideration at the upcoming public hearing.
First foremost, I would ask the Planning Commission to deny the request for a change
in the hard surface requirement. I offer three reasons for my position on this issue.
1. DR Horton, a homebuilder of national scale and reputation, has been
developing these lots and the adjacent developments for some time. Any
proposal for a 35% maximum hard surface coverage should have been dealt
with at the initial approval of the development.
2. It is unclear as to how D.R. Horton would take advantage of the shift to a 35%
hard surface coverage and unclear as to why they need this change now Is it
smaller lots, less green space, or larger homes? No impact of the change has
been provided to the adjacent property owners.
3 Given the stage of development in this area and that some of the specific
lots in the area have already been developed making a change at this time
would not be in the best interest of the adjacent property owners.
I am unable to attend the hearing on the 23 due to previous business commitments but I
look forward to hearing the outcome of the Planning Commissions deliberations
Additionally, in future communications of this type it would be helpful if the
Commission could direct the staff or the applicant to provide a simple summary of the.
proposed impact of the requested changes. Perhaps in this case, more clarity about how
the increase from 30% to 35% was going to be taken advantage of..
Regards,
Robert S Wetherbee
g�s3 s i�
cs=4i a
F
3 11
Sn 4 7�; 1 l' i i ;r tit f t i1 1 a t li ll 1 t mi a 1 i :f ;i1; f i ff i 111. t f ff ti f i{ i i i ai.i !ie si 1{ I I i 1 j t 4 i F i t I t1a ii II !iii 3 1 iis f 011
111 tit MI I Iif Is;.
e,01
II
Ns\ It 0 v
r II !1 i i ill i i
i i fi
4 IY
/�i, i lath
if 1 fili I /I
i i i �ait L w 1 12 1 i 1 1 ;4 5 1 fi ;l: a A
t t t; t f iI
fi Hug tip, It it 1 1 i 11 11 i J EE 1 E !t.'•t !1 f i I Y
n i l 1 1 1 I 1 Sl I; x111
1 22 2 2 22 !ij t El s Ifs 1 i Ill 3 ti i (�+s!
1 l 5 -.3 2 a. a 2 2� E E E .1 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 as 1 i lt l 1 1 N!l iI `1 Q ..77
t l a t -I t E 1 fi
1 f ICI If z 111 I i i! f i l"1 1 ij j i
l i 1' 2 t 1f I! 1 i t; j t t I 1 t 1 E i f till 1 1 s a f i i j 1 ?'iI; Hylt� li Iitllt#iif ii ii1 t;.!, f ;f t'
al s 1■v 212 ■112 1 :l 3 ■■i■e lib f j 1
I S 2 l l l 2 a Iii 3 Z If i lsi 1 l 1 [slit F i
I S S a t a S l
fir: f t„
r•
9
I i o
ii ;1 a..� a °'tor lJ r �S�`�i e
1 li c'.� -i 1 1 '4 a
tc, ‘c, 'i: W
E I I I I 1 I 1 �l
1 17 1 e. uL E i"
ae °sv e
a I I I 1 I 01. 0 i ii 30; 1 1 1
t 1 r:C4 1 J.,^ -k— I I d 4is I i riiRO z N
SHANNON PARKWAY .C)‘
112 31 •962 0212KRI 2Y12.0..21402 2.2• II••02\Y
L J
i'
9
gg m
A bV t'
A.
A A iirztoi eAg"
i ch ir I m alogalfocw
O
i 411111 A V o
O A ib i
o
V 3 3
8
I a' IIP AI
L
A A 7 I W
A P T.
in t IQ
o
0 A. I C
kh
y
tt
A1/ �t p� 4
00 1 3 1 1
y
b AA
A
lb
ICJ
CI
t
g Q`
k
1
a
B c
V
A. S
EP,
g
3
s
r O a
4
1
ril
0
0
IL 9
0
y
to
I Pm
Ito i 11
e ll* e
I x g c, 1 ...:1,,,..,
1 A s j ass Iry
.c., n It
x 0
i IA p
1
'6i 0 111351444. 11 101‘\ 40
40t
s"' *S
49 e
i
e il k?.
m
t C/3 x N
r
o
,c,
S 40�
i 1
a. -g%
n
ti 1- 161 l• ftifflislli
1
7..2 l E --7---7 1 111 1 2 I-
Ill }p II
.,T U uihIIIm
t9 0, o` li a. �f� ��lta r2
0 o a 111111101111111 C t1
r l a
z p r r n QQQ f l�'t�_" �lt-
al r IQIIQ.
w., r L I.
y n c" u' 0 w z s e llii era 1 +.r.....'' o
4 f -1
o i
0 o z 0 o 11 r! 0� 1
Z
riT
rn
z 111UUl1I 11111 if
IIIe1e n_=4
�1�'I�j x 111
U I Hi ._s
o -t tn PI I I I I ee j Yi
0 0 1 1111, a�
F S x H
11
J U °IGo�� ➢;e�lnn%
ill
al_l'I js.�t`�,
d,, 0 �1 �1 00 ®4
pi
00009 i .A ii 0000 w o g
0000®
u;illittniptiful 4+ 2.
-i m a
RESIDENCE FOR: a
IBERKS1- -111RE 2 A -1 C AFTSMAN
�.R._ 4- r T
T•
T-7 lIaTEIX'4
O 'B
i.ai1
tphf g
L Isis
II
I I..
ME
'N.7W gni i K
=;vl �llllllll W._
o l
1111 is i
o U11011I1llllV
U b b rt r z r r r -.1 m r o0 ■e
rn ni z, e r'x
A z N 4, cp° o npu1�l 11111111- s
in ,4 Iillllllll 1111111'
NM t
m IIIIIIIIII I IIIIIII 4
0000E t _i_ 0000 't
0 Cn 0 0000 e
0 tn. x 0 0 0® w _GG-� O o o u Ei a
03 -4
Z m a v D m
0 r p 9� r.,. o
7K 0 D DDa E
v.* r"� b Z
r
m 1i I IIMM 4 ZWi .r i In
IV 0 0 0 0 g
0000 h_
y 1-- r Z g
-mac-
0000® a o 1
❑Da 0® _ye p
i Z i E m CP
7 o b..
CP v ia
RESIDENCE FO
S KSI-4IiaE 2 4 -1 C AFTSM4NNl
17;x:, HORTON s
i
i]
11 1.4114 Z
n e4 IIIIIIII 1 1
El t �do 1111111111 I
1 14 MN i ErsEt
H ill
f li t iii
q0 Oh r r
ti -n Y •nm.idlili r�� s
a f J 'LTE.3_'�F�YoY� g II,II i`� ice= 7
n .D a II r�� ■i1a.� =1 r_
M1 3 e IMISIRITMEEIr4-t
D r- T 1.1. 4- a \-E!c—
❑T p 'f Gin e 1_ r�
P 1 1� l 1II01IIIII �IIIIII�III� I l TT -if E
0 r MEN 1-
0 PI 1 Clint UI !I !P �1 Ym9�� d 3 !Ems
i 1IWt$L I�I'I
f: i I 41 �o�..l.
s s o o�oa� 1 w
n i 0000El 5 -5 i\ la a
z .c� X0000 -&--0, [Ix
m 0000.E 1- 41 I.
1000®x:
r
CI 0000
0000® .7�
.--J`- -nom �b�?la-� 1
inu�^ 1"1 -"hr I o e
s� 111@ I I
DDDD
.0000®
0000® f
00DD. ®I, -I.
RESIDENCE FOR:
CONCORD Al CRAFTSMAN
C") ID,R, 14ORTON
3 -i la
11.1 z f a IIIIIUIIQJO!U
afP sl 14sri1tllflffljrTllffluhIiiI
1 I P 0 1 1 11 1111■1
Fa 6 lig4.,\
liini� .Cli i mob
A I f
g r a Ili 111-, ∎_114 .11.1 0 fb
Q 71 13, •b- ii O I���e� 3�..�b3� -5'= 1
IIIIIlIIlluIu11111111111
11 11 4 4 3
D. I➢oer� 11I•1 k p, �■i f F w
III w�
o 1 I ■aa f,
111111JU I� 1111111111 ;5/
'dal T. rin�-fir y
eo��.l_ t' Jjl
0 0 0 0 I !h l 0
g 0000®,
z a 000
a 0000 ®it P.--•••1-• 4 rk
i000Ei'
A 4 s
13 •0000®; q
DDDD�ii-
:bi ..n"n.r I t 1 1
p g
888 1
0 001 i I
RESIDENCE FOR
CO1�1COi -D Al CFRAFTSMA1\1
A P.R. 140 —TON
Cr. np.3 R
y
ga Rl IIII
k E i psi 1 .1O
1 II�IIII� r
r p E ll e
R i 5EIII4EI
Psi 5 Illlp 1111111N le
�i1G y l icl i i .rc ��iv� c
1 1 hl i t r�� r-
6 1.9 -4 Y Er 11 r IL_ _111401111111111111111 n a ll I' ._ea
m -I a 1 I y_ 1.21M=- -or.;
c. T i I' I I I F JI J I II U frk'>
O Tr A wa Z 11011111111101 o •-4 nee.
11 1 1 1 1 1 I
Z p ■U
1 3 le i
z 110 linli z 1111•11
ii
p lll l l �1 1
r
'11111
r 0 kI 1 1.11 1 1 h _2,
-4 10 111 --11.
t�
z O r
1 E si
70 !sue 4
s.IYlla,
9
DDD0 ®4 a
A� e a
DD 1D
DDDII1
D000 ®j
RESIDENCE FOR
CONCORD Al CRAFTSMAN
C7 D.R. MORTON
i
G1
`g i_yu
,(4
5.
,•-.:•r
---.774,r,,....,...-
--7-.•_,_
0 `4, .s?....-.....i ::••••;:f!;,.........,....-irl
),45:::)
0
••e,
Nill----
..r. .3
c q)
s ...,.,..,;!.:%.1 ,qe...7: ..z.,?.. .....k()e- 1 4 3i j,..),:vr,
:ii o, :::gr Z ..:J r 4 (Allik
C e: 2(
IV: ,.7,4 v.;,:•; ti 6:r
...E., 4) 0.:5•)....t.;:b. ,vr.. I drark
iY ii:V T 7--
1 :J
2
1 L
..r•-•. .:ef,, /to
4 -1 ::•.':::::':'''.4.
!I afilri 1 ''.:iNs„. 0 t! t P. f ii 0 410
0..!;',0!fittIL a v 1 :,...,k.i.:.0...,: 4„,...,............., 4 jell if
p...
.2
Z '1. 'Ir.alififilhaliji MIM Tr q''''...II:';1-:';.a!! fj) Lir A
Ilip2. iil 4.1armommal ‘"Lf.7 IC A 5"
M
gi; I 111 I
all 1111
1 ;SEEV-f--- ,.,••00 41 !:A V-i'? K ,4.1
r ,-.-.1
'..z WM 111.11 I 114I 1 qr
t li N,3 1.1. ME 1 .41. 11.;;;')
INNI (0' '1
MR I ..!...."9-.'17Nsi.'.. Ce 71 ii '7
P 111 Mil p___ ,i2MEDF: r el ;:i0 4 il••••'''' 1
T.,
,.-J IM
1 11 fge,iimigzgeir.;acia,ti---7-7---"...:„.I-;.,,.„;:,:f.i,2;11:-...-T t'ci''7ili:;.:.;';:i...:;.'t::::ii,..A.'"?4,
11111 1111111111 3 1- ;1152-111211411---- 1&.`ir ..-3
...14 al ;24 57.z
id Vieit.is.3k.... 1 Vbec 0
n 11 1 LT-1--T-mr-P-1 %k.v. 4„
O N.'. 1 !_...v. i ll limmil
MNIMMEriii ar,-,,--. t•
r....
''t•t! ..'77.4*\
i 1.111 1 1 I 1 NINE :).1.'EXPI -4 ".:1 4 1 7.;kcEi1P ;:4:),/, ,.r."4 C./ .a.
11=111___.wilftE) iii II' 11 i ir 1 51 ht l 1 :2? i. '.7'-=- 7; 1 I *9 I .'1. I M I i I I 1 I i F .7 1
E 11•U..=, ...,...Z.. -mw: -e.tr= ,1 4 1)
cm iw 1 .62E.ii,:,-.L..7---_- _----_-f._ •cc.....z.•
imi=- i'l .1.... -71-Eg---,_-7- _-i. .01 •••-fl-
6 i 1 ITLERTIN, I___,Alt: _,_-_--1:47.:!t=-- ;-Y-= e l ,:i......„1-sz!„
i PIldrOgilihil •■ 1 1 1 1 iNi.E.= --7.-esir-•- -T- ..i... s l
NIMINP A:=JE. 1..V J
al
Priala9R 1 n
I I i- EgliliMillr LI ?P '42-4.)
11'4 1 1- iiiii 4 VE ,1 ;-,F_I-= 4;zip
"r" 7" fill1111111111 e ...b 2, "S
11:120:0
;1:Z4 "1"11.11 1 I 1 NUM iiefizieF.
I-
.Mer...7_
iFliii, a a
i Ili ,r,_,, 1
MN !I ..::•:th•
/211iii mu. Ii_i_...
al .I.
x 41•91 1 MN :T="1 '--7, ......'D 1,;?
11-.:
z
t 1 EN
1 1 111•11■MMIM 4
I '-l-r-2---...1"-_-. ih.
N 'T'i 0 4.41.451.411.1 r., %V
mimmil I -1111 1111111110 1 ----1
I I I'-- SIMONIMI■
2tS iliaifili411;e..._ q 1, ,,t.A 4::::v
1
i
SION '.i 7-_ 1 '1 1
I (.„..1.:.0.1 (..n.'.1.
\;.'FI s.S..
gall I 1 r-ti...r.■ i...
4. [...A ji col)
.1 .1
al
i
..x. 1 II 0 II L
1
I 1
..m..7 .i w..--k e• ,.!e4.) 'LI
t ...Yfr..,.....-: 4 ,,,c..0
10i 11 11 7 11-ritt==- i ......p74 0
9°
1. l '•=rA 1
r
1111111 ii-7 1 1
F 1 1
z
'4 4 ..f:W
Il' E .f ,i 1'
1 1
..e.
111111 -17 1 1 Il i
1-..
La 1 .....If' 0
i 1
g r il n iffili Nil rT.M I in "e: 1 1 1 k
il
cn
ilminclill IIMIIIIIIMMINNIE I
I
14 III 111 V---'-1---- 1 ss• •,h- NI) Ibil• e.•.-1 ...V.F, 4 ..,..v
ow imi lim 1 4 1 l .4 t. f i reaV:i. k■-1, 1 :ii '?•es., 4 7 i C: 4:4
..2
k i‘. it. •r.
III I 11 Z 1 Z..i.... .V.i.■ 'Si,'
,••'-if.k.'
1111LII t I
IMF
1 1
1
1 1 'F' ir •Ctu -‘44:
orinfivaai
11 33.1..g.mli
i 11
4 ...J.
„go *p I' 7 1 1 7 o ll :1`: As o 1 .7
0 S/ I ''''...r?lit,,
•e‘,';
1
I .....4
"1: 7 1} ir' 9 Y 11 11 740, 91•4:1-4- ......9,
v.
7.4.
_a %IN
.C1 "i _lk •'A4
.4 A.
3' J-?-147
..1 I I 1 l ei 0 i f
i n r i ---'211111112i11,11.■-,-----...'..."...'" .,.0:444) a pf IF, -1,
1
I ip ii A ■%0/ ....r illal .t '1
idli
a
r 87'
o
F_ g 5 R I'-5 5 /B- P
M 0 w ill A-,,- 9 vil9tiv Vila* b III z -i
l iodisolasoli. 1 u 'qua ql, III 1E6, a
0 WI 2 NEN
ID
s eiii�'�I���g� �Illlllllllll r
dRallpfiN4. _i. D
I I i mi i i i-
i ire :�'IIINllllllil!II_illl
W: 4 1101` II► 1 r i m n �IIIIIIIIIIP�9 1 1111f R R
e -g f immlluir 4 ,1 7 4
S I!0' ns: 44 1I Afiar.:, N I y
S �I t WM� Rag
g
ic -1 1o;li 111 111111 111111 g a 0.
B�
0000
0000
i. 0 0000 _�i�luu�r�l-.
i Z 0000
-I 0000
I p, DD00 3
G r 0000 N is
I� n ■liAiii e n
w o
On 0
I DRIED o DODO w
I A, z 000 2
dal RI 11 Z c,
N n
ti
r,
O
a s y s g, is...
n Z'g1g.x' t-
linCitieW k fil.
A' a. =n
j
ba I
v 4
0Q- 7, 1111 li
i Il i f ir g4 1 ,v4 4 a ,2;
Q la w� w' 1'. y n m 2 O m
aN ll 0 Z 111 A z
E O -rt 4i io G Gtr'/ l a❑E n t 41
z 1-2E-44r, y =Gr E 0 a
b k- .ca
j- A H o
a p❑ L es t er Ja F O w y
hi s j CO
Z i. m
a I1■■ t
m I
asp 9 ��I�IIIIIIIII 11111111 1
j ,I.111uumuuumumm( mumli
0 0 eIr6i� i�s� 1. I 1 r it' 0
z
li al 0 /NIP �s,i,y onal 1
Pc o cr
16�► ���hallmummumumq! �illil,ili,lllillillll 11 G\
r[ 7 6 zr 1
:1 111111111- lE 0
1 1111111111111110 3 l I I M_
=��l lllll�,
t u olimiul uuuuml v
40 111111111 1Il���� �II 4 4
r,,„„ll,,„„illll,„„ ,,„„lllilllll„„,1„,„ o
I I I I
1i;l n 111 j j j j' .1 t
BdRgria
m R ESIDENCE FOR:
COLONIAL T OAFTS
1 N1''i 1�1
33 i
�pP2x3 =1 i
w4
6
.!maa 41 IJ.
ii ii
CI -1.. I Q 'Ti 0 ma tl�.�.,-
7-
73 r mi 0 0 z D e .o ❑ill B
3
Z 11-2-k,77/
1
ems: i
dri al11lll<111 11111 1
i�i90
0 p 1/1 I r- o r (1 r I=II 1- it m r*
o�� r�'������ii�n IIIIIIII {II 0 0
Z. Prardrirt
111111111�'�II z m
p,
=lid nno 1,.
s r as o
.-.�.a. aa7 tIf -i iA-= -E�sp,
B
t o =r
`i 'I o
1
RESIDENCE FOR:
COLONIAL CiRAFTSMA
D 1-10R
i
P
•l•_ S ig
-"3 4 iF.;a a c-
c S L
•3 a Illllllll
m r
'nn 711111111111 111111111111 IIIIIIIIIII 111.101111,- ".m..._ 1 4
11111110.114..Rniz,. i
Qt (.0 -r l M gy r
0 Mi MI
t I n E =r,
a In I ii A�i� j��
o Z Wllh 711111111111 111111111111 (III(Ilf @II 1-fi r•
O I11111111�
u J 1,, mums
-I NRAEMEMOmi Z it'
O a sr a r
r 1 A z t ��it s
A -1 aS NM ±c
11 _____'4
IL i- 41
x.,
�-P. o
IurI:
igentaiii
tm 4 oA
x a
a o n b O
t
r ��i9ilp tl2.1r. E A
Pal oom'S 3 6E
S �m
z Ot
11 1 1.113. xi
n E
aDg3
•1 tf.
ril r
!P
GLENEAGLES At CRAFTSMAN e
D P,R. I- HORTON INC,
fy aa =c
O ssg ,1z.¢sc go-o-g
B L L t 1
mot 0 _it,
m .11lftl_I111 1111111111Itsffi I
0 -n .F1 i NEM
L71 I I� G sou 1
b ir- m
-.1 l it
i I- i.:�t i
P fl fl "II.
a 6,��I R: �z
nsQilunn�ru
;I■■■i
0 A og l
22 F-6 =La.
A
GI I I II�Y 1 m A Z d
C il T. rn a3 0mQ BOm a
�1 pp O a
X A OAE
=ADE
y
i it
V+
RESIDENCE FOR: g 1
GLENEAGLES Al CIRAFTSI1AN
RTF
yyv
5 ki14-5.11
a s F=6 g i 1 M' °m=F, P v
g D 0000® I C y -,.a -2 r r D o 0® F A D
0 00 0 ®s� D
tr m DDOB H�n�
0 00. 1Y L;\ F AOQ
p P D D niNiY ■O��y� E Z R
0000® m 9�
1 m RR8ri rm
D000gl i l aw''
a 1T 0000® 4
m� D0D0® i
z
p ens !i ll!illL' 1101111101
0 1 0 IIIIIIIIII 1 HIIIIIIIIII --1
Iunlnlllllllll
O00 I
5
i I R Era p. 11 Y
0
0 71 NillikAiii5 s Q �llL�nlll 11111111011
A
F 1 1 i 1 1 1 111_ t
ii i nmmII
RESIDENCE FOR:.
CA BRAEMA 4 CRAFTSMAN
1D.RORTON
D
x
o
ll +3
n i,fs.dst i .3 E 1
ti -1- 7iAgi `Addle.: o z 'is
i
8 fi 0 0 D E1 D's
r rr
00000; NW\ k 00000 mows
S i a
u 84 00000
r 4 96•i.i •EEPA i I R
N II. TTT
U ®1F 0 3
m (em norm
V
i 000.00 11111111/
HRB 000001
1 O F
z M o _IIIIIIII IIIl
n D 7 :._7_:_: _arme 1 z
A NU B MINIM —I- ,-.0
JIiiIIilli'
7 T! IN t
000 41 Ia
f 000
J I
I nmunnn u�
o o 1213 96��j' I I I lI Mb Abb oED 1 gee 111111IIIII1 Illlllllllll Mk
z R m tt i ■tt 77,-/
3 air I: I :l i
x m i. RIM grit- il l
�9�1 1111: Il!
3
b
RESIDENCE FOR: CRAFTSMAN
I
E.)) ,siU a 3 f
-t s �i A A
E eR.
fl S l'6a4S
n ,i.ai 3fl
0000
7 P 0000 =m
m L u mr��l /r m
o 2 r 7 m 1 9i �n° 41 f 1 r
6 .1:1, I
m= -1,-
m 1 N� I■■■
z io ll I o
cp cr J�
O Dflfl a
z 0 lit
111!
1111 41 i. J.
Ili 16 I'I i i 1
Ii
1�16,� 9;1..,.. 1
0 0 {j I X E. N. ng o
0 I 1♦S Am.�
b j9�� p.1 �r■I.�. LIMO 1111111 �H
o r r I i ffluio F
,iIiuuiIi
1 111
1-11 10;; ■■f
M limmumill'' 1 rail: ibil r. 14
III ■Ming
■■G m
=..iii ■o -4
■■E_-
l mi I iIIIIIllhi t 4 i _I
Imo b Qb
E
RESIDENCE FOR: Ia
CWESAPE KE "A" CRAFTSMAN
D.R.
gg
i
i-
2 g g.$e 6a
I, a. a e.F. IQI1 5 rrr G" I 9
-C ma
-n ❑1f I 4 o
g b rt r rdl,�ji rTjjl y .1 "It
m r ,F,.
0
jh o. F ■i �G I,
ll N N NN 1 a III.
�'�fls� lr }I}
00110
r 1 1 n
o al
Z Et r 4__F J-
i 19 IIII IMI I l7.
j9dR��, a�� k
i'�6��1�1� �S til �1■�IK ea 1 MI� J y
0 o n 16� �9�; 11112211 s
Mat
r i I
z I i
IIIIIIIIIIII 1 1111 j
r r�� ,t
HHB il IBM ANEW
m Itat min i I I 1-
j IIlllllll1! 4 IIIIIIIII
i No
r E �li� i 1 11111111111 t r
s -4.
RESIDENCE FOR:
C1- 4ES4PE4K "A" CRAFTSMAN
r
®pigs"
RY a
1 n u t i
s 33ce
'R p \¢p� �u ,ti `o 4
u n p a-
§qt: 0]] ilk
k9
0o R
m u
1
t t
3
No. i
I:: 1
1 -rt 1°
1111 -t
t u
1111�
f e/
1plpos ,r6t7os r0i7�s i
ID tit f
!0 191 fit A IIIIIII�I y,.
0 z 1 11116 k eldi l l, MEM' MONE_____:-_,', T
p
0 -1 iisiiit MN n f� I�� �i i i i�iy�l l��lg l it r
z I 0_1.n. i .,Ike iluliIIII!
P 2711115111 n inl l elI l
1 A r 1 oo,r r1 1'/
illll$
z
eii1� d
r �IIIIII n 111 y.
ii-1; r 22- 1> 1 Um& 1
r
z
Co Imo' 1 .-1 Wilk
0 1 n7�,9 iffillilt i
s
RESIDENCE FOR c3
HANCOCK A -1 C AFTSMAN
D.R. 1- 10 1-NC,
(2 j i i i..
fl ,i
Er !Will Pet' D D
00D_.M
r
a D: r
b CI( TI O 11 1
la rril DDD D.E"e s—•e F
DD DD®1i t.�.
CD cr, A D iaDD
D D DUE ice; -1
A C f oil g in e 1y °o Illl w, ■it:IiiiroA„i
�a°���. 1f I E=
s
z 11 1 9 °0 1:�y rl Erst. 1 1 1
P 01 I_. IR a�.!9 111111
o i likiiii IIIIIL
c
A DD O e e� m1
I EJLJLJlir �1�;�
O 5
z Illlll�r
e l i i 4
1111111 Illlif�
0O s r 3=
z r
o II I
��o 111111=
'i
RESIDENCE FOR
HA NCOCK ,4 -1 C ?AFTSMAN
I fR H- 4ORTON INC.
®n .a
I
i 5 11401
i 3 @f \--t, f .a�.r
ri1it 0_I si fi
C]0i
-�Ne a 0 1 4 1
b
E y 2
r r `tiunnn
II
u ur 4 i ly�lllll A
V p p 1 Rill;
II r
-IT r II
71 b 0011111_
li
1111 I■
1111,x;
1=
icl��".` tee,,
no it li r
.a 44113,411 AI O al IIIIII1 i i en ,L
m -ms.:µ 'Xi o
It r i p I_ �ii� m z l o lig ,m,-„imma,,,„..,
I la IIII
Z
iTJ i+r reG� ms s@
him o xi =E3E11 rI .11 e '7
s s z niii�n 111111
i Mo it
z o 0 iii
1
Q
0 i ll' I IIIIIIII(IM Hillitillg
RESIDENCE FOR
1- 1ANCOCK A -1 CRAFTSMAN
4 DAR. 1- 0-RTON 'INC.
4
R n
P .G a9 .o
a. a 4u
•g a3 x
o
N
s a BLIPII II II �m 11 I �I !1 1711 11' 1'8! 1, !1 1
�:efl Qil efl ,�i efl I @I Qp
6 6ijl 4 64611G cn im CBs l l,m X66 a in_ OGen_ el
1 llil9i�h1111 'irllUlfl'��111i1ii,g0i A ilg1ll'lIa1�V11111,illnill410 I'1 1
itwlr o:��lli io i■■
g' hell moms■ 66,I
16a� t11�, ■.III ��I� G m.
16■. 6 11 Nu. 14441 a. u 1 1
I 11 IIIi val�l� u��l �l l�ll NmilhiU�.1 ll�l11:111 11 1
i
ol■. IA- :..0..06. I
ri pIO I II LF Its I 6 .innlh d9 .8un1 1
Illll�fll�lltllll 'I'1111101111'I__ I
C'P I w M. 1. ="2-= 0. I 1
A sal.. 1
5 �ICIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIiII'lll�� V
10 a l llr■ 4
1 NI J, v i II I'•
I fl�`� �I �I i�� 1��1 1 .IIIIIIId,IIV�I�IIIII��IEl a
P Ill�V i��iafP I I i !hill lmliliili;�l�m
i
1 1 il l l� aiQIlG ■III I�� l I .d 1
nitift rie. 1 eUna,um uq E
li iluumiuOv
II II ll
III 111 CI litillOr PJr 11
Eni a li tiV IM M i llin -7. ,i4J54
(i
___M: Il lI lII►I�
m II i
G,7M
II e�i
a D 1 0141111ll.::�1I11
N Op -I
O 7
'I. O
,m 1
V)
Ii°
.c.
s?
g ,11',9=4.,..
k ;7-2.-.111
.-q
,,,-4.-a r
g• 3. g
.g. 1 2-li ..i
"X 4- I I
R. gi !!!MIIIIMIMENI: i. 1-- Iti
1
R. rimmvalliggsvpil ri t
Rrisiareditra,,m,„;,,
use!: it:
ii m.,.. ,T.16
-..m,
law MN !E
9E:••••
a will _A:up A g 1
2 lekagVilEVIVIVIIIPr
le•IN,.■
arl"
it
I 1 161
P4
BiEsi i I
1 1 1.
1; .1
re
I 1 1
A
1 1
in pils• 1,
I h. 41*- I 1 1
9 LE.E:r.tEztraff-•=7;:,
1
1=:11M:101 1
1 ,i, ir 1
I
In I .1 WW I -n
EMMEN ME NM
•iri 1111101111111IN 11111111111111 IlL
8 11111111•1111
T.
n MEIN 1 I 1 ...1
i
i z .E,..;.E.-:. 4'i 1 0 1
[Eiza 1
:8 110111110411:11 17-!Er 1 1 11
5
-5'.
,all 16•A mi I I
'I, 0117 0 P 1 I III.1 I. i7 i 4 i 1 r
p?
r.,.. N,I•
P
i II 1 I I I I 'J 1
11 1 t ,,.ti,.
I 1
ommin EA L 11,1
NI, K RI I
MINI iiiii, rs= i,„
11 II 1 1 Imp
am.
..i.s.,..,,s 4 i lel 1 II,.
ivolelifigniTior P I
nil.--.3.
:1!'21A UF211
MOR ZiEtiar i i!i•
I ;E:l
t 1 1 1
I 1 2' MINI
1 1
1111 ''.-4 I 1
70
II I II II 1 1
0 0 0311masdis 1
.....7,04....,,,.,1 i
i
0
1 2 1
c...
-1
rt
i
'a5ra
C B F• a a
v 3 g.®
°g 4
MI
�rr,i ��i.o'�sR IIHII llllIUlihI
MITE M11117111 i
M�� ■U I i II�
MEMlME
1• 0 I r. ter
iia 111111111111111 I PENN ;14-14.F.
0 141151 I I 1
Ike a�.0_BQIa�
g 111117 .....;;...�d..�.� IJ I M 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
L. J NWT
on I E1 II I
1anyttC.YmIr ett 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I i
W M Iur III 111
3 1.E 15 MIME O .M F_ I
AApja 0.... NE 14!
Jim MEIrli !I Wilite ig.r-v1P"
.8 Itillilil 11•111011111 0 1111111•1111_4 1 311P 11111111111111111111111
g 1111 lira El
J-
111 iiIii 1111111 ID!' it I
11 I !I I I
iI•
I o:
1 ■o
2
I it 1 i
m T. ,,�ooilIM l i
:.014101
N.) IN
O
O
U
L z
X
I
I
II
t
bit 4
1 Ell j
9 y^'^imM
o d 1
i 5-13
I_
N ii 1 14 p AMIIII
I
ngn 1 I
I 11111,111111' 711
-1 ;117'll• 1 f
I
m 1■■II11II1I�
mr 1111111111111 u y �L ■I'll i IIIII 74
t ■II_1, I1__
Z ImnmlIIM IIVI I
Isiii r
ill 1111=111MMi i 1 1 I
nR 1E 1 1 1 1 1 li I
n9i �mllllll um! 11 i
fill ®®1=' Q.
;01;343-140-5 t 11111 �IIIIIIIV
gag i 1,, Mu I!, of v i I'�1I It I
1 e •a•l..irr
e 4 X1111 II. i 1 1 111119 nII 1!111 1
w
a 1. I1. e'
g i1 u 1
r
1 4/ a
g i r
Y 1 1 1
r llta•MMEMEM11
S O
LA
!i r
D Y Aiiii i 11°444
tli5 g
fli
S-
g g
iE
3 ri 96
s A ,r Rl
A �i P v
1- I■�II�\Hi
g
r
PI �lI II1 1 1 Ili 1 li
n— 16511, r p �I a
Iii I 4
III i 0
Fl I 1 1 i
D 1 nu
s
t m 1 4 i _q E
r I J F i it a
Fri ai
111111 1111111
g -i r
e i 11 i `ll''II(ill,'!elf,
r6 1 MT i
1 I
1- IIIIII i W A (i) III iIllu1
III -1—F6 I,i,\
.r 1[ i �L— j l 1, 1 1 111 I,i1\
1
ill �I�tl�llfll 6 I,1 lif
Z I il I 4
rr I I I ,I{ l
i
z
1 eI
g m
1
O
J 9
r Y
o D
to
O o
1
F— (J J M
I.J—I o0
'y O u
w 1 ci
C2) :CO CY
.X
I
n N C V
1 t I .o I r7
r -,O�i Q r.._.
L .L..
N.
1
r
L.O
/2
`-4� NI
;h1114h A:
4\ Alibi
V7.411;
Ail
I
i
ill.
1 8
1 1
I-- CJ) U 1
1.....L-1 c 1 co
c:.---
(f)
I
tt t
1-11 C 's1 I Cir
GO Cie
f.r)
1 .--I-- 1
co eo
co.
C•4 GO
L()
1
P 1
i amossairs
n 1
1.-
•1
-F
..z
i: t.
LL 1_,..J 4;
_I
co t4I.,, tr,
........i.........._........
1
1* -f-•
I
i•
1 i
i 1
I
.i
I I
1
1
1
I
11
1
1.-............ I i
......4 i
k. ....L
i
do
cD
...s.
1
I V.L.-Nont
111111011, Nall ;111-r:r 1
r
11
Not _iv
1 i
111111i
1
P
1 it i
I
.I
I
1
i p
Q O
W l
DG
Y
`.s
W .o z o
j/
I
4 f r
i f
k it
1
I
7.1 F/ f 1 w I j r' NNI4
00
1 i l c�
1,1
7
Li,i.,
0,.-r., .1% i
1 17 it
f Ei
i
w'
1
,r IF
it g il l
I N-
CD I C•••1
1--- V i Cr)
r•-••
C:
c:
Li_l
I L
c: r:D tc t
LL_I Lt.1 I ci 1
Cr) ci
C2) 1--- IT) CO V i i
t CV
Lt.1 a r'') c
i.
10 I 1
I ------......---.......,L..............______ .....i....._........,
/1111■11/
U.]
I
I-L-1 C., ...t.----
C i
1,4 CZ,
L.i...
Fz.. —..-----...---1
r I
I
f.
..i..--....-
‘..i-----
I
..f-
NI,
1
i I
1
11
°I(414 4k 41 41 1 1 1
<I 11 4.
N'll
f
&lil
I
i
1 1 I
N.,
i
ti
N.
s.ii
...................4............_____________>... I------
--.4
1
................L..........................._........................
i
i
c�
f a
O W.
CX
LL Cr) r
W I
GO Cil
S I I
U: L7! c!s ,j i
W C) ca z o
a .Q._ w_._..
I
t f,
_..._._.w.__...-_. 4%3
es
co
i Shik 111%1 i
`N.
........._..___Y._.., 1
r
„6
l
o
0 Cr) I',"
Lv CX) i
..0 1 1 1 `New
(f)
o p F
W u
C] N N En C`
U O C L l cwt
Q z w_.._.__.___ w_ rw _._._._.._._.___rw._.w._.r.___ _w __.w_.__. r._._. r
1 1 ...z w z ct 1 i
t.
1
1
N.
r F .wu.u...w.r,•w.nurur..u,...wru. N
J ff
N f�+" f ti :'I' it r ..r.ww._
i 11101111.. GI. 1 4 1 01. „414 4:14
f rM1U. war ..r
f
II
I
I
1
C=5
Ir`r,
I
C2 L_LJ
T C:'
-.ZC LA_1* Cr)
r_7. 1 L
t...1 L
L.L..] ii ci
cr., ci
C:) I-- .1
fr)
cs,
(Co
I
co n
c...) 1
i
....c
CZO
1,
1
ii
.......................1 ...............:._._.......f.......,.........................................................................._..........................................._..........
1 1
i
I i
t
I
i
Z
i
I
I 1
Z
I I 1 Z
I 1
I
I
I
N.
1
I
I
I
I 4....t
N.'s...Ns.
1
14
11
7
I
In
CO
i
I
N.,.......
I i
....N.
I
1 I
N
1
I
I
1
I
I
7
I N
1
i
I i I'
W
1
11 1
--aut
i
1
Lg
i
11
F N) CT)
T) c:
L...il
cf--)
C .2 12 a I LL. 1---
L1—I
cz. c•r) dr
(=t 1— cc, u•
d 3-- V.)
c
-=C t c:n c`.. n
1 1
c.._.) 1 n
1
A
•CC
C__D e-q
L.J.._1 1 1 c., i=, N..„..
1 r-) E i
Z
r--•
,....t i
,..L.
V
.1
1 N.-..
1
i 7 .......4.:
i
I
I
I N- 2
I
N.,
1'0
'''N "k
<-0
i
r......,
1 11 !1 6 1.`"....".“•-• .1 iti
1 8
i
r
i
1 ..7„.. ;J N .4.
I
i.
...e.;...
ef..L........1 1
1
111.•
i
L-40g