Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
8.a. Brockway Area Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit DevelopmentFinal Development Plan, Shoreland Overlay District Permit & Wetland Conservation Act Permit and Outlots of Brockway Final Plat, WCA Permit and Mitigation Plan
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: July 6, 2004. AGENDA ITEM: Brockway Area Preliminary Plat & Planned Unit Final Development Plan including Shoreland Overlay District Permit, Wetland Conservation, AGENDA SECTION: Mitigation & Wetlands Exemption Permits for Did-Business the Brockway Development, Outlots of Brockway Final Plat and related Rezonin s PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner, Kim Lindquist, Community Development Dir., AGENDA NO. Andy Brotzler, City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: Shoreland Permit Resolution, WCA Permit Resolution, Preliminary Plat Resolution, Outlots of Brockway Final Plat Resolution, Rezoning APPROVED BY: Ordinance, Park Dedication correspondence, June 15, 2004 Executive Summary, Index and attachments RECOMMENDED ACTION: Five separate motions are requested. 1. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the issuance of a permit in conformance with the Shoreland Overlay District Regulations for the Brockway area preliminary plat. 2. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Wetland Conservation Act Permit and accept the Wetlands Mitigation Plan and Wetlands Exemption for the Brockway Development. 3. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat and PUD Final Development Plan for the Brockway Development. 4. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Final Plat for Outlots of Brockway. 5. Motion to adopt an ordinance Amending Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance Brockway Area Development. ACTION: Conditions Modifications: The attached resolutions reflect the recommended conditions of approval for the preliminary plat. Separate resolutions for Shoreland and WCA Permits have been provided as the ordinance refers specifically to permits for those items. As well, approving the preliminary plat / PUD final development plan depends on approval of the shoreland and wetland permits. The preliminary plat resolution contains most of the conditions originating with the Planning Commission public hearing process. However, some of the conditions have been modified for clarity or in response to subsequently identified concerns or questions raised by the Developer. z •joe}ul suoilepuawwooaa apew Alsnolnaad eqj sapnloui uollnlosai }eld �Jeulwllaad pagoe}}e eqj •suoilepuawwooei apew Alsnolnaad eqj Appow of uoseei ou mes pue sisenbei eqj passnosip uolsslwwoo uoWaaoa�] pue sued agj `gZ aunt `AepuoW uo •saiplloe; died 6ulllelsul ao; seal uoijeoipep died 1suiebe Ilpaao anlaoa�l T •esegd Isig eqj qj!m }uoildn lie jo pealsui sesegd snolaen }e spun] epinoad z - geed agj ui eaae juawasee euiladld eqj aol Ilpaao uolJeolpap puel %05 apinad :seeie aaagj ul suollepuawwoda.i uolsslwwoo uolIeaaoa�l pue sued eqj Appow of jadolanaa eqj Aq apew uaaq peg Isanbei y uo';epuawwooab uoissiwwoo u011e8aoaM pue S)IJed }eld keulwllaid eqj uo uoijoe axle} of llounoo eqj bullgeue sngj `panlaoaa sJuawwoo ou ql!m paaidxa mou seg boM aol pored Juawwoo agl •suoisinaa Ise }el agj ul pejlnsaa ajis agj uo spuelIGM leaanas 016uljel9a salm (yoM) }oy uoliemasuoo spuelleM ejejS eqj jo uolleolldde saleaodaooui uoisaan Juaaano agl - apew `uaaq anew suoisinaJ leuolIlppe ON lenoidde leuoilipuoo aol papuawwooaa pue uoissiwwoo buluueld eqj Aq pannalnaa seen }l se pa}uesaid buiaq si jeld Aieulwllaid agl �uawdolanap age aol uoijounj se llaM se WGISAs apron -AIlo agj o} >iull a epinoid o} popualui sl it se `and eqi jo ivauodwoo leoilpo a si welsAs ueijlsepad agl •aaagnnasle paluepoei eq 01 peau Aew moll ueialsepad ag} 1egj si }lnsai eqj •seeie �IeM -ssoio algissod jo anlsnloxa Allenjnuw buiaq sIuawanow 6uluanl alolgan agj gllM 1011Ju00 lellualod a sl aiagl eaae Inoge -punoa eqj g6nojgl anow }eqj s6ulssoao ueialsepad agj jo uol}elllouooei pue `ease puelsl eqj ulg}lnn 10 sJuawaoueque Apawe 10 uollelnorpe apnloul Inoge— punoa eqj pm suiaouoo agl •o jollno uo eaje Inoge -punoa eqj o} juawouilai ubisep aag:pnj palsenbei seg jjejS '6Z aunt palep uoijejuawnoop flew -a pagoel4e ag} ui pue nnolaq papinoid si asuodsaa s - ladwaH pined woaj aouepuodsaiaoo t `5z aunt pegoe:4e eqj ui pajou se uoilepuawwooei uoijeoipap �aed ag} ui suoisseouoo pa}senbei Alleollloads seg aadolanaa eqj `aelnorped ul •suoilepuawwooaa asogj loal}aa 1ps suol}lpuoo agl •suolIepuawwooaa -4elS ao uolsslwwoo uo11e9aoa�J pue seed `uolsslwwoo buluueld eqj of aajunoo aae 1egj suogeaaplsuoo builsenbei si aadolanao agj `saseo awos ul 3nssl swelsAs ueulsepad pajelaa pue ubisep Inoge -punoa ag} 10 suolslna�l - suollellwll Agdeibodol jo asneoeq a }ollno ui heal a jo uol}alaa •spiepuels azis wnwiuiw nnolaq aq Aew goignn buisnog pay eliln pue algeo ui sezis a6eae6 eqj buiAplenjD •sjuaw:pedap Alp snolaen Aq suoilepuawwooei 6uileaodmoui papua -uado aq of aeadde }eqj suoilipuoo papionn Alpeoa8 •slollno doH 10 90ueu9IuleW . glennapls pue silea} 10 aoueua}uleW T pue H jol }no aol seseaaoui gjpinn peoa aIenlad •aadolanaa eqj Aq s}uawano idwl gg peo�j Ajunoo :anssi jelnoi:ped a jo uoijlsodsip eqj }oapi of uodn pepuedxa ao paljlaelo uaeq Aluo aneg Aagj `panlenn uaaq jou aneg suolIlpuoo se swajl 6ulnnoiloI agl E - abuego eql to aleos eql uo buipuedep `sluawpuawe aoj uolleolldde aa66ial pinonn and eql of sebuego palsonbai `sAennle sy - (poleedde ssalun Aluo uoisslwwoa buluueld) esnoggnlo agl COI ueld 9 1lS •6ulsnoq aoivas pue sluaw:pede aoj siuewpuawy and •soads V sueld Jo / pue saipn }s Allllglsea j buljapap - ain}owlse.ilul ainoes of s}uaweaa6y luawdolanaa uolsinipgns to uoilnoex3 - uollonilsuoo aol slollno pue slol lenpinlpul a}eaao 01 sleld leUIJ 10 lenoaddy •luawdolanap aqJ to suolleloedxe pue spiepue }s buluoz eql azllewaoj of }uaweaa6y and a to uol}noax3 :epnloul uol}oe Ilounoa a}edlollue pinonn }eql ss000id nnalnaa eql ul sda }s Jxau eq} `aoueulpao 6uluozaa pue suoplosaa pagoe}le aqJ sanojdde Ilounoa aqJ bulwnssy sda ;S ainln •juawpuawy ueld dwoa aq} aol saol}ou Ie6al eql ul papnloui lou seen eaje 6ui�jed eql aouis `eaae Ieloaawwoa poogaogg6laN aql sl papnloxa osly - s6uluozaa eql wojJ papnloxa snq} aae pue Ienoadde }eld tieulwllaad eql ql!m papnloul lou wane seaie 6ulsnoq Allsuep -g6lq eql - geld Aemn ooa8 jo slol}np eql ulq}lnn seaje �aed pue lellueplsai asnoqunnol pue Alpel- al6uls to 6uluozaa aql sagslldw000e eoueuipio 6uluozaa pegoe:}e eql - slowls ollgnd aol Aenn- to -}g6la pue `�aed eql 'slollno jallews `slot `goolq Ienpinlpui o}ul slollno apinlpgns Illnn legl in000 limn sleld leuil aanln j - saau7ped juawdolanap pue sad Al 6ulsnoq snouen JOI aJls aqJ bullaoied se Ilann se `juawdolanap aql 10 6ulsegd uol}onalsuoo aq} bui:poddns dais wpalul ue sl 11 Iaejls q }nos - q:pou eql job. Aenn jo - Ig6la pue `seaae � oolq eldlllnw gllnn apiouloo slollnp eql 'slollno abiel o}ul aJls aqJ sapinlpgns JegJ uoileolldde geld leull a sepnloul osle M91AGJ slgl Buluozab pue }eld leU'J Aennliooa810 s;ognp CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE BROCKWAY AREA PRELIMINARY PLAT WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Contractor Property Development Company for approval of a planned unit development and preliminary plat lot for the property located south of Co. Road 38, east of South Robert Trail and North of Connemara Trail in Rosemount, MN, legally described as follows: That part of the South West 1 /4 of the North East 1 /4, Section 20, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying East of the center line of S.T.H. No. 3 (formerly S.T.H. No. 218); All of Government Lot 2, said Section 20; that part of the North %2 of the South East 1 /4 of Said Section 20 lying East of the centerline of said S.T.H. No. 3, lying West of the Westerly right of way line of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, and lying North and West of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of said North '%, South East 1 /4 and said Westerly right of way line of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds West, assumed bearing along said South line, 270.47 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 12 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds West, 357.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds East, 500.28 feet to said Westerly right of way line and there terminating. WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing the preliminary plat for compliance with the Shoreland Overlay Regulations as a planned unit development; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat and permit for compliance with the shoreland overlay regulations with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the issuance of a permit in compliance with Shoreland Overlay Regulations subject to Restrictive covenants shall be recorded for preservation of open space and landscaping on Blocks 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in conformance with the regsuirments of the Shoreland Overlay District. The covenants shall prohibit accessory structures over 120 square feet, and parking of vehicles within back yards of these Blocks. ADOPTED this 6th day of July, 2004, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor RESOLUTION 2004 -41 ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against:_ Member absent: Seconded by: 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT PERMIT AND ACCEPT THE WETLANDS MITIGATION PLAN AND WETLANDS EXEMPTION FOR THE BROCKWAY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Contractor Property Developers Co. requesting approval of the Wetlands Conservation Act permit and accept the wetlands mitigation plan and wetlands exemption for the Brockway Development. The property is legally described as: That part of the South West ' / 4 of the North East ' / 4, Section 20, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying East of the center line of S.T.H. No. 3 (formerly S.T.H. No. 218); All of Government Lot 2, said Section 20; that part of the North '/z of the South East ' / 4 of Said Section 20 lying East of the centerline of said S.T.H. No. 3, lying West of the Westerly right of way line of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, and lying North and West of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of said North 1 /2, South East' /4 and said Westerly right of way line of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds West, assumed bearing along said South line, 270.47 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 12 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds West, 357.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds East, 500.28 feet to said Westerly right of way line and there terminating. WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Wetlands Conservation Act study in relation to the Brockway proposed development; and WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the wetlands mitigation plan and eligibility for wetlands exemption in relation to the Brockway proposed development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount found the Preliminary Plat for the Brockway development consistent with the Wetlands Conservation Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Wetlands Conservation Act Permit and accept the wetlands mitigation plan and wetlands exemption for the Brockway development, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation and the wetlands mitigation plan for the Brockway development; and RESOLUTION 2004 - 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Wetlands Conservation Act permit and accepts the wetlands mitigation plan and wetlands exemption for the Brockway development, subject to: 1. Receipt of WCA permit and conformance with the permit conditions in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. 2. Development of a temporary west pond and infiltration basin west of Street 2 until such time that off -site regional ponding is available. 3. Conservation easements shall be provided for the stormwater ponds and infiltration basins and wetlands to the High Water Level or buffer setback, whichever is greater, per the City's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. The buffer areas need to be preserved and posted for public notification. ADOPTED this 6 th day of July, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: Second by: 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE BROCKWAY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Contractor Property Developers Co. requesting Preliminary Plat approval to redevelop the Brockway property to a PUD -mixed residential use and future neighborhood commercial site. The property is legally described as: That part of the South West '/4 of the North East '/, Section 20, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying East of the center line of S.T.H. No. 3 (formerly S.T.H. No. 218); All of Government Lot 2, said Section 20; that part of the North ' / 2 of the South East ' / 4 of Said Section 20 lying East of the centerline of said S.T.H. No. 3, lying West of the Westerly right of way line of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, and lying North and West of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of said North %2, South East'/ and said Westerly right of way line of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds West, assumed bearing along said South line, 270.47 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 12 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds West, 357.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds East, 500.28 feet to said Westerly right of way line and there terminating. WHEREAS, on March 23, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Preliminary Plat to redevelop the Brockway property to a PUD -mixed residential use and future neighborhood commercial site; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed revisions and updates guided by staff for the Preliminary Plat to redevelop the Brockway property to a PUD -mixed residential use and future neighborhood commercial site; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing the preliminary plat for compliance with the Shoreland Overlay Regulations as a Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed further revisions and updates guided by staff for the Preliminary Plat to redevelop the Brockway property to a PUD- mixed residential use and future neighborhood commercial site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount found the Preliminary Plat consistent with city standards for approval of a PUD and consistent with zoning regulations and guidelines including the Shoreland Overlay Regulations with recommended conditions; and RESOLUTION 2004 - WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for the Brockway development subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Preliminary Plat for the Brockway development; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat for the Brockway development, subject to: 1. Execution of a PUD Agreement. 2. Approval of other applicable agencies including, but not limited to, Dakota County Plat Commission and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 3. The Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with street and utility improvements serving the development, including the construction of a right turn lane on eastbound County Road 38 into the development. These costs shall include all costs associated with the construction of a storm sewer outlet from the project to Basin #1589 located on the south side of Connemara Trail. 4. A cash payment of $100.00 per front -foot along County Road 38 shall be deposited with the City for costs associated with County Road 38 improvements. 5. The first final plat completed for the development shall include the dedication of all right -of -way for Street 1, Street 5, Street 6 and County Road 38. 6. All through private streets, outlots F, P and S, shall be a minimum of 28 feet wide face to face. Connecting portions of Outlots H and J shall be a minimum of 28 feet wide face to face, or as approved by City Staff. Parking shall be allowed on one side only. 7. No parking will be allowed on Streets 1, 4, 5 and 6. For all other public streets, parking shall be allowed on one side only. On Street 2 & 3, parking shall be on the inside edge. 8. Lot 2, Block 5 shall include a driveway turn- around to provide an alternative to backing into the street 5. As no on- street parking is recommended, the turn around shall also provide guest parking. Lots 1 & 2 Block 5 shall be designed with lot fronts and driveways oriented either to Street 2 or Street 3. 9. The existing driveway access to State Highway 3 shall be closed with the first phase of grading. Construction access shall be restricted primarily to Connemara Trail and secondarily to County Road 38. 2 RESOLUTION 2004 - 10. Seven additional common parking spaces are required for Blocks 21 and 22. 11. The Developer will make reasonable attempts to accommodate plan revisions for garages in Gables II and Villa II housing to be incompliance with minimum size requirements. In the event such revisions are impractical, or would result in further inconsistencies with PUD or zoning standards, garages of less than 440 sq. ft. will be permitted if the base price for the affected housing meets Met Council affordable housing criteria. 12. Repair and maintenance of all private trails and sidewalks are the responsibility of the homeowners association(s). Snow removal from all public and private trails and sidewalks shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association(s) or the adjacent private property owners. The trail exhibit outlines public and private responsibilities. 13. Outlots A and B shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association or the outlots shall be eliminated by extending the lot lines from Blocks 2 and 3 to the outer edge of the plat and dedicating drainage and utility easements for storm water and infiltration ponding. 14. Single family housing in Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 shall have minimum garage setbacks of 30 feet and principal structure front yard setbacks of 25 feet. The architectural conditions of Resolution 2004 -6 may be waived on interior lots as long as a majority of the lots including all corner lots shall have traditional housing styles. Those interior lots with building fronts behind or even with garages shall be subject to the 30 -foot garage setback. 15. Extensive landscaping is required for screening along State Highway 3. Optimum landscape screening includes earthen berms in combination with varieties of trees and shrubs to simulate a natural environment. In cases where berms are not feasible, screening shall be accomplished with landscaping equivalent to a double row of staggered ten foot high coniferous Spruce (or equal), or over -story deciduous boulevard trees augmented by shrub planting beds to facilitate full - spectrum screening subject to Staff approval. 16. All landscaping with public rights -of -way, outlots and the round -about shall be maintained and replaced as necessary by resident homeowners association(s). Landscaping is subject to sight - triangle criteria for preservation of visibility at intersections, subject to City Engineer approval. 17. Entry monuments shall be subject to sign permits and normal zoning standards. Appropriate sight distances must be maintained. The north entrance monument shall be located in Outlot B dedicated to the City. If Outlot B is absorbed by adjacent single - family lots, an easement shall be dedicated to the homeowners association for monument RESOLUTION 2004 - maintenance. 18. PUD Amendments are required for the 120 apartments and 60 senior units in Blocks 14 and 15. Site Plan, architectural elevations, landscaping and all associated site amenities shall be reviewed in conformance with the approved concept plan and Resolution 2004 -6. 19. The neighborhood commercial on Outlot R, Block 20 is subject to Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning, and separate PUD approval. 20. The revised clubhouse shall require Planning Commission and City Council site plan approval for conformance with the PUD and applicable standards. 21. No privacy, chain -link, or generally opaque fences will be permitted along any public street right -of -way. Split rail or equivalent may be permissible, subject to city approval. 22. Incorporation of other agency comments resulting from the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process including implementation of the Dakota County and MPCA approval of a response action plan (RAP) and a construction contingency plan (CCP) prior to City issuance of a grading or demolition permit for the property. 23. Incorporation of recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding Park Dedication and facility design & construction. • Parks dedication credit should not be given for any pipeline easements, unnecessary ponding in the park, or other items that negatively impact the park site or are deemed unusable. • The playground area needs to be enlarged to at least 60' x 95' • The infiltration basin in Outlot M has not been removed. • The park plan needs to have approval from the owners of the pipeline easement. • The need for parking has not been adequately addressed for the disc golf course. 26 parking spaces in the park located in Outlot M and on- street parking will not be enough parking for the public park areas. • As outlined in the City's Subdivision Ordinance, all park dedication in the form of land and monetary compensation will occur with the first final plat approval prior to recording. Staff would recommend that we continue with this practice unless other arrangements can be made to have the park installed in a timeframe that satisfies the Parks and Recreation Commission. • The lot line for the senior apartment area should be adjusted for the trail to remain in the park. • The park plan also needs to include other on -site amenities such as an irrigation structure, drinking fountains, etc. RESOLUTION 2004 - 24. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer relative to drainage, grading, street design, easements and utilities. 25. The cul -de -sac Street 8 shall have all mailboxes clustered in one location as approved by the Postmaster. In addition, driveways may be shared with cross - access easements and relief from side -yard parking and driveway setbacks. Only three driveways will be allowed within the cul -de -sac bubble. 26. The following outlots shall be dedicated to the City at the time of final plat: T & M for Park Dedication, Outlots D, E, I shall be dedicated to the Homeowner's Association with a public trail easement. 27. Plan revisions are required for the round -about on outlot K and related open spaces in Outlots G, I, and O for the purpose of articulating open space amenities and cohesion with the sidewalks and trail system. In the event that conflicts between the round -about vehicular function and the pedestrian system cannot be resolved, then an alternative design for a pedestrian system is required as an important feature of the development and it's linkages to the city -wide system, and in light of the consideration that a trail along State Highway 3 has been shown to be impractical. ADOPTED this 6 th day of July, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: R CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR OUTLOTS OF BROCKWAY WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Contractor Property Developers Co. requesting Final Plat approval to final plat the Brockway site into outlots to convey a future neighborhood for development. The property is legally described as: That part of the South West ' / 4 of the North East '/4, Section 20, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying East of the center line of S.T.H. No. 3 (formerly S.T.H. No. 218); All of Government Lot 2, said Section 20; that part of the North ' /z of the South East' /4 of Said Section 20 lying East of the centerline of said S.T.H. No. 3, lying West of the Westerly right of way line of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, and lying North and West of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of said North V2, South East' /4 and said Westerly right of way line of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds West, assumed bearing along said South line, 270.47 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 12 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds West, 357.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds East, 500.28 feet to said Westerly right of way line and there terminating. WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Final Plat for the Outlots of Brockway to final plat the Brockway site into outlots to convey a future neighborhood for development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount found the Final Plat consistent with the Preliminary Plat for the Brockway development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Final Plat for the Outlots of Brockway subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Final Plat for the Outlots of Brockway; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Final Plat for the Outlots of Brockway, subject to: 1. Consistency with the Brockway Site Preliminary Plat as approved. 2. Approval of the Dakota County Plat Commission. RESOLUTION 2004 - 3. Approval of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. ADOPTED this 6 th day of July, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against:_ Member absent: Second by:_ 2 City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE Brockway Area Development 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 land in the Brockway Area properties located south of 132nd Street and north of Connemara Trail, east of State Trunk Highway 3, South Robert Trail to the easterly line of Section 20, Township 115, Range 20 and the right -of -way for the Canadian Pacific Railroad in Rosemount, Minnesota from BP -2, Business Park and PI, Public & Institutional to R -1, Low Density, R -2, Moderate Density, R -3 Medium Density PUD Residential and PI, Public Institutional. The parcels following, as described in the Brockway Glass Preliminary Plat including the following parcels described in the Brockway Preliminary Plat received May 14, 2004 and approved with conditions July 6, 2004: Blocks 1, 2 and 7 to R -1, Low Density PUD Residential. Lots 1 and 2, Block 8, Blocks 9 and 10 to R -2, Moderate Density PUD Residential. Lots 3 and 4, Block 8 to R -3, Medium Density PUD Residential. Outlots M and T to Public and Institutional Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10, Block 21 to R -2, Moderate Density PUD Residential. Block 21 and Lots 5, 6 and 7 Block 21 to R -3, Medium Density PUD Residential. Lots 1, 2 and 6 Block 16; Lot 5 Block 17, Lot 4 Block 18, Block 19, Lots 1, 2 and 8 Block 20 to R -2, Moderate Density PUD Residential. Lots 3, 4 and 5 Block 16, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 Block 17, Lots 1, 2 and 3 Block 18, Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 Block 20 to R -3, Medium Density PUD Residential. Blocks 11, 12 and 13 to R -2, Moderate Density PUD Residential. Blocks 3, 4, 5 and 6 to R -1, Low Density PUD Residential. 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 Ordinance B- 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 6 th day of July, 2004. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this _th day of , 2004. Page 1 of 1 Pearson,Rick From: Schultz,Dan Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:28 PM To: Pearson,Rick; Lindquist,Kim Subject: Parks Comm. response to letter from Dave Hempel 1) The Parks and Recreation Commission does not support the request from CPDC for 50% credit for land encumbered by easement. 2) As was discussed at the May Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, while we normally expect compensation at the first final plat approval prior to recording, we will continue with this practice unless other arrangements can be made. We are waiting to hear the developer's proposal. 3) Due to multiple concerns, the Parks, and Recreation Commission does not support allowing CPDC to construct the park improvements in lieu of cash dedication fees. No timeline was given by CPDC and this was a concern for the Commission. They were also concerned about the sentence "The Park Board was willing to allow CPDC to construct the park improvements in lieu of some of the cash park dedication requirement." The Commission felt that this implied to the City Council that the Commission had made a motion on this item, when they had actually left this item open to discussion. Dan Schultz Director of Parks and Recreation City of Rosemount 651- 322 -6012 6/29/2004 Page 1 of 1 Pearson From: Schultz,Dan Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:25 PM To: Dave Hempel Cc: Lindquist,Kim; Pearson,Rick Subject: Brockway Dave - For the Council meeting next week I am looking to get further information regarding #2, # 3, #4, #5 #6 (timeline), also I would like to see a proposed budget for the park amenities. 1. Parks dedication credit should not be given for any pipeline easements, ponding in the park, or other items that negatively impact the park site. 2. The playground area needs to be enlarged to at least 60' x 95'. 3. The infiltration basin in Outlot M has not been removed. 4. The park plan needs to have approval from the owners of the pipeline easement. 5. The need for parking has not been adequately addressed for the disc golf course. Twenty -six parking spaces in the park located in Outlot M and on- street parking will not be enough parking for the public park areas. 6. As outlined in the city's subdivision ordinance, all park dedication in the form of land and monetary compensation will occur with the first final plat approval prior to recording. Schultz recommended that we continue with this practice unless other arrangements can be made to have the park installed in a timeframe that satisfies the Parks & Recreation Commission. 7. The lot line for the senior housing area should be adjusted for the trail to remain in the park. 8. The trail and sidewalk plan appears to provide good pedestrian access throughout the site other than access to the clubhouse from the northeast. 9. The park plan needs to include other on -site amenities such as an irrigation structure, drinking fountains, etc. Last night during the director's report, the letter you sent to Rick Pearson was discussed. The first item about 50% credit was not supported by the commission, the second item about timing of dedication might be supported if we get a time line that shows when the development will be taking place, and the third item about having the developer install the improvements was not supported because they were not sure exactly which improvements were to be included. They felt when we bid or send out RFP's for some of the amenities that we get a better price or at least a more creative design i.e. playground equipment. They also feel we will still have to be involved in the supervising the project because it will ultimately be the City's park. Thanks Dan Schultz Director of Parks and Recreation City of Rosemount 651- 322 -6012 6/29/2004 June 25, 2004 Mr. Rick Pearson City of Rosemount 2875-145 th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Re: Park Dedication Recommendations — Brockway telephone 651 . 5 5 6. 4 5 5 0 facsimile 651.556.4551 Dear Mr. Pearson As a follow up to the June 15, 2004 City Council meeting regarding the City's park dedication requirements for Brockway, I requested that the City Council reconsider three of the park conditions, specifically park dedication credit for the pipeline easement, timing of park dedication and the consideration of having CPDC install the park improvements in lieu of some of the park cash dedication. The existing golf course is already located within the pipeline easement and the modifications to the course for disc golf would be relatively minor within the pipeline easement. We understand that the land encumbered by the easement limits the full use of the property however, there still is some financial value to the property. We propose that the City Council consider giving 50% park dedication credit for the land encumbered by the easement which is approxiatmately 1. 60 acres in overall. The city's ordinance requiring all the park dedication with the first final plat is a significant financial burden for the project to absorb initially. Given the project phasing and construction schedule, the first homes would not start construction till winter 2004 with occupied spring 2005. We understand that the park board may not have been able to deviate from city ordinance on varying the timing of park dedication requirements. However, City Ordinance Subd. 5.6 C. allows, at the discretion of the Council, the city may deviate from the standard. We propose to dedicate all the land designed as Park ( Outlots M & T) with the first phase of platting. During the spring of 2005, with Phase 2 of the project, we would propose to commence with construction of the disc golf course, trails and park amenities in Outlots M &T. We anticipate a completion date of all the park amenities in Outlots M & T by October 2005. We would also pay the city a cash dedication for the difference in park improvements costs we installed and the remaining cash dedication fees. The Park Board was willing to allow CPDC to construct the park improvements in lieu of some of the cash park dedication requirement. This alternative would also be a cost benefit to the city by way of 3030 Centre Pointe Drive Suite 800 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 i less demand on the city staff from a project management standpoint and financially from the timing of our project. Please forward our requests on to the City Council for consideration at the July 6 th 2004 City Council meeting. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely David Hempel Project Manager f June 30, 2004 Mr. Dan Schultz Park and Recreation Director City of Rosemount 13885 South Robert Tr. Rosemount, MN 55068 Re: Brockway Park Dedication Dear Mr. Schultz In response to your e-mail dated June 29, 2004 regarding further infor on the park dedication requirements /conditions for Brockway I have c responses as follows: 3030 Centre Pointe Drive Suite 800 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 telephone 6 5 1. 5 5 6. 4550 facsimile 65 1.556.455 1 Condition #2 — the playground area can and will be enlarged to 60x90 in the final park design. Condition #3 — the infiltration basin should have been removed from Storm sewer improvements i.e. catch basins have been designed to ci surface runoff from the parkland to off site ponds. Condition #4 — the pipeline company is still reviewing the engineering drawings. I hope to have a letter outlining any concerns by time of the Council meeting Tuesday night. Given the current uses are similar to t proposed park uses, I cannot see there would be any issues. The pipeli company is more concerned about the utility and street crossings. Condition #5 — we are in the process of designing another 20 stall park" g lot on Outlot T. Preliminary plans will be available to review. Tuesday ni t. Condition #6 — as stated in my letter to Mr. Rick Pearson dated June 25 2004. The city's ordinance requiring all the park dedication with the first filial plat is a significant financial burden for the project to absorb initially. Given the project phasing and construction schedule, the first phase homes would not start construction till winter 2004 with occupancy Spring 2005. We understand that the park board may not have been able to deviate from city ordinance on varying the timing of park dedication requirements However, City Ordinance Subd. 5.6 C. allows, at the discretion of the Council, the city may deviate from the standard. 1 0 We propose to dedicate all the land designed as Park ( Outlots M & T) with the first phase of platting. During the spring of 2005, with Phase 2 of the project, we would propose to commence with construction of the disc golf course, trails and park amenities in Outlots M &T. We anticipate a completion date of all the park - amenities in Outlots M & T by October 2005. We would also pay the city a cash dedication for the difference in park improvements costs we installed and the remaining cash dedication fees. The Park Board was willing to allow CPDC to construct the park improvements in lieu of some of the cash park dedication requirement. This alternative would also be a cost benefit to the city by the way of less demand on the city staff from a project management standpoint and financially from the timing of our project. We are proposing to furnish and install the following improvements to the future Park areas located on Outlots M & T, Brockway Plat. I have outlined below a preliminary cost estimate of the proposed park amenities. Park Improvement Estimated Cost Park Design/plans $25,000 Grading, sod and irrigation- Outlot M $119,400 Grading, sod and irrigation - Outlot T $25,000 (assume minimal change in current golf course) Disc Golf $10,500 (per city consultant, Chuck Kennedy) 2 -20 -24 stall parking lots $66,800 Bituminous trails in parkland $37,100 Park plantings & trees ( Outlot M) $23,375 Park shelter (24'x24') $30,000 2- Tennis Courts $80,000 Electrical/Irrigation/housing $24,500 Horse shoe pits (2) $1,200 Barbecues (2) $ 1,000 Basketball Ct $ 28,500 Shuffle Boards (2) $3,500 Park Benches (6) $ 5,500 2 Player benches (4) $ 2,165 Trash Receptacles (4) $1,440 Picnic /game Tables (6) $3,870 Drinking Fountain (2) $5,500 Play Structure Tot Lot $50,000 Bike racks (2) $600 Engineering, surveying (10% of imp costs) $53,445 Park Maintenance (2 years) $12,000 Total Estimated Cost $610,395.00 We appreciate the park board's comments regarding bidding. or at least getting a more creative designed playground. However, as staff and most city council members are aware our company raises the bar when it comes to design & building standards. We also propose to maintain the park improvements to make sure the level of park amenities are maintained. It is an important marketing tool to be sure the neighborhoods are presented well. We strongly believe this is what sets us apart from our competition. We also bid out the improvements to receive competitive bids however, may not necessarily accept the lowest bid if quality is jeopardized. City staff would of course be involved in the final design, approval and award of any park improvements. We have worked together in the Evermoor development to provide a quality neighborhood city park. I look forward to continue this relationship with the Brockway project. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely David Hempel Project Manager Cc Kim Lindquist Rick Pearson Homer Tompkins 3 Aj4?--AeA vju k yL- d-f - () q- CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BROCKWAY DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Contractor Property Developers Co. requesting Preliminary Plat approval to redevelop the Brockway property to a PUD -mixed residential use and future neighborhood commercial site. The property is legally described as: That part of the South West '/4 of the North East ' /4, Section 20, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying East of the center line of S.T.H. No. 3 (formerly S.T.H. No. 218); All of Government Lot 2, said Section 20; that part of the North '/z of the South East ' /4 of Said Section 20 lying East of the centerline of said S.T.H. No. 3, lying West of the Westerly right of way line of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, and lying North and West of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of said North '/2, South East' /4 and said Westerly right of way line of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds West, assumed bearing along said South line, 270.47 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 12 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds West, 357.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds East, 500.28 feet to said Westerly right of way line and there terminating. WHEREAS, on March 23, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Preliminary Plat to redevelop the Brockway property to a PUD -mixed residential use and future neighborhood commercial site; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed revisions and updates guided by staff for the Preliminary Plat to redevelop the Brockway property to a PUD -mixed residential use and future neighborhood commercial site; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing the preliminary plat for compliance with the Shoreland Overlay Regulations as a Planned Unit Development; and, WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed further revisions and updates guided by staff for the Preliminary Plat to redevelop the Brockway property to a PUD -mixed residential use and future neighborhood commercial site; and �s WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount found the Preliminary Plat consistent with city standards for approval of a PUD and consistent with zoning regulations and guidelines including the Shoreland Overlay Regulations with recommended conditions; and RESOLUTION 2004 - WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for the Brockway development subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation and the Preliminary Plat for the Brockway development; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat for the Brockway development, subject to: 1. Execution of a PUD Agreement. 2. Approval of other applicable agencies including, but not limited to, Dakota County Plat Commission and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 3. The Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with street and utility improvements serving the development, including the construction of a right turn lane on eastbound County Road 38 into the development. These costs shall include all costs associated with the construction of a storm sewer outlet from the project to Basin #1589 located on the south side of Connemara Trail 4. A cash payment of $100.00 per front -foot along County Road 38 shall be deposited with the City for costs associated with County Road 38 improvements. 5. The first final plat completed for the development shall include the dedication of all right -of -way for Street 1, Street 5, Street b and County Road 38. 6. All through private streets, outlots F, P and S, shall be a minimum of 28 feet wide face to face. Connecting portions of Outlots H and J shall be a minimum of 28 feet wide face to face, or as approved by City Staff. Parking shall be allowed on one side only. 7. No parking will be allowed on Streets 1, 4, 5 and 6. For all other public streets, parking shall be allowed on one side only. On Street 2 & 3, parking shall be on the inside edge. 8. Lot 2, Block 5 shall include a driveway turn- around to provide an alternative to backing into the street 5. As no on- street parking is recommended, the turn around shall also provide guest parking. Lots 1 & 2 Block 5 shall be designed with lot fronts and driveways oriented either to Street 2 or Street 3. 9. The existing driveway access to State Highway 3 shall be closed with the first phase of grading. Construction access shall be restricted primarily to Connemara Trail and secondarily to County Road 38. RESOLUTION 2004 - 10. Seven additional common parking spaces are required for Blocks 21 and 22. 11. The Developer will make reasonable attempts to accommodate plan revisions for garages in Gables II and Villa II housing to be incompliance with minimum size requirements. In the event such revisions are impractical, or would result in further inconsistencies with PUD or zoning standards, garages of less than 440 sq. ft. will be permitted if the base price for the affected housing meets Met Council affordable housing criteria. 12. Repair and maintenance of all private trails and sidewalks are the responsibility of the homeowners association(s). Snow removal from all public and private trails and sidewalks shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association(s) or the adjacent private property owners. The trail exhibit outlines public and private responsibilities. 13. Outlots A and B shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association or the outlots shall be eliminated by extending the lot lines from Blocks 2 and 3 to the outer edge of the plat and dedicating drainage and utility easements for storm water and infiltration ponding. 14. Single family housing in Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 shall have minimum garage setbacks of 30 feet and principal structure front yard setbacks of 25 feet. The architectural conditions of Resolution 2004 -6 may be waived on interior lots as long as a majority of the lots including all corner lots shall have traditional housing styles. Those interior lots with building fronts behind or even with garages shall be subject to the 30 -foot garage setback. 15. Extensive landscaping is required for screening along State Highway 3 Optimum landscape screening includes earthen berms in combination with varieties of trees and shrubs to simulate a natural environment. In cases where berms are not feasible, screening shall be accomplished with landscaping equivalent to a double row of staggered ten foot high coniferous Spruce (or equal), or over -story deciduous boulevard trees augmented by shrub planting beds to facilitate full- spectrum screening subject to Staff approval. 16.. All landscaping with public rights -of -way, outlots and the round -about shall be maintained and replaced as necessary by resident homeowners association(s). Landscaping is subject to sight - triangle criteria for preservation of visibility at intersections, subject to City Engineer approval. 17. Entry monuments shall be subject to sign permits and normal zoning standards. Appropriate sight distances must be maintained. The north entrance monument shall be located in Outlot B dedicated to the City. If Outlot B is absorbed by adjacent single- 3 RESOLUTION 2004 - family lots, an easement shall be dedicated to the homeowners association for monument maintenance. 18. PUD Amendments are required for the 120 apartments and 60 senior units in Blocks 14 and 15. Site Plan, architectural elevations, landscaping and all associated site amenities shall be reviewed in conformance with the approved concept plan and Resolution 2004 -6. 19. The neighborhood commercial on Outlot R, Block 20 is subject to Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning, and separate PUD approval. 20. The revised clubhouse shall require Planning Commission and City Council site plan approval for conformance with the PUD and applicable standards. 21. No privacy, chain -link, or generally opaque fences will be permitted along any public street right -of -way. Split rail or equivalent may be permissible, subject to city approval. 22. Incorporation of other agency comments resulting from the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process including implementation of the Dakota County and MPCA approval of a response action plan (RAP) and a construction contingency plan (CCP) prior to City issuance of a grading or demolition permit for the property. 23. Incorporation of recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding Park Dedication and facility design & construction. • Parks dedication credit should not be given for any pipeline easements, unnecessary ponding in the park, or other items that negatively impact the park site or are deemed unusable. • The playground area needs to be enlarged to at least 60' x 95' • The infiltration basin in Outlot M has not been removed.. • The park plan needs to have approval from the owners of the pipeline easement. • The need for parking has not been adequately addressed for the disc golf course. 26 parking spaces in the park located in Outlot M and on- street parking will not be enough parking for the public park areas. • As outlined in the City's Subdivision Ordinance, all park dedication in the form of land and monetary compensation will occur with the first final plat approval prior to recording. Staff would recommend that we continue with this practice unless other arrangements can be made to have the park installed in a timeframe that satisfies the Parks and Recreation Commission. • The lot line for the senior apartment area should be adjusted for the trail to remain in the park. • The park plan also needs to include other on -site amenities such as an irrigation 4 RESOLUTION 2004 - structure, drinking fountains, etc. 24. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer relative to drainage, grading, street design, easements and utilities. 25. The cul -de -sac Street 8 shall have all mailboxes clustered in one location as approved by the Postmaster. In addition, driveways may be shared with cross - access easements and relief from side -yard parking and driveway setbacks. Only three driveways will be allowed within the cul -de -sac bubble. 26. The following outlots shall be dedicated to the City at the time of final plat: T & M for Park Dedication, Outlots D, E, I shall be dedicated to the Homeowner's Association with a public trail easement. 27. Plan revisions are required for the round -about on outlot K and related open spaces in Outlots G, I, and O for the purpose of articulating open space amenities and cohesion with the sidewalks and trail system. In the event that conflicts between the round -about vehicular function and the pedestrian system cannot be resolved, then an alternative design for a pedestrian system is required as an important feature of the development and it's linkages to the city -wide system, and in light of the consideration that a trail along State Highway 3 has been shown to be impractical. ADOPTED this 6` day of July, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: W, CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: June 15, 2004. AGENDA ITEM: 1. Brockway Area Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Final Development Plan, Shoreland AGENDA SECTION: Overlay District Permit and Wetland New Business Conservation Permit. P 2. Outlots of Brockway Final Plat PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner, Kim Lindquist, Community Development Dir., Andy Brotzler, City Engineer ATTACHMENTS: See Attached Index APPROVED BY• RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is recommended at this time. The 30 -day comment period for the Wetland Conservation Act requirements is still open. On May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Brockway area Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. Execution of a PUD Agreement 2. Approval of other applicable agencies including, but not limited to, Dakota County Plat Commission and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 3. The Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with street and utility improvements serving the development, including the construction of a right turn lane on eastbound County Road 38 into the development. These costs shall include all costs associated with the construction of a storm sewer outlet from the project to Basin #1589 located on the south side of Connemara Trail 4. A cash payment of $100.00 per front -foot along County Road 38 shall be deposited with the City for costs associated with County Road 38 improvements. 5. The first final plat completed for the development shall include the dedication of all right -of -way for Street 1, Street 5, Street 6 and County Road 38. 6. All through private streets, outlots F, P and S, shall be a minimum of 28 feet wide face to face. Connecting portions of Outlots H and J shall be a minimum of 28 feet wide face to face. Parking shall be allowed on one side only. 7. No parking will be allowed on Streets 1, 4, 5 and 6. For all other public streets, parking shall be allowed on one side only. On Street 2 & 3, parking shall be on the inside edge. 8. Lot 2, Block 5 shall include a driveway turn - around to provide an alternative to backing into the street 5. As no on- street parking is recommended, the turn around shall also provide guest parking. 9. The existing driveway access to State Highway 3 shall be closed with the first phase of grading. Construction access shall be restricted primarily to Connemara Trail and secondarily to County Road 38. 10. Seven additional common parking spaces are required for Blocks 21 and 22. 11. The approval permits garages below minimum size requirements in Gables II and Villa II housing based upon meeting Met Council affordable housing criteria. 12. Repair and maintenance of all private trails and sidewalks are the responsibility of the homeowners' association(s). Snow removal from all public and private trails and sidewalks shall be the responsibility of the homeowners' association(s) or the adjacent private property owners. The trail exhibit outlines public and private responsibilities. 13. Outlots A and B shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association or the outlots shall be eliminated by extending the lot lines from Blocks 2 and 3 to the outer edge of the plat and dedicating drainage and utility easements for storm water and infiltration ponding. 14. Single family housing in Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 shall have minimum garage setbacks of 30 feet and principal structure front yard setbacks of 25 feet. The architectural conditions of Resolution 2004 -6 may be waived on interior lots as long as a majority of the lots including all corner lots shall have traditional housing styles Those interior lots with building fronts behind or even with garages shall be subject to the 30 foot garage setback. 15. Additional landscaping is required for screening along State Highway 3. In cases where berms are not feasible, a double row of staggered six foot high Spruce (or equal), or over -story boulevard trees shall be augmented by shrub planting beds to facilitate full- spectrum screening subject to Staff approval. 16. All landscaping with public rights -of -way outlots and the roundabout shall be maintained and replaced as necessary by resident homeowners association(s). Landscaping is subject to sight - triangle criteria for preservation of visibility at intersections, subject to City Engineer approval. 17. Entry monuments shall be subject to sign permits and normal zoning standards. Appropriate sight distances must be maintained. The north entrance monument shall be located in Outlot B dedicated to the City. If Outlot B is absorbed by adjacent single- family lots, an easement shall be dedicated to the hom eowners association 2 for monument maintenance. 18. PUD Amendments are required for the 120 apartments and 60 senior units in Blocks 14 and 15. Site Plan, architectural elevations, landscaping and all associated site amenities shall be reviewed in conformance with the approved concept plan and Resolution 2004 -6. 19. The neighborhood commercial on Outlot R, Block 20 is subject to Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning, and separate PUD approval. 20. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded for preservation of open space and landscaping on Blocks 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in conformance with the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District. The covenants shall prohibit accessory structures over 120 square feet, and parking of vehicles within back yards of these Blocks. 21. The revised clubhouse shall require Planning Commission and City Council site plan approval for conformance with the PUD and applicable standards. 22. No privacy, chain -link, or generally opaque fences will be permitted along any public street right -of -way. Split rail or equivalent may be permissible, subject to city approval. 23. Incorporation of other agency comments resulting from the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process including implementation of the Dakota County and MPCA approval of a response action plan (RAP) and a construction contingency plan (CCP) prior to City issuance of a grading or demolition permit for the property: 24. Incorporation of recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding Park Dedication and facility design & construction. • Parks dedication credit should not be given for any pipeline easements, unnecessary ponding in the park, or other items that negatively impact the park site or are deemed unusable. • The playground area needs to be enlarged to at least 60' x 95. • The infiltration basin in Outlot M has not been removed. • The park plan needs to have approval from the owners of the pipeline easement. • The need for parking has not been adequately addressed for the disc golf course. 26 parking spaces in the park located in Outlot M and on- street parking will not be enough parking for the public park areas. • As outlined in the City's Subdivision Ordinance, all park dedication in the form of land and monetary compensation will occur with the first final plat approval prior to recording. Staff would recommend that we continue with this practice unless other arrangements can be made to have the park installed in a timeframe that satisfies the Parks and Recreation Commission. 3 • The lot line for the senior apartment area should be adjusted for the trail to remain in the park. • The park plan also needs to include other on -site amenities such as an irrigation structure, drinking fountains, etc. 25. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer relative to drainage, grading, street design, easements and utilities. 26. Receipt of WCA permit and conformance with the permit conditions in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. 27. Development of a temporary west pond and infiltration basin west of Street 2 until such time that off -site regional ponding is available. 28. The cul -de -sac Street 8 shall have all mailboxes clustered in one location as approved by the Postmaster. In addition, driveways may be shared with cross - access easements and relief from side -yard parking and driveway setbacks. Only three driveways will be allowed within the cul -de -sac bubble. 29. The following outlots shall be dedicated to the City at the time of final plat: T & M for Park Dedication, Outlots D, E, I shall be dedicated to the Homeowner's Association with a public trail easement. 30. Revise sidewalks and trail locations in Outlots G, I, and O near roundabout to provide appropriate street crossings within the project and create cohesive public open space with amenities. 31. Conservation easements shall be provided for the stormwater ponds and infiltration basins and wetlands to the High Water Level or buffer setback, whichever is greater, per the City's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan. The buffer areas need to be preserved and posted for public notification. 2. On May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Wetlands Conservation Act permit and accept the wetlands mitigation plan and wetlands exemption. A resolution reflecting the Wetlands Conservation Act permit will be prepared that will include some of the above recommended conditions as they relate to the WCA. 3. On May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending approval of the Outlots of Brockway Final Plat with the following conditions: 1. Consistency with the Brockway Site Preliminary Plat as approved. 2. Approval of the Dakota County Plat Commission. E 3. Approval of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 4. Upon approval of the preliminary plat, Council will be requested to adopt an ordinance rezoning various areas to R -1, Low Density, R -2, Moderate Density and R- 3, Medium Density Residential consistent with the neighborhoods included with this review. ACTION: Conditions Modifications: Since Planning Commission review, staff has met with the applicant who raised several questions regarding the wording or intent of the recommended conditions of approval. These changes are not reflected in the above as the above is the Planning Commission action taken. The Council should expect minor modifications to the recommended conditions of approval to address the following and any items raised during the Council review. The developer would like clarification that the $100 /linear foot for Highway 38 does not include the right turn lane into the project. That is correct, the right turn lane is the sole cost of the developer. The developer indicated they can widen the drive aisle width for Outlot H but cannot on Outlot J. Staff has requested an expansion of Outlot J drives but is comfortable that the whole 28' requirement does not need to be met over the entire length of the drive. The main concern is appropriate turning radius and other geometric standards to permit fire and maintenance equipment. The developer is requesting that the city maintain all bituminous trails and the Homeowners Association maintain all concrete sidewalks. Staff does not support this request. We have outlined our proposal in the attached documents, and while there could be some changes they would be minor. The city will not maintain all trails. Staff is willing to discuss some minor modifications to the trail alignments as currently shown, particularly near the public spaces and to assess the best pedestrian transportation routes after the final design for the center round -about and public areas are defined. The developer has requested that the City better define the required maintenance for HOA owned outlots. Outlots the City receives for stormwater holding will be maintained for the stormwater function only. That means the city will periodically dredge the pond, ensure the outlet is functioning properly, etc. The HOA is required to perform maintenance relating to the upkeep of the grounds, such as cleaning up debris and garbage and mowing if necessary. The developer has questioned the wording of Condition 17 as it conflicts with the idea of the HOA owning outlots. This will be rectified in the final conditions. The developer notes that Condition 25 is very open- ended. Staff continues to struggle with the condition wording that clarifies the developer must comply with all city infrastructure 5 design standards and policies. We will be working over the next several months to incorporate more of the design standards and guidelines by reference in the ordinance, which will provide more solid guidance to applicants. The developer has requested that the City delete the requirement to place a trail within Outlot D. The topography is steep in this location and would be difficult to grade, construct and maintain a trail that allows reasonable public access. We are exploring this request further and most likely will be looking at an open space /view shed corridor instead of a paved trail. ISSUE The preliminary plat for the Brockway site has been revised several times, starting with discussions concerning issues identified by Staff. Most recently, application of the State Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) rules relating to several wetlands on the site resulted in the latest revisions. Three single - family lots were eliminated for the creation of a NURP (National Urban Runoff Protection) pond located immediately west of the existing wetland along 132 Street. Other ponds on the site have been reviewed, with additional comments below. Along with the WCA issues, the applicant has addressed many of the concerns staff has raised over the course of the city review. Although there are numerous conditions of approval recommended, they generally provide additional clarity or reaffirm representations made by the applicant. No action is recommended at this time, because the 30 -day comment period required by WCA is still open (at this writing). The preliminary plat is being presented as it was reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended for conditional approval. It will give the applicant an opportunity to address Council identified issues and the potential for revisions in anticipation of ultimate approval This review also includes a final plat application that subdivides the site into large outlots. The Outlots coincide with multiple block areas, and right -of -way for the north -south street. It is an interim step supporting the construction phasing of the development, as well as parceling the site for various housing types and development partners. Future final plats will occur that will subdivide outlots into individual blocks, lots, smaller outlots, the park, and right -of -way for public streets. BACKGROUND Applicant & Property Owner(s): Location: Area in Acres: Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Requested Zoning: Number of Units & Density: Homer Tompkins of Contractor Property Developers Company East of STH 3, North of Connemara Trail, South of 132 Street West. 113.46 Urban & High Density Residential, Commercial. R -1, Low Density, R -2, Moderate Density and R -4, High Density Residential: Commercial 624 units total, 5.34 Dwelling units per acres (gross); 7.06 R du. / ac. net (excluding highway & Collector Street right -of- way and Park Dedication. Housing units /types: 79 Single Family lots (55'& 70' lots); 40 Garden Townhouses (1 story quads); 115 Row Townhouses (single loaded); 112 Villa Townhouses (double loaded 2 story); 98 Gable Townhouses (double loaded 3 story) Previous City Council Action: Approved Concept with conditions 1 -6 -2004. Planning Commission Action: Unanimous recommendation of conditional approvals for the Preliminary Plat, WCA permit, and Outlots of Brockway Final Plat. CITY REVIEW PROCESS The Brockway development review process is a Planned Unit Development (PUD). PUD is essentially a custom approach to zoning development standards. However, the basis for negotiation is the applicable requirements found within the traditional zoning districts. As proposed, the plan has its own standards, which are often different from City standards. In return for the special consideration, the City should be getting a better development as compared to that which could be attained when normal zoning standards are applied. Usual developer offerings include increased amenities, preservation of natural features, and shared public and private open space. Section 12.6 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the framework for the PUD process. The process starts with a concept that describes the character of the development and sets the land use types, density, and general amenities. After the concept is approved, the Developer prepares the final development plan or preliminary plat, which is the actual design with all of the architecture and engineering including grading, drainage, landscaping, streets and utilities. Because of the complexity of the Brockway project, the concept review process was somewhat of a hybrid review process. Traffic impacts, environmental concerns and general building architecture were presented with the concept plan to provide additional information to the City for their deliberations. Ultimately, concept approval of the Brockway site redevelopment occurred on January 6, 2004 with a series of conditions (see attached resolution 2004 -6). Among those conditions was Metropolitan Council approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the development, which occurred on March 24, 2004. The current review process for the preliminary plat containing the design and engineering documents for the development was started on March 23, 2004. The preliminary plat review was run concurrently with the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), which was accepted by the City Council on April 6, 2004. On May 25, 2004, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the current plan revision. The plan includes a redistribution of housing units with an overall increase of 18 units. Comments from the EAW have resulted in procedures that will be included with the construction process to deal with potential or known pollution contaminated areas within the project. 7 In April, the Planning Commission discussed conformance with shoreland regulations relative to Keegan Lake, prior to the wetlands issues. Each permit has a separate review process, either dictated by State Statute or local ordinance. While each process can be run concurrently with other local approval processes, there are nuances to each. By this time, all items are before the Council at one time with all process requirements undertaken. In addition to the above applications, the City Council will also be reviewing the rezoning request for the site. This was acted upon by the Planning Commission but was held over until the preliminary plat could be approved. That will allow the City to more accurately apply the appropriate zoning to the various project components. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on three separate occasions, March 23, April 27 and May 25, 2004. Public Hearing comments concerning the preliminary plat were received from nearby property owners on March 23 and May 25, 2004. Correspondence was also received (attached herein with meeting minutes). The three individuals' concerns centered around traffic, storm water management and density of the development. At various times throughout the review process, the Commissioners' questions included the timetable of demolition and construction, clarification of the recommended conditions, drainage, sidewalks, bike trails, storm water ponding, traffic relative to highway 3, water supply and the pipeline easement, and the feasibility of a pedestrian underpass to connect the park areas. Ultimately, after all of their questions had been answered, the Commissioners adopted unanimous motions recommending approval of the preliminary plat, Wetlands Conservation Act permit and the Outlots of Brockway final plat. The rezoning and Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment had been recommended for approval as part.of the Concept Plan review and approval process. BROCKWAY APPLICATIONS DISCUSSION WETLANDS The following is a detailed summary of the wetlands on the site based upon the recent field analysis and application of the WCA rules. The WCA rules describe a specific process to deal with wetlands within developments. The City's consultant is ensuring those steps are made. The Brockway site contains five wetland areas. Westwood Professional Services delineated these wetlands on April 26, 2004. WSB and City Staff reviewed this wetland delineation and concurred with the wetland boundaries. A Wetland Replacement Plan was submitted to the City on May 11, 2004 as required by the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The City is the Local Government Unit (LGU) for the WCA and thus makes determinations on wetland applications. As required by the WCA, the City sent out a Notice of Application to the appropriate review agencies on May 11, 2004. The 30 -day comment period for this application will end on June �:3 11, 2004. Once the comment period ends, the City Council will be asked to make a determination on the application. • The five wetland areas are shown on the Figure 1 and information about each wetland is provided below. Westwood Wetland City of Rosemount Wetland Management Plan Number Wetland Management Plan Classification - Identification Wetland A WMP #356 Manage II Wetland B WMP #411 Utilize Wetland C WMP #408 Manage II Wetland D NA NA Wetland E WMP #408 Manage II The wetlands permit application includes filling 4,036 square feet of Wetland A. The filling of Wetland A is associated with the construction of a turn lane and trail as part of the road improvements necessary on County Road 38 to accommodate the development. While it is anticipated that a total of 11,564 square feet of wetland impact will occur at Wetland A, 4,036 square feet of this impact is specifically related to the Brockway development and 7,528 square feet is related to future safety improvements to County Road 38 that will be completed by the City and the County. The City /County impacts will be addressed and permitted at a later date once the road design is finalized. Mitigation for the 4,036 square feet of impacts associated with the Brockway development is proposed on -site through the expansion of Wetland A. Wetland A will be enlarged on the south end of the wetland to create approximately 5,362 square feet of New Wetland Credit. Approximately 26,627 square feet of Public Value Credit will be obtained through the proposed storm water pond west of Wetland A. Additionally, an average 30 foot buffer will be created or maintained around Wetland A. The City requires a 30 foot buffer for ponds with Manage II wetland classifications as part of the Wetland Management Plan. The wetland buffer areas will be protected with recorded conservation easements that will include restrictions on uses within the easements. Conservation easements are comparatively new, having been utilized after the Evermoor development. The easement gives the City a higher level of control without having to own the property affected. Recording of the easement places the easement restrictions on the property, which then runs with the land. The recorded easement coupled with the signing of the buffer area should make future owners more attuned to the city expectations for the buffer. Staff has also discussed internally putting together a one page summary of permitted uses within the buffer and providing that to homeowners through the association documents. 9 The application also includes obtaining an exemption for Incidental Wetland status for Wetland B, Wetland C, Wetland D, and Wetland E. Incidental Wetland status is outlined in Minnesota Rules 8420.0122 Subpart 5 that states: "A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in wetland areas created solely as a result of ... actions by public or private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland... Impoundments or excavations constructed in nonwetlands solely for the purpose of effluent treatment, storm water retention, ...and water quality improvements... that may over time take on wetland characteristics are also exempt." Wetlands B, C, D, and E appear to be exempt per Minnesota Rules 8420.0122 Subp. 5 as they were created to treat effluent from the Brockway Glass site and /or as a golf course water hazard (see attached photos). A number of storm water management improvements are being proposed to treat storm water from the Brockway site. The storm water management plan is being reviewed by City Staff for conformance with City standards and will not be summarized here. However, two items relate specifically to wetlands and are outlined below for your review and information. • Wetland #394 in the Wetland Management Plan is also identified as Pond 1552 in the City's Stormwater Management Plan (see Figure 2). This area is located west of TH3 and west of the Brockway site. This area is classified as a Manage II in the City's Wetland Management Plan. Regional ponding for the Brockway site and other general development is proposed in this area per the City's Stormwater Management Plan. Toward that end, WSB conducted a wetland delineation in this area to determine the wetland boundaries. Based on this field work, it was determined that this area is not a wetland and as such is not regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act or the City's Wetland Management Plan. Therefore, neither wetland replacement nor stormwater pretreatment is required for any work in this area. • Wetland #425 in the Wetland Management Plan is also identified as Pond 1589 in the Stormwater Management Plan (see Figure 2). This area is located just south of Connemara Trail and is classified as a Manage II wetland. Regional ponding for the Brockway site and other general development is proposed in this area per the City's Stormwater Management Plan. Historic aerial photos (attached) show this area was created in upland around 1957. These photos indicate this area would also be exempt under the Wetland Conservation Act as an Incidental Wetland and would therefore not be required to conform to the policies in the Wetland Management Plan for storm water pretreatment. Therefore, the City is proposing to use this Pond as a regional storm water pond as indicated in the Stormwater Management Plan. The Brockway Wetland Replacement Application, wetland exemptions, and Pond 1552 and 1589 items will be reviewed at a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) meeting on May 26, 2004. 10 The TEP is made up of the City, the Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Board of Water and Soil Resources. These agencies provide input to the City on wetland decisions. At the TEP meeting the group agreed with the wetlands delineation provided by the applicant and also agreed that the wetlands impact had been minimized on site, based upon the grading plan. They supported the exemption request for the southwest wetlands and also agreed that two wetlands off -site that the city has designated for future ponding were in fact not wetlands under the state definition. A summary of the wetlands regulatory activities is provided in the attachments. OUTLOTS OF BROCKWAY FINAL PLAT This Final Plat segments the Brockway area into large parcels that will be platted and developed into the individual neighborhoods and right -of -way. The distribution is as follows: Outlots of Brockway Include these areas as future Blocks, outlots and streets Outlot A Blocks 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as well as portions of Street 2 and 3. Outlot B Blocks 14, 15 and the Park Outlots M & T. Outlot C Blocks 21 & 22. Outlot D North -south Streets 1 & 6 and the roundabout, Outlot K. Outlot E West portion of the future neighborhood commercial site. Outlot F Blocks 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 (and part of Street 2). Outlot G Blocks 11, 12 and 13. Outlot H Blocks 3, 4, 5 and 6 (and part of Street 2). The final plat is based upon the preliminary plat and assumes that all of the right -of -way and blocks are the right shape and located property. Blocks and lots should be appropriately platted so variances are not needed. The outlots will all be replatted with future final plats. For this reason, Staff is prepared to recommend approval of the Outlots of Brockway Final Plat pending the resolution of the additional right -of -way question for Street 1. Staff is in agreement with the developer that no subdivision agreement will be triggered for this final plat. PROJECT PHASING The revised Preliminary Plat includes a reference for three phases. The timetable for each phase has not been specified in the documents. Phase One The first phase includes the north -south Streets 1 & 6 and the southeast quarter of the Brockway area east of Street 6 and south of Street 5. All four townhouse types are represented in this phase. This phase appears to be exclusively Rottlund Homes. Phase Two All of the single - family lots on the northern side, and the apartments, senior condos, and the active public park area in the southwest center are included in the second phase. The single - family lots on the west side of Street 1 are expected to be developed by Contractor Property Developers Company, and the single- family on the east side are expected to be largely Rottlund Homes. The apartments and senior condo developer has not been identified at this 11 time. Phase Three All of the west side townhouses, three of the single - family lots and the southwestern park are shown as phase three. Rottlund Homes is expected to be the developer. The Parks and Recreation Commission may recommend that the Park Area be developed with the first phases of construction depending upon the actual timing of each phase, following previously established practice. SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT The Keegan Lake area is subject to special zoning standards called the Shoreland Overlay District. The northeast portion of the Brockway site within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water elevation (OHWE) of Keegan Lake is the area affected. The intent of the overlay district is to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters and related land resources. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) oversees this process along with the City to ensure that the standards are applied. MnDNR officials reviewed the preliminary plat initially during the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process and requested that a public hearing be conducted specifically for the shoreland issues. The overlay district has a number of categories based upon the type of water body and if sanitary sewer service is available. These variables determine which set of standards are applied to the preliminary plat. Keegan Lake is classified by MnDNR, as "Recreational Development Waters" and the Brockway area will be served with sanitary sewers. The resulting standards relate to lot size, setbacks and elevation above OHWE. The area of Brockway in the overlay district includes all of Blocks 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 and 19. Portions of Blocks 2, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17 and 18 are also included. County Road 38 separates the Brockway site from Keegan Lake, but much of the overlay area drains towards and has a view of Keegan Lake. Applicable standards from the Rosemount zoning ordinance are: • 10,000 sq. ft. lot areas. • 75 foot building setbacks from OHWE. Lowest floor elevation a minimum of 3 feet above highest known water level. However, the MnDNR standards are stricter than the Rosemount ordinance, and take precedence in cases of inconsistency. MnDNR Standards Zoning to a Planned Unit Development allows some flexibility in the DNR standards. The district is divided into several tiers radiating from the lake in concentric circles. The development is examined for the amount of impervious surface and open space. The basic MnDNR lot area standard is 15,000 sq. ft. and the overlay area must consist of 50% open space throughout. There is also a determination of useable space that excludes wetlands and steep slopes. The DNR standards then allow a density multiplier, which increases in each tier. In applying the standards, the first tier allows one house per 15,000 sq. ft. of useable area. This 12 translates to a density limitation given the individual lots may be actually less that the 15,000 in size. Developments that incorporate increased setbacks and mitigating vegetative management features qualify for a density bonus. The tiers that extend out from the lake each have a multiplier of 1.5, 2 or 3 based upon distance from the lake that determines the density bonus available. The single - family lots proposed within Brockway are all generally less than 10,000 sq. ft. in area. However, there are also several outlots set aside for storm water ponding or infiltration that compensate for the smaller lots to keep the densities within DNR limits. In addition, the lots in Blocks 3 and 4 have additional lot depth because they are double- fronted lots that back up to County Road 38. As a result, the increased lot depth on specific lots and the open space for ponding, qualify the entire development for the density bonuses. The location of County Road 38 causes the minimum setback from OHWE to be about 130 feet for the houses that will overlook the lake. The lowest elevations of walkout lots are estimated at about 968, 17 feet above the 943 OHWE. Pat Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist has indicated that the Plan appears to be generally consistent with the standards. The Shoreland Open Space Analysis originally included the 7 acres on the east side, currently beyond the development. The Developer does have a purchase agreement for the 7 additional acres. Additional analysis excluding County Road 38 has been completed with the conclusion that the Brockway site has the required open space. Mr. Lynch's comments indicate that the open space requirements are met if controls can be placed on the single - family open space (back yards) to ensure that they not include additional hard surfacing. Staff has recommended a condition that does not allow accessory structures over 120 square feet and parking areas within the Shoreland District. It should also be noted that the easterly 7 -acre site is limited to ten single - family lots as a result of the Shoreland Overlay District issues analysis. Staff will ensure that when an application is received for the 7 -acre parcel that it complies with the Shoreland standards. SITE PREPARATION / DEMOLITION The Brockway site redevelopment is similar to many industrial sites in the metro area commonly called referred to as brownfields. Contamination is often found in old farmsteads, but Brockway represents the first large scale industrial redevelopment area in Rosemount, with the possible exception of the University of Minnesota's U -MORE Park. Dakota County provided comments as part of the environmental review process regarding the inventory of potential contamination stemming from the former glass plant. Site clean up has occurred already in the southeast corner of the property, near the entrance of the railroad spur onto the site from Connemara Trail. That site has been proposed for neighborhood commercial use, as being unsuitable for residential use. Other possibly contaminated sites include the ponding areas, the former wastewater treatment area east of the plant, and the potential for contamination under the building. Special construction management steps will be taken during the demolition / construction process for testing, containment and removal of any contaminated material. In addition, 13 contingency plans will be implemented upon the verification of suspected contamination, or discovery of previously unknown materials. The City is relying on the PCA and Dakota County to review and manage contamination issues that may arise on the site. A response action plan (RAP) and a construction contingency plan (CCP) are both required as part of the process. Both the RAP and CCP must be accepted by the PCA and the County, prior to the City issuing a grading permit or demolition permit for the property. PUBLIC & PRIVATE PARKS The Park facilities shown on Outlots M & T have been revised, following direction form the Parks and Recreation Commission. The following summarizes the revisions: • The ballfield becomes a multi - purpose play field for softball, baseball and soccer overlay, and reorientation of the backstop away from the pipeline easement. • New facilities include: a full basketball court, 2 tennis courts, horseshoes and shuffleboard courts, and various shelter buildings. • A 20 -car parking lot with access to Street 2. • Elimination of infiltration pond basins on the outer edge of the former ballfield. • A disc golf course in the passive park area (which will be retaining much of the former golf course character, south of Street 2). Minor revisions are recommended, for example, the examination for the need of a storm water retention pond near the Tot lot. Additional parking is needed for the Disc golf course, and the trail crossing onto Block 15 should be contained within the park area. GRADING & DRAINAGE The revised plan includes the elimination of proposed ponding and infiltration in the southwest corner of the development adjacent to Connemara Trail. Additional park space and units are now shown. The acceptability of this modification is conditional upon developer agreeing to pay all costs associated with the construction of a storm sewer outlet to Basin KL- P1589 located on the south side of Connemara Trail. This is listed as a condition of approval. For the proposed infiltration basin located in Outlot B, the City's infiltration requirements are met. It is strongly recommended that consideration be given to the incorporation of dead -pool storage into the design to enhance the aesthetics of the infiltration basin. Staff is requiring that outlots A &B be replatted to become part of the adjoining residential lots or the outlots be dedicated to the Homeowners Association. Drainage and utility easements and conservation easements are required over the stormwater ponds, infiltration ponds, and wetlands per ordinance requirements. ACCESS & CIRCULATION Access occurs from the south at Connemara Trail and from the north at 132 Street (County Road 38). A future connection to Bonaire Path (County Road 38) to the east will project through the previously mentioned 7.5 -acre parcel, likely to be combined with the development. These entrances to the development connect with a north -south street labeled Streets 1 & 6. A roundabout splits the street in the middle creating the primary intersection (with east -west 14 streets 4 and 5) and providing a central focal point amenity for the development. A ring road (Street 2) echoing the outer edge of the development provides another dominant feature, which connects the various housing neighborhoods and the park in the southwest corner. Generally, the street design segments the site into quarters and provides edges to neighborhoods made up of different housing styles. Individual driveways from attached units will connect only to private shared driveways that are maintained by homeowners associations. Only single - family detached units will connect to public streets 2 (north of 4 & 5) and the north side of Street 3. For public streets, a reduced street width of 28 feet face to face will be allowed with sidewalks on both sides and parking on one side only. Parking will be permitted on the interior curve of the public roads. Private streets will be 28 feet face to face and many will serve shared driveways and connect to pubic streets (essentially serving as private residential collectors). Otherwise, shared driveways that serve ten or fewer units are shown as 22 feet wide (outer edge of mountable curb). All of the townhouse units are expected to have fire - suppression sprinkler systems, providing an alternative to eliminating all dead -end private streets (generally serving 8 -10 units or less). For the proposed roundabout, concrete medians shall be added on Street 4 & 5. No on- street parking shall be allowed on Streets 1, 4, 5, and 6. SIDEWALKS & TRAILS Generally, the City standards include sidewalks and /or trails on both sides of arterial and collector streets, and usually one side of local through streets. The Preliminary Plat now includes sidewalks on both sides of all public streets except the cul -de -sac. The sidewalks are an important part of the new urban concept and supports the higher density residential uses and enhance pedestrian connections to the park. All of the Row Townhouses have sidewalks in front serving the pedestrian entrances and contributing to the pedestrian friendliness of the development. The higher density Gabel and Villa townhouses have sidewalks around the end units providing pedestrian access to side - oriented front doors. Sidewalks are provided for connecting purposes between Blocks 3 & 4; 5 & 6; 11 & 12; 14 & 15 (as part of the park); and Blocks 21 & 22. A sidewalk is shown on the south side of County Road 38 between Street 1 and Highway 3, and shown as a future sidewalk east of Street 1 anticipating the upgrading of County Road 38 in the future. Staff is requesting the developer revise at the trail /sidewalk connections in the roundabout area. Presently trails direct pedestrians to the roundabout, which has no pedestrian access. Staff would prefer that street crossings do not occur at the roundabout because traffic maneuvers at this location are the most complex. Linkages should be reevaluated to provide safe road connections so that each neighborhood has reasonable pedestrian access to the park and other shared amenities. 15 96 aq 1ou II!M euallJo Gull-91!s IewJoN -suo!loesialu! le Alielnorped `Al!l!gsin 01,4e1l 6u1u1elu1ew lnoge pauaaouoo s! gelS •p pue I 'q slollnp se Bons coeds uado to sa6pa ay} uo pue lnoge -punoi aql `suelpaw u! saga} Ialuaweuao pue paenalnoq ql!m pames aie sasodind anileJooGa '19ails o!lgnd a to apps aagl!e uo joolq- ol- �polq'AIlensn 'sad l bulsnoq luaaagp ueamlaq uoil!suej1 a se suollounl osle saaal paenalnoq to aagwnu paseaaoui aql - lno seoueleq pn Gad saaal to aagwnu agl pue `luoil ui pn jad aaal auo to Al!I!q!ssod eql sldweeid (spn elgaE) pue e11!n papeol- elgnop aql AIle!oadsa) SAeManup pue shun agl to buloeds lgbil aq1 `seaae asnoqumol Al!suep aag6!q eql olu! 6ul:49E - (1ol *4 pg Gad auo) saaal paenalnoq Alpel- al6u!s to Aouenbail lensn agl aoiN s! go!gm `:pede laal 017 peoeds umogs aie saaal paenalnoq lsoIN - lunoo builueld aaal aag6!q a u! 11nsaa saop Al!suap gblq AIGnlleaedwoo aql '91!s Gql uo Gail pea jol alq!suodsai si OLIM aano japl!nq pue aadolanap Gql to alppp eq1 ul 196 of luem 1ou saop llels `lu!odpuels anlleJlslulwpe ue woal `aaq:pn j 'loefoid ag1 to asinoo aql aano paulelu!ew pue pallelsui aq ueo aallnq agl legl os aw!1 awes agl le pallelsui aq s6ullueld aql Ile legl 6ulpuawwooai si gelS - aapl!ngawoq Alpel 916u!s aq} Ala�q lsow 'saaglo Aq awos 'aadolanap eql Aq auop aq II!m s6ullueld awos legl smogs u6!sep adeospuel aql - s6ullueld to 6u!w!l aql si anss! auo `JGAGMOH seaae „deb„ ui uoileluawbne awos of loafgns £ Aemgb!H 6uole s6ullueld eql ql!m elgelaolwoo s! llels 'laed lsow aq} ao_,l *aop!aaoo g£ peo�j Alunoo aql to:Jed se pasodoid 6uideospuel aql ql!m elgepolwoo s! llels `leaaue6 ul - alglseal lou ace swaaq aaGnn seaae u! Alle!oadso `s6uilueld uolleluaw6ne awos spuawwooaa _4elS - snonuiluoo lou ace lnq 'alq!ssod se gonw se paseaaoui uaaq seq E AemLIBIH 6uole swaaq to 6ulpea6 aql •E AMOIH 6uole Allepadse sbuilueld 6uluaaaos eq1 aouequa of aolnpe llels of spuodsai uoislnaa ueld eql - as!ou Aemgbiq 6ulpae6ai sluleldwoo ajnlnl ldwa -aid of nna!naa geld Aieulwilaid aql loped a!agl se 6upallnq aimbei of Al!unlaoddo a�el Alunoo eloNeo pue loauVll gloq 'seseo asagl ul '( filed aaleuo8 / 1 p 1, / g£ peoU Alunoo) a6pa uaaglaou eq1 se llaM se (1leal pagoy glnoS / C AM ON alelS) 96pa uialsam aql 6uole luelaodw! Alielnorped s1 saaJl paenalnoq to uollounl 6u!uaajos aql - aoeldaa PUB u!elu!ew of siaumo A:pedoid alenud ao uoileloosse s,aaumoewoq aql to Al!l!q!suodsai aql aq Ilegs saaal paenalnoq IIb - luawdolanap aql to a6pa aalno aql uo 6uldeospuel buluaaaos jo 'pn goea to luoal ul saaJl paenalnoq se pamaloemp Alleaauab si u6isep buideospuel aql JNIdVOSdN` - 1 'G6eaols pue lenowaa mous lonalsgo lou op pue Aoenud uegl aapaoq a au!lap of ajow ace goigm saoual pej l!Ids to uo!lellelsui aap!suoo pinom }}elS 'loefoid aql ulgl!m slaaals ollgnd 6uole saoual Aoenud ou aie aiagl legl 6ulalnbaa aq Ilim llels 6ulouej q61q aneq legl slot ap!s uo abeaols mous ql!m swalgoad peoualaadxe seq AID aql asneoa8 , sail!I!q!suodsai a!edai pue eoueueluiew sapelo golgm paaedaid ueaq seq l!q!gxa uy *sl!eal aql ulelulew ll!M Al!o aql 'aaagl pue spuel o!lgnd uo paleool ace sl!eal aaagm seaae Mal a aie aaagl - mous to aealo pue u!elulew of jaumo Apadoid alen!ad ao uoileloosse saaumoewoq eql to Al!l!q!suodsai eql aq llegs luawdolanap aql u!gl!M S� Iennap!s pue sl1eal II`d - 9� ej ue6aaN of aull -al!s e bulnaasajd Aluo of palpil aq lg6lw a lollnp aql legl aq Aew 11 •sapea6 deals to asneoeq Alasolo pau!wexe aq 01 aneq stew 1, pue £ s�oo18 uaaANaq 4 lollnp uo I!eal agl 'uo!1!ppe ul waived as part of the PUD process. The landscaping standards for Apartment and Condo buildings require eight trees plus one tree per unit for 1 -3 story buildings and eight trees plus on tree per two units for more than 3 stories. There is also a planting requirement for building foundations of one shrub per ten feet of building perimeter. This standard will be applied at the time the apartments and condos are proposed. TREE PRESERVATION AND INVENTORY The Tree Preservation Plan provides an inventory of existing trees on the site, and a chart indicating species, size and most importantly, if the tree is to be saved or removed. The Tree Preservation ordinance requires replacement for the removal of significant trees by a two for one or a four for one ratio. Significant trees exclude Boxelder, Russian Olive, Cottonwood and Poplar trees. The existing trees on the site are associated with the Southwest corner, and delineating the edges of the fairways and parking lots. Most of the saved trees will be in the land dedicated for park. Discussions with staff have also resulted in grading plan revisions to reduce the amount of tree removal in gaps between housing blocks and open space areas on the outer edge of the development. The Plan indicates that the tree replacement requirement is 870 trees. The landscaping plan provides enough trees to satisfy the replacement requirement in addition to the normal plantings associated with residential developments as previously discussed. • Typical required trees per ordinance 643 trees • Tree replacement requirement - 870 trees • Total — 1513 trees 1048 are indicated on the Planting Key on the outer edges of the development and boulevard trees with another 852 proposed to be the responsibility of the builders of the townhouses and the apartments. Those plantings are shown in the details for the individual units included with the architectural elevations. There are very few opportunities for planting replacement trees, other than augmenting the screening plantings along Highway 3. OPEN SPACE AND PRIVATE AMENITIES 22.5% of the development is public and private open space after subtracting highway right -of- way and the Keegan Lake outlot. For comparison, a stand -alone townhouse would require 20 % open space. The PUD gives the City the ability to expect other amenities such as additional trails, sidewalks, gazebos, play equipment, games courts, landscaping and the clubhouse mentioned below. Housing policies allow for density bonuses for increased recreational and other amenities. However, there are no standards in the zoning that calculate or reward a rate of density increase as a ratio of specific types and scale of amenities. 17 HOUSING & LOT SUMMARIES TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING STANDARDS FOR BASELINE COMPARISON Housing type Front, Side & Rear Setbacks* Lot Area Density Zoning District Single Family 30', 10' 30' 10,000 sq. ft. 2.5 du. / ac. R -1 Townhouses (row) 30' from all property lines; 20' from (28 ft. wide) private streets; 20' between buildings alongside, 40 ft. side to front, 60' front to front, rear to rear. Density up to 6 du. / ac.; R -2. Architectural, garage and parking standards apply. Townhouses (double - loaded) Same as above, with densities up to 12 du. /ac.; R -3 * Setbacks increase along Arterial and collector streets and railroads. Corner lots treat street -sides as front yards. HOUSING SUMMARIES AND PLAT REVISIONS BY BLOCK Blocks 1 -7 The northern portion of the development closest to 132 Street West / County Road 38 and Keegan Lake is exclusively single - family detached housing with 55 ft. wide lots on Blocks 1, 2 and 7 (closest to STH 3) and 70 ft. wide lots on Blocks 3, 4, 5 and 6 oriented towards Keegan Lake. The cul -de -sac in the northwest corner (Block 1) has been redesigned from a rectangle to a tear --drop shape, and shortened with the addition of the NURP pond. As a result, four lots have been lost in this area over the course of the process. Block 1 includes 6 garden townhouse buildings (24 units total) extending south along STH 3 towards the park area. Block one contains three small wetlands and a portion of a fourth just north of the park area that qualify for exemption from the mitigation requirements. The grading plan indicates a retaining wall in a small eastern portion of the northerly wetland to create a building pad for the most southerly four -unit (Garden) townhouse building. Single - Family Lots (55 and 70 foot -wide lots) Generally, these lots will have 25 -foot minimum front -yard setbacks for the houses and 30 ft, setbacks for garages. The architecture is intended to have a traditional character with most units exhibiting front porches, and recessed garages. Those that may have a "foreground" garage would have the deeper setback as a result. Side yard setbacks are 7.5 feet for the 70 ft. lots and 5 feet for the 55 ft. lots. The housing design tends to be narrower and deeper to fit on the lots. The concept PUD envisioned that all garages would be recessed. The building plans for some of the 70 ft. wide lots on Blocks 3, 4, 5 and 6 show garages at the leading edge of the elevation. If these are going to be acceptable, staff will recommend that the garages maintain the 30 ft. setback, and that these housing types be restricted to a minor proportion overall. They should also be restricted from the most visible lots (corner lots especially) so that they do not detract from the theme of traditional neighborhoods. 6L Garden Homes (Attached four -unit buildings — 40 units) Block 1 contains six buildings for 24 units. The Garden homes are the only single -level residential units in the development. They will have 6:12 roof pitch, gabled front entries and a combination of lap siding and face brick, with a large proportion of brick on the front elevation. Blocks 8. 9 & 10 The three blocks containing row houses and double loaded villa units exhibit a housing design strategy that layers the outer edges of the blocks with single loaded row - houses with sidewalk orientations on three sides. The Villa double - loaded units are in the interior, with the driveways oriented to private garage courts instead of the public streets (and sidewalks). Outlot F is a private through street that separates Blocks 8 from 9 & 10. Row Townhouses (Urban Villa II) These homes provide a traditional townhouse with units arranged side -by -side or as a row with interior units having garages on one side and front doors on the opposite side facing sidewalks and the public streets. Interior units have two party walls and end units have only one party wall. This design emphasizes a pedestrian orientation for the development, and provides an insulating effect for the higher density double - loaded townhouses generally in the interior of the blocks. All garages are oriented towards the interior of the block to private shared driveways / garage courts. The two -story buildings feature face -brick wainscoting, second story shudders (facing the street) and columned canopies over the front entries. Gabled window treatments break up the long roof -line effect running the length of the buildings. O Townhouse building setbacks including covered entrances are 20 feet to rights -of -way or private boundary lines and 25 feet along Streets 1 and 6. The five -foot deeper setbacks along Streets 1 and 6 are a function of the heavier traffic anticipated for these streets. Blocks 11, 12 & 13 This area enclosed by Streets 1, 3 and 5 is exclusively row houses. The Row houses either face the public streets at the outer edge of the blocks, or an interior trail corridor that links the round -about with a site -line to Keegan Lake. The interior of block 11 and the space between Blocks 12 and 13 serves as garage courts. The width of the pavement in the garage courts will be less that 28 feet, so no parking will be allowed other than in individual unit driveways and the common spaces provided. The setbacks are twenty feet to Streets 3 & 5, and twenty -five feet along Street 1. Blocks 14 (120 Apartments) & 15 (60 Senior units) The preliminary plat indicates a building setback of 25 feet from street right -of -way and 20 feet from interior property lines. The height of the buildings will likely be more than the setback, which will place more importance on the building architecture. A driveway off -set problem for the Block 14 apartments connecting to Street 2 across from the garden units of Block 1 has been corrected. Apartments (120 units & Condos (60 units) As mentioned in previous reviews, these two high- density housing areas will require future review to cover architectural design features not herein provided. When the proposals come before the City, the concept plan conditions will be used as the basis for evaluating the projects. The concept anticipates three -story buildings with under- ground parking. 21 Blocks 16, 17 & 18 This townhouse area enclosed by Streets 2, 5 & 6 includes two styles of townhouses. Row houses orient towards three outer corners of this area. Seven row house units open up to a small open space (outlot O) across from the round - about; six units face Outlot N (pipeline easement) and Streets 6 & 2; and six units face Street 2 on either side of the shared private entrance driveway (outlot P). Private street Outlot P is required to be to 28 feet back to back (not face to face). Sufficient common parking is provided on Outlot P for the three -block area. Building setbacks allow for a 25 -foot setback along Street 6. Setbacks along the other streets are a minimum of 20 feet. However, the pipeline easement dramatically increases the distance of buildings from Street 2. Permission is required from the pipeline company for any use of the easement area including sidewalks and streets. Gables II (mostly ten unit double - loaded townhouse buildings — 98 units) These units are arranged in mostly ten -unit double - loaded buildings (units back -to -back in addition to side -by- side). Looking at it another way, interior units have three party walls and end units are corners with two party walls. The units are the most compact of the town houses and are three stories in height with tuck -under garages and decks above the garages. "Interior units" have split -entry front doors alongside the garages, but 10 risers above the garage doors. Corner units have front doors around the side. The side offers the smallest view of the buildings, and will face the public streets. Materials consist of lap siding and cedar shake appearance. Corner and middle interior units have gable features to add interest to the roof - lines. 22 £Z pun -t oml `s6u!pl!nq I!un -5 oN ui sMoolq oAN ayj jo 96pa aalno ayj uo pa6uejae aae sl!un mod ayl - sauaoyumOl (II ell!n uegjn) mo Lz pue :s6u!pl!nq pn -Ol, oml pue s6ulpl!nq 1!un -9 inol yl!m sawoyumol papeol- elgnop II ell!n Z5 :s6u!pl!nq/}!un jo sale is oml jo sIs !suoo eaje s!yl ZZ 1 8 1, Z s� 'ploysaayl algepio,4e ayl anoge saolad ayl :4!1 A1a�!l II!m „suo!ldo„ jo uo!snlou! `aanannoy `eualuo elgepao}}e laaw of AIGj!I aae sl!un ayj col aolad aseq aq I •algepioge aaam sl!un 6u!snoy ayj J! aouelJeA azls 96eae6 ayl:poddns pinoo yoigm `sa!o!lod sapnloui ueld aAlsuayaadwoo OZOZ ayl sl!un elgeo ay} jo Ile pue sl!un pua eI!!n 01 sa!ldde Aouaiopp slyl - aoueuipio Aq paa!nbai se .:4 - bs Ott uey} ssal aae saz!s a6eae6 ayj jey} si sl!un II ell!n pue elgeo ayj yjoq o} aAllelai anss! auo - sl!un pue pue, sainlea; mopuim pelgeb pue `sialinys do }s puooas `s}ueooe �o!aq `6u!p!s -del apnloui slepajew lejauao • }no -dwnq a6eae6 loo ; -jno; a pue aoua; ja�picl a Aq pasoloue pjeA luoa; / oiled e se paeA:pnoo clews a yl!m `epej6 le sa6eaeb of lxeu aae sau}ua IuoaJ - SAeM@AIJP PaJeys ajeAud of paluauo sa6eje6 yl!m spay }s ollgnd woaj Aeme palua!ao we sl!un aolaalu! ayl -� ool Poo -adeo e yl!m Aem- jo- sjy6!a o!lgnd 6u!oej scoop luoaj yl!m shun Jauaoo aney s6ulpl!nq asayl (sj!un Z� 1 — s6u!pl!nq esnoLlumol papeol - algnop j!un ua} pue 14610) II ell!A •6ui�aed uowwoo papeau col coeds aleaao pue (sesnoyumol jo}) SAeMGAUP 6uol Alpessaoauun aleu!ua!la o} pa:.!ys uaeq aney s6u!pl!n8 - (sl!un gl,) sesnoyumol uepjeo t pue (sl!un Ot,) s6u!pl!nq eII!n @All `(sl!un 5) asnoy moi auo apnloui sad Al 6u!pl!nq aaayl - coeds uado Alialsee ay} loped pue peoal!ea `lepawwoo poogjogy6!au aanlnl ay} of do goeq pue Z jaaajg jo 96pa aalno ayj uo pale si eaae sly! OZ '8 61, sN0018 a. buildings and three 3 -unit buildings. The primary private street ( Outlot S) has been increased to 28 feet (measured back to back) and common parking has been provided. However, there remains a need for additional common parking for 7 more spaces. A trail traverses Outlot S connecting Street 6 with the park area of Outlot T. This area along with Blocks 16, 17, 18 and 20 are the townhouse areas with highest densities and present aesthetic concerns often described as a "barracks look ". The best design mitigation has the row houses with pedestrian orientation on the outer edges, thus internalizing the garages to private garage courts. The double - loaded buildings exhibiting garages on both "long" sides are interior to the blocks with end units facing the public streets. The only exception to this arrangement in the development is Block 8, which has five units of building 3 facing Street 2. However in this case, the unit driveways do not access Street 2; rather they access an internal private street, which acts like a frontage road with a boulevard providing opportunities for boulevard landscaping of the block edge. Outlot R. Block 20 This outlot anticipates most of the neighborhood commercial building included with the original concept. However, site development requires additional land to the east not currently controlled by the Developer. Therefore, this review will occur in the future as a separate PUD Amendment. CLUBHOUSE The Architectural elevations include a 6,000 sq. ft. building on Outlot L. It was intended to provide a recreational amenity for the entire development. While shown at this size, the developer has indicated that they will be constructing a smaller clubhouse structure. They based this assessment on other similar projects and indicated that a clubhouse more in the 3,000 -4,000 square foot size would suit the needs of the community. For comparison, the Crosscroft Clubhouse in Evermoor is 4,600 sq. ft. That clubhouse is understood to be exclusive to the 216 -unit Crosscroft neighborhood. The structure that was presented is a single -story building with lofted ceilings, and entry vestibule and gathering room in the center. Other rooms on either side include exercise, club, meeting, locker and rest rooms. Building materials consist of lap siding, field stone masonry wainscoting and masonry accents. Gable accents occur over the front entry and on the building wings on either side of the center. A cedar shake texture is added to the vertical planes within the gables. A 24 -stall parking lot is provided with a driveway to Street 6. The revised and down -sized clubhouse shall be required to go through the site plan review process to ensure conformance with the PUD and applicable standards. CONCLUSION Approval of the Brockway redevelopment creates an opportunity to create self- sustaining neighborhoods with a variety of housing types along the Highway 3 minor arterial transportation corridor. It will replace an extremely visible and obsolete if not blighted industrial use. The cost of site demolition and clean -up is an expense added to the usual developer's cost of site acquisition. The only way to cover the cost is to subsidize it or allow 24 higher densities (or both). Locating the higher density development along the transportation corridor gives the city an alternative to allowing higher densities in other, less advantageous locations limited to access via collector streets. The preliminary plat has been revised in response to a number of issues, primarily solving circulation conflicts and coming up with a new park development scenario. The Shoreland Ordinance review has been found to be acceptable by the MnDNR. More recently, the review has focused on Wetland requirements with full compliance with Wetland Conservation Act rules. Staff believes the development provides a "life- cycle" community where a variety of housing types and styles will result in a demographic diversity. The open space, public and private can set a standard for future developments if implemented appropriately. The adopted motion of the Planning Commission also included refinement to the round -about area. This is a key element that should be a focal point of the development, and provides an opportunity to make it a show - piece. It is hoped that this design feature will be available for the Council's review at the July 6 th 2004, meeting, where formal action will be requested on the various applications. 25 s� INDEX OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft excerpted minutes of Planning Commission meeting May 25, 2004 2. Report from WSB regarding the Brockway Residential Development Wetland Replacement Plan 3. Memo from WSB regarding Brockway EAW 4. Findings of Fact in the matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement 5. Memo from WSB regarding updated RoseRAM Evaluation 6. Memo from MnDOT with comments 7. Cost of Analysis of On -site vs. Off -site Ponding 8. Memo from CPDC regarding wetlands issues with attachment 9. Planning Commission Meeting minutes April 27, 2004 10. Memo from DNR regarding Shorelands issues 11. Shoreland Analysis Drawing 12. Shoreland Open Space Analysis Drawing 13. Open Space Calculations 14. Letter from Rosemount residents Dan and Mary Kehoe 15. Preliminary Plat Drawings Page 1 -12 16. Trail and sidewalk Drawings 17. Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan Pages 1 -3 18. Park Concept Plan Page 1 -2 19. Executive Summary Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting April 26, 2004 20. Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting minutes March 22, 2004 21. Planning Commission Meeting minutes March 23, 2004 22. Memo from Director Parks and Recreation dated March 9, 2004 23. Letter from Westwood dated March 30, 2004 24. Brockway Location Map 25. Resolution, 2004 -6 Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PUD 26. Planning Commission Meeting minutes November 25, 2003 27. City Council Meeting minutes January 6, 2004 28. Memo from Community Development Director dated December 31, 2003 29. Building designs and elevations Pages 1 -34 Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 25, 2004 6B. CASE 04 -16 -PP Brockway Development (CPDC) — Shoreland Ordinance Permit/PUD (Preliminary Plat) & Outlots of Brockway Final Plat City Planner Rick Pearson presented this application. Staff is recommending three separate motions relating to approval of the Preliminary Plat with conditions, approval of the Wetlands Conservation Act permit, and approval of the Outlots of Brockway Final Plat. Andie Moffatt, Wetlands Specialist from WSB, presented the wetlands portion of the report. She explained the Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) and the process this application is required to go through. She then explained the wetland impact of the Brockway site. There is a 30 day comment period for applicable agencies to provide input. It is her recommendation that the application does meet the Wetland Conservation Act. City Planner Rick Pearson explained some of the more significant revisions submitted with the latest preliminary plat and plans. He also discussed and clarified some of the conditions of approval. Homer Tompkins, Tim Whitten, Mike Waldo, and Dave Hempel were present to represent the applicant and to answer questions. Commissioner Zurn asked about the timeline of events. Dave Hempel of CPDC explained that July 7, they are expecting to apply for a demolition permit. There is some environmental cleanup that will be involved with demolition. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing. Bonnie Rohr, 2813 132 " St. W. She lives at the intersection of Highway 3 and 132 " St. There is a culvert that runs into the wetland on her property. She wanted to know how the holding pond that will be constructed will affect her property. MOTION by Powell to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Powell, Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Humphrey. Nays: None. Motion carried. City Engineer Andy Brotzler explained that there will be an outlet constructed to Keegan Lake.. The basin on the north side of County Road 38 will drain into the new infiltration basin which will be constructed. The north side and south side areas will operate independently of each other. It will not have an affect on the basin on the other side of the road. Commissioner discussion followed regarding further clarification of some of the conditions. Exh;b"f L. • Page 2 MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the Brockway site Preliminary Plat, PUD Final Development Plan, and Shoreland Overlay District Permit subject to the thirty one conditions outlined in the staff report. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, and Powell. Nays: None. Motion carried. MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council approve the Wetlands Conservation Act permit and accept the wetlands mitigation plan and wetlands exemption. Second by Zum. Ayes: Zurn, Messner, Humphrey, Powell, and Schultz. Nays: None. Motion carried. MOTION by Zurn to recommend that the City Council approve the Outlots of Brockway Final Plat subject to: 1. Consistency with the Brockway Site Preliminary Plat as approved. 2. Approval of the Dakota County Plat Commission. 3. Approval of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Second by Humphrey. Ayes: Humphrey, Powell, Schultz, Zurn, and Messner. Nays: None. Motion carried. This item will proceed to City Council June 15 for initial presentation. It will proceed for final action at the July 6, 2004 City Council meeting, after the 30 day comment period for WCA is complete. Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Rosemount Copy: Andy Brotzler, P.E, City of Rosemount. Chad Donnelly, City of Rosemount Dave Hutton, WSB & Associates, Inc. Phil Belfiori, TVSB & Associates, Inc. From: Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: June 7, 2004 Re: Brockway Residential Development Wetland Replacement Plan Wetland 394 and 425 Exemption WSB Project No. 1005 -97 Attached, please find the following documents related to wetland management in and around the Brockway Residential Development for your review: • Draft Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Notice of Decision for the Brockway Residential Development • Draft WCA Findings and Conclusions for the Brockway Residential Development • Exemption Certificate for Wetland 9425 • Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) Findings of Fact • Memo dated May 13, 2004 to Kim Lindquist. These items are for City Council review at the June 15, 2004 City Council meeting. It is anticipated that action on these items will be taken at the July 6, 2004 City Council meeting. The following is a summary of the information in this packet. Brockway Residential Development • The Brockway Residential site includes filling 4,036 sf of Wetland A associated with the turn lane and trail along County Road (CR) 38. Mitigation is required at a 2:1 ratio. Mitigation is proposed by creating 5,362 sf of New Wetland Credit by expanding Wetland A to the south and 26,627 sf of Public Value Credit (PVC) from the construction of on -site storm water ponds. • Wetland A (Wetland #356) is a Manage II wetland in the City's Wetland Management Plan. As such, storm water pretreatment is being provided prior to discharge to this wetland. An average 30 foot buffer will be maintained and/or created around this wetland. 0! CtA he , Minneapolis • St. Cloud - Equal Opportunity Employer June 7, 2004 Page 2 of 2 • The application was sent out for agency notice and review on May 11, 2004. The comment period will end June 11, 2004. To date, no comments have been received. • A Technical Evaluation Panel met on May 26, 2004. The TEP concurred that the wetland impacts had been reduced to the greatest extent feasible and that the mitigation met the Wetland Conservation Act requirements. The TEP meeting minutes are attached. Wetlands #394 and 9425 • Wetland 4394 in the City's Wetland Plan is located immediately west of TH3, west of the Brockway site. This site was reviewed for the presence of a jurisdictional wetland. The area did not meet the jurisdictional wetland criteria and therefore it is not a wetland under the Wetland Conservation Act nor should the wetland be managed under the City's Wetland Management Plan (see memo to Ms. Kim Lindquist dated May 13, 2004). • Wetland 9425 in the City's Wetland Plan is located south of the Brockway site, south of Connemara Trail. This site was created for effluent treatment for the old Rosemount Wastewater Treatment facility. Therefore, this wetland is exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act as an incidental wetland and it should not be managed under the City's Wetland Management Plan (see memo to Ms. Kim Lindquist dated May 13, 2004). • A Technical Evaluation Panel met on May 26, 2004. The TEP concurred that Wetland #394 was not a wetland. They also concurred with the incidental wetland exemption for Wetland #425. The TEP meeting minutes are attached. The Brockway replacement plan, Brockway exemption certificate, and Wetland 4425 exemption certificate have been reviewed and found to be in conformance with the WCA. It is recommended that the City Council approve the replacement plan and exemption plans based on the attached Findings and Conclusions at the July 6 City Council meeting. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (763)287 -7196. Attachments F. VPW1M1005- 971060704 hn:cadoc WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT NOTICE OF DECISION Name of applicant: Dave Hempel, CPDC Project name: Brockway Residential Development Type of application: ■ Exemption ■ Replacement plan ❑ No loss 0 Banking plan Location of project: SW1 /4 of the NEl /4 Section 20 T115N R19W Date of decision: Type of decision: ❑ Approve ■ Approve with conditions (conditions listed in Findings and Conclusions) 0 Deny List of Addressees: Mr. Les Lemm Mr. Brian Watson Board of Water and Soil Resources Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District One West Water Street - Suite 200 4100 — 220` St West S t. Paul, MN 55107 Farmington, MN 55024 Mr. Wayne Barstad DNR Wetland Coordinator DNR - Ecological Services Division Ecological Services Section 1200 Warner Road 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55106 St. Paul, MN 55155 Mr. Joe Yanta Mr. Pat Lynch US Corps of Engineers DNR Waters Attn: CO -R 190 Fifth Street E 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, MN 55106 Mr. Dave Hempel _ Mr. John Jaschke CPDC Dakota County 3030 Centre Point Drive — Suite 800 14955 Galaxie Avenue Roseville, MN 55113 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Ms. Allison Fraser Westwood Professional Services 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 You are hereby notified that the decision of the Local Government Unit on the above - referenced application was made on the date stated above. A copy of the Local Government Unit's Findings and Conclusions is attached. Pursuant to Minn. R. 8420.0250 any appeal of the decision must be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources within tliirty (30) days of the date of the mailing of this Notice: Date of mailin of this notice: City of Rosemount By: Andrea Moffatt Title: Environmental Scientist WSB & Associates. Inc. for the City_ WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS LGU : City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Name of Applicant: Dave Hempel, CPDC Project name: Brockway Residential Development The wetland replacement plan for the above referenced project was approved by the Rosemount City Council on _ date to be inserted after Council meeting based on the findings and conclusions outlined below. It has been determined that wetland impacts have been avoided, minimized, rectified, and reduced to the greatest extent reasonable based on site constraints within the project area. An average 30 foot buffer will be created and /or maintained around Wetland A and the associated mitigation area. For the impacts that could not be avoided, the proposed wetland replacement plan includes the following impact and mitigation plans: Additionally, Wetland B, Wetland C, Wetland D, and Wetland E have been determined to be exempt under Minnesota Rules 8420.0122, Subp. 5 — Incidental Wetlands. These wetlands were created in upland areas for wastewater treatment and as a water hazards on a golf course and are therefore exempt. Square feet Wetland Fill 4,036 sf Wetland Excavation NA Total Impact 4,036 sf New Wetland Credit Proposed 5,362 sf Public Value Credit Proposed 26,627 sf Total Mitigation Proposed 31,989 sf Total Mitigation Required 8,072 sf Additionally, Wetland B, Wetland C, Wetland D, and Wetland E have been determined to be exempt under Minnesota Rules 8420.0122, Subp. 5 — Incidental Wetlands. These wetlands were created in upland areas for wastewater treatment and as a water hazards on a golf course and are therefore exempt. The submitted application is approved based on the following conditions: 1 _ All wetlands and buffers will lie substantially in platted outlots deeded to the City of Rosemount, or within conservation easements. 2. Mitigation area monitoring reports will be prepared yearly for five years beginning the first growing season of the mitigation areas. 3. The WCA Deed Forms are filed with the County, as required. Qualified by the above conditions, the wetland replacement plan outlined in the permit application has been determined to offset the wetland impacts and fully complies with the Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Rosemount's Wetland Management Plan. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF NO LOSS OR EXEMPTION* APPLICANT AND PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION LA& 7 Vl 1iV.l GLilU LLLLI — l_.LLSU .UUU.UCII Name(s) of Applicant 2875145' St W Street Address Rosemount, MN 55068 City, State, Zip Code (651) -2005 ( ) LGU: City of Rosemount Project Location: 1/4 SE S 20 T 115N UTM Coordinates: X: y: County Name/Number: Dakota Minor Watershed Name/Number: Minn. River Lk Perin (381 Size of entire wetland: 1.8 acres Wetland type: Circular 39 5 ; NWI PUBGx Check one: ❑ <50% 9 50 % -80% or 9 > 80% Check one: ❑ Non -aa. land PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Describe the nature and purpose of the proposed project: The City is proposing to use Wetland 4251 Pond 1589 as a regional storm water pond. (attach additional pages if needed) Timetable: project will begin on 6 / 1 / 04 mo /da / and will be completed by 6 / 1 / 05 The wetland activity at the above site qualifies for the following under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) (check one). 7 No Loss Determination (attach plans) Exemption # 8420.0122 Supb.5, (per MN Rule Chapter 8420.0122) (Note: Applicant is responsible forsubmitting the proof necessary to show qualiflcation for the exemption claimed.) Description of Exemption Claimed: Wetland #425/ Pond 1589 was created in upland between 1951 and 1957 City Staff at Rosemount have indicated that the pond was created for the old Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Facility for effluent treatment. Therefore this wetland is incidental per Minnesota Rules 8420.0122 Su bp, 5. The aerial photos are attached. APPLICANT SIGNATURE The information provided for this determination is truthful and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I ensure that, in draining or filling the subject wetland under an exemption noted above, appropriate erosion control measures will be taken to prevent sedimentation of the water, the drain or fill will not block fish passage, and the drain or fill will be conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state and local requirements, including best management practices and water resource protection requirements established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103H. (Signature of Applicant) (Date) Cer0cate of No -Lola or Exemption (2000) Page t of 2 9/b t69Z ZZ£ t99 1d2a 9u1Jaeu12u3 lunowesoa }o 8117 Wd l0'b1 t001 /1l;90 S020 ' d 00L ti S t7s2% S31d I OOSSU '8 HSM b ti : ZI t700C- LE-I,bW Note: Any approval is not effective until signatures below are complete. No work should begin until the 30 -day appeal window has lapsed, or, in the event of an appeal, unlit the appeal has been finalized. Within 10 days of the dorision_ nntirP of the ahnva rlanlnin,..,, -+ U. . st a Mr. Les Lemm Mr. Brian Watson Board of Water and Soil Resources Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District One West Water Street - Suite 200 4100 220`" West St. Paul, MN 55107 Farmington, MN 55024 Mr. Wayne Barstad DNR Wetland Coordinator DNR - Ecological Services Division Ecological Services Section 1200 Warner Road 500 Lafayctte Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55106 St, Paul, MN 55155 Mr. Joe Yanta Mr. John Jaschke US Corps of Engineers Dakota County Attn: CO -R 190 Fifth Street E 14955 Galaxie Avenue St. Paul, MN 55101 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Mr. Pat Lynch DNR Watcrs 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, NIN 55106 Certificate of No -Loss oT Exemption (2000) Page 2 of2 9/£ *69Z ZZE 199 Ida(] 2uij9eui2u3 yunowasoa }o AZIO Wd LO :Z[ 400Z /LZ /90 S0/20 BFi?.TZbti 91, C;:l I H T')nggH 9 Qqm bT •7T +,Glra_, 77_ 1 WI.I *APPROVAL OF THIS CERTIFICATE ONLY APPLIES TO THE WCA. Permits from local, state, and federal agencies maybe required Check with the appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. The Combined Project Application form can be used for this purpose. WETLAND CONSER VATIONACT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT Date: May 26, 2004 LGU: Citv of Rosemount County: Dakota LGU Contact: Chad Donnelly or Andi Moffatt Project Name / #: Brockway Residential Development Phone #: (651)322 -2005 or (763)287 -7196 Location of Project: S W 1 A of the NE 1 /4 Section 20 T 115N R 19 W 'A '/< '/< Section Township Range Lot/Block Rosemount, Minnesota Dakota County City County TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) ( ) SWCD: David Holmen O BWSR: Les Lemm (X) LGU: Chad Donnelly () COE: Other Wetland Experts present: Andi Moffatt, WSB (viewed site and verified delineation on behalf ofLGU ) David Weetman, Westwood Professional Services TEP requested by: LGU Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply): Delineation check X_ Exemption Determination (WCA Exemption # 5 - Incidental No -Loss Determination X_ Replacement Plan 2. Ef 1.1 Description of Wetland with proposed impact: a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) Type 5 (Cowardin) b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre) 4,036 sf Have sequencing requirements been addressed? X yes - no Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes (X) No ( ) The project will affect the following wetland functions Functions Impact No Impact Irn rove Floodwater Storage X Nutrient Assimilation X Sediment Entrapment X Groundwater Recharge X Low Flow Augmentation X Aesthetics/Recreation X Shoreland Anchoring X Wildlife Habitat X Fisheries Habitat X Rare Plant /Animal Habitat X Commercial Uses X For replacement plan or no -loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes (X ) No ( ) Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.? Yes (X) No ) If no, why? JUN -01 -2004 16:42 WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.01/01 FED -13 -1900 19:25 P.01 Summary of Discussion: • ! The wetland impacts, mitigation, and City buffer requirement associated with the Brockway site were reviewed. The TEP concurred that sequencing had been met and that the mitigation was I consistent with WCA requirements. • The Incidental Wetland exemption for Wetlands B, C, D, and E were reviewed. The TEP concurred that these wetlands met Wetland Exemption 8420.0122, Subp, 5, • Wetland 394/ Pond 1552 (located west of TH3 off of the Brockway site) is noted in the City's Wetland Management Plan, the National Wetland Inventory, and the soil survey. However, this wet area appears on only two of the historic photos that were reviewed (Years 1937, 1940, 1951, 1957, 1964, 1970, 1979, 1984, 1991 1997, and 2002). A field delineation was completed in May 2004 and indicated that this area did not meet wetland criteria since it lacked hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology, Additionally, the site was reviewed after significant rainfalls in the Spring of 2004 to determine if water ponded in this location. No water was evident in this area following significant rainfall events. Therefore, the TEP concurred that this area was not wetland. * i Wetland 425/ Pond 1589 (located south of Connemara Trail off of the Brockway site) was reviewed for Incidental Wetland status per Minnesota Rules 8420.0122, Subp. S. This pond was constructed between 1951 and 1957. information from City Staff at Rosemount indicated that this pond was constructed for the old Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Facility for effluent treatment. The TEP concurred that if this site was constructed for the WWTF, it would qualify for the Incidental Wetland exemption. The City will complete an Exemption Application. S. SIGNA TEP decision is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) SWCD RcprCSenlutIYC (Date) SWSR Peprmcntative (Date) LGU Representative (Date) TEP Findings of Fact (2000) TOTAL P.01 TOTAL P,01 MAY -27 -2004 12:15 05/27/2004 12:05 PM WSB & ASSOCIATES 7635411700 P.05i05 City of Rosemount Engineering Dept. 651 322 2694 5/5 (Md . angquasaidag f1cJ �7 Le S 000'r) lid 3a sSutpuf3 d3.L Onpa) ah!muasejdag 85M9 (ales) - petuasalda% QDMS (08vd s7yj fo gavg aril uo unrldra puv ysy tatsv uv vp? arou 'Smiwasuoa v Tou sl uol -Wop d9.1 () Sg21CLLtrI�irJIS ' 8 •uoT ;gaTTddy uopdmaxa ug a;aldmoa UTm 14rZ) aq,L •uor;dmaza puBpaM re;uapTauT ag; ro; &Tllsnb prnam Il 'dLMM aql -to; Aa3snalsuoa sgm airs srq ;,Tr ;eq; paiinauoa du aq.L •;uam;ga.r; ;uang,Ta .ro3 l.11lTag3 ;aam ;ga i L raisnsalsgM ;unomasog pro aq; ao; pa;an.risuoa snm puod srq; Iugi palvarpur;unourasoU It jje ;S diTD mo,3 uognrurGjuI 'L561 Pug IS6I uaanslaq pa;an.usaoa situ puod srgy .S •dgnS'ZZ10'OZbB sain'i e;osaumW aad sn ;g ;s push ;aM Ig;uaprauI 10; paMarnal snAi (alts Sgm-loolg atp jo 33o ilgz,L g.ivmauuoa jo q ;nos pa ;rao1 695I Puod /SZtb Puvllala • •pull ;a,u ;ou sum sass s ►q; #nql paiinauoa dg,L aq; `aloja ragy •sluaAa UquIv.r IuuagTuSrs gulmoTlo} sa ze srq; ur ;uapr REA& aa;gte oil •nor ;gaol srq; ul papuod la ;sat 3r auitu to ;ap o; }�OOZ jo 2uLidS aq; ui sllejurss MUDUru&s .ra ;3g paA gUal SUM airs agI',fllguoT;ippV - XN olozpXg Pam 'spos aup/Cq `uor ;e;anaA apXgdazpAq pa3lasT ;z aaurs eua;ua puapaed;aaur Iou prp ga.rE srq ; ;Eq; pawipur pus b00Z T pa ;aldwo3 snu uorleaugap plag d •(ZOOZ pus 4 L66I 6 I66I `f"1 `61.61 `OL61 `17961 4 L56T 156I `OP61 V61 s.1e3,0 paesa[AU aiau;eq) soloqd alto ;slq aq;,To oAq Sluo uo sasadde gale ;aN srq; '.raAaMOR 'XaA.rns Iron aq; pug i- do;uRAUI pas(aaM Ieuo7isK agI'usra Iuama2sulcw puniI s,f4rJ aq; ur palou sr (airs , vAgaoig aq jo jjo £g,L,ro ;sab palu:)OO ZSSI Puod /t PABpaAi o 'S 'dgnS `ZZI0'0Zh8 uo.Idmaxa pusr;aM;am spuupqu asagl ;uq; pa rsnauoa clal aq,L 'Pati TAai aaaM a pue'Q':)'g spusllaM aoj uol ;dmaxa pugT ;aM Tsluapraui aqs, • •sluauraarnba. d3M gjIm ;uaaslsuoa sgm uor;e9Ilrur aq; ;eq; Pug laur uaaq puq 2utauanbas Ieq; pa unouoa 12[ L aq,L TIIAWuaz alaM airs SyMaoig aq; q ;rb pa ;eraossg ;uaumamba r as jjnq 141:) pus 'uoTIv2i ;Tm 's ;aedarr puepau aq moissmsiQ 3o fautu mnS TOTAL P.05 Memorandum To: Jon Larson, EOB Monitor From: Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc. Anna Brenes, WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: May 13, 2004 Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAU) Brockway Residential Development I1'SB Project No. 1556 -03 The public comment period for the Brockway Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) ended March 17, 2004. Responses to comments and Findings of Fact were prepared and are attached. From this process, the City Council concluded that this project does not have the potential for significant environmental affects. Therefore, the City has issued a Negative Declaration of Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). C. Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator Rick Pearson, City Planner Andy Brotzler, City Engineer Dave Hutton, WSB & Associates, Inc. Bill Weber, CPDC Dave Hempel, CPDC Fran Hagen, Westwood Professional Services Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council Brigid Gombold, Mn/DOT Senior Transportation Planner Mary McNeff, Mn/DOT Transportation Planner Lynn Moratzka, Dakota County Planning Jay Riggs, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Wayne Barstad, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources F: I YT'PWIN ]556- 031051304jGsegneed. doc 'hif 3 Minneapolis St. Cloud • .Equal Opportunity Employer r4 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT In the matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Brockway Residential Development in Rosemount, MN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Contractor Property Developers Company (CPDC) is proposing a mixed use residential development consisting of 612 total units. Housing types will consist of single and multi- family residential. Several outlots are proposed on the project site.. This development includes construction of 86 single - family homes, three 60 -unit apartment buildings of which 1/3 will be senior housing, and 346 town home units, as well as a 15,000 SF of a Neighborhood Commercial area. The 106 acre area is located south of County Road 38, and east of State Highway 3 (South Robert Trail). One outlot will consist of up to 15.0 acres of dedicated city park, a storm water pond, a ball field, and a trail system. Pursuant to Minnesota R. 4410.4300, subp. 19D, the City of Rosemount has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for this proposed project. As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project and based on the record in this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of Rosemount makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: FINDINGS OF FACT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project The proposed project involves grading the 106 -acre site to construct streets, utilities, and residential units. It is anticipated that 1.8 acres of wooded area will be removed and 26 acres of impervious area will be added as part of this project. Lawn and landscaped area will comprise 36 acres of the site after construction. Four additional acres of storm water ponding areas and a 15 acre public park are also proposed as part of the project. B. Project Site The proposed project is located north of Connemara Trail, south of County Road 38, west of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul Railroad, and east of TH 3. The site currently contains 6 acres of brush/grassland, 77.06 acres of golf turf, 7 acres of wooded area, 0.94 acres of wetland, and 15 acres of an existing warehouse and associated parking lot. F '1iPI1 ?A' i it -0 (lp( rerised.chic Exh i b;4 4 II. PROJECT HISTORY A. The project was subject to the mandatory preparation of an EAW under Minnesota R. 4410.4300 subp. 19D. B. An EAW was prepared for the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on February 9, 2004. C. A public notice containing information about the availability of the EAW for public review was published in the Rosemount Town Pages on February 13, 2004. D. The EAW was noticed in the February 16, 2004 EQB Monitor. The public comment period ended March 17, 2004. Comments were received from the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Dakota County, and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Copies of these letters are hereby incorporated by reference. Responses to the comments are also incorporated by reference. III. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 1 states "an EIS shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental affects." In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental affects, the City of Rosemount must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City finds as follows: A. TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The first factor that the City must consider is "type, extent and reversibility of environmental effects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The City's findings with respect to each of these issues are set forth below. 1. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated as part of this project include: a. Land Use: The land use will be converted from industrial and open space /park to residential. To address this concern the development plans contain park and open space to mitigate for the conversion of land use. b. Wastewater and Water Consumption: This development is anticipated to use and generate approximately 167,688 GPD of water and wastewater. The MCES Wastewater Treatment F IdTId7.'\ "'.1 -�?6-03 ;01O6(14TOF- a-er ;sed.doc Facility has adequate capacity to handle the sewage volumes from this site. The increase in water use will be mitigated by the expansion of the City's water supply, storage, and distribution systems. Storm Water: The project is anticipated to generate additional storm water runoff. This runoff will be treated within on -site and off -site ponding facilities and infiltration areas to NURP guidelines. The design of the on -site stormwater management system is required to be sized to accommodate the 100 -year, 24 -hour critical storm event. d. Traffic: Traffic volume on TH 3, Connemara Trail, and CR 38 will increase. As a result several improvements will be necessary to ensure the safety and operation on these roadways. These improvements are outlined in the 2003 Traffic Impact Study completed for this site and are included with the EAW. e. Dump Sites / Known and Potential Sources of Soil and Groundwater Pollutant Sites: Information from Dakota County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency indicates that there are several known and potential sources of pollutants within the site. These areas will be investigated and remediated in conformance with federal and state regulations and with Dakota County Ordinance 110, Chapter 14. 2. The extent and reversibility of environmental impacts are consistent with those of residential development. B. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS The second factor that the City must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects ", Minnesota R. 4410.1700 subp.7.B. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below. The Brockway property is currently zoned B -P2 and PI. The city will need to re -zone and re -guide the area to a combination of urban and high density residential uses to reflect the different housing types proposed in the plan as well as the commercial site. The regional land use conversion from parks, business park, and open space to developed residential space is anticipated to have a cumulative impact on the area Attempts to mitigate this impact will include providing open space and park in the development, providing adequate storm water management facilities, and addressing traffic impacts. The F h IP1d7' \",I5i6- 03`040604FOF- rcrised.doc City's current ordinances, standards, and policies are anticipated to be adequate to address these issues. C. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY I. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: State Type of Application MPCA Review / Approval of a Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action Plan MPCA NPDES /SDS Phase E Storm Water Construction Permit MPCA Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit Minnesota DNR Water Appropriation Minnesota Department of Health Water Main Extension Permit City/Local Met Council Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Met Council Sanitary Sewer Extension Dakota County Review Construction Contingency Plan/Response Action Plan Dakota County Access Permit City of Rosemount/Dakota County Plattin City of Rosemount Building Permits City of Rosemount Site Plan Review City of Rosemount WCA Permit I. The City finds that the potential environmental impacts of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing regulatory authorities such that an EIS need not be prepared. D. THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, OR OF EISs PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ON SIMILAR PROJECTS. The fourth factor that the City must consider is "the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, F JlPlii.''.I /_(L;,(= OC(- 'FOF- rer;sed.�nc or of EISs previously prepared on similar projects," Minnesota R. 4700.1700, subp. 7.D. The City's findings with respect to this factor are set forth below: The proposed project is subject to the following plans prepared by the City: 1. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan (2003) 2. City of Rosemount Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (1999) 3. City of Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan The proposed project is subject to the investigation and remediation, if deemed necessary, of the following sites in conformance with the County and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: I. Dakota County Environmental Management Department Dump Sites 5363, 5358, 5424, 5387, 5366, 5388, and 5004. 2. Any additional areas identified by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as potential sources of soil and/or groundwater pollution. The proposed project is subject to the Response Action Plan and Construction Contingency Plan that will be prepared by the project proposer to address known and potential contaminants within the site. These documents will be reviewed and/or approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Dakota County. The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of the environmental review, planning, and permitting processes. CONCLUSIONS The preparation of Brockway Residential Development EAW and comments received on the EAW have generated information adequate to determine whether the proposed facility has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects exist, but appropriate measures have or will be incorporated into the project plan and/or permits to mitigate these effects. The project is anticipated to comply with all City of Rosemount standards and review agency standards. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota R. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. F .1i I'br]A ".; iG- (!i',(10ii0 OF - r�i ^s d.doc WS B & Associates, Inc. To: 4 lt. t x A� 4150 Olson suite 300 Minneapolis Minnesota 55422 763.541.4800 3.541.1700 FAX Date: Re. Memorandum David Weetman, Westwood Professional Services Andy Brotzler, City of Rosemount Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount Chad Donnelly, City of Rosemount Dave Hempel, CPDC Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District Les Lemm, Board of Water and Soil Resources Andi Moffatt, WSB & Associates, Inc. May 6, 2004 Brockway Site Wetland #356— Updated RoseRAM Evaluation WSB Project No. 1005 -97 As a follow up to the discussions between the City and CPDC regarding the wetland on the north side of the Brockway site (Wetland #356 in the City's Wetland Management Plan), we have conducted an updated RoseRAM on this wetland. RoseRAM is the City's version of MnRAM that was used in the development of the City's Wetland Management Plan. The purpose of this review was to determine if Wetland #356 could be classified as a Utilize wetland rather than a Manage II wetland as indicated in the City's Wetland Management Plan. The following information was used to complete this review: • Information from the Phase I study that was completed for the Brockway site that indicated that Wetland 356 had been contaminated from waste discharge from past activities on the Brockway site. • Information from the Brockway EAW. • The original RoseRAM completed in 1997 for Wetland #356. • Historical aerial photos • Data from WSB's 2003 wetland delineation for Wetland #356. • Site visit information from April 26, 2004 and May 3, 2004 for Wetland 9356. Based on this information, an updated RoseRAM was completed. This updated evaluation scored the wetland at 300. Based on the City's Wetland Management Plan, wetlands that receive scores of 280 to 420 are Manage II wetlands. Therefore, this wetland will remain in the Manage II category. As such, a 30 foot buffer and sediment pretreatment are required. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (763) 287 -7196. ekh I � l F: \WP W 1N\ 1 005- 97 \050504dw.doc Minneapolis St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer ., 1 1 �dNNES° D° tiF Minnesota Depart. nt of Transportation �, Metropolitan Division OF 7RP Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 May 5, 2004 Mr. Rick Pearson Community Development Director City of Rosemount City Hall 2875 - 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 - 4997 SUBJECT: Brockway Glass, Mn/DOT Review # PO4 -038 Northeast quadrant of TH 3 and Connemara Trail Rosemount, Dakota County Control Section 1921 Dear Mr. Pearson: A N D - ( V � - w tt. fob' ✓ (At 'r -a D PcJF k - E' A AP z — The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above referenced plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, Subdivision 2. Plats. Please incorporate these additional comments with those that were originally mailed to the City in our letters dated March 12, 2004, and March 22, 2004. Before any further development, please address the following comments. Please note that additional or more specific comments may arise during Mn/DOT Metro Division's permitting process. • Mn/DOT Metro District Water Resources Engineering has reviewed the grading plans and sewer plans submitted recently. Please provide Mn/DOT Metro District Water Resources Engineering with a copy of the hydraulic model(s) used to substantiate the design, along with the maps or figures to indicate the proposed location of major ponding areas. The model or models should show the site and all ponds within the site, and the destination of the outflow outside of the site. A watershed area map must accompany the model, or models. We believe that the City has established useful requirements, and Mn/DOT needs information identical to what the City receives on hydraulic and hydrologic design. For questions, please call Scott Carlstrom, Mn/DOT Metro Water Resources Engineering, at (651) 634 -2416. Please send hydraulic models and other requested materials to: Scott Carlstrom Mn/DOT Metro Water Resources Engineering Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. An equal opportunity employe Mr. Rick Pearson Page 2 May 5, 2004 Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 582 - 1293. As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence for development activity such as plts and site plans to: Development Review Coordinator Mn/DOT - Metro Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as this will prevent us from having to delay and/or return incomplete submittals. If you have any questions regarding this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 582 -1462. Sincerely, ;� 4Aj-� )�� Mary McNeff Transportation Planner Copy: Todd Tollefson, Acting Dakota County Surveyor Anna Brenes, WSB and Associates, Minneapolis, MN Ann Braden / Metropolitan Council P� 1 Cost Analysis of on- site vs. off - site ponding - Brockway 5/7/04 Costs for on site ponding - 1. Grading for ponding of DA -2 (16.5 acres), DA -2A (4.0 acres) Southwest Pond - 21,292 cu yds common borrow @ $1.50 =$ 31,938 Surface area (100 year elev) 450x130/43560 =1.34 acres Southeast pond - 13,008 cu. yds common borrow @ $1.50 = $19,512 Surface area (100 year elev) 800x80/43560 =1.47 acres 2. Outlet Control structures - 2 @ $4,000 = $8,000 3. Ponding Fee credits 16.5 @ $3,920 /acre = <$64,680> 4.0 acres x $2,613 /acre = <$10,452> 4. Trunk Storm Fee .Credit 1.34 ac. X $4,575/ac = <$6,131> 5. Lost Park Land 100'x 570'/43560 =1.31 acres x $60,000 = $78,600 Total $56,787 Costs for off -site ponding - 1. Storm sewer crossing at Commemara Tr with twin 26 x43 arch RCP (See Westwood estimate) = $186,975 2. Engineering Fees 20% x $186,975 = $37,395 3. City Fees 5% x $186,975 = $9,349 4. GIS Fees - 22 units x $55 /unit = $1,210 5. 5 ft Sidewalk - 700 L.F. @ $161L.F. = $11,200 6. 22 Sanitary sewer & water services @ $1,500 1each = $ 33,000 7. Soil testing on 22 Pads @ $200 /unit = $4 8. Additional street (pvt) 1201.f. @ $60/L.F. = $7,200 9. Grading 22 units @ $1,500 /unit = $33,000 10. Park Dedication fee for 22 units x 1/25= 5.5 Acres x $60,000 = $330,000 12. Park land gain -131 acres @ $60,000 /acre = <$78,600> 13. Additional 22 units @ $27,535 /unit (finished pad) = <$605,770> 14. Ponding Fee 16.5 @ $3,920 /acre = $64,680 4.0 acres x $2,613 /acre = $10,452 15. Trunk Storm 1.34 area (southwest pond surface area) x $4,575 = $6,131 Total $50,622 Net difference for off - site ponding (50,622 - 56,787) <$6,165> Note: Tax benefit to City not included in estimate E D l; MAY 1 0 2004 "L-Ji I � RPR -30 -2004 11.37 CPDC 651 P.01 /02 n CONTRACTOR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS COMPANY m n FACSIMIL IE TRAN SMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: Kim,Lindquist /Ri Pearson David Hempel COMPANY: DATR: City of Rosemount April 30, 2004 PAX NUMBER! TOTAL NO, OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER 651) 423 -5203 2 PRUNE NUMBER: SENnEWS PHONE NUM5CR: 651= 556- 4525/cell 612= 240 -7822 RE: Brockway 651 -556 -4545 X.URGL'•NT X FOR REVIEW X PLEA3L'• COMMENT Cl PLEASE RRPI_Y ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES /COMMENTS: Kim and Rick, we were brainstorming the other day on ways to minimize impacts to the nord - i wetland (adjacent Co Rd 38) and maximize open space area. The thought is to reduce the median & road right of way alonj; the N/S street at the north end where it connect to Co. Rd 38. The street width and geometries would not change significantly only the center median and R.O.W width. Currently the median is 18 feet wide (f to f and we arc requesting to reduce it to 6 feet wide(same as Conncrnara tr.) and the R.O.W. from 100 ft to around 84 feet, north of Strect 2. Eventually taper back to a 62 foot wide R.O.W. south of street 2. I have asked Andy Brotzler about the median change and his first thought was it appeared reasonable but Couldn't address any issues that planning may have. The only downside would be the amount of landscaping area in the median would reduccd, However, there seemed to be a concern from the city anyway about landscaping in the medians from a traffic and sight line issue. Therefore, this change appears to be a win -win for everyone. Please review and sham any concerns, /comments you may have. We would like to have Westwood in corporate tlds modification as soon as possible. Your attention in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Cc; Mikc Waldo 3030 CENTRE POINTF DR., SUITE 300, R0,SEVILLL•,MN 55113 e-V-k;bi+'9 ►, �A i 3030 CENTRE POINTF DR., SUITE 300, R0,SEVILLL•,MN 55113 e-V-k;bi+'9 ze•d - ldlol ;0,07 R ' llg lt.�l - T- 2 °'d'SP = 535.43 _ NDO "E 1053,39 STATE FOGHWAY NO. 3 (SOUTH'FlOBERT TRAIL) 1 n 71 Ir^ l J L—J f I l l Doti. —, i I 1 n. I J�J .a �..�LtiJ�;\J I "--]]� L J J I' — 1 — ➢ LJ lcr { r - 1 -•, SIC �� .1� �— � � I �.. _ G 1� 1 v t Aw 1 �r' to to I - a i i 1 (1 X17+ D1 or 1 1 I m� ; I �__ l r- - tr -• . ��� r �1 1 1, ��� w. v. /� � / � I . 1 I � it 0 = _ +{ 1 q I �l I C i • , / / � / � as �� U r o 3 3 IJ PPI /P 1 "A Z Cq XTHO Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 27, 2004 6C. CASE 04 -16 -PP Brockway Development — Shoreland Ordinance Permit & PUD with Variance (Preliminary Plat) Rick Pearson presented the continuing application from Contractor Property Developers Company. Staff has received revised plans for the preliminary plat for the Brockway area redevelopment. Many of the previously raised issues have been resolved. However, the environmental review process identified several outstanding concerns, specifically, the requirements of the City's Shoreland Overlay district relative to Keegan Lake, and the State Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) rules relating to several wetlands on the site. The Shoreland requirements trigger a separate public hearing and opportunity for DNR comment, and WCA rules require field delineation of the wetlands. Due to the time of year, the wetland delineation has not been conducted as yet, however, it is expected that the delineation and initiation of the agency comment period will occur prior to the Commission's May meeting. Staff's preference is to continue the discussion of the revised preliminary plat, giving the Commissioners increased familiarity with the project and the opportunity to comment about any plan revisions. However the public hearing would be continued until May 25, 2004 at which time the wetland and shoreland issues should be substantially resolved. Pat Lynch, DNR Area Hydrologist has indicated that the Plan appears to be generally consistent with the standards. A condition of approval would require consistency with the DNR shoreland standards either with inclusion of the 7 -acre site, upon development, or for the current Brockway proposal independently. Upon review of the proposed stormwater plan, it has been determined that the City's stormwater goals and policies are primarily achieved with the design. At this time, Staff is working with the developer to review alternatives for managing stormwater in the southern area of the property. Discussion occurred regarding stormwater ponding, drainage, pipeline easement, and water supply issues. City Engineer Brotzler explained the improvements that will be occurring on Highway 3. The project in conjunction with MnDOT includes a signal that will be installed at Connemara Trail and Highway 3. At County Rd. 38 (132 St.) there will be turn lanes and widening and striping. The remainder of the project will be at McAndrews Road, which will also receive a signal. Approval of the preliminary plat will include a condition that the first phase of the development include the platting and construction of the entire length of the north -south road, as well as the improvements to County Road 38 that will result in left turn lanes off Highway 3 at County Road 38 and a right turn lane at County Road 38 into the development. Those improvements would probably be phased over a 2 year period. 6)k h 110 C7 Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. MOTION by Messner to continue the Brockway Project Public Hearing to May 25, 2004. Second by Schultz. Ayes: Messner, Humphrey, Powell, Schultz, and Zurn. Nays: None. Motion carried. Pearson,Rick From: Pat Lynch [pat.lynch @dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 3:22 PM To: Pearson,Rick Subject: Brockway Glass Site, CPDC thanks for meeting last week with me and representatives of Westwood and Contractor Property Developers Corp to discuss the shoreland zoning aspects of the Brockway site. Roughly a third of the project are falls with the shoreland overlay of Keegan Lake. I just today received the drawing from Westwwod depicting open space. Under PUD standards for shoreland, at least 50% of the project area (within shoreland district only) must be maintained in open space. Adequate provisions must be developed to ensure the preservation and maintenance, in perpetuity, for the proposed development. The provisions for the preservation and maintenance of the open space must be in form of deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication, or other equally effective and permanent means. The provisions must prohibit construction of accessory buildings or storage /parking of vehicles and vegetative and topographic alteration, other than routine lawn maintenance. The provisions should be enforceable Typically, in my experience, the open space requirements are met through conservation easement or public dedication. What is proposed at the Brockway site is non - traditional, in that it identifies front, rear, and side yard areas of single family homes /lots to accomplish a large percentage of the open space requirement. This gets difficult to enforce the requirements of open space. It appears the open space, when including the 7 -acre exception to the east and the 10 units shown on the drawing, minimally meets the 50% requirement. Although meeting the minimum requirement, I am concerned about the long -term effectiveness of maintaining it. Wherever possible, markers, monuments, or other visual identifiers of open space should be considered. As we discussed last week, the overall impervious surface within shoreland slightly exceeds the allowable 25% maximum. Overall impervious in shoreland is calculated at 28 9 6, however, within the first two tiers (closest to the lake) the impervious surface, as reported by Westwood, is 23 %, 2% less than the maximum. -The fact that impervious surface closer to the lake is less than maximum, and that the stormwater management in the proposed development goes beyond traditional rate control, I can accept the slight increase in maximum impervious surface up to 28% within the entire shoreland area. The density, as we discussed last week, is well within that which is allowable under a residential PUD. I am satisfied the intent of the Shoreland PUD regulations are met in the development proposed. Thanks again for working with me on this. Let me know if you have further questions of me, Pat Lynch DNR South Metro Area Hydrologist phone 651.772.7917 fax 651.772.7977' pat.lynch@dnr.state.mn.us 1 '10 Z �71 267' X `:267 n 1 I'I I I,) \ a 1 KEEQe LAKE N" k, GOPHER STATE ONE CALL X�. A—. 4 --7 1 j f ' J A ------- ------ Vp uhl L J A � I�r 21)I' f l � _ \� i i X L AV f Yvi 7 ktl M7, W Z, 4, a w - - - - -- y II a� A P� 0 , 4- -P d . 14k- I Contractor Property Developers Company Brockway Site 13 267 Ism— 1.11 KEEGAN L,4KE GOP ER STATE ME CALL OPrn SP H— CaWaOi— (Brock y Site OWy) 011 A A Open SP— C81-18ii— ( Ax6V 7 —v exceplimV 1 . " M A Typical F.,,Wv L.1 open Sp.—: Pt rz i 7 F - I .4, L 4y/ -1. Z I f i t ULU I Brockway Contractor Propert Developers Company Site Sho,g-d o Sp— A.Adyg" Ell 0 c l , 4)( ova cC, j ` 0 o � cb a n O 2 o n Q_ :z m CD co � o p. n' CD (D O o � O p 00� Cb 4 O Cp a to n O ul a 'X a a(b � cD � O N aQ (b cb co a n J l y 3 rn o co o a cD a� j' � cD cD Q ry. C O` � J 5 cn 0 cb j' O c4 O c 0 O rn CD O zi Q 0 ,c 0 ( O Cn' n O C o I R 0 'r:) m cp 4 m O 0 � Z C r O L � J O m Q 0 Q I O o (b o � � o Q Z ( II �° o' CS- 0) o) �v V � o N � o n .�o ZI Mi j/ j CL CQ v CD O o "o c,D (b cD o 0 j N ZE CD � j' (b O ,+ c Zi II �� o Q I I -4. 0 v Co I, rn � N3 C)o� �o ti 4% Ef) C)Ow 0 (� Q � n M " A b-I w ca S2 O ....... ......... --------_ __._ . ....... L ..............__._._ — _ — .1 . ...... ....... __ ......... . .... . ...... Suitable Area within the Shoreland Tier 1 Total Area (sq. ft.) 238,084.0 Total Area (acres) 5.5 Unsuitable Area (s care feet) Suitable Area (sq. ft.) 238,084.0 Suitable Area (acres) 5.5 Wetlands 0 Bluffs 0 Lake lAccess Lots 0 2 348,733.4 8.0 0 0 0 348,733.4 8.0 3 460,725.6 10:6 8,859.1 0 0 451,866.5 10.4 4 416,239.0 9.6 25,665.9 0 0 390,573.1 9.0 Total 1,463,782.0 33.6 34,525.0 0 0 1,429,257.0 32.8 Shoreland Density Analysis per D NR Standards ........................... .. . . .......... . .. - ... . . ............ . .. . ........ . ...... . . ................ . .............. . ........... . . .... . ... . .............. .......... ......... . . ........... . ...... . .... ......... .. . ......... - ......... . ..... ......... . . . . ......... 2 2a 3 4 5 6 7 Tier Suitable Area I (sq. ft-) Suitable Area (acres) Required Lot Size (sq. ft.) Allowable Base Density Density 2 Increase Mult Her Allowable Density w/ Multiplier Density Proposed 7 1 1 238,084.0 5.5 15,000 16 1.5 1 24 6 2 348,733.4 8.0 15,000 23 2 46 21 3 451,866.5 10.4 15,000 30 3 90 34 4 390,573.1 9.0 15,000 26 3 78 53 Total 1,429,257.0 32.8 95 239 114 Suitable area does not include wetlands, bluffs, take access lots, or any area below the OHWL. In accordance with the Shoreland Ordinance, at least 50 percent of the project area is open space by DNR definition (see open space plan). The project also includes increased structural setbacks from the OHWL and mitigating vegetative management features, which allows for use of density .- multipliers ---- ------- ---- ---- - ------- 4— . . .......... . ... . . ................... .. . ........ ................................. ...... ... .. ___ .......... .......... . .. ..... . . .. ................................ I .......... ......... . ...................... I .................... ._ . . . . ....... ............ I .. . ...................... Total Impervious Surface Within Shoreland (Brockway site only) . .......... ................... . ..... Tier Tier Area Impervious Surface by Type Impervious Surface (st) % Impervious Surface (s.f.) Sin le Family Multi EjUjL_L Roads Sidewalks 3 Trails 238,084.0 17,400 0 22,265.7 1,208.7 1,256.0 42,130.4 17.7% 2 348,733.4 60,900 0 28,948.6 8,491.4 1,909.9 100,249.9 28.7% 3 460,725.6 55,100 26,834.6 77,310.6 21,043.7 1,834.51 1 182,123.4 1 39.5%:� 4 416,239.0 14,500 67,451.6 91,711.5 17,444.5 5 377.71 196,485.3 47,2% (— Total 1,463,782.0 1 520,989.0 35.6% ( Note. ........... -- - .......... - -- ----- - ------- . .. Based on average of 2,900 s.f Single Family home impervious surface. Z Based on b uilding pads and driveways. Based ------ — -- — --------- publi and private sidewalks. El iminating the existing Co.Rd. 38 roads urface (22,1 s from the calculations reduces the Impervious S urface s f to 4 98,880 s f, (3 4. % Total Impervious Surface Within Shoreland (Including 7 acre exception) Tier 1 Impervious Surface by Type Total Square Feet 49,886.1 % Impervious Surface 18.0% Tier Area (s. f) 276,775.5 Single Family t 20,300 Multi Family 2 0 Roads 27,047.4 Sidewalks 3 1,282.7 Trails 1,256.0 2 454,99 81,200 0 41,032.9 11,641.0 1,909.9 135,783.8 29.8% 3 547,128.8 60,900 26,834.6 80,821.5 22,207.1 1,834.5 192,597.7 35.2% 4 459,781.0 14,500 91,711.5 17,444.5 5,377.7 196,485.3 42.7% Total 1,738,676.2 . 67,451.6 574,752.9 3 iBased Based on rage of 2,900 s.f. Single Family home impervious surface. Based on building p ads and driveways. public and private sidewalks. -- Note: Eliminating the "existing-Co.Rd.38 ro,a,dsurface (29 s9 from the calculations reduces the impervious Surface sf to 545,457.9 sf(31.3%) April 21, 2004 Rosemount Planning Commission 2875 145` St West Rosemount MN 55068 Council members, 1 ..1 A We were notified of the meeting regarding the development of the Brockway Glass site and were unable to attend. We have expressed our concerns at previous meetings regarding the high density of the development which will exacerbate our main concern: TRAFFIC! The traffic issue is continually brought up and validated, but there have been no real solutions. The only response to the problem is a projected stoplight at Connemara. Is that all there is? At the last planning commission meeting a suggestion was made to eliminate all access from the development onto 132 Street West. This would alleviate some of the congestion that would inevitably exist at this intersection without a traffic light. This suggestion was never addressed. We live close to the proposed development and are greatly affected by the decisions of the council. There have been an overwhelming number of people who have spoken with us and share in our efforts to bring the traffic issue to light. We are genuinely concerned for the safety of our families, local commuters, and the residents of Rosemount. Sincerely, Dan and Mary Kehoe 13100 South Robert Trail Rosemount MN 55058 00 4 LiL�%lb;tIq ,'Al�e�,,;,;,�� �. pie � • ��� � - 3 kip - /) ,_ � � t it �:_ �r►�r►..� ,:�- / �_- -_,��, -. leml Cdl N Hau., b.Mr, e199hG GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Tp Cny Mn a5t�- 131 -0009 tm c... t -e o- x.9 -naa X g c I ��, Westwood Rdessiorial�5ervket lnc I �^ y- `"` 9� n. lac Contractor Property Developers Company OS / / 3Mi1 ' I I a I 4999 Cmtra PaMI Ufi,, dWla a99 ,lams., 604 65999 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Lleal Revia m Date 0.5114/04 a�. 021V104 ass 1 w 1{ Brockway Glass Existing Conditions Survey I Pwamuel. AHnmoo sow ararope Pro1..Awd s.rAre, Nc I I I I I I ( I I I I h I I I I IIII� l �� — I I I \ 5 V )W r / F c S c I I III I I 1 1 11fr'aFMRE 1. P WO 1 / 1 � / 1 / Westwood Pidessialal Inc I ;, ,- „�,�„_�%•"" nsn scan me 1 PHVHLOPt.ffi•rr DATA E rlNp Z.nhp W -; Bu,Ne, Pa•L t PL P.YkYNrla fYrnrp DLId, pAN BurNee PwY l PaY,/tycn fpac, M1ld 91, N,v IIlSp Aw xlvA..Y ] R.aW. Lbun fY Ro,d JB A0.a 1 ➢a Ave C.nnm,r, Tiv, R.aY ] }I Av., "I Ave / BO' f,W.d le C.unly R.N Y 10 PYDar F.0.W. (Nl,md) Pit ISLD Aw �Ir �w nlu Mwu,�w rP.o. /rwdMp 1N Aw Ln Ar., L¢OLGAKLY¢0 w ,,,� �� P� II.JI Ave fulun Cr.unrdY YYY R fkp/r >Yna} a)J Avu T¢OB Aar, , 0'lrN ITI)S YW� Pvnar Ia.M.m� P IT S N.N Avu ful ✓. APVMwI, (9Y 14) SJp Av,r nlr. s.,L. xw,Np (BU 1! ;sl Are 11N1T HILPAtrIIOWN �' L Nr, F,p„a.s >o om, v.nhp: YWIFF.mpy � waomrc JBS LMx, 1� Wu ApvMwlr II wn, I10 LMNr fwb/ H.ur1.s sa un,l, r ld fMnc st, IMn. Gw, 0.Wgvmel UwrlY S,p IINI,/AV, ldTf srAlrowans s� i n,el� t!1 Wrda (B rrwl. r s.°.d) L41 B,pa as• t)B• uYD IJO'Yh ' YNlnum SS' Sf. l,l Nrc ;IIB ,/. -M A S1 In Arrvpr M' SP, L.l rrwl I- ..... C.Y Ae Nourc h,M, dippNq: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL T.N CIII N•o e31- 13FOpp2 W. T.P in. 1- 800 -13a -1166 Tr°icd 7d Hindle P mx.� - _1.�_ .p0' Rry Ywd f,IDa1 Nwp NipAr.Y 10' dw➢ V Rd N }S' RLM YAK a DLLpACY a L.,.mwl ,� l.!'�� LUf YA➢0 SfIBALY 1. I I 9 II LB> NIIYBIF 1 1 �) J'-� fide ES,mwI 1 . 1 10.0' I'rwl [S,mwl IS' hw; YrI SrfD.d (x.uef �� JO' r Yve frlDO4 (pv.p,) — wE sTaffr R,r E.r.mwl l SNX YAFU SFIBAfR L¢T NUUIIq d� E.rrmwl IB• rrwl em.mwl J t-}r nwf ire s.ID.n ( x,,,,.) �� ]p -fMl Yr f,IDnr1 /¢rep.) f zmffr 9a. Yrd Cone L.Y as' Noce / J¢• prop• (.free aoM� Tr kj UWE PA¢Jlr let 9d, YH frNa! - SS' L.1r S' � l I � l / S,IDStl l.le NIpAeY J - •'% % %I —y, S� , %� L ••�•__ ��% Q O r ���• I 1 / BO' f,W.d le C.unly R.N Y 10 � } .. • � ' � I I 20 / w ,,,� Din DLp 22JJ • � . / / 147 STAlJbAADS MWti P ..x. %s� I r a iz3 f t5 _ � _'�' � � r n � I �" Y ` 1 J 1 1 I YNMtum Wlwr, B,l,rw Bu ➢ONp p' YNLn4m MwY Ole Mda M' (y' llpkd) i4 ' ' %% •�� i %% %: :: I �' F,p„a.s >o om, v.nhp: •'•��' %', ••'f _ • / s/YnR Nmb, as /wn r4mm Ii.Wre T.rM.mr PYYAp: 'ZI hlrbr, } w ul NoN4pr w .111.r, I Omwl or , - ' I / a ♦ .ddnund w -.�It S/LnR c.nurn Nre. w mp „ _ _ _ 1 -' I / Perna r•acrJ 14 MI•mr Iuatic rket TB' (� /I ( S,Itpa l0. NipAvoY J 0' (SS ,Ifr plw) s.le4d ID pwnNnwa u.L In' hood a n(1 �J il'(lllli'���,,,llll••' U I L L S L E 11 I I I la ihYP� P 10' mM f5., rb pl ) S,ID.d la IS mh (f„ rl, Ilw) D = J MAY 1 4 2004 X 1 Legal • - • I j' ; / p O I I I I I Description In.f rN w sona vl 1% By Rwp, B G BD4olo CounlA YDmrrnl4 IJHp rorl r/ a, rwl,r IN, D/ S I.H Nn J (rvmrl Y[h Na tlBf, � _ y _ ' �� I IA.1 orl or a. Nva 1/t ur �. suua f.., 110 41 ,Dle z.rpw 2. /.p fo,1 0/ IM, / eb SIN No. ; IY:np ' ,l d a,, ..1. rlpAl IN• u. —1 . ` �}• I I cI .sr a k. Y> Iod we Pvclfir A.La.e, w IINp No'a w . ,/ IA, /WIU.Np e, .0 1 NC j, oW.., c "? .w"450' 1 I \ I 1 I Cum�nwcNp a( a, Nlv,ellw .l Ihr fpva Me ,/ rpld NMh I/A Soua furl I/, W,iIHY rlphl o/ ✓oY IN, .l Cldcopo, Y)..u1r,, fl. P.W wd Por /c F.>road aw., w1 rdd 0' 130 rouU I I eo e a mLwYr rs erwdr w,n..,,.m.e D,rNp dmp rde sa,a r� n¢o l,.f la a, P.Nf a D,phnNp cI N, 1Nr Ip Dr dova,6 U,nu Nra 11 O,pruc.0] Is 1 I I ;NUbr wd, JS)Bl l..L IAwcr �oN /9 dm „ec ,) mN.le IB ecwer fp,[ OaIB I, NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION eo ,.id ., r rivhl .l r un, w ... Ir p •1 / 1 1 LATEST RHVISION DATE, 05/14/61 1 62/1/6/ r 2 0 14 Brockway Contractor Property Developers Company Glass Development Plan / aas➢ cem. row ITI.a sdM em Preliminary Plat ■o.4,a•. aB1 srw °-- o4n1, s¢4De.N T-"`-- --- ey NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION II I-ATFSr R"BION DATE 05114 ID4 02YI7/04 Brockway Glass Phasing Plan Via! I saw 1d do as ey NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I-ATFSr R"BION DATE 05114 ID4 02YI7/04 Brockway Glass Phasing Plan RSROI Mu,wa PrelS...lar,'IP� I .I 1 ! S3'... '_'C✓R - - - OURDTC N." u. (BT OMFASI r \ \ \ \ I 1 OUILOT n KE(" LAKE I - iJ li meHw.j i6 I oUZ01 A r � L . 1 . .. 6 If LL I ��\ \.• ; . -mil , .11... 6 .. 1 , wI� i {- - -_JL � _ �� - ��� ` �..b ' /��.'^ I ";- 1 l• . ; t ; .., i � ,J �,. y ;4 ^ 1 1 .� OM . � �.;f > ; �..$.� L�� � 1 1 ' Il s�_: . � -- 1 i ��� %. r 1 J L .y.. 1 f• / 1 �..a. ) I l -lam -J _ J `'��� r r .A J, ' ___ _ __ L '�_ - I • , 1 1 1 �4 - -J � -- g I- - -1 -- - -- r - -- I J - -__" -- OIIR.OT F OlIr1+0[O _ �� ' _� - � .�5 + 1 I _ _ `! _ � - - '4 — cm le Hpw. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 1.N Clly Arw 651- IrI -Opo1 Mn. T.H fn. 1- 10D -SS] -1,66 7wid 717 eL Cle P.ml� 1�[ •60' R.n YrC r.lepM w4,P HlPew j .0' .Iwp Ca Rl L 13' 0.M YMR SET. - T ).!'� Slp( YARD fEIRAf.Y i t a II InrR "R I 1 1 r•� sw. r..w.wr 4 _ J Ia R'fwl Ca.xnn. 1r'lrwl Yne S.Ipad ryw ITn166I 5 X4,31. Py!([ �t Sr ITEM rM6 SE18.1GY ' lo' R.n Ep..mnl r - - -1-- r i s'� nor rA.eo sfreAC( 1 9 for.w.mm L r'� see [a.unmr �_ j 10 lrwl (a.unnl. IS hwl Yan S.Wa4 fpn w..J E srRfn TTnka IfIld F. wy 1M / NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LATEST REVISION DAT& o6/16 /04 r 02/17/01 Ee... 3 w 11 WestwoodhdeWaW5ervies,hl. I ,'^ m Brockway r Contractor Property Developers Company Glass rra¢n,ln,u Plat North Half ... .. 6w �j �� asx.: :la � !' a � • sea � - � � MI 1 1C."C"N"Mccca �S ,�!;� ...: .::gym.• ' �� ��� .�y =• : ■,1 n � ii'L C.tl .0 N=un b.l >. akxnq: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL r.n ul w.. sa- csx -aom w,. rm r... I- bqo- xsx -nsc IM STANDARDS M Id FLUW Mmim s..n - m Olslwcs Esl 6uudinps Minim. Priwl. Ad- R1d(h Mink.um Ddl—y L.npfA Required r4wnhom. Pxki,¢ Pl.wd,d r—A—, P4rki, S-fb.ck t. Inland P141ic st—I S.tb— to lllpnwoy ] S.fback f. -- Trod Sslb -k lc Priwl. Oriv yPMhp S.1b4ck f. PiW dy & 10' 20' (22' I)picW) Oknenslons 4r. kom I4cs 1. I4cs oI b4rb 20.0• (22' Iy wW) 214.11 Nleriw; OS/ nil com 21.0 Inferix 2 1unit erlsriar, 0.3/ Lf rom..pn .ddtl -w -- street P—i'9 20' 60' . 10• 15' Mn. (5.. site Plan) 15' mk- (S.. sits P1-) • 60' nlb.tl IkpYd ucrpl y lal 1, Rb I . 61.0's.lb.c.; f 1.1 S, 6. 1 . N,g nro e C s` F F s 7 r a v" MPV X P Ioo 2�q• �sr NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LATEST REVISION DATE 05 /14/DI w. 2/17101 to m>.5 -14 Preliminary Site Plan - North Hall I ��`, w estwond�klfessional Servres, hc. I �.•. �;,�.'��� I Brockway xk7l I Contractor Property Developers Company Glass nsAMk/ xmq C.ntr Pd.1 OAsy SuW IOG a...wl., k¢I snu Pw.n.ml, wbo,tr Porking Stoll Detoil �. I' -20• I 1 1 s �.w� .awl a.s1...J --.— s.— — Cdl IB — k.la. dq.I.R GOPHER STATE ONE CALL h6. Clly M.. 631- IS{ -Bw] W. Ttll rise 1 -BOD- ]3]1.1166 Ld]T STANDARDS M IH P 1 Nhbnum OW-- B.fwszn IWkdhpz 20' Nhknum Prlwlz Lkiw afdlh 20' (22" Iypic.Q 0vnmzlonr nz ban /ace to lace KI curb Nhknum Dd—y Len9/6 20.0' (22' lyplcol) R.quk.d T.rnban. PmkhT 2 1unit hlrllor, 0.5/ R co PmWdzd r..M.mz Porkh, 2 1unit hieri- 21-11 .zferlor, 03 /unll ♦ uddifiond on- sires/ p.khp S.Ibock fo Int-1 Publk Slrezt 20' Selbock to H/pbuoy S 60' Setback 1. Cwnzmoro Sob 10' Setback to P /vats Orive/Porkhp IS' mkt, (S.. z /lz plw) Setback f. Property Bound Y • 60 .sib I lk' --I 1.- lsl •, BK I - 15' min. (S.. zit. pion) lI.O' z.U.4' k 1.1 3, IK I IB..' .elkacl Parking Stall Detail Nol T. Scot. nr - LO S ava n a Westwood Hdas1onJSefvices,hc n. I Contractor Property Developers Company � • h nvw 1 uvn ' I I I SnlO cmc. r.w D.1.., awl. 606 BaeslW, Sw ss1u ti pk x MP 1 sy B Iw aw• ]Kd NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LATEST REVISION DATE 05/16/U '. 2/17/01 6 0114 Brockway Glass Preliminary Site Plan - South Half . iiU P hill _� ,.�•:� � � .1� � 1 �� �, '�1 � �!a ,��t� ��,1 - I n • ��r� }i�37 ISW+, ��' t7. ��� . Y ��� � , a j , , �, �x - -`��� ��s, I��ll � � ia � %+� em u, ' � �,���1� ���^ i��,•�� 1 �1 , ' �•1' ° � �, �� 1 � I .,,r�� •�u = i , i ' i ie n+ 1. �• \\ �, `` R, ��� .!�'1 `� I yea W , iy ra ,� �, • •; !! 1 I � ...cTV..+a`7� Ai�� g °"" °i�,u� 1`�" �1td�= • �� s � ��j!' •�? ,�-- ° -""�� �° a �� "� � 1, ����4 9 C I ,����"•f !}JAI ���, .r/ �'�''?�. •,�•til '- ..�� � r : kw `Vr�,'. tT+. ��� ���S�Ia''i''� � �� � " ' � /• Y m •n '�� � �'� '°" � 1P 6 ,���ha 4 d� e" / � mil • ::1� Yllll �� I I I I I I j I I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I I I I I I Yi uN RE =96p. \ E R C )--/ RE- 050.15 1 s • a ` pPRORWATE LocAnoN rx mN ' \ stow eY oM s •`• I � i ¢ -0,1.0 \ � - 5f Ir xil Yi uN RE =96p. \ E R C )--/ cw !e Nwr• mr... alsaNq: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL M l.0 cn N.P Ss -o u,. Tw Tn. I -eD ux -nWE Gmeral utwtj, Not" • ME —TRA— NALL —q All EW — CONdnms P— (O CpNST uc— AxIO N.— ME OWIIFq lX MY ovROENCEL • CONTpAY TO R m[ ,0 " e ° e m. a mcgs,,uio.ERO uiglns " svicilEAnor�is i wARA S AW ANp SERN[E UNE WSTAllAT011 Nb sANI(AgY •6 NE . SEWER ANp STpgY SEMU TN SPECMCAiION TM WdIWAY CdISMUCnOH' NINN. o�T Of 1RANS� N 5.1000 IIIRUdNC ME CWIRFN( AOpENDUN. MF CDNIIIACTOiI SHALL BE flFpUNiFp 10 idloW ALL PgOCEpUREi AS W nAlEn BY ME IOCK AGENCY. • ME [ONTiACTM SNAII W-. Tq: NECESSARY PERd15 (OR ALL WgiN. WISIpE DF ME PROPERTY LB}li • sC[ ARCH. PLAN TDR ENACT BIDD. LDCAndI sEC 511E PUry (pR LAYWi dYpISIONS ,CE MMY LOC T415 N BE [OOROWAIU WTI M AAOB(ECI • KRIrY LlaSTND WrUT LOL } f,EV. PpIM TO BFdHNWC [ONS1RUClld1. • 1NE WARR SEANCE SN U BF WSTALLEp WM A MN. pf ].3 R. Di COKR. ME CONTRACTOR SIIIEl yUBY ME ON AS -BUEI CONSINUCTOII PlwNS TD CNFCR L_1 IAID 7,F TYPE • ALL Sto'" MMU PIPE L1ALL BE C S UNIFSS OMFAWSE N.M. • THE CdI 1— SHALL CONTACT 'C�IIER STATE d6 CALL• (di (OII UTWTY IODATONS P.- 10 Uww MISTAiL,lldi. CONDOLEMJM 7OWNHOMH MVIIE DFfAIL -� T T.� x MAy � 4 2004 I L) �l1 ay p rW' lOD' ,00' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION L- R-41-- Duc 05 /14/04 07/17/04 9 a. H Brockway Glass Preliminary utilit Plan I North Side Rwem °unl. Wmml. O s a i MEND W C WATER — ATEN • NM. WNALK NYO. WNALK - STORY SEWU - -� i a STMY SEWJI -- W.o—.d Rdessimlal Service , hc. : � P ..... • °'"' r..p.r.a T°c I - Contractor Property Developers Company cw !e Nwr• mr... alsaNq: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL M l.0 cn N.P Ss -o u,. Tw Tn. I -eD ux -nWE Gmeral utwtj, Not" • ME —TRA— NALL —q All EW — CONdnms P— (O CpNST uc— AxIO N.— ME OWIIFq lX MY ovROENCEL • CONTpAY TO R m[ ,0 " e ° e m. a mcgs,,uio.ERO uiglns " svicilEAnor�is i wARA S AW ANp SERN[E UNE WSTAllAT011 Nb sANI(AgY •6 NE . SEWER ANp STpgY SEMU TN SPECMCAiION TM WdIWAY CdISMUCnOH' NINN. o�T Of 1RANS� N 5.1000 IIIRUdNC ME CWIRFN( AOpENDUN. MF CDNIIIACTOiI SHALL BE flFpUNiFp 10 idloW ALL PgOCEpUREi AS W nAlEn BY ME IOCK AGENCY. • ME [ONTiACTM SNAII W-. Tq: NECESSARY PERd15 (OR ALL WgiN. WISIpE DF ME PROPERTY LB}li • sC[ ARCH. PLAN TDR ENACT BIDD. LDCAndI sEC 511E PUry (pR LAYWi dYpISIONS ,CE MMY LOC T415 N BE [OOROWAIU WTI M AAOB(ECI • KRIrY LlaSTND WrUT LOL } f,EV. PpIM TO BFdHNWC [ONS1RUClld1. • 1NE WARR SEANCE SN U BF WSTALLEp WM A MN. pf ].3 R. Di COKR. ME CONTRACTOR SIIIEl yUBY ME ON AS -BUEI CONSINUCTOII PlwNS TD CNFCR L_1 IAID 7,F TYPE • ALL Sto'" MMU PIPE L1ALL BE C S UNIFSS OMFAWSE N.M. • THE CdI 1— SHALL CONTACT 'C�IIER STATE d6 CALL• (di (OII UTWTY IODATONS P.- 10 Uww MISTAiL,lldi. CONDOLEMJM 7OWNHOMH MVIIE DFfAIL -� T T.� x MAy � 4 2004 I L) �l1 ay p rW' lOD' ,00' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION L- R-41-- Duc 05 /14/04 07/17/04 9 a. H Brockway Glass Preliminary utilit Plan I North Side Rwem °unl. Wmml. O P \OWJI03) \sp \t0pJ105lIIfPp2ep OSII. /200. 12.25]. W CDT a , x , b 1 s - Alo >� oiy€ I • I vs - � 2 � e� __�_• y 1 1 ,,,,,,,,, I1 , 1 ,� 0 . �, F , 1 1 WLli�� J 11L11J 1 '� � • f � �� i t 1 j/ _ r 1 1 1 i €8 d \ \ _ 1 ti \ fn \ AS 1 t I nT \ ARgp,, 1 1 1 L O -------�� 1 'tp7� ---------- \ y O p €€ R °€ €NOS R9 x ti n 5 $g g g p m€ y x ag � n G n O Nn F i � I i i �{ 1 I: f . I I Trail and Sidewalk Resp onsibility Ke • • f City R.O.W. — H.O.A. Maintained 0— r+ Public Trail Easement — Private Outlot — HJO.A. Maintained City Owned and Maintained All sidewalks to be maintained by the H.O.A. ' I (ontrarfor Property l)pvAnners Cmmnnnv /0.0'!rn1 Fm«ru In'r I r-- YM FI A PeL Brockway C laS67 TN Mn 7Lniz1 71Y - Sin�p •ea•H... r as IC tlop En Hd as' Hcw awp s / Dry /2 /mo 2 0 ' / / 7 MIM)W I rail ana 5laewalK Kesponslmuny rney • • • • • • City R.O.W. — H.O.A. Maintained Public Trail Easement — ,Private Outlot — H.O.A. Maintained City Owned and Maintained All sidewalks to be maintained by the H.O.A. l �17 1 f 20 rllOT P / /f(/ C / / a l f 'S717_E 500.36 ' • q Q / I C� I III I,I III rao'! re «a.nJ -� 4u'r ,l ro.e .W rmf Ysa (SrHE Brockway 01111 .— Es i f soa �pkul ?fall FuJIT In 'lfa:nge mJ UMIY E.— _ — o• /w NOT FOR CC LA RST a,< UV11711 cm ee Y.w. n.itr. mcvN GOPHER STATE ONE CALL ivN rRy Ar.e 651- r31 -p00] Yn T.tl fn. �- e0o -]3] -1166 � ou�orzs m¢ m neY.w 6t orYO�cs mrt m u Rcuoyra �est Prdessiwial Servrzes, tnc I ��e' .><.. ��_�„•_ I I P pvd ,a Brockway Contractor Property Developers Company Glass 6636 (atr. Pdw thl.., 6WN sal Ro.eAW, Yai SSDI Rm.mw.l, AllmmY MAY 4 7004 U X s' iou ]oo• wo' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I.tnl R.,W.. Ualc YS /le /a/ w. 2/27/06 ,... I oy a Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan C.tl IB Heur. C.,ur. apphq: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL q�v, cn �.., ss,�ssp -000q L g M.M. lA¢ ro RFYAIN 1 0 0E.M. m¢ ro Ac AE4osm ' IV. av X G ,ao . 3. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION w..t RMA.. D. O s 4/D4 ar. .2/27/04 n... 2 w 3 ��• �ertvroudRdessmal Sevices.nc I—��ti; Brockway -- —g- Contractor Property Developers Company Glass PreliminuT Tree Preservation Plan pS /IVM r 16q/1 1 I I 1010 Cmtr. raN Ai.� qWi. .Cp A..e.lae, 1(N SSW Aw.n.um. MLUrmI. 1 , ;� ' r � I 4E 5 -t vn� 1 _L � Sy �: �'1 t i - .c f!�' 4 I �t y✓ � *V i C+ - S' . a ..�. Ij '� •� � '. _!''� r �. ,� 4 �' , µ � .'_' � � } - y c.r / � ��',� T � 1, ' . �, '"sYF n•� °Mr17'J e• K`S+ ' J•7t !;� 1 �'`j •t x ,q � ��f"S \ `\ A � f ` - � I 4 z ��k'� r 4 4�•Y� � �:. � F � Y ° `4 Ef �r.' -J,7 .. Zt .t � l� (t aw , - I L - x .� • O - • . � � • • �� � �7; a s 1 ���I , 'S y S.d > K q�l 2 'fi.TV��� ; y .'R'rJ''`� t ai �y' =f -....• J r } �� \ . i �' 1 fT V' � i v � r al`�1 � , � p A' �h 4 ' t��iS^T�•� -� �' �� �.4'��.� �, � ,�.. h�� ; ar� ( , l t L " � N � 1 �y" , � r 1 T ,J AJ . � �, / ' �tf> i �•� � 147�� �.., �Hv4 •�v � I ,� � - Z' "kt�tgr MftF�v / /�/ ai2.te.'' �, +. {it F1•t���Tx. ��iY� .� - Qx c � ! ♦ �' - ,. � ' ; ti 4 �f � a —� a il ",(• .� ' �+ � `�Yi . r 1 I i k S' e, r � t r � t � r / u p ''[� �'+ �T1I -q �� �r }� � ✓> ,. I (, y � �''�i�� ,�ls i {, S x >x� ' - t ZJsr ..�, �;1 �i o-` � �/• �\ 1 [r r F + }} �/ z . � r.., n�f4' + � '2"4• +n }'' ��' ,�. x,yt Fy'+7 u q ,.:� ,�, -� \ _ i ! T- �t r rr ` ' .i rvvt'e'ht "t 4z « yi.�,., > i r •• \` 1 � { \yy .,A Y�y(�q i . �tx S�K � a�kc .. y�i, sA`� - C � y � �}�.y •� � 1 T I I ' , \ fir t - - - -_— _•_ �� -_! �.,a...•�"..- �^°'�� r, �x ' ! f` r" ry � ' f• I ct co I n I T Q ' � will C) ot C V B IZ. - � Ln �o 3 o jj 3 I , d h d b n O w• T4 R A � I � r n a `� 1 2 s i r� l� CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 26, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Brockway Preliminary Plat - PUD AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director AGENDA NO.: 6. a. ATTACHMENTS: Preliminary Plat and Park Maps APPROVED BY: CPDC has submitted an updated preliminary plat proposing 627 units on 113 acres. The development is a mix of single family, multiple family and apartment units. Based on the area and number of units, staff continues to recommend a neighborhood park be included in this development. Using our parks dedication calculation formula, 1/25 of an acre for each unit (627) equals 25.08 acres of parks dedication. The preliminary plat identifies Outlots M and T as 15.03 acres of public park land dedication. If all of the 15.03 acres in outlots M and T are suitable for land dedication, the developer would then pay a cash dedication of $603,000 (10.05 acres x $60,000). The updated park plan includes an area for traditional active recreation and also an area for disc golf, which staff would consider to be a non - traditional recreation facility. Based on the discussion at last month's Commission meeting, staff views the new park plans as having amenities that will serve the public well. Staff's review of the plat has generated the following comments /conditions: 1. The updated park plans should be incorporated into the preliminary plat and a grading plan should be provided to staff. 2. Parks dedication credit should not be given for any pipeline easements, unnecessary ponding in the park, or other items that negatively impact the park site or are deemed unusable. 3. The northern edge of Outlot T should be the same as the southern edge of the pipeline easement. 4. The park plan needs to include parking for the disc golf course. Also staff would recommend that on- street parking be allowed based on the current parking lot only having 20 spaces in the park located on outlot M. 5. As outlined in the City's subdivision ordinance, all park dedication in the form of land and monetary compensation will occur with the first final plat approval prior to recording. Staff would recommend that we continue with this practice unless enough funding can be provided to complete the park project desired by the Parks Commission. Parks and Recreation Department staff supports the new public park design and the preliminary plat as submitted with the conditions listed above. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat with the conditions listed in items 1 -5 of the staff report. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION ACTION: eyhihii iq i u"- - .%__ . 1 I IYI I"" IV IY Regular Meeting Minutes March 22, 2004 roximately $75,000. MOTION by Johnson to recommend /jacent he City participate, if nee ed, in fun ing the Wiklund property purchase up to $100,000. Thess would be used to ac re adjacent land rrently owned by Earl Bester. All funds received from R grant that has be applied for are to be u d to replenish City funds used for this purchase. SEC by Eliason. Jac s asked for clarificati n of the second sentence of the motion. Per Schultzotion should e stated that we would put $100,0 0 toward the Wiklund project to include the purchany land, i luding the Bester property. NDLY AMENDMENT by Jacobs to change funds ould be used to acquire adjacent Ian urrently owned by Earl Bester." to "These funds als a used to acquire adjacent land from Earl Best ." The motion would now read: Motion to re that the City participate, if needed, in fundi the Wiklund property purchase up to $100,ese funds could also be used to acquire adjacent la from Earl Bester. All funds received froNR grant that has been applied for are to be used to rep] ish City funds used for this purchase. A Nays: 0 Motion passed. 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Dakota County Parks — Fu re Regional Park — Sc ultz has been working on this item for the past few months — meeting with Dakota County staff regardi the possibility of developing a regional park just south of Rosemount. Curt Chat eld, Dakota Cou Planning Office and Steve Sullivan, Dakota County Parks Director were in attendance o inform the ommission that the County is looking at developing a new regional park in Empire Town on a site study for the new county p, for development. Chatfield explain Board has decided that they need to - Schultz and other parks directors an( are. Chatfield reviewed the site re c middle of Empire Township jus sou regional park candidate sites causf ip. Cha field provided the Commissioners with maps and information alo g with a number of photos of the area that is being proposed t t due to the population growth in Dakota County, the County at expanding the regional parks. The County has talked with City taff in this area to find out what their interests and expectations t and aps. The area the County is looking at is located in the h of Ros mount. The County felt that this was the best of the it has hig quality natural resources that would provide a variety of recreational opportunities. ey have one or tw landowners who may be interested in selling land and there are no homes to pur ase. The northern sect n of land the County is looking at is adjacent to the University of Minnesot property and they may be a e to coordinate use of trails on the U of M property. Sullivan has talked w' representatives from the U o and felt that the University is moving in a direction that is co atible with the regional park plan. e southern section of land could be a wildlife management are at could be open to hunting, as well a trout fishing and canoeing in the Vermillion River. Sterner nd Johnson both asked questions about ca ing facilities. Per Chatfield, this is something t y will be looking into. The County plans to inc de facilities such as hiking, biking, equestrian ails, bathrooms, picnic shelter, and possibly youth mps or public camping. The County is looking r support from the Commission for this project. Schul asked if the Commission would like to move oward with a recommendation to the City Council on this it . MOTION by Sterner in support of the oncept of the Empire Wetlands Natural Area Regional Park to be sed for passive recreation. S COND by Eliason. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. Sullivan th nked Schultz on behalf of the ounty Parks Department for his expertise and work on the Spring Lake ark project. b. Brockway Preliminary Plat — PUD — Schultz reviewed the preliminary plat and two maps identifying the areas being looked at for public parks. The plat proposes 606 units on 113 acres and includes a mix of single family and multiple family units. The area should be served by a neighborhood park, which typically serves 300 to 650 households. Based on the Parks Master Plan, we'd be looking at approximately four to 10 acres. This depends on the proposed amenities and the location of the park. Based on the parks dedication formula, we collect 1/25 of an acre per unit. In this case, this equals 24.24 acres of park dedication. The current plan identifies Outlot K, where the ball field is located, and Outlot S, which is being looked at for passive recreation use. These two outlots combined equal 13.74 acres of parks dedication. We would be collecting cash dedication on 10.5 acres, which would come to $630,000 (10.5 acres x $60,000). Schultz reviewed maps of the preliminary plat and advised the Commission of a number of concerns regarding the current plat, including the pipeline easement, the infiltration basin, adequate 6 2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes March 22, 2004 public parking, parks dedication, and trails. Schultz recommended revising the plan so it will work better as a neighborhood park and looking at including bocce ball courts, horseshoe pits, a picnic shelter, etc. Schultz does not support the current public park design as submitted with the preliminary plat. Dave Hemple, Project Manager, Contractors Property Development Company (CPCD), 3030 Center Pointe Drive Suite 800, Roseville, MN 55113, addressed the Commission. CPDC is working with City engineers to revise the plan so it meets with City approval. Their attorney is working on getting more information regarding the pipeline easement and what can be built on it: Hemple handed out copies of a summary of CPDC's comments and concerns regarding the project. The summary explained what CPDC would like to see happen as far as parks dedication and addressed some of the concerns with the preliminary plat that were listed in the Executive Summary. CPDC is open to working with the City to create a park plan that fits the needs of the City and the new residents of the development. Hemple was attending the meeting to get feedback from the Commission regarding the preliminary plat, and to ask for any latitude the City could grant them on this project. Due to delays and timing issues, Hemple stated that to require up front fees would be very burdensome to CPDC's construction loans and financial situation. They are open to dedicating the entire parkland with the initial final plat, but asked for latitude on fees. CPDC had an issue with the amount of parks dedication being assessed and also felt they should receive parks dedication credit for part of the pipeline easement. Schultz explained how our parks dedication is computed and that we typically do not give credit for pipeline easements. The Commission discussed the amenities they would like to see included, as well as the concerns from the Executive Summary regarding parking issues, parks dedication, and giving credit for the pipeline easement, etc. Hemple stated that CPDC wasn't happy with the current plan either, and they are willing to work with the City to include the amenities the Commission would like to see in the park. Sterner had a comprehensive list of amenities that should be considered: archery; horseshoe pit; bocce ball; full court basketball; two tennis courts; disc golf, mini golf, shuffleboard; tournament croquet; playground area; open grass for kickball, soccer, etc., putting area; and walking trails. The Commission was against changing the parks dedication formula for this project and they were not comfortable with park amenities being used in lieu of all of the parks dedication fees. It was the consensus of the Commission that the current guidelines for parks dedication should not be changed. Hemple would like to bring back a revised plan with amenities and still give the City some parks dedication. He stressed that this development is different from others as it is a redevelopment district area, and that the cost of the project has gone up so there is a lot more cost involved for them. The Commission decided to table this issue until CPDC comes back with a revised plan. MOTION by Eliason to table the item. SECOND by Johnson. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed. C. nnon Park — Proposed Batting Cage — Schultz was contacted by representatives from the Rosemount Area hletic Association's (RAAA) traveling softball team about the possibility o i ding a batting cage for soft layers at Shannon Park. The location they had chosen, betwee e ds 3 and 4, would infringe on the soccer a football fields that use the outfields of softball feel and 5. There is also a water main running between th two fields. If they could relocate the b ng cage to a spot that doesn't impact the other facilities and doesn create safety issues for par rs, Schultz would support building it. RAAA would pay for the building an aintenance of t atting cage. Because the batting cage can't be built on the location RAAA was looking at, re no issue to discuss. — T d. Director's Report Par provement balance as of February 29, 2004 was $251,224.93. This will be increasing a o final plats are coming i on. The Facilities Pk Force met on March 18. Schultz expects a lot ood ideas from the group. Another meeting w e scheduled in April. �iletic Complex — The City Council is 100% in support of this project. Schultz is currently talking to landowners in eastern Rosemount who may be interested in selling their property. -3- Excerpt from the minutes of the March 23, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Public Hearing: Brockway Glass — Preliminary Plat & Lot Combination City Planner Rick Pearson presented the Preliminary Plat for Contractor Property Development Company for development of the Brockway Glass site located East of STH 3 between Connemara Trail & 132 St. (County Road 38). On January 6, 2004, the City Council approved the Concept Plan for this project. The Preliminary Plat review which follows, provides design details covering overall site development with grading, streets, utilities, landscaping and architecture for the townhomes and single - family units. The apartments, senior housing and neighborhood commercial have not been included. Those components of the plan will be for future review, presumably in a subsequent phase of the development. Preliminary plat approval commits the City to lot and parcel size, setbacks and street standards. The next step after preliminary plat approval is final plat. Final plat creates the individual lots and outlots that can be sold and developed. Unless significant plan revisions are requested, no other public hearings are necessary in the planning review process. Staff has met with the applicant to discuss the issues raised in the staff report. They are presently looking to make modifications addressing many of the concerns raised. However, given the size and complexity of the Brockway project, staff felt it was important to introduce the project to the Commission now. Staff is recommending tabling based upon the staff discussions but would also like feedback from the Commission regarding any aspect of the project. In that way, future revisions can attempt to address all noted concerns to provide a better project for the community. As stated during the concept plan review, the Brockway site is self - contained by the outer edges formed by County Road 38, State Highway 3, Corulemara Trail and the Canadian Pacific railroad with a 7.5 acre farm stead on the east side. The preliminary plat organizes the site into a variety of housing neighborhoods, public & private streets and public & private open space. The density is about 6 units an acre (Gross). If you net out the park area and the public streets, the density is about 8 units an acre. The overall development has a very compact character and as currently proposed includes setback reductions along all internal public streets. All public streets in the development are intended to have a setback of 20 to 25 feet. The goal is to give the development a more intimate character. The architecture contributes towards the concept with front porches and de- emphasized garages. The intended result is a more active streetscape that contributes to a sense of community. The theory is called "neo- traditional design ". Staff's concern is that the reduced setbacks may push the buildings too close to the internal streets that convey a significant amount of traffic. In discussions with the applicant staff has requested that certain portions of the project have increased setbacks. ��ch1��21 One area is the single family homes. There the applicant proposed 20' front yard house setbacks with 25' setbacks for the garages. Staff has requested that both of these be increased by 5'. It appears that this is achievable in most if not all of the single family lots due to the proposed depths of the lots. This recommendation would result in a 5' reduction for front yards for the single family homes as compared to the zoning ordinance standards for the Rl District. Two primary access points for the development occur at County Road 38 (132 street / Bonaire Path) and at Connemara Trail. A north -south street links bisects the site with a round -about in the middle forming the central intersection, organizing the site into quarters. The preliminary plat includes public streets that are numbered, and private streets that are outlots. The street north of the round -about is labeled Street 1 and south of it is street 6. The round -about connects with the primary east -west street labeled street 4 on the west side and street 5 on the east. Street 5 extends east to the edge and will link with a future connection to County Road 38 through the 7.5 acre farmstead when it develops as a future phase. Generally, only single family homes will have individual driveway connections to public streets (Streets 2 and 3). All of the attached and multiple family housing will utilize shared driveways or private streets that will intersect to public streets. All of the private streets are shown as 22 feet wide. This is a reduction from current ordinance standards for private streets. Staff is recommending that new private streets be a minimum of 28 feet. There are some fairly lengthy dead end streets that will be expected to be modified before staff would support the street design. One of the features of the development is the roundabout in the center which adds some character to the design. That will have to meet MNDot standards, as well as adjustments made to channel the flow of traffic. There are some areas dedicated to parks and open space. There is an extensive amount of private open space, that will be owned and maintained by homeowners associations. Many will have ponding functions. There is also a pipeline corridor traversing the site. And while development within that corridor will be restricted, it will contribute to the character and provide some open space. If some trails can be built in that area, then there will be some advantage taken of that part of the development. The Parks and Recreation Commission will be preparing a recommendation on the design of the park. That is in process, and their recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. This evening, because there are some expected design revisions, we are going to recommend that this Public Hearing be continued until April 13 assuming we can get some of those revisions done, and have a thorough review of them. Hopefully there will be a recommendation to forward to the City Council at that time. There will be extensive landscaping along Highway 3 for buffering purposes. There will be trails and sidewalks throughout the development. The through streets will be expected 2 to have a sidewalk on either side, or a trail. And the lesser traveled streets that connect will have a sidewalk on one side. There is an opportunity to put a trail along Hwy 3, but there might be conflicts with the need for berming and landscaping. There will perhaps be an opportunity to bring that trail through the development with design revisions. There is an Environment Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process that is ongoing and required and it will be presented to the City Council. They would consider the final EAW, and at that time, the Council can take action on the Preliminary Plat. City Planner Pearson presented examples of the various planned housing units. City Engineer Andy Brotzler discussed the issue of Hwy 3, and whether it will be expanded. He explained that Hwy 3 is considered a "preserve highway ", and so MNDot will only invest money to preserve its current status. They will not invest on improvement -type projects such as widening. They will re- surface or make safety improvements as required. City Engineer Brotzler provided background about the wetlands on the property. The city has a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan that was adopted in 1999. When that plan was done, it was completed by city staff through aerial photos and some limited field work and based on that limited information, there were wetlands throughout the city that were identified, mapped and classified. There are several wetlands located on the property. According to the City's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan, the following wetlands and associated classifications are present on the property: a. Wetland #356 Manage II b. Wetland #408 Manage II c. Wetland #411 Utilize Based on current information, it appears that Wetland #356 and #408 can be reclassified as Utilize wetlands. This will be verified in the spring based on a field review of these two wetlands. Stormwater management issues were discussed. Upon review of the proposed stormwater plan, it has been determined that the City's stormwater goals and policies are primarily achieved with the design. At this time, Staff is working with the developer to review alternatives for managing stormwater in the southern area of the property. Depending on the outcome of this review, the proposed NURP pond and infiltration basin located adjacent to the proposed park may be eliminated or reduced in size with off -site ponding being utilized. Also, it should be noted that the plan identifies a temporary basin along TH 3. This basin will be required until such time that off -site regional ponding becomes available on the west side of TH 3. Staff is currently working to negotiate the acquisition of easements for this regional pond. All the city's public streets shown on the plan are shown at 32 feet face to face. That is the city's minimum standard to provide on street parking and to provide areas for pedestrians to walk in the street. Staff is considering allowing the developer to build those streets to 28 feet face to face with parking on one side only and with sidewalks on both sides. This would take pedestrians off the street and limit on street parking. Commissioner Zurn asked about ownership of the off -site ponding on the south side of the development. Brotzler answered that the city has the drainage utilities over that pond. Chairperson Weisensel asked for comments from the applicants. Tim Whitten, Executive Vice President of Rottlund Co. Also of CPDC Development are Mike Waldo, Dave Hempel, and Dan Janocek. Also Corey Meyer of Westwood Professional Services is present. Tim Whitten discussed the theme of the project, and acknowledged that there are changes being made. This is a mixed use development and a life cycle development. There are a number of types of houses in one community, and will incorporate some commercial into the development as well. The intent was to keep the lowest density to the perimeter of the site, and concentrate the highest density internally. It was also a goal to have a strong streetscape throughout the development with the houses facing the streets. In order to accomplish goals such as landscaping, sidewalks and open spaces, the housing had to be concentrated. Tim Whitten talked about the general design and presented the different housing units. He discussed the lot sizes and home and garage details. Commissioner Zurn asked if the 8 foot pathways are going to be wide enough for community use. Andy Brotzler replied that the 8 foot wide pathway is the city standard. The possibility of an underpass between the park areas and the ball diamond was discussed. City Planner Rick Pearson replied that the amount of traffic on the interior street does not warrant an underpass. Plus, the pipeline that runs through the area complicates the construction of an underpass. There will be a pedestrian crossing. Rick Pearson discussed the dead end streets and the issue of fire department needs and maintenance needs. Staff is hoping to come back with a revision that makes some of the streets 28 feet wide. Also, turnarounds for fire trucks are being considered, and the design will have to conform to standards. Chairperson Weisensel opened the public hearing. Chairperson Weisensel asked for public comments. Dan Kehoe, 13100 S. Robert Trail. He attended two previous Planning Commission meetings in regard to the issue of added congestion to traffic on Highway 3. He questioned the high density of the units in the development, and how the development rd will affect citizens' water usage considering the recent sprinkling ban put in affect due to the load on the water towers. Traffic is the main concern. He has discussed the possibility of a center turn lane at 132 St. with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. He would like the city to consider the safety implications of this for the existing homeowners. William Rohr 2813 132 St. W. This is the third Planning Commission meeting attended, plus one Council meeting. He stated that there is great difficulty in making a left hand turn onto 132 Street off of Highway 3. He feels that this project will only make that worse. The issue of stormwater runoff has not been addressed until tonight. With a pond on his property, he currently gets runoff from the west side of Highway 3 and the south side of 132 Street through large culverts under both roads. He feels he should not have to handle additional runoff from the proposed project. Andy Brotzler addressed the citizens' comments. He explained the city of Rosemount's policies regarding water usage in the city. As the city continues to develop, there will be strains on the water system. With water conservation in mind, the city is protecting the municipal water system in order to meet the daily demands, and also to get people into the frame of mind to use water wisely. The current watering ban restrictions promote efficient and smart use of the resource. In regards to stormwater runoff, City Engineer Brotzler explained that the Brockway project will not direct runoff to any properties other than Keegan Lake, as well as the off - site regional ponds that were shown earlier. The pond in question north of 132 Street may possibly be improved as a part of improvements planned for Co. Rd. 38 in the future. In regards to the traffic issues on Highway 3, City Engineer Brotzler stated that there is a cooperative agreement project with the Minnesota Department of Transportation which would include the installation of signals at Connemara Trail, striping of left turn lanes on Highway 3 at 132 Street, and the addition of a signal system at Co. Rd. 38 (McAndrews Rd.). With the cooperative agreement, there is an annual maximum dollar amount to be spent and this year we already have approached the maximum. Next year we'll make another application for safety improvements along Highway 3 between 132 St. and McAndrews. Commissioner Zurn asked about reducing the speed limits for safety. City Engineer Brotzler explained that the speed limit is regulated by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Chairperson Weisensel advised the audience members that upon a motion to continue the public hearing, they will have a chance to speak once again at the next meeting. MOTION by Weisensel to recommend that the Public Hearing for the Brockway Glass Preliminary Plat be continued to the April 13, 2004 meeting. Second by L9 Messner. Ayes: Messner, Zurn, Napper, and Weisensel. Nays: None. Motion carried. MOTION by Weisensel to approve the Brockway Glass application for a Lot Combination. Second by Napper. Ayes: Zurn, Napper, Weisensel, and Messner. Nays: None. Motion carried. C MEMORANDUM DATE: March 9, 2004 TO: Rick Pearson, City Planner Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Andy Brotzler, City Engineer Anthony Aderhold, Project Engineer Jason Lindahl, Assistant City Planner Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator FROM: Dan. Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation RE: Brockway Preliminary Plat and Lot Combo Please understand that this memo is being written with three items that are key to the review comments: The Park and Recreation Commission has not reviewed the plans but will do so on March 22, 2004. 2. Staff verbally provided the developer with a list of items that the City would be considering for the public park. The items included: tennis courts, play equipment, trails, a small in -house baseball /softball field, sun shelter, basketball court, horseshoe pits and possibly a bocce ball court. Staff also indicated that a review of the housing types would be considered when designing the park. 3- The park plans identified on the preliminary plat are designed by the developer and are currently not supported by the Parks and Recreation staff or the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Department is submitting the following comments after reviewing the submittal: 1. Parks Dedication credit will not be given for any pipeline easements, unnecessary ponding in the park, or other items that negatively impact the park site. 2. Before the preliminary plat is approved, written permission should be secured to allow for placing park amenities and/or trails in the pipeline easement. 3. The northern edge of Outlot S should be the same as the southern edge of the pipeline easement. 4. The developer's park plan does not include the necessary public parking. 5. The infiltration basin in the public park should be removed or relocated to allow for the park to be redesigned making better use of the public park space. 6. As outlined in the City's subdivision ordinance, all park dedication in the form of land ZZ' and monetary compensation will occur with the first final plat approval prior to recording. 7. A trail should be added on the west side of the property between State Highway 3 and the housing. A trail connection at the split between the single family lots and the multiple family units should also be included. A sidewalk should also be added to the north side of Street 4. Parks and Recreation Department staff currently do not support the preliminary plat as submitted. We will be working with the Parks and Recreation Commission to redesign the future public park. If you have any questions, please call me at 651- 322 -6012. Westwood Professional Services, Inc. PLANNING • ENGINEERING • SURVEYING March 30, 2004 � L !' L r � 1 `'' �� ` I ' r I MAR � f� Kim Lindquist r%v Community Development Dept. City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Re: Brockway Glass Site Development: Preliminary Plat Re- Submission Project No. 20031057 Dear Ms. Lindquist: La 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, NIN 55344 Phone: 952 - 937 -5150 Fax: 952- 937 -5822 Toll free: 1 -888- 937 -5150 E -mail: wps@westwoodps.com TWIN CITIES /METRO ST. CLOUD BRAINERD Enclosed, please find 20 full size and 20-1 l "x17" reduced size sets of the Preliminary Plat Re- Submission Drawings & Preliminary Tree- Preservation Plans, dated revised 3/30/04 & the revised ponding calculations for the Brockway Glass Site Development. We anticipate that all the required information is complete for staff review and request being placed on the next Planning Commission Meeting and City Council Agendas. If you require any additional information to complete your review, please give us a call. These plans have been revised to respond to our meetings with your staff to review your design concerns. A brief summary of the key design changes is as follows: Preliminary Plat /Site Plan Design Revisions: 1. Front Yard setbacks for the single family lots have been increased from 20' house /25' garage to 25' house /30' garage. 2. Front Yard setbacks for the apartment/senior housing buildings have been increased from 20' to 25'. 3. Front Yard setbacks along Street 1 & Street 6 (north -south collector) have been increased to 25'. 4. Front and Side yard setback encroachment of townhome porches and/or stoops have been eliminated. All porches and/or stoops now fall outside of the setbacks. 5. The townhome area located northwest of the circle (Blocks 7,8, & 9) has been reworked by the following: • Eliminating the seven single family lots and replacing them with additional Rowhomes. • Removing the Rowhome building fronting the circle and creating more open space similar to opposite quadrants. • Providing a 28' F -F private street through connection. 6. The townhome area located northeast of the circle (Blocks 10, 11, & 12) has been revised to provide more building separation down the trail corridor, and private streets have been redesigned to accommodate emergency vehicle turning movements. 7. The southeast townhome area (Block 19) has been revised by replacing two Garden buildings with two 8- unit Villa buildings, and reworking the layout to provide more off - street parking. 8. The southerly townhome area (Blocks 20 & 21) has been revised to eliminate the ponding area and has added additional Rowhomes (see Stormwater section). Also, a 28' F -F private street through connection has been made. Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan: 1. Any trees within the Co. Rd. 38 ROW have been excluded from the removal calculations as their removal will be part of a regionally required upgrade of a county road, and therefore the Developer requests that their replacement should be part of the county road improvement project. 2. Adjustment to the site plan, grading plan and removal of two ponds have reduced the tree removal impacts by almost 100 trees, to a new total of trees removed to 382, or 48% of the total. 3. Required replacement of tree losses has decreased from 1,090 trees to 866 trees. V. Designing the Future Today...since 1972 Grading Plan Revisions: 1. Emergency Overflow Routes have been added to the plan. 2. Grades in the traffic circle island have been raised. 3. The berm between the park's ballfield and the apartment's garage access has been raised to prevent the ballfield from flooding the apartment garages. 4. The proposed driveway grades have been added to the grading plan. The design criteria used was a minimum of 2% and a maximum of 10 %grade, with the preferred range of 4 % -8% for the driveway grades. Transportation /Street Issues: 1. The Street 8 (formerly Street 9) cul -de -sac right -of -way & island have been redesigned to meet city standards. 2. All public streets, except Streets 1 & 6, have been narrowed to 28 ft. F -F, with No Parking on one side of the road. 3. Main private streets have been increased from 22' B -B to 28' �F -F as noted on the site plans. 4. Other interior private streets hve been increased from 22' B -B to 22' F -F as noted on the site plans. 5. The Co. Rd. 38 ROW has been expanded to 100 feet in width and the anticipated future 3 lane upgraded street section (44 ft. F -F) has been shown on the plans and labeled as "Future County Road Upgrade, by others ", as it is the developer's assumption that the upgrading of Co. Rd. 38 will either be a City or a County project, whose construction will be separate from the project's. Sanitary Sewer & Watermain: 1. The trunk water main has been increased in size to 16 ". 2. The trunk sanitary sewer main has been increased to 18 Stormwater Concerns: 1. The storm sewer in the Southeastern corner of the project has been re- routed back to and down Street 6 ROW, rather than across the exception property, as previously shown. 2. The two southerly ponds for previous Drainage Areas DA -1 & DA -2 have been eliminated and additional town homes have been added, along with additional park and open space. The Developer has eliminated these ponds, at the request of city staff, with the understanding that the city will negotiate with the developer and consider participation in the construction costs of the necessary upgrade of the site's discharge pipe under Connemara Trail. 3. The infiltration area for DA -6 pond has been increased to 0.33 Ac. 4. A skimmer structure is shown for the outlet from the north pond to the north infiltration basin. 5. The dead storage volume for DA -7 pond has been increased to 4.10 AF and the live storage volume has been increased to 12.52 AF. Landscape Revisions: I. Landscape plans have been revised to incorporate the increased tree preservation numbers and the reduced tree replacement requirements. 2. Additional detail has been added to the landscape plan to facilitate review by city staff, i.e. proposed plants have been identified by species and size. 3. Landscape plantings have been broken out separately by responsible party, distinguishing between those plantings to be installed by CPDC and those to be planted by others. Overall the number of plantings has increased by over 500 trees. 4. Additional buffer plantings have been shown along Highway 3 and along Co. Rd. 38. These additional plants are being provided by both the developer and the single family builder/homeowner. 5. Additional notes have been added that address the sight triangle visibility issue and that restrict the plantings within the center medians to MnDOT standards. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, W ST MOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. y� Cor�k e Landscape Architect / Planner Francis D. Hagen, II, PE C Sr. Associate Enclosures CC: Andy Brotzler, City of Rosemount Rick Pearson, City of Rosemount Dave Hempel, CPDC dbLJ N o Q LWo-1 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004- 6 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROVING A CONCEPT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BROCKWAY SITE WHEREAS, The Planning Department received an application for concept approval of a residential planned unit development to redevelop the Brockway Site on September 24, 2003 for said property legally described as: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 20, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying East of the center line of STH No. 3 (formerly STH No. 218); All of Government Lot 2, said Section 20; That part of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 20 lying East of the center line of said STH No. 3 lying West of the Westerly right -of -way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, and lying North and West of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of the South line of said North Half, Southeast Quarter and said Westerly right -of -way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence South 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds West, assumed bearing along said South line 270.47 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 12 degrees 05 minutes 15 seconds West, 357.87 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 18 seconds East, 500.28 feet to said Westerly right -of -way line and there terminating. WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a public hearing as required by ordinance for the purpose of receiving public comment regarding the proposed residential planned unit development on October 28, 2003 and again on November 25, 2003; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the concept planned unit development on November 25, 2003 with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the concept Planned Unit Development for the Brockway Site subject to the following conditions: 1. Amending the 2020 Rosemount Comprehensive Plan to reflect the requested land use C,)( RESOLUTION 2004$ areas as defined by the concept and authorizing staff to prepare the amendment and forward it to the Metropolitan Council. 2. The concept plan shall be revised as follows: a) Aligning driveways and street intersections to eliminate off -set intersections with intervals of less than 250 feet. b) Provision of unrestricted turn - arounds with a minimum turning radius of 45 feet for all dead end common driveways or streets exceeding 150 feet, or as approved by the Rosemount Fire Marshal. c) The Parkway and public streets shall be constructed in accordance with City standards and a minimum of eight feet of boulevard width shall be provided for boulevard trees to eliminate conflicts with curb & gutter, sidewalks and trails. The round -about shall be consistent with applicable standards for minimum turning radius and lane width and shall include ornamental -tree plantings and a . water fountain in the center to be maintained by a homeowners association. d) In all cases where private streets are 22 ft. wide (or otherwise less than City standards), no parking will be allowed on either side. Common parking areas must be provided in these areas, consistent with the ordinance parking requirements. e) The applicant must utilize a portion of the excess lot depth along the outer edge of the single - family component to create a greenway for trails / sidewalks and buffering the effects of the traffic and dissimilar land uses. f) Single - family lots with setback and lot width reductions shall have front porches or entires as prominent design features and garages shall be setback a minimum of five feet from the front elevation of the house. Most of the houses shall be two - story designs with complementary colors, materials and architectural elements. Minimum materials expectations include low maintenance siding with aluminum trim and brick / stone accents. g) All townhouse units shall have two -car garages consistent with applicable zoning standards. h) Transitions between housing types shall include landscaping to buffer dissimilar housing styles and neighborhoods. The outer edge of the development, particularly along STH 3, Connemara Trail, County Road 38, and the railroad right -of -way shall have increased setbacks consistent with City standards as a minimum for screening the effects of higher traffic volumes and the railroad. Additional landscaping is required in these areas. i) Trails or sidewalks will be included along collector or arterial streets / highways. Sidewalks or trails are required on both sides of the north -south parkway connecting County Road 38 with Connemara Trail, and on at least one side of all other streets except single- family cul -de -sacs, or.private shared dead -end driveways serving less than three buildings. j) The apartment and senior condos shall be limited to three stories in height and have a minimum of 40 % brick, or cultured stone and monolithic vertical building RESOLUTION 2004 -6 planes shall be avoided with articulation of dwelling units, windows and balconies. Architectural details such as dormer windows, or similar features shall be used to provide relief of long roof eves. Primary building entrances shall have a variety of design features including separate gables, verandas or canopies creating significant relief (off -sets in excess of six feet). k) Concept approval does not guarantee the number of dwelling units. 1) Incorporation of reconunendations by the Parks and Recreation Commission relating to park land dedication fees include dedication of a neighborhood park including active public recreational facilities, payment of park dedication fees, and installation of public park amenities within the project. Public parking for park uses shall also be provided as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. m) Amenities located within the neighborhood park may include bocce ball, tennis, basketball and softball/baseball. A picnic shelter, large playground, and trails and walkways are also anticipated. The final improvements for the public opens space will be based upon discussion and recommendation by the Parks Commission to be determined through the preliminary plat review process. n) Private amenities include the neighborhood community center and associated recreational features. o) The neighborhood commercial site shall have architectural treatment that conform . to standards that include: i. Two story buildings that may have mixed uses including accessory apartments or offices. ii. Gabled roofs with a minimum pitch of 4:12. iii. Rooflines shall consist of multiple gables, or be given variation through architectural devices such as cupolas, dormer windows or off -sets in the facades. iv. Variation of building facade to reinforce an individual character for each separate use / tenant. v. The building shall be pedestrian oriented with no vehicular access or .parking between the building and Connemara Trail or the north -south parkway. vi. Inclusion of gasoline fuel pumps shall be consistent with the standards specified in Section 6.14.B.2; and shall be thoroughly screened from residential uses with a bufferyard conforming to the standards of Section 6.14.E.9 as a minimum. p) Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer including, but not limited to the following: i. Storm Water Management in accordance with the City Storm Water Management Plan. ii. Implementation of the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Study as prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc. dated November 12, 2003. RESOLUTION 2004 -6 iii. Drainage, easements, grading and utilities. q) The Developer shall participate in the cost for upgrades to 132 "d Street and signalization along STH 3, as needed at the 132 " Street and Connemara Trail intersections. r) Development phasing may be required to follow sewer capacity limitations. s) Preparation of an Enyironmental Assessment Worksheet and incorporating resulting recommendations into the Preliminary Plat design. t) Conformance with PUD Final Development Plan / Preliminary Plat and Final Plat requirements including execution of PUD and Subdivision Development Agreements. u) The twelve (12) unit townhouse buildings may have to be reduced to six (6) or eight (8) unit townhouse buildings. ADOPTED this 6` day of January, 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: _i Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: DeBettignies Seconded by: Riley Voted in favor: Droste, Riley, DeBettignies , Shoe — Corrigan Voted against: Strayton Member absent: None Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2003 - -- Brockway Continued from 10 -28 -03 Public Hearing: Brock Site Redevelopment — Cont'd from 10 -28 -03 This public hearing was continued from October 28, 2003 to allow time for the applicant to submit a refined concept plan for the Brockway site. The revised plan includes single family homes, town homes, apartments and senior condos, a 12 acres park on the southwestern corner and a commercial area on the south- east corner of the property. - City Planner Pearson indicated Met Council would review the comprehensive plan amendment to determine the impact to regional services such as sanitary sewer treatment and transportation. With the approval of this development Mr. Pearson stated that the housing mix would move closer to the comprehensive plan goal. Single family housing is currently at 81 % and would move to 76.5% with this subdivision. The comp plan goal is 65 %. Multi- family housing is currently at .18% and with this development would move to 23.4 %, with a comp plan goal of 35 %. Mr. Chuck Rickert, representing WSB, presented an overview of the traffic impact study completed for this area. The study looked primarily at the intersections of CR38 /Hwy 3, Connemara Tr /Hwy 3 and site accesses. The study showed that with the development of the Brockway site an additional 3000 cars a day would be generated from the area. Biscayne Point, the Minea site, and St. Josephs Church would also have an impact in traffic generation. The current projections for general traffic growth on Hwy 3 is 3% and do not include this development. When Connemara Tr and CR38 are completed an additional growth factor of 6.5% is projected. The traffic generated by the Brockway site would have to be added into these percentages. The traffic study completed in June of 2003 indicates the ratings for these intersections are currently rated as very satisfactory. With traffic projections into 2008 and the site being fully developed, traffic would be rated at an E -level of service which would be an unsatisfactory rating. With the proposed improvements to this area, the level of service would be brought back to a satisfactory rating. Mr. Rickert indicated that an application has been submitted to MNDOT for cooperative agreement funding to improve Hwy 3. If approved, notification would be in January 2004 with the funding available in 2005. Improvements would include a signal at the Connemara Trail intersection of Hwy 3, left and right turn lanes on Hwy 3 at CR38 - no median but stripped lanes, closing the access into the golf course, and providing a signal and a stripped left turn lane at CR38. �x h�hit�� r 'pawe0 uO4O N 'auoN :sAeN 'jaddeN pue 'wnZ 'jaussalN 'lasueslaM :say V 'jaddeN Aq puooeS •panoidde Alleuoll!puoo se ueld jalsew Ideouo0 ayI pue ueld anisuayajdwoo papuawe ayj yl!M lua}slsuoo aq of seaje asn -puel le!oiawwoo pue 6ulsnoy ay; auozai l!ouno0 Aj!0 ayj }eyj puawwooaj o} wnZ Aq NOIlOW 'paweo uoi}oIN 'auoN :sAEN •uanZ pue 'aaussaW 'lasuespM 'aaddeN seAv ujnZ Aq puooaS 'liouno0 ue}!lodojjalN ay} o} juawpuewe ayl piewol pue ueld an!suayaidwo0 junowaso�j OZOZ ayl of Juauipuawe ue ajedaid ofgels ezuoylne llouno0 Aj!0 ayj jeyj puawwooai of iausseN Aq NOIlOW paweO uo!loIN 'auoN :SAEN 'Jausse N pue 'lasuaslaM 'jaddeN 'uwnZ :sGAV 'jaussaVN Aq puooeS •6uue9H ollgnd ayj asolo o} wnZ Aq NOIlOW 'a}aldwoo aje gO d0 01 s}uawanojdwi pun llej I ejewauuo0 woaj al!s ayj Jajua 01 aney pinoM salo!yan uo!}onjisuoo pue �onjl 'uado o; Apeai si joa(oid eyj pun MJ3 oluo 6u!woo ogeil 1!w!l of a�!l pinom '80 10 'uosiapuy tiiap '0!,4eal ul sde6 aleajo pinom jy6!i leu61s a pue SAennanup ayj yl!M sanssi ayj ssaippe pinoo AeMy6!y ayl J0 6u!uap!M e pue E AMH ;0 6u!dduls auel ujnl ,2E2jo Mau pue gC d0 plo uaaMlaq SAeMan!ap ayj ssaappe IOU p!p 1pnjs ayj pauleldxe jja�o!�l iN sp�epue�s 41!0 yl!M aouepi000e ui sal!s ilayj woJj s}40 uni pue loa}uoo ales u!elu!ew Isnw sluawdolanaa 'sassai6oid al!s ayj jo juawdolanap ayj se aw!j jajel e le passaippe Allewjol aq of pajoadxa we sanssi jaleM wiols pale }s 'iaaul6uE Al!0 'jalzloj8 'jW 'seaje 6uipunojans ayj ui spuod uo }oaga s}! pue al!s Aem� ooi8 ayj joj.ueld a6eulejp ayj pm passajdxa seM uJaouoo leuo!}!ppe pue 6UIUana ayj ul uanas pue inol jo sinoq ayj uaaM}aq 9£2d0 woj} suwnj pueq 4@1 a�ew o} Al!l!ge ayj yl!M uiaouoo passaadxe }saM laai }S pu ZC 6 C �9Z 'ayo�j we!il!M 'Aenny6!y uollenjasajd e se 0 AMH 10 uo!leu6!s9p lOQNW ayj pue 'sAeManiap 6u!}s!xa a!ayj woij pue of ssaooe ayj 'C AMH uo 01}4eJI jo awnlon ayj yl!M uja0uoo passajdxa 'l!ejl;iago�j glnoS 00lO � 'aoyaN uea •sluawwoo 0ilgnd aoj 6uueaH o!lgnd ay} pauado lasuas!aM uosjadjiey0 •suoi}sanb Aue jaMsue of juasaid seM pue ,91!s pesodoid ayj jo uo aqI paddeoai �(lja!jq 'sa!uedwo0 puni}}o� 'Iuap!saad a0ln an! }noaxE 'uajj!yM w11 'sleu6!s pasodoid ayj ao; 6u pue 'E AmH COI sIuawanoidwi jo 6ulwil ayj 'sew!j � ead 6uunp C �(MH 01 ssaooe 'suoijoasiaju! algejedwoo 'oig'eil io; s6u!jeJ lanai ao!nJas ay} uaaMjaq aouajaj4!p ayj 6ulpje6aj pensua uoissnosia MOTION by Napper to recommend that the City Council approve the concept master plan for the Brockway site subject to: a. Aligning driveways and street intersections to eliminate off -set intersections with intervals of less than 250 feet. b. Provision of unrestricted turn - grounds with a minimum turning radius of 45 feet for all dead end common driveways or streets exceeding 150 feet, or as approved by the Rosemount Fire Marshal. C. Utilization of the excess lot depth along the outer edge of the single family land use areas to create a greenway for trails /sidewalks and buffering the effects of the traffic and dissimilar land uses. d. Further articulation of high- density amenities, building materials & character. In the absence of such details, each building fagade shall have a minimum of 25% brick, stucco or stone — natural, manufactured or cultured, and monolithic balconies. Architectural details such as dormer windows shall be used to provide relief of long roof eves. Primary building entrances shall have a variety of design features including separate gables, verandas or canopies creating significant relief (off -sets in excess of six feet). e. Concept approval does not guarantee the number of dwelling units. f. Incorporation of recommendations by the Parks and Recreation Commission including land dedication of four to ten acres and active public recreational facilities in the private park area with easements as necessary. g. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer relative to access, circulation, drainage, easements, grading, storm water management, traffic and utilities. h. Execution of PUD agreement. i. Preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet and incorporating resulting recommendations into the preliminary plat design. j. Conformance with PUD Final Development Plan /Preliminary Plat and Final Plat requirements. Commissioner Zurn expressed concerns with traffic, the agreement application, and what city is going to do with the traffic lights. Motion seconded by Weisensel. Chairperson Weisensel stated the traffic issues are beyond scope of this project but do have an impact. Suggestions were made to include the Traffic Study as part of the recommended action. MOTION by Weisensel to amend condition 3g to include the Traffic Impact Study dated November 12, 2003. Second by Messner. Ayes: Messner, Zurn, Napper, and Weisensel. Motion carried. -paweo u 'auoN sAeN 'JausseN pue 'lesuasiaM 'jeddeN 'wnZ :seAV 'lasuesiaM Aq puooeS 'sluawaalnbai jell leui� pue jeld tieulwllajdyueld }uawdolanaa leuid anti qi!m aouewjojuoo - U51sap jeld tieuiwilajd ayj olul suoilepuawwooaa 5uillnsai 5ulleaodjooui pue }aays�JOAA juawssessy lejuawuoJinuE] ue jo uoijejedaJd i 'Iuawaaj6e and jo uoi}noax3 - y p00Z 'ZI. jagwanoN 10 ApnjS joedwl oi ayj ;o suogepuawwooaj pue saijilljn pue o!gej} 'juawa6euew Ja1enn wJoIs Tuipei6 'sjuewasea 'a5euiejp 'uoi ;elnoiio 'Ssaooe o} ant}elaa aaaul6u3 AIi0 ayl ;o suol1epuawwooaj jo uol�ejodaooul '6 'tiessaoeu se s ;uawasea ylIM eaje Ted alenud ayj ut saijIlloe; leuoi}eenai oilgnd anijoe pue sajoe uaj of inoj jo uoi}eoipap puel 5uipnloul uolssiwwoo uoijeaJoa'd pue s�aed ay; Aq suollepuewwooai jo uoljeaodiooul '1 's}Iun 5uillannp ;o jagwnu ayj aa}uejen6 jou saop Ienoidde ;deouo: 'a '( ;aaJ xis Jo ssaoxa ui s }as -.}o) jailai }ue34iu6ls 6uileajo saldoueo jo sepuejan 'salge5 a}ejedas buipnloui sainjeaj u6lsap jo Ajauen e aney lleys saouejjua 5uiplinq tiewud - sane JooJ 6uol ;0 ;a11aJ apinoid of pasn aq lleys sMopulm Jewiop se yons sllejap lejnloallyojy - saiuooleq olylilouow pue 'pain ;lno jo pain}oelnuew 'leinjeu — euols jo 000nis '�oljq %5Z ;o wnwluiw e aney Ileys ape6e; 6ulpllnq yoea 'sllelap yons jo eo.uasge ayj ul 'jajoeaeyo 13 sleuajew 5ulplinq 'sa ;ivawe � l!suep- y6ly ;o uoilelnollie jay�nd p 'sesn puel jeliwisslp pue o!j4ejj ayj ;o sloa}49 ay; 5uua}4nq pue s� lemaps/sileal col AennuaaJ5 e Glean of seaie asn puel Allwe; aibuis ay; jo 96pa jaino Gull 5uole y ;dap jol ssaoxa ay ; ;o uol ;ez,nn 'o 'leysjeW acid junoweso�j ayj Aq.panoidde se Jo '}aaj 001. 6ulp9aoxa s}aaJ}s Jo SAennanup uou.wwoo pue peep Ile Job. lea; 5t jo snipej 5uiwn} wnwluiw e qj!m spunoje -wnj pajouisajun jo uolslnoJd 'q 05Z uey} ssal 10 slemajul qj!m suoi}oasia}ul }as - ;4 0 aIeulwila o} suoi }oasJaIul JaaJ}s pue sAennanup 6ulu611V 'e :o} joa(gns aj!s Aemn ooj8 ayj aoj ueld aalsew Ideouoo ayj anoidde Ilounoo A}!3 ayj 1eyj puawwooei o; jeddeN Aq NOLLOW :smolloj se uol ;ow uiew uo 910n ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6,2004 Flint Hills Resources Simple Plat Request for 14380 Blaine Avenue Community Development Director Lindquist reviewed Flint Hills' request to combine eight home lots that had been built in the 1950's into four lots in the agricultural district. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 1 unit per 40 -acre density in the agricultural district. Staff recommends placing a deed restriction on other property Flint Hills owns prohibiting additional residential units. If the property is rezoned, then the density requirement is moot and the deed restriction would no longer be necessary.. This was discussed with Flint Hills. They would also be required to conform to the Dakota County ISTS standards for the septic systems. Council Member Strayton thanked Lindquist for addressing the issues with Flint Hills. MOTION by Strayton to adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FLINT HILLS ESTATES PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. Second by Riley. Ayes: Shoe - Corrigan, Droste, Riley, Strayton, DeBettignies. Nays: None. Motion carried. Brockway Site Redevelopment - CPDC Community Development Director Lindquist presented the request by Homer Tompkins of Contractor Property Developers Company (CPDC) to amend the Comprehensive Plan on the 120 -acre site east of Highway 3 and south of 132 "d Street West. It is zoned PI (Public Institutional) and BP -2 (Business Park 2) and would be changed to R1 /R2/R3 /R4 for 612 units of various types of housing. This site now hosts the Brockway Glass Co. buildings and Brockway Golf Club. Staff looked at the amount of Business Park (BP) land that was available and concluded that the tax base would not be affected greatly because there are still 294 acres available that are zoned BP and 1057 acres in-the GI (General Industrial). The proposed single family and multi - family housing was not envisioned. The concept plan would provide about 13 acres of green space and about $6 million for park dedication fees. They do propose to have a commercial site on the southeast corner. The developer has a clear understanding that this property does have some difficult issues such as pipeline easement, ponding, and possible environmental contamination. Chuck Rickart, Associate Project Engineer, WSB Engineering, conducted a traffic study and met with Minnesota Department of Transportation (M`NDOT). MNDOT was encouraging in that cooperative agreements for improvements of Highway 3 could provide a maximum of $500,000. Signals would be recommended at McAndrews and Connemara on Highway 3 and turn lanes at 132 "d Street West. Projections show 45% of traffic going north and 25 % going into town. City Engineer Brotzler discussed the stormwater ponding issues which are very flexible at this point. If off -site stormwater storage is needed the developer would be required to fiend it. Tim Whiten, Rotlund Homes Executive Vice - President, presented drawings of the housing types. Council was concerned with the 12 -unit townhomes and asked if they would consider 6 to 8 unit buildings. Whiten indicated they could look at that. 5 r,xhIb1* 27 ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 Council Member Strayton had concerns about the Comprehensive Plan amendment and if Tax Increment Financing was necessary. More information will become available as the concept plan moves forward. MOTION by DeBettignies to adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROVING A CONCEPT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BROCKWAY SITE and authorizing staff to forward the amendment to the Metropolitan Council and to add a condition - u., "The twelve (12) unit townhouse buildings may have to be reduced to six (6) or eight (8) unit townhouse buildings." Second by Riley. Ayes: Droste, Riley, DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan. Nays: Strayton. Motion carried. . MOTION by DeBettignies to continue the rezoning requests for the Brockway Site by CDPC. Second by Riley. Ayes: Riley, Strayton, DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan, Droste. Nays: None. Motion carried. Announcements City Administrator Verbrugge noted a change of location for the Downtown Redevelopment Committee. It will be held at the Community Center, Room 215, on Thursday, January 8, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. There is a public informational meeting scheduled at City Hall for the pending street improvements for 2004 on January 8 1h at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Droste reviewed the upcoming meetings noting the following special meeting: Trails and Pedestrian Improvements Informational Meeting on January 29, 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. Mayor Droste moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:38. p.m. Second by Strayton. Ayes: Five. Respectfully submitted, —. Linda Jentink, City Clerk Recording Secretary The City Council Agenda Packet is Clerk's File 2004 -1 C TO: Honorable Mayor, Council Members City of Rosemount Planning Commission FROM: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Rick Pearson, City Planner Andy Brotzler, City Engineer DATE: December 31, 2003 RE: Brockway Site Redevelopment Applicant: Homer Tompkins of Contractor Property Developers Company Location: Brockway Site East of STH 3 between Connemara Trail & County Road 38 Property Owner(s): George Wintz Area in Acres: Approximately 120 Number of units: 612 Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Business Park & Existing Parks / Open Space Current Zoning:. BP -2, Business Park and PI Public / Institutional SUMMARY During the Council workshop there were four major issues raised for further evaluation. They deal with the loss of designated Business Park land due to the reguiding request; loss of existing parks and open space property; more clarity on the traffic ramifications of the project and what actions the City can take to mitigate escalating traffic problems on Hwy 3, regardless .of whether the project is approved; and what is the status of sanitary sewer capacity for the City and what is the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services doing to address a future capacity problem. The following information is what staff has been able to compile to address those questions. • Business Park Ladd At the December 10th Committee of the Whole meeting, several Council members discussed the change in land use on the Brockway property from Business Park and Open Space to various Residential land uses, with a small neighborhood commercial component. The concern was raised as to whether the guide plan should be changed given that one of the city goals is to increase the overall tax base by adding more commercial and industrial development. Staff has inventoried land currently available for business park and industrial to help the Council assess the available land for those types of development. The figures are Cxkib"I a Brockway Site Redevelopment January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting Page 2 of 6 based solely on the current Zoning Map and do not include other lands in the east, being discussed for future industrial use but currently zoned for agriculture. The amount of undeveloped land for the industrial use (GI) may vary depending upon what the Council perceives as developed. Land controlled by Flint Hills, but generally open space,. even if it contained a road or small structure, was considered undeveloped for purposes of this exercise. The figure for the business parkland does not include the Brockway parcel. Business Park Total 442.33acres Built 146.52acres Undev. 294.01 acres General Industrial * Total 2933.24acres Built 1875.47acres Undev. 1057.77acres *There is 1.2 acres of Industrial Park, which is developed. This is a zoning district no longer used by the City but maintained due to an existing business use. Recently, staff met with a developer to discuss the Business Park property within the community. Staff asked what his thoughts were about business park development in Rosemount and what type of absorption rate we could expect. In his opinion, Rosemount would be more attractive to smaller owner /users. This is primarily due to access and visibility within the Park. While the area has reasonably good access to Hwy 52, there remain other vacant properties within the metro area that are in closer proximity to the principal arterial system. Additionally, if access to Hwy 52 were very desirable, a developer would most likely look at other land in the east within Rosemount. Due to his belief that owner /users would be the primary target market, he felt you could expect perhaps, one to two users a year. The size of any particular project would be in the 5 -10 acres range. Based upon that absorption, available land within the Business Park would meet the City needs for the next 7 -10 years. Staff also expects by that time that additional land in the east, affected by it's proximity to Flint Hills, will be available for more industrial development. In conclusion, staff believes there is available land within the community to achieve the Council goal of diversification of tax base by introduction of additional businesses into the community even with the development of the Brockway parcel as residential. • Parks and Open Space Property At the Workshop meeting the Council also noted that the development also reduces the amount of parks and open space in the area. The golf course functions more as an open space amenity since it is a private course although open to the general public. In discussions with the Parks Commission, the developer has indicated that they will be dedicating at least 12. 9 acres or approximately 10.7% of the gross acreage of the property. The Parks Commission has also Brockway Site Redevelopment January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting Page 3 of 6 recommended that the activity area interior of the ring road also be dedicated to the City, increasing the total acreage dedicated. It is unclear what the final total land dedication will be; it will be determined with the preliminary plat review. Because of the size of the project, and because the Parks Master Plan did not envision a park needed in this area, due to the current land use designation, Parks is recommending that a neighborhood park be provided within the project. The land dedication recommended would allow for creation of a neighborhood park to serve this development. It is also expected that the developer may be paying some portion of the park fee to satisfy the ordinance requirement. The developer has indicated they would like to contribute to the park amenities to offset the park dedication fee requirement. It is difficult to say at this point what the park improvements will be. Additional review of the area needs, and a better understanding of the site plan, particularly the grading plan will be necessary. Regardless, at this time the Parks Director is anticipating that the development itself will satisfy the park dedication requirements through a combination of land dedication, paying for neighborhood park amenities, and paying a portion in cash. Relating to the discussion above, the amount of business park and industrial land currently available, based upon the adopted zoning map is 1351 acres. These lands, using the 2004 fee rates, would generate $6,048,000 in park fees to permit future acquisition and improvements. In lieu of fees, the ordinance requires a 10% land dedication. Overall, staff believes the change in land use from parks and open space to residential continues to allow the opportunity for public open space opportunities. The change in use results in a more public solution than the current condition because the development will contain a city -owned park, rather than a private golf course. Other opportunities continue to exist within the community to provide additional open space amenities that may be obtained through park dedication or cash payment in lieu of dedication. • . Traffic Issues At the December 10 Committee of the Whole meeting, traffic on Tnmk Highway (TH) 3 and the traffic impacts of the proposed Brockway development were discussed. As previously noted, a Traffic Impact Study has been completed to review the impacts of the proposed development on the existing street and highway system and specifically the intersections of TH 3 and Connemara Trail and TH 3 and 132 Street (CR 38). Based on the results of the Traffic Impact Study, the following improvements are recommended for completion in conjunction with the development: 1. Install left and right turn lanes on TH 3 at 132 Street (CR 38). 2. Improve 132 nd Street (CR 38) to a 44 -foot three -lane section from the Brockway Site Redevelopment January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting Page 4 of 6 proposed site access to TH 3 to accommodate left turn lanes at the site access and TH 3. 3. Monitor the operation of the TH 3 and 132 Street (CR 38) intersection to determine need for signal system in the future. Funds should be collected from the developer for future City costs associated with the constriction of a signal system at this location. 4. Install signal system on TH 3 at Connemara Trail. 5. Construct site accesses on Connemara & 132 Street to three -lane cross sections with one entering lane and two exiting lanes. The City has submitted to Mn/DOT a request for Municipal Cooperative Agreement funding for the constriction of a signal system on TH 3 at Connemara Trail, turn lane improvements on TH 3 at 132" Street (CR 38), and intersection improvements and installation of a signal system on TH 3 at McAndrews Road (CSAH 38). One premise of the submittal is the closure of the existing Brockway facility driveway that currently gains access to TH 3 located between Connemara Trail and 132 Street (CR 38). The closure of this access is accommodated with the proposed development of the Brockway site as shown on the concept plan. The submittal to Mn/DOT was also made to address existing traffic safety issues on TH 3. With the recent opening of Connemara Trail to the east of TH 3, the intersection of Connemara Trail and TH 3 will meet warrants for a signal system with or without the development of the Brockway site. As such, staff is proceeding with the preparation of a Signal Justification Report (SJR) for this intersection in preparation for the installation of signal system at this intersection once funding is available. Funding for the project would either occur with participation from Mn/DOT or 100 percent funding by the City with Mn/DOT payback in the future, estimated to be in 2007 or 2008. For the TH 3 and McAndrews Road (CSAH 38) intersection, the submittal to Mn/DOT included a request for finding participation to improve this intersection through the construction of turn lanes and installation of a signal system. Another item discussed was access to existing residential. driveways along TH 3 between 132 Street (CR 38) and McAndrews Road (CSAH 38). A possible solution to this issue is the widening of this segment of TH 3 to accommodate the installation of a continuous center left turn lane or the installation of a continuous center median, limiting the accesses to right- in/right -out. As the MnDOT Municipal Cooperative Agreement funding program is limited to $500,000 per year, alternatives to address this issue can be discussed with MiOOT in a future funding cycle. It should be reiterated that the cooperative agreement was not prompted by the Brockway project, and that staff would continue to pursue the funding regardless of the Council's decision on this specific project. However, given that traffic on Hwy 3 is an issue raised in the context of the Brockway review, staff has provided the cooperative agreement information. Most recently, the City received a letter Brockway Site Redevelopment January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting Page 5 of 6 from MnDOT relating to the cooperative agreement application. The letter is attached for the Council's information along with the City's response. From the letter, it appears that MnDOT staff is very supportive of the city's application; however, an independent group makes the final determination as to whether the city will receive funding. We expect to hear about the final status of the city's application by the end of January 2004. • Sanitary Sewer Capacity Over the past several months, staff has been working with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to review the current and future sewer capacity for the City of Rosemount. The majority of Rosemount is served by the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant located along 140`x' Street, east of TH 52. The Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant serves a small area of Rosemount. MCES has previously prepared a Rosemount /Empire Master Facility Plan that indicated the elimination of the Rosemount WWTP and construction of an interceptor to the Metropolitan Plant. In recent conversations with MCES, based on their analysis, it has been determined that interim alternatives to the construction of an interceptor to the Metropolitan Plant will need to be reviewed. An alternative that MCES is reviewing is the construction of an interceptor to the Empire WWTP and continuing to operate the Rosemount WWTP to provide additional sewer capacity for development in Rosemount. MCES staff has verbally indicated their intent to meet with City staff in February 2004 to review these alternatives and to work towards the completion of a project in 2005 to provide additional capacity to the City of Rosemount. In regard to the proposed Brockway development and based on flow and capacity information provided by MCES; it appears that the Rosemount WWTP will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the development of the Brockway site. This determination will be verified by MCES as part of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) review and the required Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment. The revised resolution contains an expanded set of recommended conditions of approval resulting from the Council discussion at the Dec. 10, Committee of the Whole meeting. The conditions are intended to identify project specifics and City expectations of developer performance in recognition of the City granting variances or giving concessions to typical ordinance standards. While concept review normally focuses on the broader land use implications of a project, the Brockway Site Concept Review booklet provides enough detail that specific site design issues can be addressed. The concept presents a dramatic change for the Brockway area. The concept presents comparatively high density over a large area and the proposed amenities must provide for Brockway Site Redevelopment January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting Page 6 of 6 the recreational and open space needs for the future residents. The concept also takes varies from current city development standards, and therefore must conform to conditions meant to protect the public health, welfare and safety. 0 I LI , 1 , -, 1 1 1 1 11 `�a 5tl E7 BROCKWAY SITE AY 4 Rim ROSEMOUNT, MN Rc� t7l a. z I� 1 # I z .b - -- ----------------------- Mf — -- p kill is i0 VK e` m uF• ,4.r �. r +w .. f.r w O _ .�i� i8n1 a �� � � 1 � •� c - Fe mu BROCKWAY SITE � i i7y_e l x ROSEMOUNT, MN s CIO $Sbb 6 L mu BROCKWAY SITE � i i7y_e l x ROSEMOUNT, MN s CIO r' v �. SITE P tr I '�:a�aa6 O CriP O(jn sox - -'-------------- -'-----.-T ° off m I'i Y i I '-ytl; si a I �i jI - ° �NNI s " � ✓t " � � � y II•r I d � � �. �6 t I , �Ir II I t � ° i ii__ _. �• ._._._._ — — —' - -- I — '—--- III —. —._. i I� Ic i it 67 i Ic 1 III 7 I f ` I I _._._._._.__._._._� {{ ^7 F 1 ; F ii� n �i ° = w s � NR " €b y13 95 s �yyxez S o, �� ,+„'inn a — rn Ea ` n �z EOiij is r v 5 r' v �. SITE P tr I '�:a�aa6 O CriP O(jn sox ° off BROCKWAY ' �ig s C, m f= ROSEMOUNT, MN � s y r' v �. SITE P tr I �. '�:a�aa6 O CriP O(jn [�riinp ° off s � s y V m tC .-a a z H ' n i r _ c c o z I ° 2 r i C � � Z y � t B v �N C ee � S a i C z e m • t i S I �hn I'm lt l' 4� i ►� �kl 1 I •Il�lhl� 1 I l t 100 7tt m 1 r 1 i S > c° ° Z z Z S 0 CD ►i Il x � fill � z i ►� �kl 1 I •Il�lhl� 1 I l t Illi 7tt m rrS i� S 0 CD ►i Il x � fill � z C 2, H • rrS i� S CD If 3 rl 5 10 g a GA ��•s511 — = i - �iunnmum ! ii L�:;r��r,•,i�;il i�i��� llll I� r 3 E� 3 6 i g' a g mm gm BROCKWAY SITE ROSEMOUNT, MN. trr© 77 E F F 6.y I q .E e th if • ; t la g mm gm BROCKWAY SITE ROSEMOUNT, MN. trr© 77 E F F 6.y ValleyCrest L-6.p, D.nl.p —1 BROCKWAY SITE Rosemount, MN PLANT LIST (END UNIT ONLY) .DECIDUOUS SHRUBS c. LC _ 11CPPk.b.a, GW..y Black ' lPS f0 SPke., Vela Primeea. NERGR[EN SHRUBSi Sl 7 halp.,. S.. Green IluniP —cHn. i'S Gem yam, PLANT UST (INTERIOR UNIT ONLY) DECIDUOUS SHRUBS. so. G.L LP 10 5 c, LYea PMces.� I s p".. .NC 'Le11c `PERENNIAL FLOWERS. Su. La.t. D 6 Da it , blella D. O.P •• H.mcroealls .lela d' at PI UNITS GABLE 0 TGWNNeU.r — I •. rzc o� ae°tlu..[•.����a+..m.m .wo .m �.w.rc..o L -4 I -------- --- = / :5-1 BROCKWAY SITE t " -i ROSEMOUNT, MN r 0 C E !� � � 1| \� � §� � �8 |1[ . -------- --- = / :5-1 BROCKWAY SITE t " -i ROSEMOUNT, MN r 0 C E � /� |� // � � | �� ` :! .,! . � . -------- --- = / :5-1 BROCKWAY SITE t " -i ROSEMOUNT, MN r 0 C E 3 a 1 I r -u �' 1 1 , z , — A 1 1 . I i a �< o r [ A m z �3 �oi� f' f • n ►f ax F -- tl ;f !� s 111 111 11111 ►� `�� _ *�, 4D aD ©D GD ©D 4D aD o r [ A m z �3 �oi� f' f • n ►f ax F -- tl ;f !� s > a 6 I =_ �� =�mo BROCKWAY SITE a 1 ROSEMOUNT. MN N �A N m ' n sigg eg ° I aq as d i �= rM� J• e� t a i F � A m m I� 0 z J• E � ��6 a t��=a a� biz � . 7a ��. €•'R € > a 6 I =_ �� =�mo BROCKWAY SITE a 1 ROSEMOUNT. MN ■ 2 \ §§ ( \ §� #w §§ SqG§ q' §§ # [ 9 ) §3§( §) \} , §|\ [ , I { kf )§ ) R {77| ' | .g . I! | ° T ` J | ; k �§ ' | .g . 3§/ (�� | } -- z z � \� 7 NO m m 2 7u § / � \ ƒ .> g 4 z !.l[ ƒi \/[ l����■ :, ■2 § :; Q da \ |■§ / |( §§■ - . � ■ =! :|E :§ {� § ; / / / \ \� . !` §f ■;& ;§ § /\| !■� = | §I■ § ��§!!r§■ � . ■ ||!! || ° ' ! ; § ■�; .§ |E�,| |■!§ k /� � G■ _ /7 %§ " \ \� � � r-\ m T ` �m m & K . . � § a � e � ( � [ � l����■ :, ■2 § :; Q da \ |■§ / |( §§■ - . � ■ =! :|E :§ {� § ; / / / \ \� . !` §f ■;& ;§ § /\| !■� = | §I■ § ��§!!r§■ � . ■ ||!! || ° ' ! ; § ■�; .§ |E�,| |■!§ k /� � G■ _ /7 %§ " \ \� K§ w �( <� ` m \k§ r 3z . \ g \/ m� |!![ \.( Cr. tp ) 3 r x < Z� _\ o z �# 0 \. � 0{ 0 k m r F, k(�W�| |/\ ■,,! -E |! JOE.- Fl a �/ � ■> § ; i -;-Zi k§k� k � §;2 !' |■ ; ;§ || - / \ � i .....z � .( \ ■,. ;� n \ § \k ( ( n� ;■ Ri \ \/ ! f/d /§ LY'.Q / r ��\ !T ��.. / . }. \�z � .. O O O Z § � O C) C m � \ \ g oon 2 §- - OX.2 �d� ° \ ) | § § \ || /H §(§ 'r ; :,; »� ,� ■�,� ■ :_ l2�S J22� Rg\ e & a //� � \� / \S{ E /. / \\ ` ©Ra « / ( \ \\ .■!! | . / \ »2R � S§ � p§ � � : ��� � � � � � 8■ ) | § § \ || /H §(§ 'r ; :,; »� ,� ■�,� ■ :_ l2�S J22� Rg\ e & a //� � \� / \S{ E /. / \\ ` ©Ra « / ( \ \\ .■!! | . / \ »2R � S§ � p§ � � €11 1i H � +a , h,j 0,4 0 a� 1�.C11 I D S H I't I 1 1 c ltf H m,i m3(S�m NZ Oy ry➢ OD = ➢'' - �N OA Tr In m A m? m N Z A< OAmNZ m� T r m m yx A a L �aOtim AN zm om _ oJ0 OZ !lA M i n yx � �m„m •, m o rmnom Om 0 j N T E A S m ii = m o➢ � m a p O = q ew S 3i O S n m i OrrI� C) z: F" �is a M � ^ •• .. Y Iz m AP 7 0 - + O T� i C m,i a L _ q ew 'xN R> F" �is a ^ •• .. AP 7 N T� i C x' t ®® 8 6C = b = y 2 z' ((�� LIDO .. .m��m� °sm m �> - O ® ® ®® i '� :��❑ s R �m� � noN m $ g p € p C ( cm im c$ ,�Ro2o Aa m M —4 D r L — i A 4 �z Imo__ i 3 Z a3 T 0 E tff ° c ° a 0 0 Ew D � r � m ; n r .r o c of ; �a v. m pz Aa m 'g�om yy n ic =v. i na <F o A �0 =o n � C Y b 0 z A • L� 0 x «�� z _ « .A F o y FAM" 0°�a T�y�r ar m rn FF O : rn r rn T O o a' y O O z M g r O U 0 m � C Y b 0 z A • L� 0 x «�� z _ « .A F o y FAM" 0°�a T�y�r �_. | n§ K ( < . . -- - -�- - - -- - - -� . a ( . § � f � g |� iƒ § #. . � � \ ; Q / A ` §§ uj 70 0 � � ( .r C) �. � m \ » / % � t | � Mu � \ V, §�! ' ■ ■!| � f� ;I & §§ ||| .22` Xl ® `,E � ■ | § ^ f&/ - k /7f § {$ � ■ .....- - /� § i '• >!l ; - -. =[■ » $ ~ v I § §/■ §�£) ■ zrp � ® R�! . k � s! „e � 7. • PASSIVE DPG. WCT: a..�1 a TYP. TRIM DETAIL \. LIJ SCALE: 1/6' -I' -O' – , V•N• an•O Ro. 1 11 I 11 1 II a 1 D I � I I _ 1 1 TYP. FRONT (2)ELEV. TRIM \ 6 - 1 , 1 SCALE: 1 /4' -1' -0' GENERAL NOTES AI SCALE: 1 /8' =1' -ON • PROVOOE DRIP CAP OVER UNDOES, DOORS AND TRIM ' ALL V NYL SHA"S AND ST ISNEER • FLASHING TO ME INSTALLED WNOER PLYWOOD PANELS, JUNCTIONS OF ROOF AND WALLS. CNIMNE7b, ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE OF SUING MATERIAL5. OR WHERE SIDING NESTS A TRIM BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL mom. 'B' FRONT (WALKOUT) KINCA4ID LODGE SHEET NO; , J AI FRONT ELEVATION Al SCALE: 1 18R a1' =O' 1000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES • THESE PLANS ARE N ACCORDANCE NTH FNMEfOTA ELL". CHAPTER YT7. AR TO PROWS PROT • H IL AGAINST EXCE DEPRE{HIRDATNNt PRSECTpP(fVE PAIN I BILL BE SEALING REDDREMENTE. • HOUSE TRAP NLL BE INSTALLED ON • A CONTNOW5tT SEALED VAPORYAR SARRIER BILL BE INSTALLED. FOLLOWED. • EXTERIOR ENVELOPE COMPONENT MATERI.LLS: In EM114F HOUSE OVSRLAPPED S', TAPED SEAMM AND SENDOR • ALL SEAM5 BILL BE OVERLAPPED 1' AND TAPED. •SIZE AND TYPE OF EOOPMENT PALES 61{ S1-f. y-2. fl BY • N- VALI OF WNDDWS. DOORS, AND f : NSIILAMN, FOLT SEALED TO FLOOR), AND DRYWALL Nl BE •ACOUSTICAL SEALANT NLL BE LLSED AT TOP AND SOTTOM PLATES. • • NRNACE WATEE • EOUIPMEXT CDN1EOl5: NRNACE TEE ACHE" ON PALES AI AE AT . At. AS APPDED BE AND SHOWERS STALLS ON OWYfIpE NALlS. ACWSIICAL SIE M SEALANT OOL BE LLSED AT EXTERIOR RALL WlERSELIlOMS. ATE ERIOR • VAPOR I NE AM& • FIN IACE FAN GTCLER: SNTCN WU • R- VALUES OF MSLLAl10N MATERWS: SEE PAGES SH SI-L SI-S, SL y] LL E ECE{ •POLY AND 058 BILL BE APPIFD pEHNp AND AT TOP OF SOFFITS THAT INTERSECT A BILL TAPED TO ANDES. ' ALL PLUMPING CLOTHES DRYER POR RHOLE HOUSE FAN HILL BE LOCATED • BARJH EINS E AR BARRRR yAPM RETARDER AND YXD RASH BARKER WITH ONNEATED SPACES/FXTERIGN HALLS. • RN JORT AND ELECTRICAL PENETRATION{, NCLRONG WHO, LESCO BOY.ES .1.1 BE {EAIED. SAME HOOD: By THERMOSTAT SSTH A NOTE E A S W SSE PALES Ni fI-7, SFS — BE SEALED. • CAU[NL BILL BE APPl1ED BFNNO NNpoN •ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATIONS BILL BE SEALED, • NgLE HONSE FAN: PATH FANS: INDICATING IT'S PNRPOSE • PASSIVE DPG. WCT: a..�1 a TYP. TRIM DETAIL \. LIJ SCALE: 1/6' -I' -O' – , V•N• an•O Ro. 1 11 I 11 1 II a 1 D I � I I _ 1 1 TYP. FRONT (2)ELEV. TRIM \ 6 - 1 , 1 SCALE: 1 /4' -1' -0' GENERAL NOTES AI SCALE: 1 /8' =1' -ON • PROVOOE DRIP CAP OVER UNDOES, DOORS AND TRIM ' ALL V NYL SHA"S AND ST ISNEER • FLASHING TO ME INSTALLED WNOER PLYWOOD PANELS, JUNCTIONS OF ROOF AND WALLS. CNIMNE7b, ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE OF SUING MATERIAL5. OR WHERE SIDING NESTS A TRIM BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL mom. 'B' FRONT (WALKOUT) KINCA4ID LODGE SHEET NO; , J AI FRONT ELEVATION Al SCALE: 1 18R a1' =O' ° D q , fA � YRQ D — N "TT 3 ' )- o o p s m Z m _ —{ a ?E \ M ;m o .< t —4 � ( ll. z� M m <� 7o 3z f �f o a y oAIN F1 -115 1 3 0 oAOn� o� z osT i� '9 1 i�ru� fip n i- §a p O N C� m m M I Q z n Ep �T OO g !Z � I F F r >e� -Wail° 0 z m A Milli m v •��H En i � 066 -• A N � s f rr 8 - K/ R $ <2 . � }?U§ -2z § ® am LIM y. , \ | � ! � . . T . M . � 3 / \70 /\ � . � \ ± { q m m R 2 M } < 2 > O 2 @ � | � � k| rk || ƒ� e,,.,= ■/ !! ■ -� ;,> / ƒ \ !» . .� ..�.._� v , 85 k . � |} / /. ( § r 2[ ^ 2 ® ® ^! . � . : � b§ °�\ j �----••--------- -- II 66, R� �1 I; u m m ❑ m r m j ❑ it li .I ;i hi •_.° II .I LV - ---- ------` ED 2U D D ' -f� m m I z a m �— t t t e O � Z i N IZ O z o � \ 26 (/ 2 \} �. § & f w 7 \ d § < _ y �. .� \} ƒ{ § ƒ ; a E>.( . �\ > . � � ± . � � � . � 3 � � 99 70 > G/ � o \ � Q z cn m � m m r m � y � O z � |� rMlp O a = & = § {!a ■ || §! �� • ,,a. rr22 §a§ ! |: 'v ! ! N . . ) § =!|F!■ ; ! | | ■ :|§ ] - : &) § ® \®G! P. � 3- R 6§ fe � � Ch, ( [ (�� . m o q § � ! � \ 26 (/ 2 \} �. § & f w 7 \ d § < _ y �. .� \} ƒ{ § ƒ ; a E>.( . �\ > . � � ± . � � � . � 3 � � 99 70 > G/ � o \ � Q z cn m � m m r m � y � O z � |� rMlp O a = & = § {!a ■ || §! �� • ,,a. rr22 §a§ ! |: 'v ! ! N . . ) § =!|F!■ ; ! | | ■ :|§ ] - : &) § ® \®G! P. � 3- R 6§ fe � � SNOUIC IV !j - W�IH1NV (lin -J) 1N0�I= ,9, .O -,I= .9/1 :a zd N01IVA�7� 21y�2� z .O -,I= .9/1 '3lb'z)S Lb N011b'J\�7� �aIS 1 � d t 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES • THESE PLANS ARE N ACCORDANCE WIN MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER l[L. • TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST •AIR SEAUNG REDUREDENTS: • A CONTNIUOUSLT SEALED VAPOR /AIR BARKER WLL BE INSTALLED. • SIZE AND TYPE OF EXCESNVE DEPRESSURIZATION, FRESCRIPNyE PAIN I WLL BE IOLLOWED. HOUSE RRAP WLL BE INSTALLED ON ENTIRE NOUSE-OVERLAPPED S', ALL SEAM S UR1 BE OVERLAPPED V AND TAPED- EQUIPMENT FURNACE: EDNPMENi CONTROl6: XTERI • EOR ENVELOPE COMPONENT MATERIALS: SEE PALES &A RI -1 SF3. 4 TAPED SEAMS AND WNDOU FLANGES. • ACOUSTICAL SEALANT WLL BE USED AT TOP AND BOTTOM PLATES. • DATER HEATER: -A FWRNAN CYC CE FA LER: B] • U -YAUES OF WNDGSS, DOORS. AND fKTIY:NTF. • NSIBATION, POLT ISEALED TO SUB- fLOORI, AND DRYWALL WILL BE APPlOJJ TUB • ACOUSTICAL SEALANT ULU BE USED AT EXTERIOR WALL INTERSECTIONS. • : i1REPLACF • S FOR W CIC NOWEE SEE WNDDR SCHEUL DE• ON PAGES N. Al. AS BEHIND DECKS AND SHOVERS STALLS ON OUTSIDE WALLS. • PDLT AND 050 NIA BE APPLIED BERND AND AT TOP Of SOFPSTS THAT VAPOR BARKER 01J. BE TAPED " LESCO BON FLANGES. • ALL PLAMBNL AND ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS. NCLUDNG WINDS LE SCO CLOTHES DRYER: •RANGE - P A N FAN FAM WLL BE LOCATED BT BMOSTAT 4TH A NOTE • R- VALUES Of NSULA ILON MATERIALS: SEE PAGES SI -L SF], SI -3, SL E] INTERSECT ISTH UNHEATED SPACES /EXTERIOR WALLS. BONES WLL BE SEALED. HOOD: I HOUSE FAIN: ITS PURPOSE • ROGATIONS OF INTERIOR AW 6ARREI. VAPOR RETARDER. AND WIND DASH • RMI JOIST WJL BE SEALED. ALL ENTEWOR PENETRATIONS BILL BE SEALED. BAIN FANS: BARRIER: SEE PALES SR W-1 SI-3 • CAULWNL DLL BE APPLED BENNO INNOOB FLANGES, • PASSIVE DPG. DUCT: 0 TYP. FRONT (a)ELEV. TRIM AI SCALE: 1/4" =1'-O" ASIDE ELEVATION AI SCALE 1/8" 'B' FRONT FULL REV GENERAL NOTES F ALL TRIM ON FRONT ELEVATION TO BE CEDAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED f PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER WINDOWS DOORS AND TRIM F INSTALL 1/7' 0,5.8. SHEATHING BEHIND ALL VINYL SHAKES AND STONE VENEER • FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED UNDER PLYWOOD PANELS, JUNCTIONS OF ROOF AND WALLS, CHIMNEYS, ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE OF SIDING MATERIALS, OR WHERE SIDING MEETS A TRIM BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL BHEET N O: I AI AI SCALE: 1 /8" 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPUANCE NOTES • THESE PLANE ARE ACCORDANCE MR R ULZL CHAPTER YIl • AIR SEALING REOOREIIENTS: TO P ICRFT FROT C .V.OTA AGAINST E IRED,, VE DEPREbdIMgATION. HOUSE WRAP WILL BE INSTALLED ON ENTIRE NOUSE -OVERLAPPED L'. • A CONTINUOUSLY SEALED VAPOR /AM BARRIER WILL BE INSTALLED. • ALL •SITE 10 119 OE C.-MM, FREEE CI I WILL PATH I WYL BE FOLLOWED. • TAPED SEAMS AND WINDOW FLANGES, SEAM WILL BE OYERLAFPED V AND TAPED. ACOUSTICAL NRNACE EOINMENT CONTROLS; EN EXTERIOR ENVELOPE COMPONENT MATENAIi: SEE (AGES SWl M -7. f1-), fl S] • • INSULATION, POLY ISEALED TO SUB- FLOORI, AM DRYWALL BUL BE SEALANT BILL BE USED AT TOP AND BOTTOM PLATES. • ACOUSTICAL •PATER NEATER: •FURNACE PAN CTCIER: U- WHO OF BNDDBS, DO A ANO ,,, Aj. TN SEE PAGES A1. M. AL APPlIEO BEHIND NB DECKS AND bHOWERS STALLS ON OUTS ®E WAllb. POLY AND SEALANT YILI BE USED AT EXTERIOR PALL INTERSECTIONS. • VAPOR BARRIER BILL BE TAPED TO LEfCO BOX FLANGES. • IMEPLACE: • C LOTHE S DRIER, S • WITCH FOR MOLE HOUSE AN 01 !E LOCATED BT LOCATED • R- *-VALUES I A R SEE PAGES N{ SFI, fDl, S7 OF NSYERIOR 055 WILL BE APPLIED BEHNO AND AT TOP OF $DPW& THAT INTERSECT YTN UNHEATED SPACES /EXTERIOR ALL PLUFR NG AND ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS. NICLIOING INSIDE LESCO • RANGE HOOD THERMOSTAT THERMOSTAT T A NOTE C Al1 0 b • All W RE : INTERIOR AIR BARRIER, VAPOR RETARDER AND MIND YARN H PALLS. RN JOIST YNL BE SEALED. BONES NLL BE SEALED. • YHOIE HOUSE FAN; PWRPOSE OARRI IONS E BARRIEIL BEE PAGES fl{ M -7. bl -] LALL[ML INII BE APPLIED • ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATION$ WILL BE SEALED. •BATH PANT. BENNO WIND. PIANGff. _ , • PASSIVE DIG, DUCT, 10 TYP. FRONT .••• ..... ELEV. TRIM j v Al SCALE: 1M• sl' -O• Q)1 LEV. /SECTIONIT Ai AI SCALE: 1 /0• -1' -0• ,RAIL DETAIL RAIL AI SCALE: V1' - I' -0' AI SCALE: V. m w _ -T- I)SIDE ELEVATION AI SCALE 1 /13• =1' -0 I V FRONT FULL REVERE GENERAL NOTES • ALL TRIM ON FRONT ELEVATION TO BE CEDAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. • PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER WINDOWS DOORS AND TRIM I INSTALL 1/2' O.S.B. SHEATHING BEHIND ALL VINYL SHAKES AND STONE VENEER L FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED UNDER PLYWOOD PANELS, JUNCTIONS OF ROOF AND WALLS, CHIMNEYS, ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE OF SIDING MATERIAL,. OR WHERE SIDING (MEETS A TRIM BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL SHEET N O. �I S W t rrn - rrn -; r11i�"x � Ij jl ❑ D — j� ❑ M � II � mm - r o � D it ❑ z r�----------- - - - - -- '�aaavaa V 4 - '�l �aaa i i r --- ---- - - -- -- l� n I� j� tb U1 I I 1 •; ittP - I r � m � z u x ii- D 0 a A 09 z ono�� sa h I- � I = 6m m zp m zm,Us U° u I T Touom H� e N r r o Hoop <r 6 0 0 0� _ mo s °may A Z D �n S W 1+ �� rn r "r L. l�tr 0 0 III n � M m o D z V cl ❑ D m N > 0 r rn m M m < p�EF y III IMSPI'll O Elf N Z Z D N m m MIN 0 0 0 � T oAaym s �q p o � p gym` :� C snn ov = r H m o° 0 0 0 � :m °A ms mo . m gf, vo cl ❑ r III IMSPI'll MIN cl ❑ 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES • iNESE ARE M ACCORDANCE WRH MNXEBOTA RISE{. CHAPTER YIl • AyE SEALING REOUREMEXTS: • A CONTINUOUSLY SEALED VAPOR/AIR BARRIER RILL BE INSTALLED. GENERAL NOTES . _ OV PLAINS • TO I WJE PROTECTDN AGAINST EXCESSIVE DEPRESSUNDATON. F IJE{CRIPTIYE HOUSE WRAP • ML BE METALLED ON ENTIRE NOU5E- OVERLAPPED 1', S • ALL EAMS RLLL BE'OVERLAPPED 1' AND TAPED, •SIZE AND TYPE Of EODPMENT EOWPMENT CONTROLS: FAIR 1541 BE FOLLOWED. • EXTERIOR PE .DO MATERIALS: EEE PALES 51-1 M -S SF), W. {) TAPED SEAMS AND MNDOW FLANGES. • INSULATION, ACWSTICAL SEALANT WLLL BE USED AT TOP AND BOTTOM FLATES. • FURNACE •RATER HEaTRR: • FURNACE.fAN CYCLES. • S OF OF DNDS DOORS. UNDOW ORS. AND POLY ISEAlEO TO SUB- f100R1 AND DRYWALL , BULL APPLIED BEHIND TUB DECKS • ACOUSIICAL SEALANT WILL BE USED AT EXTERDR'AU. INTERSECTIONS. FIREPLACE: SUICN FOR WHOLE HOUSE SEE MW At AS SEE nNDOE 6CNEDULFS ON FADES AI, AL AS AND SHOWERS STALLS ON OUTSDE'ALL,. •POLY AND OSB MLL BE APPLIED BEHIND AND AT VAPOR BARRIER WILL BE TAPED TO LESCO BOX FLANGES •CLOTHES DRIER: FAN WILL ME LOCATED BY THERM THERMOSTAT R- VALUES O • F W5ULAW11 MATERIALS: SEE PAGES M-L SM. SF), SL {S TOP OF 60F/fiS THAT INTERSECT WITH UNHEATED SPACES /EXTEND. WALLS- ND ELI •ALL PIUnBINL ANp FIECTRIUL PENETRATDNS, gCLYO1NG WEDS LESCO RANGE NOOO: _ nTN A NOTE T M'S PURPOSE • LOCATDN6 Of MERIOR AR BARRIER, VAPOR WETAROER AND 6111D WSN • RIM JOIST WILL BE SEALED. BOXES 'LL BE - • ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATONS MILL BE IELLED. WHOLE NOVSE iaN: BARRIER; SEE PAGES SN. W -I. IN-3 CAULKING MLL BE APPLIED ..HIND ANO- FLANGES. PATH FANS: , • PASSIVE OPG, DUCT: TYP. FRONT (a)ELEV. TRIM j AI SCALE: 1 /1" — 1' —O" SCALE: 1 /e" —1 -0" (a) SIDE ELEVATION AI SCALE: 1 /e" =1' —O" GENERAL NOTES . _ L ALL TRIM ON FRONT ELEVATION TO BE CEDAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED f PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER WINDOWS DOORS AND TRIM L IN5TALLr 1/2' 0.5.B. SHEATHING BEHIND ALL VINYL SHAKES AND STONE VENEER • A' FRONT FULL I FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED UNDER PLYWOOD PANELS, !UNCTIONS OF ROOF AND WALLS, CHIMNEYS G HA MILTON IADIWALLEETS A TRIM BO?RD eurRaS iNrr�ous_ flpU• meTE.a•. 4� oAr - D�LA�II llJL1V^IUI SHEET N O HOLM Al 1000 MINNESOTA ENERGT CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES • THESE PLANS ARE M ACCORDANCE WITH "KKESOTA PAU. CNAMN 7M1 •AIR SEALING REOORFLIEXTf: • TO PROYOE PROTECTION AGAINST EXCESSIVE DEPRESSURDATbN. • HOUSE WRAP AND TYPE Of EOOPDENT Y lL E E WSTALLEp ON ENTIRE IIOWSE- OYERIAPIED t', A CONIWUOUSLT SEALED VAPOR/AM BARR�R WELL l BE WSTALLED . •TE PREEGIBPTIVE PATH1 OM BE FOLLOWED. TAPED SEARS O AND SF FLANGES. • ALL SEAOS WRL BE OVERLAPPED t AND TAPED. SI FURNACE EOUB+ryENT CONTROLS: • EXTERIOR ENVELOPE COMPONENT BATERLLLi: SEE PAGff iN 4 -1 SFS, SL ST IUSULATpx, PO (SE, AID pRTWALL 10.1. BE • ACOUSTICAL SEALANT N4 BE USED AT TOP AND WOTTOB PLATES. WATER NEATER • FURNACE FAN CYCLER: ACOUSTCAL • U-V/.WE6 OF YNVOWS, DOORS, AND SCTLGHTS: APPLIED BEWN O TUB DECKS AND SHOWERALED TO SuE-PLOORI S STALLS ON OUTS0E WALLS, VAPOR BARRIER SEAL ANT Li 7APEO ATE EXTERIOR WALL WTE AECTONS. FIREPLhCE: • SYTCN POR WHOLE NMI, 1. LUESa SCHEDULES ON PAGES AS, A4. AE • POLT AHD O5B SILL BE APPLW:D BEMNO AND AT TOP Of 501-5 THAT CLOTNES pRTER {AN SILL R LOCATED BT + R- VALUES OF WUlA7)N BA TERIALl: SEE PAGES 61 51-2. fH, K ST MTERSECi NTN UNHEATED SPACES / EXTERIDR WALLS. • ALL PLINIBWG AND ELECTRICAL PENETRATIONS, NCLIIDMG WOVE LESCO • RANGE HOOD: FAR 01 STAY O A NOTE • LOCATIONS OP MITEROR Y AR E'-ME, VAPOR RETARDER, AND -0 .64 • RW JOIST SRL BE BONES SEALED. WILL BE SEALED. • :HOLE NO FAN WDICATMG M'S PURPOSE BARRIER: SEE PAGEb EH N - EFI CAULKWG SE1 BE APPLED BEOND ONDOW FLANGES. ALL EXTERIOR PENETRATbN! I a BE SEALED, SATN • PASSIVE DIG. DUCT: TYP- FRONT (a)ELEV. TRIM AI SCALE: 1/1 "1' -O" AI SCALE: I /B• -1' -O• /SECTION IT YP.I AI bCALE: 1 /i' - I' - O• ®RAIL DETAIL AI .0 E: 1/4• -P -O• r1 SIDE ELEVATION AI SCALE: I /8•- =P -O" �1 RAIL e ELE V. 'C' FRONT FULL AI BC ALE: 114-1-0, HAMILTON GENER NOTE5 L ALL TRIM ON FRONT ELEVATION TO BE CEDAR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED I PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER WINDOWS DOORS AND TRIM I INSTALL 1/2' O.S.B. SHEATHING BEHIND ALL VINYL SHAKES AND STONE VENEER I FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED UNDER PLYWOOD CHIMNEYS, ROOF VAL EYS CHANGE OF WALLS. SIDING MATERIALS. OR WHERE SIDING MEETS A TRIM BOARD AT BOTTOM OF A WALL SHEET N 0: A l 0 W i� ❑ LLL ul 70 n D m � m m I �� ❑ r M j 'I o D Z ii ❑ 3 0, it it O i t z � C r S 3 r 66 A '1 it N N N (P D m m m r t`! IP Ll t; i --------- O A - it�f O m � h �a voodoo vvvvvv �i oc000a m Ja 1� m LJ ---- ----- °___ pp ► t ZO "q O 0 W w j �.- -----•-- - - -••- 40 I N n D m 70 n m I' A .I O R ............ � N N CP � m F�r A Z H � m u u p 000000 �I „oo�oo .i m � ----------------- , 1 IV 0 w FRONT ELEVATION 3 AI SCALE: 1 /8' =1-0' i p h I 11 • 1 E I II 1 1 FRONT ELEV. TRIM AI SCALE: 1 /8' -1-0' GENERAL NOTES • PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER VNDOUS DOOR5 AND TRIN • INSTALL V2' 039. SHEATWG BEHIND ALL .-R.. AND STONE I SHEER • PLA5HINL TO BE Wbi ALLED WNDER PLYWOOD PANELS, NNCTION5 OF ROOF AND WALLS. CHIMNEYS. ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE D, SIDING MITE RIAjS. OR WHERE SIDING SETS TRIM ED... T ..YTOB OP WALL W • EDUIPMEMT CONTROLS: • FWRNACE FAN CYCLER: • SRDCH FOR WHOLE HOUSE PAN WLLL BE LOCATED ET THERMOSTAT WITH A NOTE WDICI.TING D'6 PURPOSE 'A' FRONT FLILL WOODWARD LO DGE 'Yw F.:cS Fa wI u Rn; 1Ylrmn O�im srIEET M o: LIB uD ul " 1LY � r.'oM1 � I `T � t 0 SIDE ELEVATION \'L SCALE: 1 18' =1' -0' 2000 MINNESOTA ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE NOTES • THESE PLANS ARE N ACCORDANCE LATH MNNESO71 RLLES, CHAPTER LIl • TO PROVIDE PROTECTON ALAM5T LfCESSWE OEPRFbSUWTAl10R AW SEALING REODREMENTS: HOUSE UR.F WLL - A CONTNUOUSLi SEALED VAPOR /AR 6ARNUER • BE WSTAILED. PRESCRlrIIVE PATH I MU BE IOLLOUED. BE INSTALLED ON ENTIRE NOOSE- DVERLAPPm C, TAPED SEAMS AND LINDOW •ALL SEAMS WLL BE OVERLAPPED 1' AND TAPED, • SILE AND TYPE OF EDNPMENT • EXTERIOR ENVELTIPE COMPONENT LNTERNLb: SEE PAGES Sµ 61-2, 61-3. SL 5] • 0-VALUES FLANGES- • WSULATMN, POLY ISEAlFO TO SUB- PlO0R1. • ACWSTE:AL IEALANT OIL pE USED AT TOP ANO I.TTON PLATES. FURNA CL • OF WNDOWE, DOORS, AND SKYLGHT6: SEF NNDOW AND DRYWALL qLL BE APPLIED pE NB DECKS AND SHOWERS A •ACOUSTICAL SEALANT DLL BE USED AT E=DR WALL WTERSECTMNS. DATER NEATER. fCNEDULES ON PALES Al. Al. AS • R- VALUES Of ON OUTSR]E VALLS. • FOG{ AND O55 SB VWL BE APPLED BEHIND AND D AT T T TOP OF • VAPOR BARRER WILL EE TAPED TO LESCO BOX FLANGES. Fl , EPLACE. •CLOTHES ORTFR INSULATION MATERIALS: SEE PALES SR SP-2. &P-3. {l SI • LO CATNNNS Df WTENIOR AN BARRIER, VAPOR RETARDER AND YNO WASH lOFFITf THAT WTERSECT NPTH UNHEATED SPACES /EXTERIOR WALLS, ' ALL FLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL PFNFTlAlMMS, WCLU N G WM. LESCO BONES -UL BE SEALED. • RANGE HOOD: BARDFR SEE PAGES SPI N -1 SF! • RW AST LOL BE SEAIF➢. • [HIKING • ALL EXiEDOE PENETRATMNS WLL BE 6EALED. • WHOLE HOUSE PAN: • A . WILL EE APM" OEP ND WIOW --S, S. ND OPG. PICT, ' p BAT, P SSf /E ANS: FRONT ELEVATION 3 AI SCALE: 1 /8' =1-0' i p h I 11 • 1 E I II 1 1 FRONT ELEV. TRIM AI SCALE: 1 /8' -1-0' GENERAL NOTES • PROVIDE DRIP CAP OVER VNDOUS DOOR5 AND TRIN • INSTALL V2' 039. SHEATWG BEHIND ALL .-R.. AND STONE I SHEER • PLA5HINL TO BE Wbi ALLED WNDER PLYWOOD PANELS, NNCTION5 OF ROOF AND WALLS. CHIMNEYS. ROOF VALLEYS, CHANGE D, SIDING MITE RIAjS. OR WHERE SIDING SETS TRIM ED... T ..YTOB OP WALL W • EDUIPMEMT CONTROLS: • FWRNACE FAN CYCLER: • SRDCH FOR WHOLE HOUSE PAN WLLL BE LOCATED ET THERMOSTAT WITH A NOTE WDICI.TING D'6 PURPOSE 'A' FRONT FLILL WOODWARD LO DGE 'Yw F.:cS Fa wI u Rn; 1Ylrmn O�im srIEET M o: LIB uD ul " 1LY � r.'oM1 � I `T � t 0 SIDE ELEVATION \'L SCALE: 1 18' =1' -0' � }f2 /f ! ,. $` \. . I : § 70 § z 2 ®* M }m � / § H 3 z ))§ § §/ _ § m n . ! . & < \ : . � ( / . .. ' . � . 70 } 700 - -- - -- . .� . / 3 % .! � }f2 /f ! ,. $` \. . I : § 70 § z 2 ®* M }m � / § H 3 z § ! ; . \� 2� ■ ■� . � =� #9 Qw R . `!� ; W■ !EE■!eq§ . \ �� ■ ■E§2 : |��q § // | f �_ -, (| §(k ! � a§ no @ -�!Fit :! §m. . § � � ))§ § m ( 5 _ § m . . —m § m & < \ : . � C) z z . E ' � 4 70 . .� . § ! ; . \� 2� ■ ■� . � =� #9 Qw R . `!� ; W■ !EE■!eq§ . \ �� ■ ■E§2 : |��q § // | f �_ -, (| §(k ! � a§ no @ -�!Fit :! §m. . § � � fl ______ _________ __ 3 3 it __________________ � �I ii N - i m m � ❑ m m o � ❑ O ° r ' r r O I - �, n D LLD m /u i Eg, m m s �tP s m - E�' F m � D I � ❑ o a � m F Z ❑ r m ., 0o W� oa o0 I m N o m° r - ------------------ II ---------------- �I r .I II D — N II 70 Tri ----------- C - - - - -- r O O t }--------------- i ° TE-P7U � � ❑ I�E 0 y O r i ' h ssy t i t t W W w W oW j T ❑ r A � - � r tam. \lam C' �y i VJJ G r m ❑ ii----------- - - - - -- ' fJ z I z t , 6