The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.b. Residential Planned Unit Development (Final) Preliminary Plat for 14676 Dodd Blvd.CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: October 21, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Residential Planned Unit Development (Final) AGENDA SECTION: Preliminary Plat — 14676 Dodd Blvd. New Business PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution, Location map, Preliminary APPROVED BY: Plat reductions, memos, PC minutes, petition Applicant: Location: Property Owner(s): Area in Acres: Number of Lots Proposed: Proposed density: Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Current Zoning: Planning Commission Action: E. B. McMenomy for Basic Builders Utdenbogerd property, 14676 Dodd Blvd. Estate of Hubert Utdenbogerd 1.6 acres 4 Single Family lots 2.5 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential R -IA, Single Family Residential Recommendation of Approval (4 -0) SUMMARY This preliminary plat for the Uitdenbogerd property located at 14676 Dodd Blvd. is the result of an extended public hearing process involving Neighborhood continents, Planning Commission direction and plan revisions by the developer. The original concept for the four lot subdivision with a "flag lot" was approved on April 17. The Applicant has prepared a revised plan following the Planning Commission discussion of August 26. The revised plan has shifted the "flag lot" (lot 3) to the southeast corner with the shared driveway splitting the eastern lot 4 and the middle lot 2. This design provides a more direct connection to Dodd Blvd. between two of the other units, with a visual sight line into lot 3. The other benefit is that the "flag" driveway does not affect any of the surrounding properties. The revision also addresses the following issues brought up at the public hearing: 1. Elimination of the plat depending on any land of questionable ownership as the result of relocation of survey monuments by Dakota County in the past (the 9 ft. gap). 2. Preservation of the hedge along the eastern boundary outside of the plat area. 3. More trees will be saved, particularly several Walnut trees in the back yard that would have been removed under the previous plan. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Commissioners noted the revisions to the plan. Several comments were made at the public hearing concerning trash accumulating in the pond area (and who is responsible to clean it; and the repeated concern for safety over the isolation of the revised Lot 3. Staff responded indicating that primary responsibility for picking up litter and trash would rest with the homeowners. Also, that the Fire Marshal was satisfied with the configuration of lot 3. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Preliminary Plat & PUD for Uitdenbogerd Addition with conditions. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR UITDENBOGERD PROPERTY /BASIC BUILDERS WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Basic Builders for approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Uitdenbogerd Property; and WHEREAS, on September 23, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Preliminary Plat for the Uitdenbogerd Property and recommended approval, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 2003, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Preliminary Plat for the Uitdenbogerd Property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat for the Uitdenbogerd Property, subject to: 1. Compliance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a subdivision development agreement to secure public infrastructure and private improvements including landscaping. 2. Two driveways will be permitted to Dodd Blvd with Lots 1 & 2 sharing a driveway and Lots 3 & 4 sharing the other driveway. Cross - access and shared maintenance agreements shall be required and recorded for the properties depending on the shared driveways. 3. Incorporation of recommendations by the City Engineer relative to drainage, grading, easements, and utilities including but not limited to those specified, in the attached memo dated August 19, 2003. 4. Dedicating 13,157 sq. ft. as right -of -way for Dodd Blvd., or as recommended by the City Engineer. 5. Additional plantings as required by the tree preservation ordinance. Transplanted trees intended to satisfy this requirement shall be replaced if they do not survive past two years. 6. All homes shall be designed to have a similar or better appearance as the attached Basic Builders elevations. Garages shall be oriented away from Dodd Blvd. 7. Payment of all applicable development fees as specified in the current fee resolution including four units of Park Dedication and GIS fees. 8. Conformance with all applicable building codes including obtaining a demolition permit for the existing house, and building permits for the four new homes. 9. Conformance with applicable fire codes and incorporating comments by the Fire Marshal including (but not limited to) the attached memo dated May 14, 2003. Resolution 2003- ADOPTED this 21" day of October, 2003, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Seconded by: Voted against: Member absent: SITE MAP PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 34- 03010- 010 -75 FEE OWNER: BASIC BUILDERS INC 14450 ROBERT TRL S ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 14676 DODD BLVD ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 PAYABLE 2003 TAXES NET TAX: beam SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: 0.00 TOTAL TAX & SA: PAYABLE 2004 ASMNT USAGE:RESIDENTIAL 2003 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2004) 2003 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 2004): LAND: MINNOW LOT SIZE TYPE S.FAM.RES BUILDING: YEAR BUILT 1928 TOTAL: OWMIlilft 69,585 TOTAL SQ FT ARCH /STYLE ONE STORY 1.60 TOTAL ACRES FOUNDATION SQ FT 1308 SCHOOL DISTRICT: 196 12,675 ROAD RAN SO FT FINISHED SQ FT 2193 BEDROOMS 2 LOCATION: NWt/4 SE1 /4 SECTION 30- 115 -19 BATHS 1.75 FRAME WOOD PAYABLE 2004 HOMESTEAD STATUS: FULL HOMESTEAD GARAGE SO FT 858 OTHER GARAGE WATERSHED DISTRICT: VERMILLION RIVER MISC BLDG LAST QUALIFIED SALE: ZONING: ROSEMOUNT Zone R -1A: Single Family Residence DATE: AMOUNT: NOTE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot Copyright 2003, Dakota County - This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, and state offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are found, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department. PLAT NAME: SECTION 30 TWN 115 RANGE 19 N TAX DESCRIPTION: PT OF W 1/2 OF SE 1/4 COM CEN RD 759 FT S OF NE CDR S 382 FT W 250 FT N 245 FT TO CEN RD NE ON CEN TO BEG SUBJ TO ESMNT OVER NW'LY 50 FT 30 115 19 Map Date: August 13, 2003 Parcels Updated: 8/7/2003 Aerial Photography: 2000 SKETCH PLAT OF UITDENBOGERD ADDITION �O I LOT I Z Al Q z CD � 13 0 o rn� 00 cu ti F--i w I r� . cn ca m m C) m W Q w 4 LOT 2 ., -I..w M. SCALE: 1 INCH = 40 FEET m w o I z P0305C / to N m / N 10,034 SQUARE FEET m o Lo W 57.12 '� U z 589'38'30'E I m w o m LOT 3 F— I 3 L ZI m O LOT 4 1 NN 2 I11 1 1 n w I N BLOCK I W o — — — — — I 0 cn 0 � 0 I n F- L I a w I u � c 41,? ��j Q I L 0 T 4 0 I 15, 931 SQUARE FEET 17. 839 SQUARE FEET 13, 147 SQUARE FEET m 0 �— 73.73 73.73 73.74 _ -- S89'38'30'E Ty 221.20 LOT 1 ADDITION► I BLOCK\ 3 LANDSCAPE NOTES w N ue nroro �� w • PM w in .� ANT JST x Ae xExTUar eort¢m¢ / cP.n«roa. r�wd. r eAL. ea. Te m..I , n.e ow rol rn 3 Re REa SUNSET REO YMLF / Am rvwm 'Aetl Sm.el r CN_ ea. Te rylerx r.meM Irw m rp. ® emFB�K TNdiNIf55 xaxErlrKUSi / d.tlxYO Ukm,xw ..eeY 's x• CAl .1 x � smLe -oE -oR BAru. / xN.Neeexl. 's1Yle- a. -e..• PEARL oARAr / N.mvveenN 1sl Peer •Y.,Y,w'. ,r Ir xi. , oM. Pai `\ 961. 7 uL•s oFUw* eEEEeALY / Y.�Nee BYger i t M. wL PBT i p .��\ e, x BX •x BUBN NWE Ud�IE / dw.xe �N.roNe RUYBx AE / w.gYe nva. Aumee' ,e' M. ,s• M. p cart. Gv \ e m CARdxM OQ:AOW / CNnu..vxae •Ceres!• xC M. p x tt aw 1MBGEO oOEAVCD / f u..v:..o Y,e.+end xe• M. —1 p conk. e W oRMf 4lIBN nxE / Ps s ]o Nt. B.B. W � ERi le,=siWC) w.uN . CAl N9 R¢ / wT [%i (Otl51WC) w CAL 1 • [%i (ENS,do) w.LMIT tAS CAL 7 TA¢ • nx [IfT (FneBNe) MCEx ASx •.S CAl 7¢ /` [AT ([ns,MB) wd+Enocv Br cAl v¢ I • (ij Lei (FNB,Ixe) N 5T ,e.S Cel 1R¢ 1 ]•e J 1 prt (Exrsnxa) w.NDE Pu+f eS' M. EBT (FMSBNGJ EA,,BxPpIE ,]• CI.L ,B¢ / .ro { 1 [Ri (AELOC.RO) SEAM/.N SPRUCE [Ri (e¢acAIED) BLUE SPRUtS e' M. xB M. TX¢ W. ROGR F1JSIMG 1RFE N21, NEIauR AvSiINB (C/ [zf (R¢OCA,EB) BLUE SRRUCE M M. x. TB¢ Hx,. RD.oGR E,=SBNa 962. SOD ALL DISTURBED AREAS MULd ALL PLANTING BEDS WITH HARDWOOD MP MIN. 7' DEEP / 961.4// 9 2 6 SIUP \ �� 961. 1 CU RB ffi 962.7 �o N� 0 9 4 96 3F� 4 EDGE 96.1 \ 4 9 t. (gyp BI M N (ISTING HOUSE PROPOiED 420 D V W Y PROP SE °� \ GARAGE � Co GAR GE &964.60 \ In 4 964.9 965. 3 2 PIONNSMA �s z I SS� "62.2 OUND //CENTER OF PUAN BED /2 IGH V 961. 1` � 3 9 TREE DETAIL f I W � �4 ►af11 — I�� rrr�� =D m' § -- U TDENSORGERD - r m e . A DD ITION a V --1 2 rn a g m I s" � F m a s/ cn ° � Q I 1 °y t:F i l I , I o a I � 1 I � , I ' I - - -- I , k �irtx. O Cd O cn I v r 0 --I m r m .D V lD I I ' I ' o � N N N (D C) O O O 4 w w > o N �' wS a nD N s I r r CD I o ru ADDITION I rn CD ^ W V ) m D O O H 0 7 r _ n i a 3 m m m F H H z D z D D H z G7 D z a O m rn O m z —i 73 r D z EAST LINE OF W I/J OF SEiN SF.C'3M1TI15N_RIgw I I C) I C I I I I BROBACK TENTH I I = I g' I - I �71 i I l I � _ L U >f R�LLIiv � ' Islo ale I§ I 'a i m am - 7 � I m � IM1 A•e o- I .P Kc $� =z a= oeF R a ? ^33 ?c a rn CD ^ W V ) m D O O H 0 7 r _ n i a 3 m m m F H H z D z D D H z G7 D z a O m rn O m z —i 73 r D z EAST LINE OF W I/J OF SEiN SF.C'3M1TI15N_RIgw I I C) I C I I I I BROBACK TENTH I I = I g' I - I �71 i I l I � F Ll iF U >f R�LLIiv � ' Islo ale I§ I 'a i m am 7 � I I IM1 1 I I Is (13 :DJ m I I \ \ rn m n __ m EXISTING HOUSE \\ \ \ r 1 \ E \ m m m � a � 2 � �/' - ivoeo — �EEMC — — — — — — — �10o' 7i 3Q' X53 E9 FfNee a -8D.00 4 \ + \� � O, a - WOOD FENCE (' ° fit:, / °'� yF, $f a Tn -SITU I US RIV WAY P ml ►a I \�± / o \� N 1 —i ? I I• I Y s6 se z w + -,z � � s +�o i la — — — — — — — CD + \ o \m W + 1 511 I I I I 6s o \ _ o \ m DRAINAGE AND UTILITY �s \ W \ - a (� I xo + ° EASEMENT 5 +m -- -- - Y- - -I /- - - - -- e• \ �� N 80.13 - - - - - -- �, - 960 - 1 \ ti 5.75 I S01To 5' N 369.93 + V 10 \ + U N _ m + ID \ + W I + i I I EAST LINE OF WI /2 OF SE] /4 SEC.30.T] 75N -R7 9�1' + m - I I I O I O I O CD �!� IIII� III __ _ Illululit lullullll =_ _ ^,r te` _�i�B��ld �- _ '4 ! 6 illllllllll IIIIIIIIIII =- II - = ' ==_d 9 �! � ■■■■ - � === �`�� °d I ■ ■ ■ ■, � � � _� d��d�lr ®ewe IIIIIillll�� _- s s _`_ = = sr' _= s!i Illilllllll IIIIIIIIIII = � � = � __ 31 1 Ilir7��!!Ir��' i • _ �i�d� ii _�Illtllilillllillllli,; so �■■■ IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII_ h■ =i ® I ii Illilllllllll Illllllli_ = -, ® ®■ _I ■■■ ■oe ■■ MEN.— ■ ■ 1= ®rte± == _r �� ■ __ MEN _ = =■■ ® ®1 J I■■■K ®■ ®`= ■�■ = ■■■__ ■■ = ■ ■® "_= �IIIIIillllllllllilll!'' I■■ IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII'-_ ■■ _ Now _ _= ■■ ��rllllliilllllllllllll ■I ■s■ ■= IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIL' - =_ viz ' ' 3= = • �� R ESI D ENCE • • eAstc-; BUILDERS- , I ai !■ _ HH U R E D' g 1| / \�ki 9 i|f / \ ,1 i . � 2< : [. �§ \ 7( \\ �/ }E ) §�/ .. - . E K ` - :\. } . �. �. RESIDENCE FOB ) (} 5AS|C: BUILDERS §k CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION Planning Commission Meeting Date: September 23, 2003 AGENDA ITEM: Residential Planied Unit Development (Final) AGENDA SECTION: Preliminary Plat — 14676 Dodd Blvd. Public Hearing Con't. PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA NO. 5 ATTACHMENTS: Location map, Preliminary Plat reductions, APPROVED BY: memos. Applicant: Location: Property Owner(s): Area in Acres: Number of Lots Proposed Proposed density: Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Current Zoning: E. B. McMenomy for Basic Builders Utdenbogerd property, 14676 Dodd Blvd. Estate of Hubert Utdenbogerd 1.6 acres 4 Single Family lots 2.5 dwelling units per acre Urban Residential R -lA, Single Family Residential SUMMARY The Applicant has prepared a revised plan following the Planning Commission discussion of August 26. The revised plan has shifted the "flag lot" (lot 3) to the southeast corner with the shared driveway splitting the eastern lot 4 and the middle lot 2. This design provides a more direct connection to Dodd Blvd. between two of the other units, with a visual sight line into lot 3. The other benefit is that the "flag" driveway does not affect any of the surrounding properties. Other benefits to the revision are: 1. Elimination of the plat depending on any land of questionable ownership as the result of relocation of survey monuments by Dakota County in the past (the 9 ft. gap). 2. Preservation of the hedge along the eastern boundary outside of the plat area. 3. More trees will be saved, particularly several Walnut trees in the back yard that would have been removed under the previous plan. PLAT ACCESS The four lots consolidating access from Dodd Blvd. into two shared driveways remains an expectation of the City. The Fire Marshal has indicated that he will accept a 12 foot wide shared driveway, to avoid what appears to be an excessively wide strip of pavement. A five -foot setback of the lot 3 & 4 driveway to the westerly lot 2 should also be encouraged for snow storage. Cross- access easements and joint maintenance agreements should be recorded for the parties to the shared driveways. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat & PUD for Uitdenbogerd Addition subject to: 1. Compliance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a subdivision development agreement to secure public infrastructure and private improvements including landscaping. 2. Recording of cross - access and shared maintenance agreements for the properties depending on the shared driveways. 3. Incorporation of recommendations by the City Engineer relative to drainage, grading, easements, utilities as specified (but not limited to) in the attached memo dated August 19, 2003. 4. Payment of all applicable development fees as specified in the current Fee resolution including four units of Park Dedication and G.I.S. fees. 5. Conformance with all applicable building and fire codes (including the attached memo dated May 14, 2003. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: MEMORANDUM DATE: August 19, 2003 TO: Chantel Nelson — Community Development Secretary CC: Jamie Verbrugge — City Administrator Andrew Brotzler — City Engineer Dan Schultz — Parks and Recreation Director Rick Pearson — City Planner Mick Kaehler — Building Code Official FROM: Anthony Aderhold — Project Engineer RE: Uitenbogerd Addition Plan Review After reviewing the Uitenbogerd Addition preliminary plat and grading plan dated July 29, 2003 the Engineering Department offers the following comments: A drainage and utility easement over the dry pond on the southeast corner of the property and the drainage swale on the south edge of the property should be considered. An easement prevents the homeowner from filling in the drainage swale and pond and allows access to the pond by the City if maintenance is required. q> Provide information on the landscaping. plan to the City as to what type of vegetation around the dry pond is going to be proposed. If you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 651- 322 -2724 GA\Anthony\Plan Reviews \Uitenbogerd.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Pearson, City Planner City of Rosemount Planning Commission FROM: Jason Lindahl, Assistant City Planner DATE: August 18, 2003 RE: Basic Builders Preliminary Plat BACKGROUND The applicant, Basic Builders, requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide the 1.66 acre Uitenbogerd property into four single - family lots. This item was last before the Planning Commission on June 24, 2003. Do to factors beyond the applicant's control, they requested an extension of the review period for this project. After addressing these factors, they are renewing their request. Currently, the subject property contains one single family home with access onto Dodd Road. To process this application, the City will need to approve a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as well as preliminary and final plats. The City approved a concept for this development earlier this year. As designed, the new plat will contain four single- family lots. Access to the new lots will come from two shared driveways along Dodd Road. The proposed lots meet the performance standards for the R -IA, Low Density Residential District with the exception of the lot frontage for Lot 1. The City may waive this standard through the PUD process in exchange for a higher quality development. ISSUE ANALSIS Planned Unit Development. The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to allow flexibility from typical zoning performance standards to encourage a higher quality of land development while preserving open space and other unique natural features. This process involves an exchange in which the City eases certain performance standards in return for an enhanced development. In this case, the City is lessening the lot frontage standard for Lot 1 in exchange for shared driveways, enhanced landscaping and berming, and higher quality architectural features on the individual homes. The specifics of these enhancements are detailed below. Easements. The preliminary plat illustrates the typical 10 -foot front yard and 5 -foot side and rear yard easements. Providing utilities to this site from 147` Street will require the applicant to redesign the drainage and utility easements for the site. The applicant will be required to dedicate all necessary easements to facilitate the City Engineer's utility design. Architectural Features. In exchange for the PUD designation, the applicant has agreed to higher architectural design standards for this development. The primary architectural principal of concern to staff is the appearance of the proposed homes from Dodd Boulevard. To maintain the existing appearance of this corridor, the side of the proposed homes facing Dodd Boulevard shall have a similar appearance as the surrounding homes. The applicant intends to accomplish this by either side mounting the garages and adding windows to the facade facing Dodd Boulevard or placing the garages behind the principal structure. In no instants shall any of the homes in this development have a garage facing Dodd boulevard. Park Dedication & Trails. This preliminary plat illustrates four lots and no area for park dedication. The applicant will be required to pay park dedication fees equal to four residential lots or $7,200. The applicant will be required to pay this fee prior to receiving a building permit. Landscaping /Tree Preservation. In accordance with the landscaping standards for properties in the R -IA District, each lot is required to have at least one'2" — 2.5 " deciduous tree planted at the boulevard. The applicant's landscape plan fails to illustrate these trees; therefore a condition of approval shall require the applicant to plant at least one 2" — 2.5 " deciduous tree at the boulevard of each lot. The required tree for Lot 1 shall be placed at the northern end of the driveway to this lot adjacent to Dodd Boulevard. In exchange for the PUD designation for this development, the applicant is offering to enhance the landscaping on the north side of the development to screen the proposed homes and improve their appearance from Dodd Boulevard. The applicant's landscape plan illustrates 217 ornamental plantings ranging from 12" to 3' in two massing along the Dodd Boulevard. Staff finds that these plantings meet the required enhanced screening and landscaping requirements of the PUD; however, these plantings must me moved south out of the 10 foot drainage and utility easement along Dodd Boulevard. The applicant proposed to remove 16 significant trees from the subject property. In accordance with the tree preservation standards outlined in Section 8.3.D, the applicant will be required to replace 75 percent of these trees based on a ratio of either 2:1 or 4:1 depending on the tree's size. According to the applicant's Significant Tree Inventory, this property has 16 significant trees. These trees are classified according to the required replacement ratios in the table below. 3 Significant Tree Replace ent Standards Tree Type >12' Replacement Ration: 2:1 X12' Replacement Ration: 4:1 >20„ Replacement Ration: 2:1 <20 Replacement Ration: 4:1 Coniferous 1 2 2 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Deciduous N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 16 0 0 Note: Number are based on 75% replacement rate. Given this information, the applicant is required to replace 26 trees (10 Coniferous and 16 deciduous). All coniferous trees must be at least six feet in height while all deciduous trees must be at least two inches in diameter measured 4.5 feet above the ground. These plantings are not illustrated on the landscape plan. The applicant must revise the landscape plan to meet these standards. The plantings must be massed in groups of at least three to imitate existing conditions and form an effective screen and be place along the northern boundary and southwest corner of the property. In addition, no plantings shall be placed in any drainage or utility easement. Removal of the Existing House. The applicant will be required to receive a demolition permit from the City Building Official prior to removal of the existing single- family dwelling. Contracts & Fees. The applicant will be required to enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Rosemount and post all necessary letters of credit to insure the completion of the development as required by the City Engineer. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay all applicable development fees. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENATION Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide the 1.66 acre Uitenbogerd property into four single- family lots dated April 10, 2003 and revised July 29, 2003. This recommendation is based on the findings contained in this report and subject to the conditions outlined below. 1. The plan illustrates shared driveways with no more than two access points onto Dodd Boulevard. 2. Submission of Homeowners' Association documents detailing a maintenance plan for the shared driveway and all common areas. 3. Dedication of 13,157 square foot area located within Dodd Boulevard to the City. 4. Dedicate all necessary easements to facilitate the City Engineer's utility design. Installation of a fire hydrant in the southwest corner of Lot 1 as directed by the Fire Marshall. 2 6. Enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Rosemount and pay all applicable development fees. 7. All homes shall be designed to have a similar or better appearance then the surrounding homes along Dodd Boulevard. In no case shall any home in this development have a garage which faces onto Dodd Boulevard. 8. Planting of at least one 2" to 2.5" deciduous tree in the boulevard area of each lot. The boulevard tree for. Lot 1 shall be planted at the northern end of the driveway adjacent to Dodd Boulevard. 9. Shift all landscaping along Dodd Boulevard to the south out of any drainage and utility easements. 10. Plant all additional landscaping required by the tree preservation standards outlined in Section 8.3.1) of the Zoning Ordinance. These plantings must be massed in groups of at least three to imitate existing conditions and form an effective screen and be place along the northern boundary and southwest corner of the property. 11. Issuance of a demolition permit prior to removing the existing house. 12. Issuance of a building permit for each home. 13. Conformance with all other standards and conditions of City staff. 5 MEMORANDUM To: Rick Pearson, Rosemount City Planer From: George A. Lundy Date: May 14, 2003 Subject: Preliminary Plat, Utenbogerd Addition Rick, I have reviewed the proposed plate that you provided to me. Please note the following: ➢ Section 503 of the 2000 Minnesota International Fire Code, requires that approved fire department access road be provided for all every buildings or portion of a buildings constructed or moved into within the jurisdiction. For this development to meet the requirements of the fire code, the driveway to the rear residence will have to be constructed to the minimum standards of the 2000 Minnesota International Fire Code. If you would have any questions, or if I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Cc: Scott Aker, Fire Chief Mick Kaehler, Building Official PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 rAGEl Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Me ing of the Planning Commission was eld on Tuesday, September 23, 2003. CZen ff Weisensel called the meeting to order at : .m. with Commissioners David Ann Napper, and Terry Zurn present. Comm loner Jason Messner was absentndance were City Planner Rick Pearson, Project En leer Anthony Aderhold, and nner Jason Lindahl. The meeting was�ened with Pledge/f Allegiance. Agenda Changes: Audience Input: N MOTION by Zurn approve the Sep ber 23, 2003 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Secon y Anderson. Ayes: An rson, Napper, Weisensel, Zurn. Nays: 0. Motion carved. Chairpe n Weisensel confirmed with the recording cretary has placed on file with the City all davits of Mailing and Postings of a Public Hearin otice and Affidavits of Publication c ceming the public hearings on the agenda. Public Hearing: Uitdenbogerd Property /Basic Builders Preliminary Plat This item was continued from September 9, 2003. Basic Builders has revised the plan to show the flag lot (Lot 3) to be in the southeast corner of the property with a shared driveway between Lots 2 and 4. The house on Lot 3 is visible from Dodd Boulevard and the driveway no longer impacts any of the surrounding properties. The plat has been redrawn to eliminate the questionable land on the east side and thus saving the lilac hedge. With this revised plan the developer will be able to save more of the trees. The Fire Marshal has reviewed these plans and will accept a 12 foot shared driveway. Staff recommends a five foot setback for the shared driveway to Lot 2 to allow room for snow storage. Cross - access easements and joint maintenance agreements will need to be recorded for the shared driveways. All four lots do meet the minimum area standards. Ed McMenomy, Basic Builders, briefly talked about the landscaping plan for this property. They will be doing extensive landscaping along Dodd Boulevard and will be able to preserve many of the old trees. He met with the adjacent property owners and had a good discussion and was able to answer a lot of their questions. There are still some concerns regarding the retention pond on the southern edge of the property and who will maintain that. Chairperson Weisensel opened the public hearing. Bill Huebner, 3795 147 Street West, had concerns with the retention pond and who will be responsible to maintain it and cleaning up the garbage, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 PAGE 2 Mr. McMenomy stated they will look to the City and how they want to handle the pond. If there is an easement then the City would do the maintenance; however, day -to -day litter would be the responsibility of the homeowners. It will also depend on the type of landscaping the City will require around the pond. This would not be treated as a wetland. Bea Samas, 14709 Cimarron Avenue, still has an issue with the house on the flag lot for safety reasons. She was concerned how this house would be protected and how the fire trucks and emergency vehicles would get to it. She felt people were being put in harms way as well as the surrounding neighbors because the lot is restricted. Mr. Pearson stated that the Fire Marshal has reviewed the revised plans and feels they are better than the original submission. There is a fire hydrant on Dodd Boulevard. MOTION by Weisensel to close the public hearing. Second by Napper. Ayes': Napper, Weisensel, Zurn, Anderson. Nays: 0. Motion carried. MOTION by Anderson to recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat and PUD for the Uitdenbogerd Property subject to: 1. Compliance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a subdivision development agreement to secure public infrastructure and private improvements including landscaping. 2. Recording of cross - access and shared maintenance agreements for the properties depending on the shared driveways. 3. Incorporation of recommendations by the City Engineer relative to drainage, grading, easements, utilities as specified (but not limited to) in the attached memo dated August 19, 2003. 4. Payment of all applicable development fees as specified in the current fee schedule including four units of Park Dedication and GIS fees. 5. Conformance with all applicable building and fire codes (including the attached memo dated May 14, 2003. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Weisensel, Zurn, Anderson, Napper. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Mr. Pearson stated this will likely go to City Council on October 21, 2003. blic Hearing: Flint Hills Resources Lot Alit This ' a lot split and lot frontage varian or property located at 12131 Rich Valley Boulevard. Flint Hil wns this land and would e to split off approximately 6.8 acres from the original 52 -acre parce . he new 6.8 acr of is on the western edge of the property and currently has the dwelling unit and access y structures. The remaining 45 acres will remain undeveloped and owned by Flint Hi he lot split is necessary to create a lot for the dwelling unit that meets the lot dimens sta ards. The lot frontage variance is. necessary since the property does not have 300 feet frontage on ublic street. There will be access to Rich Valley Boulevard via a 30 -ft dr' way easement over cel B. Don rn, Flint Hills, stated there was a well 1 ont of the house. They would like to sell this h se and other existing houses to their employees o have been there 20 -30 years. PLANNING COAJNIISSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 3. NIOT N by Weisensel to iy a 2 ft. side yard setback variance for the property located at 310.5 146 tree Wes econd by Zum. Ayes: Napper, Weisensel, Messner, Zum. Nays: 0. Motion carne . Mr. Pea n stated the licant could apply for a building permit if no appeal is received within orking days. Public Hearing: Uitdenbogerd Property /Basic Builders Preliminary Plat This item has previously been before this Commission and the applicant had requested an extension of the review time for this project. This preliminary plat is for the approval to subdivide 1.66 acres into four single- family lots. There will be two shared driveways accessing Dodd Boulevard. With the exception of Lot 1, the lots meet the standards for the R1A zoning district. The applicant has discovered a title issue with this property which may require some redesign. The applicant has proposed two alternative options and would like direction from the Commission on which plan would be best. The approved concept has three lots fronting on Dodd and the fourth lot being a flag lot with a narrow strip of land for a driveway. One alternative shows the flag lot being reversed with a driveway on the east side just west of the hedge. This would have less impact on neighboring property owners. The other alternative has two lots fronting on Dodd Boulevard and two parcels stacked with a shared driveway going through the middle of the property so it doesn't impact the neighboring properties. Staff believes there are pros and cons to each of these ideas. Ed McMenomy, Basic Builders, stated that while looking at this plan they discovered a gap on the east side of the property. It would be difficult to get marketable title on this gap and he would like to work with the neighbors. It is vital to follow the approved concept and get four lots on this property. He is interested in finding out which plan the Commission and neighbors would prefer. He prefers the plan that is like the approved concept. They are going to put in a holding pond to help with the drainage issues and they will a berm to help the drainage flow to the pond. They have significant landscaping on the perimeter of the property and along Dodd Boulevard. Chairperson Weisensel opened the public hearing. Karan Danay, 14655 Cimarron Avenue, is concerned with the Lot 4 flag lot. In the spring during the snow melt they have streams in their back yards. Where will the snow from this driveway go? She has small children and is concerned about this long driveway. She asked if the lots will be walkouts and if the property would be raised at all. She was also concerned with the trees and .: what will happen to their roots during the construction of this site and from the increased water. Shawn Nichol, 14714 Colorado Avenue, has concerns with the previous plan with the driveway on the west side of the property. He lives on the corner and gets a lot of foot and bike traffic cutting through his yard to get back to Dodd Boulevard. He feels a driveway will only encourage that traffic. He is concerned with the drainage on all three plans. He gets a lot of standing water during the snow melt and has a steady stream running under his fence. He feels PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 4 he will get more water from the proposed pond. The pond will also attract mosquitoes and bugs. Having that open area was a big factor in buying his house. He is not interested in doing an easement for access to this lot. Terri Huebner, 3795 147 Street, stated she is a licensed wildlife rehabilitator. She has lived here for over 10 years and picked the property to do the work she does with wildlife. She does this on a volunteer basis and is dedicated to it. She stated there are extremely old growth trees on the property, including black walnut trees. The land provides a lot of food and shelter for the wildlife. The wildlife will lose their lives if this land is developed. She stated this area is beauty to the City of Rosemount. She is also concerned with the flag lot and how the fire department will find this house since it will be hidden from Dodd Boulevard. Bea Samas, 14709 Cimarron Avenue, is concerned with the house in the back on the flag lot. She felt the issue is finding the house in the case of emergency and safety. She wondered how the driveway would work with the fire and rescue and who would be responsible for the lives of those in that house. She felt there was an issue with the snow removal. It will always go into someone's yard or against their house. She felt this would create property and house rage. If privacy fences are put in then this house would be a stockade which would be a perfect place for illegal activity. She was concerned about the pond becoming a garbage pond. Although the area may support the four dwellings but the configuration of the property does not because it is long and narrow. Emily Rekstad, 14687 Cimarron Avenue, stated that the four lots then the idea of preserving open space is being compromised. In exchange for that the City is lessening the lot frontage standard in exchange for shared driveways, enhanced landscaping and berming, and higher architectural quality features. She feels this compromises the neighbors. The houses along Dodd Boulevard have their backyards facing Dodd. She is concerned with the increased drainage and the effect it will have on her trees. She stated the pond was also an issue. She said it seemed like the original plans were scrapped and felt the project should go back to square one. Chairperson Weisensel stated the issues are the water drainage and ponding, snow removal, fire truck access and safety, the approval process, walkout lots, and the open space and wildlife. Project Engineer Aderhold stated Lot 1 has a natural low area. They looked at the drainage and amount of flow going there. The run -off rate is being increased with the added houses and impervious surfaces but with the proposed grading and increasing the ponding area they are meeting the city's rate control before it leaves the site. The pond will be an infiltration pond so there would not be standing water in the pond. Water generated on this property will drain into the pond. The proposed berm is to direct the water to the pond. There is a drainage and utility easement for the outlet of that pond and the amount of water leaving the site after post development would be the same as pre - development with the pond site. The fire trucks could access this site from 147 Street through the utility easement. Mr. Pearson further discussed the issues listed above. There was some discussion on the landscaping and tree preservation. More detailed plans will be brought back with the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 26, 2003 PAGE 5. preliminary plat for the plan the Commission likes best. Mr. McMenomy did state that there are two flat lots and two look -out lots. There are no walkout lots. The Commissioners agreed that the plan showing the flag lot as Lot 3 because there would be less impacts to the neighbors. MOTION by Weisensel to continue the public hearing until September 9, 2003. Second by Napper. Ayes: Weisensel, Messner, Zurn, Napper. Nays: 0. Motion carried. P lic H e aring: Community of Hope Lutheran C urch Zoning Text Amendment The hurch is looking into developing the 8 -acre sit on the northwest corner of 145` Street and Bisca Ze Avenue. The property is zoned BP -1 wl 'ch does not allow churches. The Church would 1 e to amend the zoning ordinance to all 7 churches. They would like to construct a building t t could easily convert to Business P rk uses for resale. While this proposal could raise the con ern of opened up the Business rk district to tax - exempt institutional uses, the overlay distric offer a solution to minimi the exposure of these types of uses. The BP -4 district is usual l n the outer edge of th usiness Park and is a transitional area. Multiple family housing is a ermitted use via tl PUD process. Churches could be added as a conditional use under ze BP -4 distri . This district has become a medium residential district. Under the R -2 and R -3 sidential 'stricts, churches and places of worship are conditional uses. Therefore, Staff recomme s app oval of the zoning text amendment to allow churches and places of worship as a condi ' 1 use in the BP -4 district. This is the first step to allow the church in the BP -4 district, th there would be an application to rezone the land from BP -1 to BP -4, and finally they woul app for a conditional use permit that would deal with the development and site issu . Per Nilsen, Pastor of nlmunity of Hop Lutheran Church, asked for clarification on the future rezoning and if the r oning and conditions se permit fall under the same timeline to expedite the process. Mr. P arson stated the rezoning uld not need approval from the Met Council and that the rezoning nd CUP could run concurrent but the rezoning would have to happen first. Chairperson)Jeisensel opened the public hearing. T were no comments. MOTION by Weisensel to close the public hearing. Sec�pnd by Napper. Ayes: Messner, Zurn, , Nappe Weisensel. Nays: 0. Motion carried. MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council ame d the BP -4 Zoning District to ii elude churches and places of worship as a conditional use. Sec o d by Zurn. Ayes: Zurn, ,Napper, Weisensel, Messner. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Mr. Pearson stated this will go to City Council on September 16, 2003. Old Business: None. New Business: None. Director's Report: None. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 24, 2003 , CITY OF ROSEMOU NT CITY HALL 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55066 -4997 Phone: 651 -423 -4411 Hearing Impaired 651 - 423.6219 Fax: 651 - 423.5203 P - suant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting the Planning Commission was hel on Tuesday, June 24, 2003. Chairperson Jeff Weise el called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ith Commissioners David Anderson, Myron T per, Jason Messner, and Terry Zurn present. Also in attendance were City Planner Ri Pearson, Project Engineer Anthony Aderhold, nd Assistant Planner Jason Linda The meeting N)�as opened with Pledge QFAllegiance. Agenda Changes None. Audience Input: MOTION by Zurn approv the June 10, 2003 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Secon y Napper. A es: Anderson, Napper, Weisensel, Messner, Zurn. Nays: 0. Motion carriekK Chairp son Weisensel confirmed with tke recording secretary has placed on file with the City all fidavits of Mailing and Postings of a ublic Hearing Notice and Affidavits of Publication ncerning the public hearings on the agend Public Hearing: Uitdenbogerd Property /Basic Builders Preliminary Plat This public hearing is being continued from June 10, 2003. The applicant has requested an indefinite delay to revise their plans due to the fire at the office of the surveyor. When revised plans are received, a new public hearing will be scheduled and noticed. MOTION by Weisensel to adjourn the public hearing to be reconvened at the request of the applicant following submission of all required plan information and giving full public notice as required by ordinance. Second by Anderson. Ayes: Napper, Weisensel, Messner, Zurn, Anderson. Nays: 0. Motion carried. earing: Alin ea P erty /Centex Homes Preliminary Plat Staff has z ever iscussions with the applicant and as a result, the applicant has requested the public he zg continued until July 8, 2003 -so that they can make revisions accordingly. Ch ' erson Weisensel opened t 1 is hearing. There were no comments. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT CITY HALL 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Phone: 651- 423 -4411 Hearing Impaired 651 - 423 -6219 Fax: 651 - 423 -5203 Planning Conunission Regular Meeting Minutes June 10, 2003 rsuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meetin f the Plamiing Commission was hel on Tuesday, June 10, 2003. Chairperson Jeff Weis sel called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. th Conullissioners Myron Napper, Jason Mes er, and Terry Zurn present. Conuni over David Anderson was absent. Also attendance were City Planner Rick Pearson, Parks and ecreation Director Dan Schultz, a Assistant Planner Jason Lindahl. The meeting waXopened with Pledge of/Allegiance. Agenda Changes: done. Audience Input: N MOTION by Nappkf to approve tN May 27, 2003 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Xidav y Messner. Ayes. apper, Weisensel, Messner, Zum. Nays: 0. Motion carried. isensel confirmed with the re rding secretary has placed on file with the City Mailing and Postings of a Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit s of Publication public hearings on the agenda. Public Hearing: Uitdenbogerd Property /Basic Builders Preliminary Plat This public hearing is being continued from May 27, 2003. This preliminary plat consists of four single - family lots on 1.66 acres. The applicant had requested this be continued until the June 10, 2003 meeting so they could revise their plans based on Staff comments and public concern. On June 2, 2003 the applicant requested a further continuance until the June 24, 2003 meeting. Staff is recommending continuing the public hearing. Chairperson Weisensel reopened the public hearing. There were no comments. MOTION byWeisensel to continue the public hearing until June 24, 2003. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Weisensel, Messner, Zurn, Napper. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Pu 'c Hearin Amen, to the Subdivision Ordinance The Par Recreation Committee is recommending that City Council increase the park dedic on rate Commercial and Industrial development. During the Subdivision process, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 4 e er and water sery ices will come up through Biscayne Pointe /Ad h ition which is why this proje will be in 2004. MOTION Anderson to recommend that the City Council prove the concept for the Abbott Property subject to: 1. Incorporation recommendations of the y Engineer relative to drainage, easements, grading, streets ai utilities as specifie ut not limited to) in the attached memo dated May 2, 2003. 2. Conformance with the re uireme s for Preliminary and Final Plat including execution of a Subdivision Development eement and approval by the Dakota County Plat Commission. 3. Elimination of identifie of dime on deficiencies for Lots 3, 6, 8 and 9, Block 2. 4. Provision of a tempor y cul -de -sac a he western terminus of Basswood Street if required by the Fir arshal. 5. Provision of /bb bike trail on the s th side of 135 Street West and sidewalks on the east sBirchwood Avenue and the uth side of Basswood Street. 6. Final Plat pproval will depend on completion of krchwood Avenue to the south, and Conne ara Trail as the primary access for the develo ent. Second by apper. Ayes: Napper, Weisensel, Messner, Zurn, derson. Nays: 0. Motion carried. on stated this should be on the next Council agenda for June 3; 2003. Public Hearing: Uitdenbogerd Property /Basic Builders Preliminary Plat This preliminary plat is consistent with the approved concept to subdivide the 1.66 acres into four single - family lots. The site is located on the south side of Dodd Boulevard between Covington and Cimarron Avenues. The lots meet the standards for the zoning district except for the street frontage and lot width for Lot 1. These lots are consistent in size and dimension with the neighboring properties. There will be two shared driveways on Dodd Boulevard. Staff has asked the developer to revise the plan to minimize the impact of the development and to make it more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the applicant has asked that this be continued until the June 10, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Chairperson Weisensel opened the public hearing. Shawn Nichol, 14714 Colorado, lives just south of this property. They are concerned about the housing development due to the juvenile traffic cutting through their property and the drainage. They get water build -up in their yard and get run -off from the neighbors behind them and from this property. He feels it will get worse with these four houses and additional landscaping. Kevin Grass, 14673 Cimarron Avenue, lives to the east of this property. He is concerned about the developer cutting down all the trees as well as the drainage. He stated there was a thick hedge along the east property line and he is concerned about them being cut down. He was unsure on the exact location of the shrubs in relation to property lines. He wanted them to scrap this whole plan and try a different design that would work better with the neighborhood. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 5 Karan Danay, 14655 Cimarron, is also alarmed about the shrubs. They provide a barrier/buffer for them and have been there for many years. She is opposed to this project and does not like the houses being stacked up. She also does not like the proposed brick retaining wall. Bea Samas, 14709 Cimarron, is concerned about the density and the house on the flag lot. Since safety is a big issue, can the fire trucks get back to this house? No one will see the house from Dodd Boulevard. This house faces all backyards and if everyone puts up privacy fences it will be a stockade. If privacy fences are not put up, there will be more traffic with kids cutting through to Cimarron and Dodd Boulevard. She is also concerned about the drainage because right now in the spring her backyard is always under water and her neighbor's shed is always under water. She is wondering if there will be more water and if it will be become more of an issue. The Fire Marshal has concerns about the long driveway and wants to make sure the construction of the driveway will bear the weight of a fire truck. There will also be a fire hydrant installed nearby. The lot widths are measured across the front at a line parallel with Dodd, which is at an angle. The lots do meet the standards and the lot areas are larger than the standard. This development will have to manage its stonnwater. The Engineering department will make sure a grading plan makes the stonnwater runoff not increase with the amount of paved surface. Emily Rekstad, 14687 Cimarron, is concerned about the catch basins and ponds because in the spring her backyard becomes a pond and it stays wet for a long period of time. She felt a retaining wall would add to the drainage problem. She is also concerned about the shrubs on the east side of the property. She stated there are a lot of juvenile cut throughs and she feels this would increase with this proposed development. She feels the house on the flag lot is out of place with all the other houses in the neighborhood. She also has concerns about the density and feels it would be crowded to have four lots on that one parcel. Mr. Pearson stated this development does meet with density standards and is even lower than the houses in the nei Bill Huebner, 3795 147`" Street, stated his property is on the west side and runs parallel with the long driveway. He also has concerns about the long driveway and feels it would increase the cut throughs. He states there is a drainage problem every spring and feels this development would only make that problem worse. He thinks it would be too crowded to put four houses on that property. Shawn Nichol, 14714 Colorado, wondered how far back the house on the fla lot will sit from his property line. He is concerned about losing landscape. Mr. Pearson stated the house would be about 12 feet away from his property line or about 22 feet from his house. Kevin Grass, 14673 Cimarron, asked if this plan could be totally scrapped and if the developer could bring in a new plan. Chairperson Weisensel stated that was up to the developer to address the concerns Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 6 MOTION by Weisensel to continue the public hearing until June 10, 2003. Second by Zurn. Ayes: Weisensel, Messner, Zurn, Anderson, Napper. Nays: 0. Motion carried. a a. blic Hearing: Evermoor Glendalough Final Plat Revisions Tlni s a r eplat requested by Lundgren Bros. to take the a lot platted fo Ingle family and replat it so it ' combined with the adjacent lot that was set aside for the pri ate neighborhood park and pool. Th esult would be a larger park to accommodate the pool. ne City will acquire a trail easement ac ss the property for the trail that will be connected to ie City trail system. The remnant Outlo A will be future lots and open space for parks, tr is and stormwater ponding. Chairperson Weise\sel opened the public hearing. There wepZ- no continents. MOTION by Weisens to close the public hearing. Sec d by Anderson. Ayes: Messner, Zurn, Anderson, Napper, eisensel. Nays: 0. Motion arced. There was discussion on Outl t B and location of pu lic parks. This park will be private except of the public trail that is part of ne City trail systei . MOTION by Messnerto recommei that the rt Council approve the Evermoor Glendalough 3 Addition Plat subject to: 1. Provision and recording an easem nt for the trail in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and the Parks & Recre io Director. 2. Recording of Homeowners As ciatio documents as needed to perpetually maintain the private park amenities. 3. Incorporation of engineeri continents r ative to drainage, grading, erosion control, and utilities. 4. Execution of a subdivis' n development afire went to secure public infrastructure (if needed). 5. Conformance with applicable building and fr codes. Second by Zurn. Ayes: rn, Anderson, Weisensel, Mes ner. Nays: Napper. Motion carried. Mr. Pearson stated thi /may go on the next council agenda f6XJune 10, 2003. Old Business: F msteads Zoning Text Amendment At the City Cou cil meeting on April 17, 2003, Staff requested tha the Council table action regarding the ring text amendment that had been reviewed and re nunended by the Planning Commission New questions had been asked and Staff felt the langua needed to be expanded. Staff has ontacted the Minnesota Historical Society for help in defining t ditional barns that predate the typical pole barn. Staff is looking into designating specific bans that would qualify for th exemption to the rural residential accessory standards. That list woul e included in the exe ption language. This situation has been endorsed by the City Attorney be use it reduces th potential for interpretation. The ordinance will still be specific in terms of th materials and ossibly colors that would be acceptable. To Whom It May Concern: Concerns regarding the proposed development of the Uitdenbogerd Property 1. The Public Hearing Process: A. Application: A developer or property owner submits a request to the City for approval of a project. For example, the need for a building permit of lots for residential development are the basis of the request. Technical information such as building plans and surveys must accompany the application. i. Notice: The proposed notice of the surrounding residents should have included all residents within a 350 foot radius of the property. Many of the adjacent property owners did not receive notice of the first planning commission meeting held on March 25 It was stated by City Planner Rick Pearson, at a later city council meeting, that notice had been sent, however , num`ber of residents surrounding the property can attest to the fact that they did not receive this notice. ii. Public Hearing and Comment: At the original planning commisson meeting, two adjacent property owners were present. Karen Danay and Emily Rekstad. Karen Danay stood up to air her views on the proposed plan. She had stated that one of the reasons she chose to buy a house in the Rosemount area was because all the houses were not stacked on top of each other. She did not like how this new development would bunch 4 houses into the area. She like the open space in Rosemount and she was also concerned that a bunch of brand new houses going up right next door would only serve to make the older neighborhood adjacent (Being Broback Tenth Addition) only look older and shabbier. Much later, when the minutes of that meeting were approved and published, it was found out that everything she had stood up to say had been misconstrued and made to sound as if she was happy with the plan and totally for it. In the minutes of that meeting it is stated that: "Karen Danay, 14655 Cimaron Avenue, stated she like the fact that houses weren't stacked on top of each other. She asked how the houses would be positioned on the lots. She also asked how this development would affect the market value of her home." If the minutes from this meeting were incorporated into the recommendation for approval from the planning commission to the city council, then it would have made it appear that everyone around the property was excited about this plan when in fact, there are a lot of valid objections and concerns from the surrounding property owners. iii. City Council Approval? : In this case, the first time the application was set before the planning commission, the builder submitted plans for the development which were not accurate. The proposed legal description used for the preliminary plat was a construed legal. The builder bought the property and received a deed which limited his land to "That part of the West % of the Southeast t /4 of Section 30, Township 115, Range 19..." However the proposed legal of the preliminary plat read... "That part of the North 1/2 of the Southeast 1 /4..." It was clear that the builder was planning to take over the 6 foot gap (which he had never received title to) which was discovered at the time that Carrolton 2nd Addition was platted in the late 1980's. At the time this gap was discovered, the property owners in Broback Tenth Additio. received a letter from an attorney representing Mr. Uitdenbogerd and negotiations ensued which concluded with money being paid to Mr. Uitdenbogerd in exchange for a quitclaim deed from him to the adjacent property owners. In a discussion with Fred Jackson, the county surveyor, it was stated by him that the city is obligated to make sure that a builder has clear title and a valid survey before submitting an application for review. Although there is no evidence given to the adjacent property owners of clear title, it seems clear that the proposal was submitted and presented to the planning commission by the city planner without satisfying the requirement for clear title. Subsequently, due to other factors, such as the surveyors office being burnt down and illnesses, the original plans were abandoned. Now the plan has been re- submitted with some changes. This poses the question of whether the city council's preliminary approval of the first set of plans submitted at the April 17 City Council Meeting should still be considered approved, since proper notice was not given to the surrounding residents and since the plans as submitted were not based on clear legal title and since the original plans were abandoned? Doesn't this require that the city council should be asked for approval at a subsequent meeting? 2. Drainage -where will increased drainage go? More driveways and more landscaping will increase run -off to lower -lying lots. Every lot surrounding this property is lower -lying and increasing the grade or building retaining walls will increase the problem. In the planning commission meeting held on August 26 th , it was stated that an infiltration pond may be proposed in the Southeast corner of the property in question. No other details were forthcoming as to what an infiltration pond would be. Would all the surrounding properties empty into this pond? If so, the lots in Broback Tenth Addition would need to be re- graded in order for the flow of water to be diverted to a pond, since there is a sort of a berm of land between the east side of the Uitdenbogerd property and the west side of Broback Tenth. Also, it was mentioned that a berm was porposed along the south end of the property. Where would this berm be placed and how would it affect the drainage into Shawn's property? 3. Over - crowding and Flag Lot - While there may be enough square footage to build 4 houses on this property, there is not enough street frontage footage for 4 houses. The 4th house would have to be built off the street. Building the flag lot poses a lot of inherent problems. The first to consider is whether the driveway and the turnaround would be large enough to enable an emergency vehicle to access the house if there was a problem. The Fire Marshal (George Lundy) should give clear directions on the minimum size required for a turnaround or for access to the property. The planning commission and the city council should not be asked for approval of a concept without the clear direction from the Fire Marshal. In the meeting held on August 26 a reply was made regarding this situation wherein Anthony Aderhold stated that George Lundy said access can occur over the utility and drainage easements from 147 street. If this were true, then the owners of the properties on 147 street, Shawn and Bill, would be required to take down any of their trees or landscaping to allow for truck access. Utility and drainage easements are for the purpose stated... utility (meaning phone and electrical lines and gas pipelines) and drainage (meaning flowage of water away from the property). To suddenly turn these utility and drainage easements into access easements for emergency vehicles would seem to require a negotiation between the city and the affected property owners to come to some type of agreement to allow emergency vehicles access to the hidden flaglot. An agreement of this sort was not discussed, rather it seemed a given that the city could propose access in this manner without taking into consideration the other property owners rights and concerns. 4. PUD- The Planned Unit Development proposed in this case doesn't give more open space, it requires builder to enhance architecture of houses... increases the sales price and puts more $ into the builders pocket. Enhanced architecture will not blend with existing neighborhood. The feeling to surrounding neighbors is that the city is being too quick to let go of available open space in exchange for what ? ?? The builder could build 3 houses on the lot and not have to crowd 4 of them into the same area. The design as submitted does not blend with any neighborhood. It does not blend with Broback Tenth Addition as that addition is 30 years older. It does not blend with the other houses on Dodd Blvd. because none of those houses front on Dodd. It will be a little cluster of big houses set in the middle of 2 neighborhoods and will look out of place. 5. Destruction of habitat- By giving up the open space and giving approval to build 4 houses in this area, a lot of old growth trees and wildlife habitat will be lost. �G i