Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.c. Minea Concept Residential Planned Unit DevelopmentCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: December 4, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: Minea Concept Residential Planned Unit Development AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGEND t 1 ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution, Concept Plan Reductions, APPROVED BY: Minea Correspondence, PC Minutes (11 -13- 01), WSB " Proposed Connemara Trail Extension ", Review memos, Developer Correspondence, Comp Plan excerpts Applicant & Property Owner: Craig Minea Location: South of 135 Street West, '' /2 mile east of Biscayne Avenue Area in Acres: Number of Lots: Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Current Zoning: Planning Commission Action 154.5 acres 324 single family lots Urban Residential R -1, Low Density Residential Recommendation for denial (4 -0) SUMMARY Mr. Minea and his consultant, John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban are requesting Concept Planned Unit Development approval for a single- family residential development on 154.5 acres. The property is north of the east half of the Centex Bloomfield development, across the railroad tracks and along the south side of 135 Street West. The property is %2 mile east of Biscayne Ave., and forms the outer edge of the current Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The property is also 1/4 mile east of the St. Joseph's site. While the use of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, there are aspects of the plan which are inconsistent with the planning studies for Connemara Trail, and Parks and Recreation policies. Specifically, the proposed alignment for Connemara Trail deviates from the Engineering Consultant's recommendation, and much of the proposed park is under water. While these items have been discussed, Mr. Minea has decided to proceed with the plan as prepared. Therefore, staff is unable to support the plan as submitted. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING No neighboring property owners commented at the public hearing, however, several were present. Mr. Minea explained his objections to the "Proposed Connemara Trail" study prepared by W.S.B. His alternative would allow for a more easterly crossing underneath the tracks. John Johnson, Mr. Minea's engineering consultant indicated that his estimates for the alternative were less than the above -grade crossing proposed by W.S.B. Staff explained that the W.S.B. alignment was acceptable to Centex, the other affected property owner, and that Centex had incorporated it into their (approved) preliminary plat. Furthermore, all of the pertinent information had been available to Mr. Minea and the Bloomfield preliminary had been sent to Mr. Uban, Mr. Minea's planning consultant. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution denying the Concept Residential Planned Unit Development based upon findings of fact. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2001 - A RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL OF A CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUESTED BY CRAIG MINEA BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application for a concept planned unit development for a single family residential development on October 9, 2001; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing as required on November 13, 2001; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received information from staff explaining the inconsistencies of the concept with surrounding properties; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend denial of the concept to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, The City Council. considered the concept request with the Planning Commission recommendation and meeting minutes indicating concerns from staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby denies the concept planned unit development request requested by Craig Minea based upon findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The concept development fails to conform with the "Proposed Connemara Trail Extension ", a study which designed the alignment of a collector street prepared by W.S.B. & Associates, Engineering consultants for the City. 2. The "Proposed Connemara Trail Extension" Study is among various efforts undertaken by the City and its consultants to implement the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The study applied the alignment of Connemara Trail with design criteria for collector streets and topographic data. Connemara Trail is shown conceptually in Figure 4.1 -A in the Comprehensive Plan. The concept plan prepared by Mr. Minea's consultant reflected a literal interpretation of Figure 4.1 -A, without coordinating the design with the city or surrounding properties. 3. The concept development does not provide stormwater ponding ponding capacity as specified for the area in the Rosemount Stormwater Management Plan prepared by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, January 1998. 4. The proposed park design is inconsistent with the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the park needs for the affected area identified in the Resolution 2001 - Rosemount Parks and Recreation Development Guide (adopted in 1991). 5. Approximately half of the proposed parkland is under water. Park dedication policies do not support parkland acquisition of land permanently inundated. with water. ADOPTED this 4th day of December, 2001 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against: _ Member absent: Seconded by: 2 Cathy Busho, Mayor •1!K• 1110 �7 K DAHLC WREN SHARDLOW AND -LJRAN CRAIG J. MINEA U.S. Mailing Address: PMB 078 -463, 705 Martens Ct., Laredo, TX 78041 -6010 Telephone — 011 -52- 329 -291 -7046 (from U.S.) — Fax — 011 -52- 329 - 291 -7047 (from U.S) e -mail - CJMinea @aol.com via fax - 001- 651 -423 -5203 November 28, 2001 Mayor Cathy Busho Councilwoman Ena Cisewski Councilwoman Sheila Klassen Councilwoman Mary Riley Councilman John Edwards Mr. Thomas D. Burt, City Administrator City of Rosemount 2875 145t Street Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Dear Mayor, Councilpersons and City Administrator: In preparation for the City Council meeting of December 4, 2001 to consider our residential development proposal, I think the following issues should be discussed: • HISTORICAL BACKGROUND • CONNEMARA TRAIL ALIGNMENT • RAILROAD CROSSING OVERPASS VS. TUNNEL • REGIONAL STORM POND • TRUNK SANITARY SEWER SERVICE • SITE DENSITY ADJUSTMENTS A better understanding of these issues will allow for the preparation of a development plan that will meet everyone's needs. 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In early 1996 when residential development began on the east side of State Highway #3, I began to take an intensified interest in the property. I called the City regularly and visited with Andrew Mack, Dan Rogness and Rick Pearson every six months. Bud Osmundson was present at some meetings, In prepared comments for the June 11, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, I asked that prior to the approval of any preliminary plat or planned unit development agreements for RMPP (now Heritage's Biscayne Pointe) and CMC/Heartland (now Centex's Bloomfield) that the City carefully plan the integration of collector and arterial streets, parks, bike and pedestrian pathways, storm sewer and ponding areas, sanitary sewer and 2 water interceptors to serve all affected areas of Sections 21 and 28, not just the two properties then subject to immediate development. I advocated area charges or an improvement district to spread all development costs equitably over all affected properties. In such a manner, properties with similar topography and soils would have the same development costs per acre. i.e., the cost per lot for all assessed improvements would be the same allowing only for inflationary differences. As you are aware such planning and cost apportionment never occurred and development proceeded on "a property by property basis. In October, 1997 the City announced its new Master Storm Water Drainage Plan prepared by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates which later became the Storm Water Drainage Ordinance. We were taken aback when we discovered that the City had designated a 15 acre storm water pond on our property, much of it off. -site drainage and the majority from property immediately to the west, beginning with Biscayne Pointe. While Biscayne Pointe would have a 1 acre storm water pond for 65 acres, we would have a 15 acre storm water pond for 155 acres. The 15 acre pond would be in addition to the 8 acre wetland already included in the 155 acres. In March, 1998 we objected to the City's policy y to not compensate for the increase in the size of the pond (to receive off-site water), but instead to only allow the use of the pond" in density calculations and to reduce the storm water charge for the portion of the Property encumbered by the pond. We asked that: 1) any easement over the Property for drainage should be purchased by the City; and 2) we be compensated for the increase in the size of the pond due to off -site drainage. In December, 1998 when comments were being solicited for the 2020 Comp Plan revisions, I stated that Comp Plan Section 3.7, the Surface Water Management Plan should clearly set forth the City's storm water philosophy and policy. I suggested wording that "all properties would be expected to hold a 100 year storm on their property and were they unable to do so, compensate those that did." In the same letter, commenting on Section 4.1.6, the Planned and Proposed Roadway Improvements I asked that the City indicate its current assessment and compensation policies for future road construction. I asked whether properties near a collector street who indirectly benefited, but were not directly assessed, should contribute to a fund to compensate property owners who were so assessed. From 1996 onward, there were numerous letters, meetings and phone discussions about the then Bacardi Avenue extension (after 1999, Connemara Trail) from Dakota County Road #38 to Dakota County Road #42 including an at -grade crossing of the railroad tracks. During this time, staff agreed to locate the road alignment and railroad crossing adjacent to the gas pipeline. 3 On July 18, 2000 I met with Rick Pearson and the new Community Development Director, Jim Parsons. At that meeting we reviewed the status of the property, including its recent inclusion within the current MUSA boundary. I was told that nothing was imminent regarding our property as the Nelson property and the other two parcels to the west, Flock and Abbott, were in line for development before ours. They indicated the problems that CMC Heartland was having and indicated that Centex, one of the nation's largest homebuilders, was in discussions to acquire their interest and amend the existing PUD. No mention was made of changing the location of the Connemara Trail rail crossing. No mention was made of a grade- separated crossing. I related to them my plans in 2001 to undertake preliminary land planning, including a rough street and lot layout for presentation to City staff to ensure that the layout met existing Rosemount zoning and land planning regulations. It was a shock to learn in late December 2000 that the Property had been rezoned from Agricultural to Residential and that a hearing to extend Connemara Trail (and change its prior approved location) through the property, including a bridge over the railroad tracks, was scheduled for January 23, 2001. No mention was made of either possibility at the July 18, 2000 meeting.. At that meeting, I indicated I would be moving to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico and I gave them my new US mail forwarding address. The December legal ` notices were mailed to my old Colorado address which I had asked them not to use. If I had not called Rick on December 29, 2000, I would never have known about the January 23, 2001 public hearing. It was during that phone call that I learned that the property had been rezoned: 2. CONNEMARA TRAIL ALIGNMENT 3. RAILROAD CROSSING OVERPASS VS. TUNNEL On January 3, 2001 in correspondence to Rick Pearson, I requested a six month moratorium on further consideration of the Connemara Trail extension until we had had sufficient time to assess the impact of the changed location on our property. I said I would immediately engage the services of a professional land planning company. In that letter, I asked Rick for more information to support the City's assertion that a bridge (versus a tunnel) was the least expensive option. On January 23, 2001 in an appearance at the Planning Commission Public Hearing, I questioned the wisdom of constructing a 23 foot high bridge (now 30' -32') over the railroad tracks. I said that the proposed bridge would drastically reduce the desirability of the entire residential area and dramatically lower the value of our land. Single family homes adjacent to the proposed overpass would be impacted by noise and street lights and would not be a viable use for the property within 1/4 mile of the bridge or near the 1/4 mile long roadway ramp leading up to the bridge. I said that townhouses and apartments would be the only viable residential use in this area. I ended my remarks by saying that we had hired Mr. John Uban of the land planning firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban to undertake preliminary site plans for our property and to work with City staff on the Connemara Trail alignment issue. 4 John Uban hired John C. Johnson of Metro Land Surveying and Engineering to produce a topographical. and boundary survey and wetlands delineation. John was also hired to study the sanitary and storm sewer issues and the bridge /tunnel alignment and cost issues. John had worked with John Uban on the CMC Heartland property. They were familiar with City personnel and policies. We immediately requested and received the February 12, 2001 Connemara Trail extension maps. They were marked as "proposed" and "preliminary." We assumed (incorrectly) that we would have some input on where the road would enter and exit our property. Beginning in March, we asked the City for engineering or feasibility studies that would support their assertion that a tunnel crossing of the railroad track was twice as expensive as the bridge overpass option the City favored. On July 16, 2001 we met with Tom Burt and Rick Pearson to present our concerns about the proposed Connemara Trail alignment. We specifically requested that Bret Weiss be at the meeting to explain the bridge decision and impacts. Despite a two week advance notice, Bret could not attend. It was apparent during the meeting that the roadway location was final and that there would be no reconsideration of the tunnel option. We still had not received any feasibility or engineering studies to support this million dollar plus bridge improvement. As August and September slipped away we began to suspect that perhaps there were no studies and that the City had simply made a preordained decision without any detailed analysis. John Johnson has-been analyzing the bridge /tunnel cost issues and concluded that the costs for the two alternatives were approximately equal. John had determined when working on the Bloomfield project that due to storm water ponding considerations, any tunnel option would have to be located on higher ground near our east property line. A more easterly location for the tunnel option will also reduce the cost of the railroad bypass by eliminating the fill necessary in the current overpass alignment. Another advantage of shifting the railroad crossing further to the east is that it will allow time to identify funding sources for the crossing and allow the proposed crossing to be integrated into the future development plans to the east. We prepared a site plan for our property locating a tunnel in the exact location as shown on Figure 4.1.J of the Comprehensive Plan. We presented that plan to the City Administrator on October 4, 2001 along with a 3 page letter outlining our other concerns. This plan and that letter were incorporated into the Concept Plan that was presented to the Planning Commission on November 13, 2001 and will be presented before the City Council December 4, 2001. Finally, on October 31, 2001, after we had made our Concept Plan application, we received a 1 %rpage memorandum comparing the bridge /tunnel costs. After nine months, we finally received the information we requested January 3, 2001. In the October 31st analysis Bret claimed that while the bridge and tunnel structure costs were similar, the tunnel was still twice as expensive due to the need to construct a temporary railroad track bypass and a lift station for storm water. Bret did not include the earthwork costs for either option saying only that "earthwork costs are dependent upon the staging of the project and the location of the borrow sites." I had John calculate the earthwork costs if 5 the fill were imported from off -site. John Johnson estimates the earthwork quantities as 85,000 cubic .yards (loose volume) of fill needed for the bridge ramp on just our property. The cost to import this material may exceed $500,000 for our side and over $1,000,000 for both sides of the track. Suddenly the bridge and tunnel costs are nearly equal. Faced with the equal cost assertion, Bret is now raising the issue of damages which might be claimed by the railroad if trains have to slow while negotiating the temporary track. Rick Pearson is quoted in the November 16 Rosemount Town Pages as saying: "the WSB information was available to Minea and his consultants and the planning conflict could have been avoided." That assertion is simply not the case. It took nine months to give us the bridge vs. tunnel cost comparisons. The proper way to have commenced the Connemara Trail alignment issue would have been to hold meetings in December, 2000 with all affected property owners. Such meetings would have allowed us to raise then the questions that we are raising now. The beginning point of that discussion should have been the 1993 "Western Rosemount Transportation Study" authored by SEH. That study offered five (5) alternative road building options. The Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan lists Connemara Trail as a Collector Street. By the City's own definition, collector streets are located "on edges or within neighborhoods... are used for short trips at low speeds and are meant to connect "to minor arterials or other collectors." The eastern Rosemount residential area is bounded by Dakota County Roads on all four sides, two north -south (DCR #38 and #42) and two east -west (Biscayne Avenue and Akron Avenue). Our property has % mile frontage on DCR #38. We -need no additional roads to service our proposed development. Connemara Trail is proposed to run 5 miles from the Apple Valley line to DCR #71 and there connect to 140 Street East and continue east 3 miles to the junction of MN State Highway. #55. As Connemara Trail is being designed for speeds of 40 mph and is 8 miles long, it is clearly no longer a collector street designed for "short trips at low speeds." The City can claim it is still a collector street (as they have done), but cannot due so in accordance with accepted planning and traffic methodology. It appears that it will be designed and function as a minor arterial. With the failure in 1999 -2000 to arrive at a consensus to restrict access and increase volume on Dakota County Road #42 (a principal arterial) through Apple Valley and Burnsville, the County is attempting to displace east -west traffic south of DCR #42 onto DCR #46 (160t Street). Under this plan, the County also needs an east -west road north of DCR #42. DCR #38 is the logical choice, but there are major problems with the crossing at State Highway #3. It appears to me that Dakota County and the City of Rosemount are attempting to make Connemara Trail the northern reliever for DCR #42. If this is the case, the County needs to step forward with funding for the bridge /tunnel and its approaches. G In March/April 2001, the City Council approved a new location for Connemara Trail through the Bloomfield subdivision without considering the impact of that decision on our property. As Bloomfield will be requesting utilities for its last phase soon, it is imperative that the City Council finally consider its impact on our property. Enclosed please find a map prepared by Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban demonstrating that 10.5 acres of our land will be unusable between the gas pipeline and Connemara Trail if Connemara is built as now proposed. Additionally, as collector street access" points are limited to every 660 feet, the development potential of the property is further restricted; with the proposed 15 acre storm water pond located in the southwest corner of the property, the southwesterly 50 -60 acres have greatly diminished potential. A critical player in the Connemara Trail debate is Centex Homes, the developer of the Bloomfield subdivision. I spoke with Steve Ach, their project manager. Centex would be open to discussing an alternate alignment that works for all parties provided: 1. There is no delay in the Bloomfield Project. 2. There is no reduction in the number of approved lots. 3. There is no change which would render the neighborhood(s) adjacent to the bridge /tunnel as too small or too isolated. Here is our position on Connemara Trail: 1) We are not opposed to paying an equivalent assessment for a local street only. 2) We should not be required to provide the increased right -of -way for a collector street, or the increased right -of -way for the bridge slope of 250 -300 feet wide by 800 -1,000 feet long without market value compensation or such credit against City fees such as park dedication, sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer trunk fees. We should not be required to provide the $500,000 earthwork borrow area "contribution" that was suggested by staff at the Planning Commission meeting, 3) We will claim severance damages for the reduced desirability and developability of land adjacent to the bridge and the bridge slope. The bridge would be the equivalent height of a 5 story building. The bridge deck per the WSB plan is 30- 32 feet high, plus bridge railing and lights for a height of 45 -50 feet. Two other major development issues were discovered by John Uban and John Johnson in the course of their study of the Property: 1) the off -site storm water drainage area is even greater than anticipated in 1998. Drainage from Biscayne Pointe currently is being directed onto our property; and 2) a major portion of our property cannot be developed without a sanitary sewer lift station or a major trunk extension. 7 4. REGIONAL STORM POND John Johnson of Metro had conversations with Dave Simons of SEH, the City's consultant on Biscayne Pointe site design issues in late August. Dave designed the public improvements for the Biscayne Pointe project. The project directs most of its drainage on to the RR right of way at a flow rate equal to or less than the pre- development rate. There was minimal work done in the RR right of way. No effort was made to insure water did not flow onto our property before flowing under the RR to the Bloomfield property. The City's position is that if the post - development runoff is equal to or less than pre- development; therefore there is no impact. This may be true for the rate of flow, but is not true for the total amount of water. Rooftops, streets and sidewalks always generate more runoff than corn, soybeans, tilled fields and undisturbed wetlands. The City is moving ahead with the approval of the Biscayne Point 4ch Addition on the Abbott property. This development will include a storm sewer outlet directed into the low area of our property. The size, ponding requirements and timing of this storm sewer improvement are under discussion and study. In any case, additional water will be directed onto our property from the ,west. The proposed storm water pond ( #1716) was farmed this year. There is not and has not been standing water in this location. The city's storm drainage plan places a regional pond on our property disproportionate to the properties' storm ponding needs. A significant area of land to the north and west are developments in this drainage area that are dumping their outflow into the railroad right of way, which collects on our property before passing under an old railroad culvert to the Bloomfield property. This drainage burden should be distributed to all benefiting properties before there is damage to our property. We suggest the following: 4. Any use of the our property for ponding of water from other properties has to be compensated by payment for easements or credits against our property assessments. 5. All drainage studies should include serving all of our property in either the DNR wetland or the low area on the south end of the site and not require flow to the east into a new drainage district. 6. Every attempt should be made to reduce the area and volume impacts to our property by requiring upstream landowners to maximize ponding and infiltration of runoff on their property. 5. TRUNK SANITARY SEWER SERVICE Dave Simons talked with Brett Weiss of WSB (the acting City Engineer) after Metro pointed out the gap in the sanitary sewer service areas in the two prior sanitary studies. A major portion in the middle of our property is not served by sanitary sewer despite its inclusion in the MUSA. Dave and Bret concluded that the 15 inch sanitary sewer constructed near the northeasterly corner of Biscayne Pointe could be extended to serve our property. While this is true, the elevation at the end of the pipe is 930.42 which is 14 to 15 feet above the bottom of the proposed regional storm pond. This would require routing the pipe around the low area or constructing a lift station to serve our property. By the time the pipe is routed at minimum slope around the pond area to a point near the proposed Connemara Trail, the invert elevation would be 933.3 which would require minimum low floor elevations of approximately 938.0 without a lift station. This is 10.9 feet above the elevation of the City (1998 study) estimated 100 year flood elevation and 22 feet above the bottom of the low area. If a lift station is installed, the City practice is to assess the "benefited" property (it would only serve the our property) the cost of construction. The second option would be to extend sanitary sewer from the existing MCES 30 inch interceptor that flows from west to east thru the Bloomfield project approximately 1300 to 1500 feet south of the RR. This would require construction of approximately 1500 feet of sanitary sewer and a jacked crossing of the RR. The pipe connection at the MCES sewer would be at an elevation of approximately of 92 1. 0 and result in a pipe elevation of approximately 924.0 at the north side of the RR and on the east side of the low area. This would allow low floor elevations in the middle of the our property of approximately 931.0, which is 7 feet lower than the option from the Biscayne Point project and only 4 feet above the estimated 100 year flood elevation. This option avoids a lift station. We request the following issues be addressed in a new revised sewer study 7. If the City chooses to serve our property through the Biscayne Pointe sanitary sewer, then a lift station has to be included in the plan and be paid by sanitary sewer trunk fees and not assessments against our property. If there is a trunk extension, it should be included in the plan and be paid by sanitary sewer trunk fees and not assessments against our property 8. A feasibility study should be initiated immediately to determine whether the lift station or gravity line through the Bloomfield project is the most cost effective. 6. SITE DENSITY ADJUSTMENTS At our July 16` meeting with Tom Burt and Rick Pearson we indicated that we were open to density transfers in exchange for tradeoffs for Connemara Trail and the Regional Storm Water Pond. They indicated to us in no uncertain terms that the City Council would accept only single family lots of 80 feet wide by 125 feet deep. Therefore we went forward and designed a Concept Plan of 324 lots that meets the current City of Rosemount Zoning Code and the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. This is the Concept Plan that we submitted on October 4, 2001 and that you will meet to discuss on December 4, 2001. NOU -29 -2001 10:2? - 9 1, 9 Our Concept Plan has been labeled by the City staff as a Concept Residential Planned Unit Development. We disagree with this description. A Planned Unit Development is used where the developer is requesting variances from the zoning code. We are not requesting any variances. The entire property is within the current MUSA boundary and is zoned R -1, Low Density Residential We believe we meet all provisions of the current Rosemount Zoning Code. Therefore, this is only a Residential Concept Plan. The Concept Plan locates a park adjacent to the DNR wetland in the northwest corner of the property along Dakota County Road #38. The Park and Trail dedication policies allow land transfers and/or cash payments to meet the City requirements. The developer proposes to meet the remaining park dedication requirement with cash or equivalent land. We believe that the Concept Plan as presented meets all of the requirements of the City of Ro ount Zoning Code conforms with the Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Cc: John Uban, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban John C. Johnson, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering NOV-28-2001 10:2? P.11 BounduTMpogrAWc Survey , go' CRAIG MINEA Development Constraints for Minea Property Rosemount, MN TnTO1 P 1 1 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 13, 2001 want to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the P mg Commission was held on Tuesday, November 13, 2001, in the Banque oom of the Rosemount Communit enter in Rosemount, Minnesota. Chair per Jeff Weisensel called the meeting to order :30 p.m. with members Jeff son, Myron Na pp and Jana Carr present. Also in atten e were City Plann ck Pearson and Intern Aaron Jones. There were no additions or corre�to the agenda. Audience Input: RIOTION b arr to approve the October 23, 2001 Regula lammng Commission Mee ti inutes. Seconded by Napper. Ayes: Arveson, Nappe , Weisensel and Carr. N s: 0. Motion carried. Public Hearing: Minea Concept Residential Planned Unit Development Chairperson Weisensel confirmed that the recording secretary has placed on file with the City the Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of a Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Publication concerning the public hearing on the Minea Concept Residential Planned Unit Development. Mr. Pearson summarized the Minea concept plan for a 324 lot single family development. The property is located south of 135` Street and north of Bloomfield development. 16 acres located in the northwest corner of the property, consisting mostly of wetland, is proposed for the park. The main issue is the alignment of Connemara Trail. The location proposed by the developer is not consistent with the WSB design and crosses a low area intended for stormwater ponding. Chairperson Weisensel opened the floor to the developer. Craig Minea addressed issues with the Connemara Trail alignment, referring to other locations which would minimize the amount of undevelopable land between the gas line and Connemara Trail. He opposes the bridge railroad crossing, which would result in a 5 story high bridge. Mr. Minea proposes a tunnel crossing under the railroad at the exact location specified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed plan requires no variances. John Uban, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, requested further discussion between the city and surrounding property owners on the Connemara Trail alignment. The alignment as proposed by the developer is consistent with the Comp Plan as approved by the City Council. Mr. Uban described the topography of the land and the clearance necessary to Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 13, 2001 Page 2 go over the railroad, in comparison to an underpass. Mr. Uban described the proposed park area in detail, and reviewed lot sizes and street design.. In addition to the Connemara Trail overpass, the pipeline and Co. Rd. 38 along the western boundary result in a large amount of undevelopable land. John Johnson, Engineer, summarized engineering impacts concerning this property, including Connemara Trail, sanitary sewer, and storm water ponding. He estimated costs for an overpass at $1,629,000, compared to estimated costs for an underpass at $1,540,000. A bridge would be 32 feet above the railroad. The pipeline location and: drainage pond require that the grade separation should be located parallel to the pipeline, or near the west property line, or further east on the neighboring parcel. Sanitary sewer options consist of service from Biscayne Pointe, which would require a lift station, or from Bloomfield, which would not require a lift station. Mr. Johnson addressed storm water ponding and the additional acreage necessary if Minea's property is required to serve adjacent properties. John Uban summarized restrictions affecting the Minea property, along with the advantages to an underpass. The collector street restricts development and prohibits driveway access. The city - proposed regional storm water ponding consumes a large area in the southwest corner. The .Connemara Trail location, the overpass, and the pipeline, easement are additional restrictions. Commissioner Napper asked how much acreage intended for park is not part of the wetland. Mr. Uban responded that 8 -9 acres are useable parkland. The developer does not expect full credit for the 16 acres proposed and is willing to make a cash payment for any parkland shortage. Chairperson Weisensel opened the floor to the public. There was no public comment. MOTION by Arveson to close the public hearing. Seconded by Weisensel. Ayes: Napper, Weisensel, Carr, and Arveson. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Chairperson Weisensel requested further information concerning decisions on the Connemara Trail alignment. Mr. Pearson responded that Centex and St. Joseph's committed to the Connemara location. The Comprehensive Plan notes the need for the collector street, but also notes the need for further studies. WSB spent months on studies concerning this project and their proposal has been reviewed and accepted by the City Council. A grade separation is necessary for emergency services. As concerns stormwater ponding, the City looks at the quantity of storage, not design of the pond. Discussions continued concerning the need for an additional fire station, communications between the City and the developer, and a feasibility report for the sanitary sewer. MOTION by Carr to recommend that the City Council deny the Concept Residential Planned Unit development because the plan is inconsistent with the "Proposed Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes November 13, 2001 Page 3 Connemara Trail Extension" study prepared by W.S.B. Engineering Consultants, and Park dedication policies of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Second_ ed by Napper. Ayes: Weisensel, Carr, Arveson, and Napper. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Public Hearing: Shafer Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal hairperson Weisensel confirmed that the recording secretary has placed on file w h the ty the Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of a Public Hearing Notice and Affida t of Pu lication concerning the public hearing on the Shafer Mineral Extraction P it Ren wal. Aaron ' nes, Planning Intern, presented the application by V a cting to renew its miner extraction permit. Mr. Jones summarized the m in 2001 and work done n the reclamation plan. The pit is currently in omplaints have been filed w h the Police Department. Chairperson W 'sensel opened the floor to the applicant. ummarized the reclamation wor nd described the ponding that is being c Chairperson Weisen 1 asked that Staff./ mmissioners with the original plan submitted by Sha r Contracting, we reclamation process. Chairperson Weisensel op ed the floor There was no public comment. MOTION by Napper to close e public nded by Arveson. Ayes: Weisensel, Carr, Arveson, and pe r. on carried. MOTION by Napper to recommen at the City Council renew the mineral extraction permit for Scott Spisak of Shafer ontr cting Co., Inc. subject to the attached conditions for 2002. Seconded by Arves . Ayes. rveson, Napper, Weisensel, and Carr. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Public Hearing: emount 2020 C rehensive Plan Amendment Chairperson Weisens confirmed that the recordin secretary has placed on file with the City the Affidavit o Mailing and Posting of a Public- earing Notice and Affidavit of Publication conc ing the public hearing on the 2020 omprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Pearson plained the need for an amendment to the 2 0 Comprehensive Plan to correct a d' crepancy in the figures representing the amount o flow to the Empire Waste Water S ice area. The data assembled for the Comp Plan inc ded figures based on projec d development, but omitted the existing flows in the Empi e WWTP. The Met Cou it discovered the discrepancy and ask that the Plan be amende to make the co ection. Chairperson Weisensel opened the floor to the public. There was no public comment 42 ��y MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Pearson, City Planner FROM: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director DATE: October 31, 2001 RE: Minea Concept Plan At the October 22, 2001 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, staff presented the concept plan for the Minea property. John Uban from the firm Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, was in attendance at the meeting and did make a short presentation. Following Mr. Uban's presentation, the Commission discussed - the area identified for City parkland and had many concerns. The Commission felt the area is not consistent with our current Parks Master Plan with regards to a park in that area. Other concerns with the proposed park site include the issue of the large wetland area being part of the park, steep slopes leading to the wetland, locating two lots at the southeast corner of the park and the pipeline running through a portion of the park. The Commission felt the proposed park site would not be suitable for a neighborhood park with active play opportunities. The Commission did make the following recommendation to the Council: Deny the current concept plan and encourage the developer to look further east of -the wetland as a possible location for a park according to our Parks Master Plan. Direct staff to research the proposed traffic count on Connemara Trail to see if 'a park might need to be located on the north and south sides of Connemara Trail. If you have any further questions about the Commission's recommendation please let me know. ROSEMOU NT Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners CITY HALL 2875 — 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Phone: 651 - 423 -4411 Hearing Impaired 651 - 423 -6219 Fax: 651- 423 -5203 FROM: Rick Pearson, City Planner DATE: November 7, 2001 RE: Concept Residential Planned Unit Development for Minea Property November 13, 2001 Planning Commission Reviews BACKGROUND Mr. Minea, owner of 154.5 acres of land north of the Centex Bloomfield development is requesting approval of a PUD Concept for 324 single- family lots. The entire property is designated Urban Residential in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The zoning is R -1, Low Density Residential. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The proposal consists of 324 single - family lots and a 16 -acre park, which encompasses .a pond in the northwest corner. In addition, there are three small "open space" lots and a 6- acre storm water pond along the Union Pacific Railroad on the south side. The lots and street design follows a traditional "grid" design, that shifts towards the angled railroad right -of -way. The design is reminiscent of mid twentieth century subdivision design. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION County Road 38/1351h street West forms the northern edge of the development with two access points into the development midway, near the pond /park and 500 ft. west of the eastern edge. Connemara Trail entering the west side of the property 1,750 feet north of the south west corner, crossing the side to the east and crossing the Union Pacific Rail Road right -of -way at the south east corner of the property. This alignment is in contrast to the "Proposed Connemara Trail Extension" study prepared by W.S.B Associates, which has been the engineering recommendation concerning the Connemara Trail planning. For comparison, the study shows Connemara entering the property 200 feet to the south, and exiting the property approximately 1, 070 feet west. An east -west street parallel 500 ft. to the north of Connemara traverses the property from west to east and is shown connecting to properties on both sides. November 13, 2001 PC Reviews — Minea Concept Planned Unit Development Page 2. Bacardi Avenue, shown as County Road 38, is shown along the western edge, connecting 135"' Street with Connemara Trail. SITE CONSTRAINTS There is a pipeline, which traverses the site from the northwest corner to the southeast, which the plan must react to. Connemara Trail, the Union Pacific Railroad along the southern edge and storm water ponding needs must all be taken into account. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The pre - development site is expected to accommodate approximately 12.5 acre feet of water based upon the characteristics of the existing landforms. There is a low area in the southwest portion of the site, which is the natural depression where any standing water would accumulate. Apparently, this area is not a protected or classified wetland, so water tends to soak in. All developments are expected to manage the storm -water run -off generated by the development on site. While the Engineering Department has not reviewed the storm water calculations, the drainage design will be expected to accommodate the 12.5 acre feet as a minimum expectation. Excess storm water generated from other developments should be managed or compensated by those developments. PARK DEDICATION A sixteen -acre park is proposed which encompasses a pond in the northwest corner. The City does not accept the surface area of ponds or lakes as Park Dedication. Credit may be given, however, for storm water management. Therefore, the surface area of the pond will be subtracted from the Park Dedication, and an easement will be substituted. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION The Connemara Trail design is a literal interpretation of an illustration showing the general location of streets in the Comprehensive Plan. Studies intended to pinpoint the actual location of those streets are also referred to as part of the implementation of the plan. The Developer has chosen to disregard the W.S.B. study and accommodate the street in a location most advantageous to them, but not to the surrounding properties which have conformed to the study. For example, Centex protested the Connemara Trail alignment, but incorporated it into their preliminary plat as required. Therefore, staff is unable to support the plan as submitted. Motion to recommend that the City Council deny the Concept Residential Planned Unit Development because the plan is inconsistent with the "Proposed Connemara Trail Extension" study prepared by W.S.B Engineering Consultants, and Park Dedication policies of the Park and Recreation Commission. Re: Minea Property, Connemara Trail Alignment, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer Dear Mr. Burt: Our firm, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. was hired by the owners last January to assess the impact of the newly proposed Connemara Trail bridge on the property (see "Minea Property" map dated 9/20/2001). The bridge and roadway alignment is at variance with the Connemara Trail shown as a collector street on the City of Rosemount "2020 Comprehensive Plan" (fig. 4.1- J). John C. Johnson, Craig Minea and I met with you and Rick Pearson July 10 where we reviewed development issues of the Minea property. We would like to note a number of our concerns and request continued cooperative efforts with the City to resolve these issues in a timely fashion. As development is proceeding rapidly on Centex's Bloom field Addition and on the St. Joseph's Church and Heritage Development's Abbott properties, it is imperative to address this issue while there remains flexibility in the Connemara Trail alignment and design. The alignment of Connemara Trail effects the property in several ways, as it crosses the railroad tracks and makes an alignment change from a north/south heading to an east/west heading through the property. The Comprehensive Plan places the Connemara railroad crossing further to the east at the corners of adjacent property allowing easier accommodation in future subdivision plans. Our proposed alignment brings Connemara into an adjacent alignment with the existing pipeline easement so that we minimize the amount of wasted land. Since we cannot have direct access to Connemara Trail with residential driveways, we need to minimize the amount of land that lies between Connemara Trail and the pipeline. Additionally, the crossing of the railroad track, which includes significant earth embankment to create the needed clearance, is also desired to be closer to the alignment of the pipeline to minimize the inefficient land patterns that are created. We would like to work with the City to adjust the Connemara alignment. We studied the Minea property in depth to identify the issues of development and to test the property's development potential under City ordinances and Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The plan noted as Concept Plan and dated October 4, 2001 provides 324 single family lots. This plan meets all existing City of Rosemount Zoning regulations and the current "2020 Comprehensive Plan" without the need for any variances or further public hearings. This plan will provide a baseline development potential for any density transfers, assessment credits, park dedications, or monetary compensation. The potential development includes adherence to the Comprehensive Plan by placing a park in the northwest corner of the property, routing a collector road east/west through the property that follows the alignment shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and providing aATED ;uLi PLANNERS :' CHITECTS iR -`-UE NORTH October 4, 2001 MN »401 Thomas D. Burt City Administrator City of Rosemount 2875 145` Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Re: Minea Property, Connemara Trail Alignment, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer Dear Mr. Burt: Our firm, Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. was hired by the owners last January to assess the impact of the newly proposed Connemara Trail bridge on the property (see "Minea Property" map dated 9/20/2001). The bridge and roadway alignment is at variance with the Connemara Trail shown as a collector street on the City of Rosemount "2020 Comprehensive Plan" (fig. 4.1- J). John C. Johnson, Craig Minea and I met with you and Rick Pearson July 10 where we reviewed development issues of the Minea property. We would like to note a number of our concerns and request continued cooperative efforts with the City to resolve these issues in a timely fashion. As development is proceeding rapidly on Centex's Bloom field Addition and on the St. Joseph's Church and Heritage Development's Abbott properties, it is imperative to address this issue while there remains flexibility in the Connemara Trail alignment and design. The alignment of Connemara Trail effects the property in several ways, as it crosses the railroad tracks and makes an alignment change from a north/south heading to an east/west heading through the property. The Comprehensive Plan places the Connemara railroad crossing further to the east at the corners of adjacent property allowing easier accommodation in future subdivision plans. Our proposed alignment brings Connemara into an adjacent alignment with the existing pipeline easement so that we minimize the amount of wasted land. Since we cannot have direct access to Connemara Trail with residential driveways, we need to minimize the amount of land that lies between Connemara Trail and the pipeline. Additionally, the crossing of the railroad track, which includes significant earth embankment to create the needed clearance, is also desired to be closer to the alignment of the pipeline to minimize the inefficient land patterns that are created. We would like to work with the City to adjust the Connemara alignment. We studied the Minea property in depth to identify the issues of development and to test the property's development potential under City ordinances and Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The plan noted as Concept Plan and dated October 4, 2001 provides 324 single family lots. This plan meets all existing City of Rosemount Zoning regulations and the current "2020 Comprehensive Plan" without the need for any variances or further public hearings. This plan will provide a baseline development potential for any density transfers, assessment credits, park dedications, or monetary compensation. The potential development includes adherence to the Comprehensive Plan by placing a park in the northwest corner of the property, routing a collector road east/west through the property that follows the alignment shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and providing on -site ponding for the property while protecting wetlands and adjusting development patterns to the existing pipeline corridor. The study plan we prepared incorporated all of these issues expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, while using an 85 -foot by 125 -foot typical residential lot. Ponding on the site handles all on -site runoff and sanitary services anticipate the extension of sewer from adjacent developments. The following is a summary of how the site performs and how it adheres to the densities prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan. Total Site Acreage: Storm Pond Park Net Acreage Single Family Lots Gross Density Net Density 154.5 acres 6 acres 16 acres 132.5 acres 80x125' (10,000 sf) - 324 2.1 units per acre 2.4 units per acre The city's storm drainage plan places aregional pond on the Minea property disproportionate to the properties storm ponding needs (see "Rosemount Drainage Plan, Minea Property"). As shown on the attached drainage plan, a significant area of the land to the north and west are developments in this drainage area are dumping their outflow into the railroad right of way, which collects on the Minea property before passing under an old railroad culvert. This drainage burden should be distributed to all benefiting properties before there is damage to the Minea property. We suggest the following: 1. Any use of the Minea property for ponding of water from other properties has to be compensated by payment for easements or credits against the Minea property assessments. 2. "All" drainage studies should include serving all of the Minea property in either the DNR wetland or the low area on the south end of the site and not require flow to the east into a new drainage district. 3. Every attempt should be made to reduce the area and volume impacts to the Minea property by requiring upstream landowners to maximize ponding and infiltration of runoff on their property. The city's sanitary sewer plans have excluded a major portion of Minea property from the designed service area (see attachment). Developments to the west and south have sanitary sewer service and two studies for sewer extensions leave the Minea property in an unserved island._ The North Central Study included portions of the property while the Eastern Study included none of the Minea property. This oversight needs to be resolved so that service can be reasonably provided without excessive fill to elevate building pads or high cost lift stations. We request the following issues be addressed in a revised sewer study to include the overlooked Minea property. I . If the City chooses to serve the Minea property through the Biscayne point sanitary sewer, then a lift station has to be included in the plan and be paid by sanitary sewer trunk fees and not assessments to the Minea property. 2. A feasibility study should be initiated immediately to determine whether the lift station or gravity line through the Bloomfield project is the most cost effective. We understand the City's desire for Connemara Trail to pass through the property and cross the railroad tracks and desire for ponding on the site to serve a large drainage area of adjacent land that is presently being developed. We would like to work with the City on timing and location of these issues, as well as routes of sewer availability and other development issues. We have talked with the area developers and conclude that the only way to resolve these issues is for the City to hold workshop sessions with the affected property owners, City Staff, engineering consultants and a member of the City Council to form a plan of balanced development burdens and opportunities. An area plan addressing roads, storm water ponding, and sanitary sewer with city- authorized flexibility can guide both city and developer. We are committed to working diligently with the City to adjust our planning efforts to accommodate City needs while formalizing development flexibility to maintain the existing potential of the property. We think that both the City and property owner can benefit from agreeing on programs of flexibility that offer benefits to the community and to this future neighborhood. Please keep us informed and involved as all these various items are discussed at the City so that we can affectively participate and bring our concerns and ideas to the table. Thank you for your attention to these matters and we hope to be working with you soon. Sincerely, /DA1/HLLGREN, SHAR�D�LOW AND UBAN, INC. C. John Uban cc: Craig Minea John Johnson J 21ane n COUNTY O .38 . I2 lane c > � 4 lane undivided due s Z = 2 lane 2 lane k w D O 2 lane ; N STS 2 lane T --,. .• a lane undivided 14 lane undivided .� ,;, n Site ,� < A, V M ... ' rn 140TH ST. E. 21ane ASS i lane ` 4lone -quip. v "M qM +e* wa+ undrvid fp +wr ww anw 21ane : 9 t I 2 lane r 4 lone undivided CSAH NO. 42' �� + realignment r p I - - w 6lane divided improved turn lanes redesign with f ronta ge ' and slgnaiizacion frontage roads f ; 12 lane lane undivided 12 lane 4 lane divided r CO. RD. NO. 46 (160TH ST) I21an�y w 2 lane l; 12 lane �1 Future Rand 11pn1provements Legend a Future Roads Existing Roads (I ^ I Nimproved / `� City Boundaries new y,, ny 1 I pdate 2020 Compre intersection improvements i�l ; p, ensive f"" lCan �.J 1. L 0.5 0 0.5 Miles Owm6mm?�mw� A City of Rosemount map dale 11 /19/98 h:\gis \clrmapcp.apr\ road improvements 3 %wo VZAI,A 7 3 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW AND -UBAN D_JW., + a a � � LI L� V •J ,I�' lf►.1 W Y La1 d �w Trj ��G�069�pc r • a� a s 3 ti V � r a , w ` t t (� co 0� N 3 - 0 - "a O N 1 Q � G , o � � �-0 ,z,� s 3 ti V � r a , w { � From: Bret A. Weiss, P.E. Interim City Engineer x b m Date: October 31, 2001 Re: Connemara Trail Grade Separated Crossing WSB Project No. 1005-23 F � As a follow -up to your request, I am providing you with the following items concerning the Connemara Trail grade separated crossing at the Union Pacific Railroad Line. Please note that these are estimated costs for comparison purposes. The actual difference between overpass and underpass bridge costs are negligible; a railroad bridge costs more to build, but is less square footage. The ` difference is attributed to maintaining rail operations while constructing the underpass and earthwork to construct the overpass. Rail operations would basically continue uninterrupted with construction of the overpass. Construction of the underpass would require construction of a temporary track to allow rail operations to continue while constructing the underpass. Earthwork costs are dependent upon the staging of the project and location of borrow sites. OVERPASS Bridge Length = 82' wide x 100' long = 8,200 S.F. Bridge Cost per S.F. = $75 Bridge Cost = $615,000 Temporary Track: None required Drainage: No lift station required Estimated Structure Construction Cost = $615,000 Aesthetics: Added Cost y Maintenance: City would maintain pre- stressed concrete structure versus steel (preferred) Timeframe: Union Pacific Railroad would take less opposition to an overpass Design: Less difficult to design than underpass Minneapolis • St. Cloud • Equal Opportunity Employer FAWPWIM1005.23V03101 J.doc 0 John Johnson October 31, 2001 Page 2 UNDERPASS Bridge Length = 30' wide x 140' long = 4,200 S.F. Bridge Cost per S.F. _ $150 Bridge Cost = $630,000 Temporary Track: Would require construction of a temporary track for the existing train traffic • $350,000+ to construct temporary track and re -build existing track • $75,000 to complete earthwork temporary track • Possible right -of -way costs to construct temporary track if it can't be constructed within the existing railroad right -of -way • Possible railroad damage costs due to loss of operations or interruption to operations when trains have to slow down to access relocated track Drainage: May require lift station at a cost of $60,000 to $100,000 Estimated Structure Construction Cost = $1,100,000 to $1,200,000 + R/W + RR Damages? Aesthetics: Added Cost Maintenance: City would have to maintain steel structure versus concrete Timeframe: Union Pacific Railroad would have more opposition to an underpass than overpass Design: More difficult to design than overpass As is apparent, the overpass is more straightforward to construct and in turn, is less costly. These costs are estimated and are subject to revision based on actual conditions. Please give me a call at (763) 287 -7190 with any questions. cc: Tom Burt, Rosemount City Administrator Rick Pearson, Rosemount City Planner bh/sb FAWPWNV005- 23V03101 jj.&c