Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.a. Comprehensive Plan Implementation RezoningsCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: December 19, 2000 AGENDA ITEM: Comprehensive Plan Implementation AGENDA SECTION: Rezonings Old Business PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA _ i -W __A ATTACHMENTS: Map, Draft Ordinance, Correspondence, Comp APPROVED BY: Plan Excerpt. SUMMARY This series of rezonings is a significant step in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. It includes: 1. All of the undeveloped land currently zoned Agriculture that is within the current Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) is proposed to be rezoned to R -1, Low Density Residential. This includes the land east of Biscayne Avenue between CSAH 42 and County Road 38, up to %2 mile west of Biscayne Ave. It also includes the undeveloped portions of Bloomfield; most of CMC's Eastbridge and the County garage. 2. The land currently zoned Industrial Park extending from Greif Bros. to the UP railroad and Biscayne Ave. is recommended to be rezoned to BP -1 Business Park. 3. The land west of Biscayne Ave., north of the UP railroad will be rezoned to Public and Institutional. This includes the National Guard O. M. S. facility and the vacant land to the north. 4. Approximately 7 acres of the Eastbridge site on the northeast corner of CSAH 42 and STH 3 will be recommended to be rezoned to C-4, General Commercial. This includes the quonset but site and extends to a location next to the proposed street across from Business Parkway. All of the above are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezonings to BP -1 and C -4 are more specific than the Comp Plan, and are recommendations by staff. BP -1 is most similar to the current Industrial Park zoning, which should minimize concerns of property owners' uses becoming non - conforming. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING On December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted the required public hearing. Several affected property owners participated with written and spoken comments. Representatives of Greif Bros. and Vern's Welding (formerly Knutsen's on Biscayne Ave.) were concerned about their properties being rendered non- conforming. Staff explained that the recommendation for BP -1 would preserve their conforming status. The only property that would become non - conforming is the Dakota County Maintenance garage site, which will be zoned R -1, Low Density Residential. Col. Halvorsen of the Minnesota National Guard indicated no objection to the rezoning after it was clear that the O.M.S. facility would be consistent with the Armory. Reid Hanson explained (in detail) his concerns regarding the McMenomy / Hertogs property and the Public / Institutional (PI) zoning. Staff suggested that an application to amend the Comprehensive Plan would initiate the appropriate process to change the land use. The Planning Commission concurred with the Comp Plan amendment strategy. As there were no other comments forthcoming, the Commissioners adopted a motion to recommend the rezonings as discussed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt an ordinance to rezone the above listed properties in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: �^ City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE 2020 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Rezonings THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance, " is hereby amended as follows: All of the land east of Biscayne Avenue, north of CR 42, south of CR 38, but excluding - land within one -half mile west of Akron Avenue and also excluding existing developments, including Bloomfield l' Addition, University Addition, the Enclave, Kane Place, Biscayne Pointe, and Dakota County HRA, will be rezoned from AG- Agriculture to R1 -Low Density Residential. All of the land east of the Canadian Pacific Railroad right -of -way, west of Biscayne Avenue, and north of the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way, will be rezoned from IP- Industrial Park to PI- Public/Institutional. All of the land north of 145' St., west of Biscayne Ave., south of the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way, will be rezoned from IP- Industrial Park to BP -1 Business Park. All of the land south of 145' St., east of the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way, north of CR 42, and west of Biscayne Ave., will be rezoned as follows: From IP- Industrial Park to RI -Low Density Residential, except Greif Bros. which will be rezoned to BP -1 Business Park, and 7 acres north of CR 42 extending from the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way to a point across from Business Parkway which will be rezoned to C -4 General Commercial. The Property Identification Numbers (PIN) numbers associated with each property subject to the rezoning are as follows, along with the appropriate rezoning: PIN Current Zoning Appmpriae Rezoning 34- 02110- 013 -31 AG RI 34- 02110- 014 -31 AG RI 34- 02110- 015 -31 AG RI 34- 02110- 016 -31 AG Rl 34- 02110- 020 -31 AG Rl 34- 02110- 010 -55 AG RI 34- 02110- 011 -50 AG RI 34- 02110- 013 -50 AG Rl 34- 02110- 014 -50 AG Rl 34- 02110- 010 -75 AG RI 34- 02200- 013 -60 AG Rl ]POSTER, WENTZELL. HIED$ACK & ]$REVIER, LLC THOMAS E. BREVER JoHZV A. HEDBACK JOSEPH A. WENTZELL-* ROBERT J. FOSTER PEGGY J. HEDBACK LESLIE M. Wrrm- RSCHEIN ' A-Lso ADMYITED -IN TEXAS OF COUNSEL: SARAH MARTIN ARENDT STEVEN P. CARLSON December 11, 2000 Mr. Rick Pearson City Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145' Street West Rosemount MN 55068 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Su= 201 ANTHoNY FL.AcE 2855 ANTFIONY LANE So. ST. ANTHONY, MN 55418 TELEPHONE: (612) 789 -1331 FAx: (612) 789 -2109 E -MAIL: fwhb0fowb- iaw.com By Facsimile and U.S. Mail Re: My Client, Vernon E. Raehsler dba Raehsler Welding 14345 Biscayne Ave. West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Dear Mr. Pearson: This will confirm our telephone conversation of December 8, 2000. I informed you that I am the attorney for Vernon E. Raehsler with regard to the proposed change in his zoning. This letter will serve as my client's comments to the proposed change in zoning of his property from CP Industrial Park to BP -1. Mr. Raehsler objects to any change in the zoning ordinance with respect to his property that would reduce the permitted uses of his property. Specifically, Mr. Raehsler objects to any change in zoning, which would affect the current use of the property or reduce the prospective purchasers who would be allowed under the permitted use to purchase his property in the future. Any of these changes would be considered a taking and my client would demand compensation for that taking. You have informed me in our telephone conversation that it is your opinion the proposed change in zoning does not affect Mr. Raehsler's current use of the property nor would it affect a proposed sale, which I defined for you. We have agreed that it would be advantageous for you, my client and me to meet to review these issues. I would therefore like to meet in your office at 10:00 a.m. on December 13, 2000. If that date and time are acceptable to you, please contact either me directly or my assistant, Wendy. A Mr. Rick Pearson Page Two Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. She re RJF :wjm cc: V. Raehsler by facsimile 5.1 Implementation Plan The Comprehensive Plan will be translated from a policy document into a growth management process via an implementation plan. The implementation plan will involve modifications of city controls and policies, especially zoning amendments, including both ordinance amendments and rezonings. Additional studies go beyond the scope of the Comprehensive Plan, but will influence aspects of the plan such as the Commercial Center revitalization plan, ongoing and future transportation studies and occasional initiatives generated externally by various applicants. The Comprehensive Plan also has an amendment process to consider changes to the plan as a result of new ideas, strategies, or relevant development initiatives. 5.1.2 Implementation Plan Components — Land Use 1. Update the official "tools "(eg.,*zoning and subdivision ordinances) to accomplish broad and specific objectives O'this Plan. 2. Rezone land in conformance with new land use objectives establighed in the 2020 Land Use Plan. 3• Achieve Livable Communities objectives, which are local goals within a regional'housing framework, esta4lished by the Dakota Cournty'HRA, 4. Participate in current/future transportation studies including the CSAH 42 Corridor Transportation Plan, the STH 52 Corridor Plan and the STH 3 Corridor Plan. 5. Complete a conceptual design strategy for the Commercial corridor right- of-way along State Highway 3 and County Road 42: 6. Use public financing resources to assist those economic development projects that achieve high value to the city, including redevelopment opportunities and job creation. 7. Utilize and update the city's capital improvement plan in conjunction with development objectives in this Plan. 8. Evaluate public and private impacts to urban service expansion north of Highway 38 (east of Highway 3). 9. Develop stronger ties with the University of Minnesota in relationship to cooperative uses in or near their research property. .L_. 10. Utilize the "premature subdivision" section of the City's subdivision ordinance to control growth in an orderly manner. 5.1.3 Implementation Plan Components — Public Facilities 1. Work directly with Dakota County and Mn /DOT to pursue and coordinate . transportation projects identified in this plan. 2. Develop a water supply system that services existing /proposed development needs in eastern Rosemount based upon a feasibility analysis. 3. Evaluate the feasibility of a sanitary sewer system that will service those areas identified in this plan as Rural Residential with "sewer needs ". 4. Conduct an active park development program and a limited park acquisition program based on development patterns and resource protection needs within Rosemount. 5. Update the City's capital improvement program annually in order to address short- and long -term public facility needs throughout MUSA and non -MUSA areas. 5.1.4 Implementation Plan Components —Zoning Ordinance A copy of the city's current zoning ordinance it attached for review. The land use plan (Figure 3.1- C).will require amendmentsto the zoning rrtap-and ordinance in order to be consistept; These amendments will be initiated and substantially completed within one year of the Plan's official adoption. Major amendments will include: 1. Zoning Map. Change all Agriculture areas guided for Rural Residential; change all Agriculture areas guided for Urban Residential; change all. Agriculture areas guided for Business Park; and, change all Agriculture areas guided for General Industrial or Industrial /Mixed Use. 2. Zoning Ordinance. Add new districts for "Industrial /Mixed Use ".and "Agriculture Research "; eliminate the outdated Industrial Park (IP) district, and amend existing zoning districts as a required update process. A listing and description of all zoning districts with each corresponding land use category is provided as follows: -.1, AGRICULTURE: 1 Zoning District = Agricultural (AG) Land Use Category = Agriculture (AG) Agriculture, farming and single family detached housing Maximum gross density = 1 unit per 10 acres 2. Zoning District = Agricultural Preserve (AG -P) Land Use Category = Agriculture (AG) Agriculture that complies with Ag Preserves Act, single family housing Maximum gross density = 1 unit per 40 acres RESIDENTIAL: rj 1. Zoning District = Rural Residential (RR) Land Use Category = Rural Residential (RR) • Single family detached housing and keeping of horses Maximum gross densij = 1 Hnifper 5 acres 2. Zoning District = Very Low Density Residential (RL) Land Use Category = Transition Residential (TR) Single family detached housing Maximum gross density = 1 unit per acre (clusterirTg permitted) 3. Zoning District = Low Density Residential (R -1) Land Use Category = Urban Residential (UR) and TR Single family detached housing Maximum gross density = 2.5 units per acre 4. Zoning District = Low Density Residential (R -1A) Land Use Category = Urban Residential (UR) Single family detached housing with setback flexibility Maximum gross density = 2.5 units per acre 5. Zoning District = Moderate Density Residential (R -2) Land Use Category = Urban Residential (UR) and TR Single family detached and attached housing Maximum gross density = 6.0 units per acre 6. Zoning District = Medium Density Residential (R -3) Land Use Category = High Density Residential (HR) Apartments, condominiums, duplexes and single family attached housing Maximum gross density = 12.0 units per acre 7. Zoning District = High Density Residential (R-4) Land Use Category = High Density Residential (HR) Jan!U !dd!ss!ss!W ayl 6uols sasn Pppen = tio6eleo asn pue-i (dd) uield Poold = lo!Jlsla 6u!uoZ 'S (Id) leuo!lnl!lsul/o!Ignd = Ajo6ale0 asn pue l (d) leuollnl!lsul pue oilgnd = loPlsIO 6u!uoZ 'Z seulsnpui lesodslp elseM ma lu9we6euew alseM = tiobaleo asn pue-i (W1V) lu9w96euew alseM = laPlsIO 6uluoZ I :b3HIO louls!Q dg nnau ayl Aq peoeldaj 6u!aq si leul lo!jlslp 6u!uoz aaPlO (dg) MJed sseu!sng = tio6aleo asn pue (dl) Ved leulsnpul = lo!jls!Q 6u!uoZ -g }unowasoa walsee u! peleool AIlejaua6 'saljlsnpu! aa!neaH (n) lepsnpul lejaua0 = tio6aleo asn pue (JI) le!alsnpul lejaua0 = lo!jls!Q 6uluoZ •Z le!oaawwoo pel!w!I pue sao!4o 'sesnogejem `leljlsnpu! pel!w!-1 (d8) �Jsd sseu!sng = tio6aleo asn pue (d8) Naed ssou!sn8 = lopis!Q 6u!uoZ :,lviuisnaNI seouues pue 1!elaj le!ojawwoo leuo!BeU (0) leioiewwoo = tio6aleo asn pus-1 (t,-O) le!ojawwoo lejeua0 = lopis!p 6uiuoZ• fi .ola 'a6eiols -!u!w 'suo!lels se6 • • sasn leioiewwoo polua!jo AemgB'H (0) le!ojawwoo = tio6aleo asn pue-1 (S-0) leioiewwoo AemgB'H = lo!als!Q 6u!uoZ .£ saowas pue I!elaa le!ojau,wwoo uanoluMOa (3) leloaawwoo = tio6aleo asn puei (Z-O) le!ojawwo0 Apunwwoo = lo!als!Q 6u!uoZ 'Z seowas pue l!elaj le!ojawwoo poogjogy6!aN (0) lelojawwoo = tio6aleo asn- pue l (t -0) le!oa9wwo0- aoua!u9nuo0 = lb!Jls!Q 6u!uoZ . :TdIOa3WW0o ajoe aad sl!un ot, = Al!suep ssoa6 wnw!xew 6u!snoq ele6aj6uoo pue 6u!n!I pals!sse 'swn!u!wopuoo 'sluawl.aedy .a. it 5.1.5 Implementation Plan Components — Housing The following strategies are provided in order that Rosemount meets or exceeds its housing goals as identified in Section 2.3.3. (Goals) and Section 3.3 (Housing): 1. Maintain the city's partnership within the Dakota County cluster for the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA). 2. Evaluate the city's housing goals related to LCA based upon the adopted comprehensive plan and further research on local affordable housing conditions /needs. 3. Limit multi - family housing units between 1995 -2020 to no more than 25 percent of all units. 4. Distribute affordable housing units throughout the MUSA with some targeting for multi- family units (i.e., new collector /arterial roadways and commercial areas). 5. Maintain rural residential areas on conforming lots as an important housing choice and land use character in Rosemount. 6. Initiate new housing improvement programs that encourage reinvestment in older homes, which preserves affordable housing opportunities. 7. Allow apartments in single family homes under a conditional use permit process as another approach for affordable housing opportunities. 8. Support new rental housing opportunities in order to maintain 20 percent of all housing as renter occupied. 9. Strengthen the downtown commercial area with additional high- density housing development at targeted locations. 10. Support mixed use developments within areas designated as commercial in order to provide housing, employment and shopping connections within compact areas. F. Expiration: In any case where a conditional use has not been established within one (1) year of the date on which the CUP was granted, the permit shall be null and void. If the conditional use is discontinued for six (6) months, the CUP shall be null and void. G. Permittee: A CUP shall be issued for a particular use and not for a particular person. 12.8: INTERIM USE PERMITS (IUP): A. Application, Public Hearing, Notice and Procedu : The application, public hearing, public notice and proc ure equirements for interim use permits shall be the ame as those for endments as provided in Section 16 of this rdinance, except th a permit shall be issued on the affirma 've vote of a majority of the ntire Council. Specific submissions equired to complete an applica n for an interim use permit shal be specified for each type of in ' use allowed. B. Termination: lUP shall termin a on the happening of any of the following ev ts, whichever fi st occurs: 1: The date state in the p emit. 2. Upon violation of condition under which the permit was issued. 3. Upon change ' the City's oning regulation which renders the use nonc orming. C. Standards: 1. The in rim use must be allowed in th zoning district whey the property is located. 2. Th interim use must meet or exceed the pe rmance s Bards set forth in this Ordinance and other plicable ity ordinances. 3. The interim use must comply with the specific stand ds for he use identified in this Ordinance, and must comply with City of Rosemount Page 209 .w. J HANSEN, MCCANN & O'CONNOR, P.A. A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAKOTA CENTRAL OFFICES 14450 SOUTH ROBERT TRAIL ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068 REID J. HANSEN MICHAEL C. McCANN RICHARD L. O'CONNOR December 19, 2000 TELEPHONE:! (651) 423.1155 FAX: (651) 423 -1157 The City of Rosemount City Administrator Tom Burt, Mayor Busho, and Members of the Rosemount City Council P.O. Box 510 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 RE: Part of the North M of the Southeast % Lying Easterly of the Railroad in Section 20, Township 115, Range 19. (Containing approximately 17.4 Acres) (hereinafter referred to as "the property ") Dear Mr. Burt, Mayor Busho, and Members of the Rosemount City Council: I write as attorney for Edward B. McMenomy, Sr. and Samuel H. Hertogs, the owners of the property described above since 1959. It is our understanding that the City of Rosemount, acting on its own initiative, is presently considering re- zoning the property from "agricultural" to "public/ institutional,, in order that the property's zoning coincides with its comprehensive guide plan use designation. We consider the re- zoning significant and detrimental to the future development of the property. The City's inconsistent and ill - conceived treatment of the property has been brought to the City's attention on several occasions in the last two years. I enclose a copy of my correspondence to Mayor Busho and Rosemount City Council Members dated March 10, 1999 and a copy of my correspondence to the Rosemount Planning Commission dated September 10, 1999. The thoughts expressed therein are true and as relevant today as when written. Throughout the Rosemount 2020 comprehensive guide plan process the property was designated for urban residential land uses. At no time during the comprehensive guide plan process did Rosemount City staff or any members of the Rosemount City Council or Planning Commission question the appropriateness of a residential land use designation for the property. However, on the last night of its deliberations before submitting Rosemount's comprehensive guide plan to the Metropolitan Council, the Rosemount City Council abruptly changed the property's designation from "urban residential" to "public /institutional ". The comprehensive guide plan designation of " public \institutional" has resulted in the effective or actual denial of two residential housing proposals. The first involved a Dakota County HRA affordable housing project, which housing project - was dropped.,by the Dakota County HRA after the Rosemount City Council's designation of the property as "public /institutional" and its adoption of a moratorium on residential development one-week later. The second housing proposal was for a standard single family development. The concept plan, designed and intended to be "variance free ", was submitted by Basic Builders, Inc., in February, 2000. The concept plan was denied in April, 2000 with findings of fact as arbitrary as the Rosemount City Council's eleventh hour decision to change the property's land use designation to "public \institutional" from "urban /residential ". Both letters referenced above requested that Rosemount reconsider its position and redesignate the property for residential uses, all to no avail. Both letters detailed why the "urban residential" land use designation and zoning is the most appropriate for the property in light of the surrounding land uses, which are predominantly residential. The "public \institutional" land use and zoning designation essentially limits land uses to "governmental, educational, cultural, recreational, public service, and health care" uses. Examples include government offices, public and private schools, churches, public parks, museums, libraries and hospitals. When viewed practically, economically, and from a reasonable planning perspective, the commercial and the business areas of the city are the most desirable location for all of the public institutional uses. Given the property's location, a zoning designation of "public /institutional" deprives the land owners of all reasonable use of their property. The owners of the property, through constant requests in writing and at public hearings, and through the two residential use applications which were either expressly or effectively denied, have exhausted all of their administrative remedies with respect to the property. Any further effort is useless. ` a Upon the City of Rosemount's re- zoning of the property to P Y "public /institutional" uses, the owners of the property 7F respectfully make demand upon the City of Rosemount to commence condemnation proceedings for taking of the land. If the condemnation process is not commenced by the City of Rosemount, we will have no alternative but to consider seeking a writ of mandamus to compel an inverse condemnation of the property. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this request. M A RJH:gma. Enclosure cc: Rosemount City Planning Commission clients \186.013\city.cor z :r HANSEN, MCCANN & O'CONNOR, P.A. A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAKOTA CENTRAL OFFICES 14450 SOUTH ROBERT TRAIL ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA SS065 REID I HANSEN MICHAEL C. MCCANN TELEPHONE: (651) 423.1ISS RICHARD L. WCONNOR March 10, 1999 FAX: (6SI) 423•IIS7 Mayor Busho and Rosemount City Council Members City of Rosemount P.O. Box 510 2875 145th Street west Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 RE: Part of the North M of the Southeast 4 Lying Easterly of the Railroad in Section 20, Township 115, Range 19. (Containing approximately 17.4 Acres) (hereinafter referred to as "the property ") Dear Mayor Busho and Council Members Carroll, Cisewski, Edwards and Wipperman• I write as attorney for Edward B. McMenomy, Sr. and Samuel H. Hertogs, the owners of the property since 1959. Mr. McMenomy and Mr. Hertogs were surprised and disturbed by "(1) the Rosemount City Council's abrupt decision on February 16, 1999 to designate the property as "public /institutional" on the comprehensive guide plan update forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review, and (2) the Rosemount City Council's abrupt decision on February 23, 1999 to adopt a moratorium ordinance which prohibits the development of the property until (at a minimum) February 23, 2000. It is not hard to understand the reaction of Mr. McMenomy and Mr. Hertogs in light of the following relevant facts. The land is currently and has been zoned agricultural for many years. At the time of Rosemount's adoption of its current comprehensive guide plan in 1993, a proposal for an Islamic cemetery was being considered by the Rosemount City Council and, presumably to facilitate such a use, the land was shown as "public /institutional" in the 1993 plan. The cemetery plan did not materialize and the land has remained in agricultural use. On July 15, 1996, at the Lime the City of Rosemount was considering a comprehensive guide plan amendment to expand the MUSA area in the vicinity of the property, my clients wrote to the City requesting that their lands be included within the MUSA expansion area (a copy of their letter is enclosed herewith) . The letter expressed the willingness on the part of the owners to cooperate with the City of Rosemount in granting easements insofar as it was my clients' understanding that a major sanitary sewer line would cross through the property. The property was included within the MUSA service area. Mayor Busho and Rosemount City Council Members Page 2 In early 1998 the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (hereinafter Dakota County HRA) had discussions with Rosemount City Staff concerning an appropriate .location within Rosemount for a rental townhome project to meet the affordable housing needs of the community. After reviewing several locations with City Staff, the Dakota County HRA contacted Mr. McMenomy and Mr. Hertogs with respect to developing their project on a part of property owned by Mr. MCMenomv and Mr. Hertogs. As a result of the Dakota County HRA's interest, and believing it made good planning sense as a whole, Mr. McMenomy and Mr. Hertogs decided to proceed with residential plans on the remainder of the property through their corporation, McMenomy & Hertogs, Incorporated, of which Edward B. McMenomy, Jr. is president. Ultimately, an option was granted on the southerly seven and one - half (7%) acres of the property to the Dakota County HRA in order to facilitate the project which the Dakota County HRA desired to undertake in Rosemount to meet affordable housing needs of the community. As a result of anticipated development of the property, Edward B. McMenomy, Jr. monitored the evolution of Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update and its impact on the proposed development of the property. On October 27, 1998 Edward B. McMenomy, Jr. corresponded wit:: the City of Rosemount, advising the City of the intentions of McMenomy & Hertogs, Incorporated and the Dakota County HRA with respect to the property. At that time Edward B. McMenomy, Jr. understood that Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update designated the property as urban residential. Given the nature and density of the Dakota County HRA project and his uncertainty as to whether an urban residential designation was appropriate for the project as proposed, Edward B. McMenomy, Jr.'s letter requested that Rosemount "guide" the property appropriately for the project. The City of Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan_ Update (November 1998), which was auproved by the Rosemount City Council for publication, public hearing, and comment, identified the property as being guided for urban residential use. The residential designation is appropriate in light of the surrounding uses which are predominantly residential. Lands to the west are currently in residential use; lands to the southeast and east are approved for residential development and are currently being so developed; lands to the northeast are designated for residential uses. Only the National Guard Armory site, 25 acres to the south, is non- residential. f Mayor Busho and Rosemount City Council Members Page 3 In the fall of 1998, the Dakota County HRA and McMenomy & Hertogs, Incorporated submitted their applications for the residential development of the property. The public hearings for the residential projects were held by the Rosemount Planning Commission on December 22, 1998. Only one family. in the area attended the meeting to express their concerns about the development. On January 5, 1999, the Rosemount City Council reviewed the concept plans unanimously approved by the Rosemount Planning Commission. The City Council did not take any action, . but tabled the matter until January 19, 1999.. The City Council's expressed concerns at the meeting were principally with density issues related to the Dakota County HRA project plans. To address the Council's concerns as expressed at the January 5, 1999 meeting, the Dakota County HRA and McMenomy & Hertogs, Incorporated revised their development plans. At the January 19, 1999 meeting, the Rosemount City Council then, for the first time, expressed reservations about the density and housing type (townhomes versus single family detached homes) proposed by McMenomy & Hertogs, Incorporated's residential development. Subsequent thereto, the Dakota County HRA` requested the City to delay action on the development proposals to allow the Dakota - County HRA to educate the public on issues related to affordable housing and to investigate additional site plan options. The City Council unanimously agreed to grant an extension until May 5, 1999. At no time during its deliberations on the Dakota County HRA and McMenomy & Hertogs, Incorporated development applications did the Rosemount City Council question the appropriateness of the urban residential designation for the property. At no time during the Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update process did either the Rosemount City Council or Rosemount Planning Commission question the appropriateness of an urban residential designation for the property. At no time during the Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update process or during the review of the Dakota County HRA and McMenomy & Hertogs, Incorporated development applications, did the Rosemount City Staff advocate the inappropriateness of an urban residential. designation for the property. Yet, on February 16, 1999, at the very last moment on the day the Rosemount City Council approved its 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update for submission to the Metropolitan Council, without notice to or discussion with the property owners, or with Dakota County HRA, the applicants in currently pending development applications, the Rosemount City Council branded the land as "public /institutional" - a designation neither advanced, supported, nor even discussed by Rosemount City Staff, Rosemount Planning Commission Members, or Rosemount City Council Members during the 2020 Comprel-l=nsive Plan Update process or during the consideration of the residential development proposals pending before the City of Rosemount. Mayor Busho and Rosemount City Council Members Page 4 Despite having granted the Dakota County HRA an extension of time to refine its site plan and to educate the pubii.c with respect to its proposed residential development, on February 23, 1999, the Rosemount City Council again acted abruptly, upon' at most three days posted notice at the Rosemount City Hall, adopting a moratorium on residential development. The only "actual" notice which McMenomy and Hertogs, Incorporated and the Dakota County HRA received regarding the special meeting at which the moratorium was adopted was an article published on the day of the special meeting in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press. Though the moratorium allows McMenomy and Hertogs, Incorporated and the Dakota County HRA to proceed with concepts plans, no other action necessary to effect a residential development may be taken. In light of Dakota County HRA's federal funding requirements and time guidelines for obtaining the same, it is anticipated that Rosemount City Council's abrupt decision to designate the property for "public /institutional" purposes and its abrupt 'adoption of a- moratorium, have effectively killed the Dakota County HRA project. Mr. McMenomv and Mr. Hertogs believe' that Rosemount City Council's designation of the property for "public /institutional" purposes in the comprehensive guide plan deprive them of any economically beneficial or productive use of the property. Rosemount's 1993 Comprehensive Guide Plan, Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update, and Rosemount's present zoning ordinances provide that public /institutional land use is for governmental, educational, cultural, recreational, public service and health care facilities. The language in all of the above - referenced land use documents stresses governmental uses as permissible uses or uses by right. Indeed, virtually all of the other suggested uses are allowed in the commercial and business park districts of Rosemount, both of which zoning districts are in ample supply in Rosemount. To divert land appropriate for residential uses to other uses. squanders. a resource of which Rosemount has a very limited supply. when viewed practically, economically, and from a reasonable planning perspective, the commercial and the business areas of the city are the most desirable locations for all of the uses identified in the public institutional classifications. As discussed earlier, the property owned by Mr. McMenomy and Mr. Hertogs is virtually surrounded by urban residential uses. The designation of this land for public institutional uses is tantamount to "spot zoning ". Mayor Busho and Rosemount City Council Members Page 5 It is axiomatic under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Minnesota, United States Supreme Court case law, and Minnesota Supreme Court case law, that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation to the owner of the property. Although Federal and States Courts wrestle with various tests to determine when a taking has occurred, necessarily balancing the competing public and private interests, the abrupt and arbitrary manner of the City's actions, particularly with respect to the redesignation of the property as "public /institutional ", is certainly a consideration in such a determination. The record developed during Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update process and its review of McMenomy and Hertogs, Incorporated and Dakota County HRA development applications suggest that the City's actions, particularly the redesignation of the property for "public /institutional" uses, was intended to frustrate the pending development applications rather than further any legitimate and reasonable governmental purpose. Mr.-McMenomy and Mr. Hertogs respectfully request that the City of Rosemount, during its discussions and negotiations regarding its Comprehensive Plan Update with the Metropolitan Council, review and revise the designation of their property to allow for residential uses. Given the property's location and proposed 'surrounding uses, at the present time, a residential use seems the most appropriate, reasonable, sensible, and economically viable use for the property. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, F, 12 RJH:czp Enclosure clients% 136.013%city -Lcor w Y Mayor Busho and Rosemount City Council Members Page 5 It is axiomatic under the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Minnesota, United States Supreme Court case law, and Minnesota Supreme Court case law, that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation to the owner of the property. Although Federal and States Courts wrestle with various tests to determine when a taking has occurred, necessarily balancing the competing public and private interests, the abrupt and arbitrary manner of the City's actions, particularly with respect to the redesignation of the property as "public /institutional ", is certainly a consideration in such a determination. The record developed during Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update process and its review of McMenomy and Hertogs, Incorporated and Dakota County HRA development applications suggest that the City's actions, particularly the redesignation of the property for "public /institutional" uses, was intended to frustrate the pending development applications rather than further any legitimate and reasonable governmental purpose. Mr.-McMenomy and Mr. Hertogs respectfully request that the City of Rosemount, during its discussions and negotiations regarding its Comprehensive Plan Update with the Metropolitan Council, review and revise the designation of their property to allow for residential uses. Given the property's location and proposed 'surrounding uses, at the present time, a residential use seems the most appropriate, reasonable, sensible, and economically viable use for the property. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, F, 12 RJH:czp Enclosure clients% 136.013%city -Lcor HANSEN, MCCANN & O`CONNOR, P.A. A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAKOTA CENTRALOFFICES 144" SOUTH ROBERT TRAIL ROSEMOUN .61INNESOTA 550" REID J. HANSEN MICHAEL C. McCANN TELEPHONE: (01) 42311SS RICHARD L. O'CONNOR FAX: (6S1) 4231157 September 10 19.99. Planning Commission Members: Chairman William Droste, Kimberly Shoe - Corrigan, Jay Tentinger, and Jeffery Weisensel RE: Amendment of Rosemount's proposed 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan Re: Part of the North % of the Southeast % Lying Easterly of the *Railroad in Section 20, Township 115, Range 19. (Containing approximately 17.4 Acres) (hereinafter referred to as "the property ") Dear Planning Commission Members: I write as attorney for Edward B. McMenomy, Sr. and Samuel H. :E:��y } ^iC t o ' _ 11_1 .,y' _.�t� y.- •-. r7 1_l� y.i Z, Inc 1.. ,.t�v, i.. �.. ti:..C:. i.':J v- ...✓ �. - --- ..� — .prone -1,l . your recollection of land use issues with respect to the above - referenced property, I enclose a copy of my correspondence dated March 10, 1999 to Mayor Busho, Council Member Cisewski, Council Member Edwards, then Council Member Carroll, and then Council Member Wipperman. Insofar as the City of Rosemount is considering amending its 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan as originally forwarded to the Metropolitan Council, we believe it an appropriate time to consider these issues once again. I am certain you are familiar with the Metropolitan Council's correspondence to the City of Rosemount regarding the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan. My clients and I have reviewed the correspondence which was part of your commission materials for your meeting on August 24, 1999. The Metropolitan Council refused to allow Rosemount to put its 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan into effect as proposed, strongly criticizing the Plan as being inconsistent with the stated objectives and policies of the Metropolitan Council for the seven county metro area, particularly for its inconsistencies with the Metropolitan Council's regional forecasts, land use types and mixes. The Metropolitan Council is requiring the City of Rosemount to adjust its residential land use types to accommodate its fair share of growth in the metro area to avoid sprawl and its infrastructure inefficiencies. The Metropolitan Council's correspondence also criticized Rosemount with respect to affordable housing issues. The Council encouraged Rosemount to modify its Plan to properly address affordable housing - requirements of the Land Planning Act and to meet the affordable and life -cycle housing obligations which Rosemount negotiated with the Metropolitan Council in 1997. As you may recall, throughout the process of developing Rosemount's 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan, the property was designated for urban residential uses. Indeed, the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan approved for public hearing publication by both the Rosemount Planning Commission and Rosemount City Council designated the property for urban residential use. On December 22, 1998 you unanimously approved a concept plan for an affordable housing project by the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority on the above- referenced property. As a result of the Rosemount City Council's adoption of a moratorium and its decision to designate the above - referenced property for public /institutional purposes in the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan finally submitted to the Metropolitan Council, the Dakota County Housing and Redevelop -ment Authority chose to spend its available funding on a housing development project in Lakeville, Minnesota. Though the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority affordable housing project on the above - referenced property is "dead ", the redesignation of the property for urban residential uses fosters and improves Rosemount's ability to meet the residential housing goals required by the'Metropolitan Council. The property -is presently in the MUSA and its owners desire to develop the site for residential purposes. As expressed in my letter dated tr GtC li i` , i V39, "Ciie iAr.Lball residential" designaLion iUI iic p_OpertY Is the most appropriate in light of the surrounding land uses, which are predominantly residential. While you are considering amendments to the 2020 Comprehensive Guide Plan to comply with the Metropolitan Council's land use and housing objectives, I urge the Rosemount Planning Commission to r ea ffirm the decisions it made in November and December of 1998 to designate the above- referenced property for residential purposes.. Than:. you for your time and consideration of this matter. Very trul-y--yours, FOR THE F Reid JJ. Ha(nse'n RJ:: czo ' Enclosure cc: Rosemount City Council Members: Mayor B sho, Cisewski, Edwards, Klassen and Caspar clier.�:136.01 +:m 3^ 30 xr