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