HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.b. Town and Country Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact � �J
= CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 7, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Town& Country Homes Planned Unit AGENDA SECTION:
Development: Findings For Denial Old Business
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGENDA�f�,
1t� � �. � 8
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Findings APPROVED BY:
SUMMARY
The attached findings have been prepared with the assistance of the City Attorney. The findings concentrate on
the"stacked"dwellin units becau
g se the zonin ordinance classifies them as multi le famil and onl ermitted
�
P Y YP
in the R-3 and R-4 Multiple Family Districts. References are also made to the single garages, and slab-on-grade
construction. Because these findings should reflect the Council's decision,no discussion with the Developer
should be necessary. Furthermore, any additional comments in support of the findings that represents consensus ,
would be welcomed by Staff. '�
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt A Resolution for Denial of a Residential Planned Unit
Development Requested by Town& Country Homes Based Upon
Findings of Fact.
COUNCIL ACTION:
,� _.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1997-
A RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL OF
A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
REQUESTED BY TOWN& COUNTRY HOMES
BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT
WHEREAS,the Planning Department received an application for a planned unit development
for residential development involving mixed housing types including attached residential and
multiple family housing from Town& Country Homes on July 3, 1997 to be located within
Outlot E of McNamara Addition; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing as required by the zoning
ordinance on July 22, 1997; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the housing
proposal to the City Council after receiving testimony from adj acent property owners in
attendance; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission identified concerns regarding some of the proposed
mixed housing and recommended additional conditions of approval considered necessary to
achieve compatibility with existing single family housing; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council reviewed the proposed mixed housing development on September
2, 1997 and a motion to approve the residential planned unit development failed.
NOW,T�-IEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
denies the residential planned unit development requested by Town&Country Homes based
upon findings of fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property has been rezoned to R-2, Single Family attached residential,
consistent with the approved concept planned unit development. The applicant has
included housing types in the proposal that are permitted only in R-3 and R-4 Multiple
Family Residential districts.
2. The subject property is adjacent to existing, established single family detached residential
housing on the south and west side. Generally, it is in the best interest of the public to
maintain homogeneous housing types in a neighborhood, or provide a logical transition
from high to low density unless there are factors which justify mixing housing types,
which factors, as detailed in these findings,do not exist in the case of this proposaL
3. The proposed housing is inconsistent with the concept approval of the planned unit
development which specified R-2 development. The Town& Country Homes proposal
includes multiple family dwelling units consistent with the R-3, Multiple Family
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY&LiNDGREN,'LTD;
� A T TA R N E Y SAT LAW
1500 NORWEST FINANCWLCENTER
7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431-1194
PETER J.COYLE 7ELEPHONE(612)835-3800
bIR.DIAL(612)896-3214 FAX(612}896-3333 .
October 7, 1997
Mayor Kathy Busho
Rosemount City Council
Rosemount City Hall _
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 `
Re: McNamara Addition/Town&Country Homes Residential PUD
Dear Mayor Busho and Councilmembers:
Our firm represents the Chippendale/42 Partnership(the Partnership),the developer of the mixed use
Planned Unit Development(PUD),which is now platted as the McNamara Addition(the Addition) in
the City of Rosemount,Minnesota (the City). I am writing on behalf of the Partnership to support the
proposed Town& Couniry Homes Townhome Project(the Project),to be constructed on 0utlots E and
F of the Addition. The Project complies with the approved PUD Agreement and Subdivision Agreement
(the Agreements),respectively,between the City and the Partnership, dated March 4, 1997.
The existing Partnership PUD establishes a land use Concept Plan far future developmenf within the
Addition, subject to City Planning Commission approval of a Site Plan for such use. The Agreements '
delineate specific developrnent standards applicable to future developments within the Addition. The
Agreements represent a binding contract between the City and the Partnership. Only"[m]ajor changes":
require approval of a PUD amendment.
For the reasons discussed below,the Partnership respectfully suggests that the Town&Country Site
Plan complies with a11 applicable City development standards,including specifically the City
;Comprehensive Plan,Zoning Ordinance and the Agreements. More specifically,while we endorse
Town& Country's:desire to cooperate vvith the City regarding the requested PUD amendment allowing
"stacked"units in the Project, it is our opinion that such an amendment is neither warranted by the Site
Plan nor required by the existing PUD.
City Comprehensive Plan
The City's Update 2000 Plan(the Plan)was approved by the Gity in 1993. The Plan guides the
:McNamara Addition for development as a mixed-use PUD: Guided development rights include housing
that buffers the authorized commercial uses from existing single-family housing. Under the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act,Minn. Stat. 473.858,"o�ficial controls,"such as a'zoning ardinance or
subdivision,must comport with the City's Plan.
�I
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY&LINDGREN, LTD.
Mayor Kathy Busho
Rosemount City Council
October 7, 1997
Page 2
The City Council already has approved a Concept Plan reflecting a moderate density townhome project
for the south half of the Addition as a buffer to single-famiiy hausing. Town& Country's proposed Site
Plan complies with the spirit and literal intent of the City's Plan,as reflected in the Agreements. The '
City Council already approved R-2 zoning for the Project. In accordance with the Metro Land Planning
Act,the Partnership respectfully believes that Town& Country is, likewise,entitled to approval of it's
proposed subdivision.
Planned Unit Development Agreement
The PUD Agreement between the Gity and the Partnership governs development within the Addition.
Densities of up to six(6) single-family attached housing units per acre are approved. The PUD
Agreement establishes a number of specific design details relating`to attached single-family housing,
such as building height and setbacks,but is silent on issues such as the use of"slab on grade"
construction or stacked units,number of garage stalls or use of courtyard parking. The City's PUD
Ordinance specifically encourages more creative design in order to make more effective use of space.
In exchange for granting the Parinership that flexibility;the City received increased right-of-way and
setbacks, drainage rights, enhanced landscaping and other Site Plan controls which are not found irt the`
City's Zoning Ordinance. The Partnership was notgiven any compensation for those exactions which
exceed the Zoning Ordinance. The Projecf carries through with this pattern by proposing landscaping
that is well in excess of that required. Additional landscaping was added to address the concerns of a
single homeowner.
City staff has directed Town& Country to seek City Council approval of a PUD amendment relating to
:the inclusion of"stacked"units within the Project. Yet the PUD Agreement only requires a PUD
amendment for"major" changes, such as those listed in the Agreement. By agreeing to seek City
Council approval of the PUD amendment,neither Town&Country nor the Partnership waive their
:argument that such'an amendment is not required. It is our opinion that-absent a specific contrary
provision in the Agreements, stacked units are permitted both by the PUD for the Addition and by the
City's PUD Ordinance itself.
The PUD Agreement specifies that the Town& Country Site Plan is to be reviewed in accordance with
Section t4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 14.4 provides that"no building permit shall be issued
until a site plan has been prepared...and�.proved bv the Plannin�Commission."(emphasis added) The
Planning Commission approved Town& Country's proposed project for Qutlot E. Tt's our opinion,that
pursuant to the PUD Agreement and the City Code,Town& Country's Site'Plan, including garage
design,"slab on grade," stacked units and courtyard paxking design,has already been approved. No
further review of the Site Plan is required.
'�
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY&LINDGREN, LTD.
Mayor Kathy Busho
Rosemount City Council
October 7, 1997
Page 3 `
City Zoning Ordinance
Six units of single-family attached housing is permitted as of right pursuant to the PUD zoning for the
Addition and the Agreements. T'he Agreements (nor even the text of the R-2 District) do not specify the
number of garage stalls per housing unit(or whether garages are required at a11),the use of courtyard
parking areas or"slab on grade"construction. The Project design features are allowed and have been
>approved by the Planning Commission,pursuant to the Agreements and the City Zoning Ordinance.
Similarly,neither the Agreements nor the PUD zoning for the Addition,preclude the use of stacked units
as part of the overall Project design. Town&Country's proposed layout,including the exteriar
elevation views, represents a creative use of the available land area in accordance with the City's PUD'
Ordinance and the Agreements. While we understand the City's argument regarding the language of fhe
R-2 District vs. that of the R-3 District,the Agreements andPUD zoning allow Town& Country's
Project,subject to Planning Commission approval. Each unit in the Project will be owner-occupied and
each unit will be separately identified on the Final Plat.
Livabie Communities Act
The City has,by resolution dated December 5, 1995,committed itself to ensure the availability of"life=
cycle"housing for current and future residents of the City in accordance with the Metropolitan Livable
Communities Act.`As of the above date,the City percentage o£non-singte family detached housing was
22 percent, in comparison to the agreed-upon benchmark of 35-38 percent. Town& Country's proposed
townhome design,incorporating a limited number of"stacked"units,will make such housing more
accessible to individuals wishing to live in the City,who prefer a one-story floor-plan, or who have
physical limitations,such as seniors and disabled persons. Town&Country's Project will help the City
to fulfill its obligations u.nder the Livable Communities Act.
Housing Compatibilitv
Notwithstanding its approval of the Concept Plan for the Addition,the:Agreements and R-2 zoning for
Outlot E,we understand that the City Couneil has concerns about the compatibility of the Town&
Country Project with e�cisting"single-family housing to the south. My understanding is that with the
exception of one homeowner,the adjacent residential neighborhood supports Town&Country's plan.
Moreover, as to the single dissenter,Town&Country agreed to an expensive change to its Site Plan in
:order to accommodate the concerns of that homeowner.
T'he atfached opinion letter by Mr. Jeff Johnson,MAI,provides objective evidence supporting both the �
market potential of the Town& Country Project and its compatibility with existing single'-family
detached housing in the immediate vicinity. '
LARKIN, HOFFMAN,DALY& LINDGREN,LTD.`
Mayor Kathy Busho
Rosemount City Council
October 7, 1997
Page 4
` Conclusion
The Partnership has brought to the City a first-class developer of single-family townhomes for the
Addition. The favarable response of adjacent residents and of the Planning Commission to Town&
Country's Site Plan lends confirms this point of view. The Partnership,therefore,respectfully requests
that the City Council either approve Town& Country's requested PUD amendment,or adopt the
interpretation that the request for"stacked"units is not a"major"change within the meaning of the PUD
and is,instead,pernutted as of right.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Coyle, far
- LARKIN,'HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Michael McNamara
Allan Block
Atta.chxnent
1V�ARDELI, -
a _
� . AMU�IDSON �
:�OHNSON & .
I.EIRNESS, I�1C.: : - a
_ - Valuation & Consultation
: . ; - ;
October 6, 1997
' Mr:Peter.J. Coyle
Larkin Hoffinan Daly& Lindgreri,Ltd.
15D0 Norwest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue Soutli _ _
� Bloomington,MN 55431=1194
RE: �ZOl�TING APPLICATION BY TOWN& COUNTRY HOME�.
OUTLOT E OF MCNAMARA ADDITION IN ROSEMOUNT,NIl�T � -
Dear Mr.Coyle:
At your request;I have made an independent review of the proposed Town&Country Homes
-residential development for Outlot E in the McNamara Additiori of Rosemount.
.
I have studied land plan dra.wings da.ted:'July 21 and August 29, 1997,irispected the proposed
site,surveyed the surrounding neighborhood with special attention given to the homes along
I52na Street, 153'�Street, and Columbar,y Circle, inspected the madel units at two yery sixnilar
developments(T'he Enclaye at DiffleX:Road and Old Highway 13�in Eagan and Eagle's Ridge at
Horizon Drive`and Highway 13 in Burnsville);'inet with tlie marketing staff at each of these two ;
similar developments, and analyzed sales of single family homes:adjacent to a compara.ble ' �
project in Apple:Valley"(Hunter's Run at Dianiond Pat1i and Pilot Knob'Road). .
As a result of this plari review and market research which I have personally conducted,I have
' �formed two opinions concerning this proposed development:
1. that the nature and extent of this praposed land use will not adversely-
impact property values in'its neighborhood,and
- 2. the proposed developmenf is a viable liousing product with a proven
strong mazket demand.
There are four different unit floor plans in the proposed townhome development;they are
summarized on the next page of this letter.
'2000 Rand Tower, 527 Marquette Avenue South • Minneapolis; MN 55402-1321 • 612-339-7700 • Fax 612-339-7937
_
�
_ ' '.
- Mr:Peter J. Coyle
ct e
O obr6197
,
9
�
Page Two
Summary of Four Different Floor Plans for Proposed Townhome be�elo�ment
• a 1,48Q square foot two-story two-bedroom�two and one-half bathroom
unit similar to the Vermillion unit at the Enclave,
_ • a 1,360 square foot two-story two-bedroom one and one-half bathroam'
` uriit similar to the S� Croix unit at the Enclave,
• a.,1,340`square foot one-le�el two-bedroom two bathroom unit_simil�r to
' ` the Clearwater unit at the Enclave,a.nd . :
�, � • a 1,100 square foot one-level two-bedroom one bathroom unit similar to `
the Cottonwood unit at the Enclave.
- The market for these type of units is very strong. The Enclave is a 28-building,200-unit .
development. To date,64 units have been sold and are occupied; including pending sales, a total
of about 1 Q6 units haye been sold. The sale prices range from about$90,Q00 to$140,000. Eagle
Ridge is a 16-building, 108-unit�developmen� To date, 103 units have been sold. The sale
prices range from about$85,000 to$130,000. This sale volume dernonshates a substantial
market demand for this product type,given that the model sales offices have only been open
since March 1996.
�At these two similar developments some buiidings have basements and some do not(Enclave-12
of 28 buildings have basements and Eagle's Ridge-5 0�16 buildings have basements). T'he
mazketing staff reports that ttie decision to put basements in buildings is pure�y a function of
buyers' interests: There is sufficient market demarid for the subject-project without basements.
At these two similar developments some of the units have a single garage. I observed these two
development`s on Sunday(September 28'�):afternoon between 1:30.PM and 4:00 PNt and I did not
find many cars fo be parked outside of the garages�nor did i find there to be a shortage:of off-
,
, street parking. The planned parking and garages of.the proposed project is concluded to be
adequate and compatible with its`neighborhood. As�an additional nate,I found a number of cars
and boats parked autside of the garages along 152"d and 153`a Streets in the City>of Rosemount.
Additionally, I have made a valuation siudy of properties adjacent'to the Hunter's Run
townhome development in Apple Valley. This townhome development is sim'ilar to the
proposed subject development, althaugh the units aze smaller and less parking is provided. It is
1oca.ted at the northwest comer of Diamond Path and Pilot Knob Road.
-. _
` `,
. . ., ;
,
-Mr. Peter J. Coyle
October 6, 1997
Page Three
` There have been twa recent sales of single family homes tha#are-adjacent to this townhome
proj ect;they are identified below:
Townhome-Adjacent Sin�le Family Homes Valuation Stady"Pro ep rties: . =
1. 12798 Edinbrook Patli 2: 12750 Edinbrook Path ` .
Sale Date: January 17,1997 Sale Date: August 9,1996
Sale Price: $145,750 ' � Sale Price: $174,500
Marketing Time: 57 days Marketing Time: 25 days
Both of these homes front on Edinbrook Path and their back yards border the Hunter's�Zun
`: project. The method used to test the townhame=influence-on-value was to select comparable sale
_ _
properties which are not near_to a townhome project and use tlieir.sale prices as predictors bf the
market values of tfie above two study properties. The indicated values for each of the two study
properties were obtained from the cornparable sale properties in each control group by making
` adjustments to those sale prices for the differences that e�st between these houses. 'The results
of this comparative study are summarized below:
Townhome-Adjacent SingIe Family Home Valuation Stadv Control'Grouu:
. la: 15885 Garrett Path . - ,
Sale Date: June 20, 1997
`Sale Price: $143,900
Indicated Value for Study Property#1: ` $145,200
lb: 8029 Upper 146te Street W ' .`
Sale Date: May 23,,199'7
-` Sale Price: $149,900
Indicated Value for Study Property#1: $147,000
lc_.6019 Falcon Ridge Trail
Sale Date: February 5, 1997 _. '
Sale`Price: $145,000
- Indicated value for-Study�'roperty#1:. $144,800
Averagelndicated value for Study Property;#L• $145,667
2a: 6072Fa1con Ridge
; Sale bate:_July 26,1996 .
" < Sale Price: $.175,000 ' _
Indicated Value for Study PropertX#2: $174,200
2b. 13933 Firelight Court
. � . - Sa1e Date: July 30; 1996 : . �
� . Sale Price: $169;90Q �
� Indicated Value for Study`Property#2:� ; �173,600
2c. 13871'Dublin Road -
Sale Date: August 30, 1996
Sale Price: $179,000
' Indicated Value for Study Property#2: $175,400
Average Indicated�alue for Study Property#2: $174,400
-, ,
Mr. Peter J_ Coyle
October 6, 1997<
Page Four
- . Siudy Property#1 sold for a price of$145;750 and the three Control Group Properties predicted
' an average price of about$145,667;no adverse value impact was experienced by this'sale
' prope�,. .
- Study Property#2 sold for a price of$174,500 and the three Control Group Properties predicted
an average price of about$174,400;no adverse value impact was experienced by this sale
ProPert3'• ,
� Neither of these recent'sales`was adversely impacted by being adjacent to this comparable
townhome development. As a further note,the Briar Kno11 addition has recently been platted
�just north of tliis same townhome project. Lot 4;Block 2,wluch is a lot that is adjacent to the . �
` towrihome parcel was recentiy developed with a two-story house that sold for$287,000. This is .
an upper priced home in this marke#.
` If you have any.questions concerning these opinions,please contact rne. A copy of my real '
estate appraisal qualifications is atfached to tlus letter.
Respectfully submitted, .
ELL DSONJOHNSON&�EIRNESS, INC. -
._..�-- -
Je on,MAI
MAJLinc file no. 970327
- - �,. �- �� :� �o�Q �:,s , .�I �
� � �= � _ - . x _ �� 4 : -
�
_ � � � 9�'O : . .
s
� . � . ��� .e�� IISt T1 ..
� �, � 5`�'�` p�: �
:. -:•autw� "a urn � ,,,- •� ;••-�, q;� 5
��' � ,�-�1�.1,�''
w..- + � , z�� 145.00
1J -`� _ J •'�, �a` ��
-- � - ••r � � � ro �► �.,, �' "`' ' �s�: it
_ � �e �- .��,�'�•�+ ` :�� �a8 ( us.ao
.'I �• v ' — : � ',
� �e ,` �' .�"� y'4�* . "",„ =� �_' 'a+
.-0.. � u �fis�� `°a�e_[ o b� s 7aoo I 1
, 'O • . ' , . .. � ,J ��� L+a�°A .� �l,�i __ ' _ ��8.�tl .
� .��.. . .. `J � �� �� �, . .
i�1 �,. .1R� b - I s 9 !�
. . �$ . 1 �,v� � �. P '.ic«.ss'_' .�2 .
� � � J•' � .. i �`R .:/� e',� (�LT .�i I �Q� .
. L _ �a . . . V' � . y� � i D�� . ��a.�P �•��'~[ � � yb�J� ( ��y �.0 �..
:
� `9 % '�� .. ' i � i . ��� s'^ �i�.;�,�s � • . �,�p• .
Y �� � � I �x �``I ;�' _��#�� i _�_
y � . � /'� '.. }. � � a _ . .
v - (� 1 $ i ��s /� . ^e�:: .sw � ; j x
. . -1659+�� �� , . . � . 2 .. � iy'�++�a �� N�� + �' '` �� i' � . . .
- � . � ,t�� i7 N-='iL� -• .. _�� ( 'sf �.a� ..� ; � � .
: � .�$� .._ � �•.-; �3 '.�a ' __ na. � �. y et . � �6�'� ..
. �6�.��..� .p � [ ..-�SOpfT.��-J L . �� � ( ••'t� .
118.$3 67.9 'o .� _ .�- . '� . . � ^l- .;�.]c�,. � .��.��'� . i �. .
, ,
.. � �� o � t Fr a\Q'a, . . 1
.. . N - a,� �� � � . � � � . p .r�'9.'i��i�{+�. \ �.;�� �� R r•i• � 1 •N� -.r �. .
.. . �� ^' . �� � �`• -� �. o A �'��"� �� �"�-� . s �.��. �.Hruarci * t.. �'' .� .�.
C� 3 �- � _ `� �: ;-„r- (4•_ �
� � � , z � a• r ti...,, � .� = , ' : z
� _ .. m .a�; Kr � i �
5:$ q ���'�� . outa� auar a�' , • v ��
�ote ` .,�� �s� N� `..� ��--�--,, � `;;� � = Q: ,
`��.Ia sjtt� ._'""---" � �ata : .� -' :;�,,,--�� ��y �`� . ��: ��n� � ` �
l' � 4
Ce�t O�e ).l •2 �r t ,� �. Isa'w?Sy N�t �� N,.'w .+��r' � � � � _ Z;
��a�l =� � = , � . ,;-*- ,, , �.�:�
u. � � �fi .yi-.�� =x_� _n�_., s1
� t� �°�rr l y�I �.�_ ,\ ° :,�..-�-�. „--.�� g ••
s � �O�e ��Se� 10�. i ; i,.,�-- :� •� �; ; �I b �- 3e
� o � - '
3 � �
` �+ " 4 � . .�v y� ;v`E''`� i us.
_ . E . .
� evefO� y r�� �;,.��\ • <�,a ; I� 31
. � ;
, � ,
. �� . �' .�. � � � .5 . �.. _ ..` h. �.w'yy�__ � ' .
..• ' ' . =•:3
,^^
.. . . .�I\_ � .. ... . � i�' �� �_XJ tf. � �+
� �5 ��. 6 �� _ _ - - � � � .
z - `�+ 4 . � _ A •.6 ad � ' � 5� ,
' -- -- `
� tt EO T- . -- . " -- - .` - -- �
3� 8 S . ��� �i
. ' � ' , • �
r*e as � , I' t0 �9 �
.
iS N - . u3.00
2 � �a�•- �� �'
. t�� 12 �'� ?� . . . ��,; 2
' _ z �.x o0
1_ !��� U y
3
� .�o •13 . !Io d Q ' � t�.�z
�
' , bl��TE � I� LL �IxA! � . . <
--.� ,
o ..
e
Fa � a� `e�
� iz .
�� i t �� �*��
( 10
'15 9 � ' . Q\�
I6 �
2 � �
�� a � - ' : '°Rly i `
16 ' �. )
� 53 � 5 ! 3 � 51 '
��� 19 � . � '
20 �0' �
2t 3p �t 42 �3 00 .IS �6 fT
- � , � �, � � gs` ' �y ' i
�� � � �
-�.... . . �
�4' -_
�I � ., �
Z3' '
� '- ---- -- f 9 _~"�_'-_ ��-�`:� ��'`'''
� � �• _ '..; a +"�
. . •
_ �-
, ,
� : • • , .
^ . ` . . . .. : _
: PLAT MAP OF HUNTER'S RUN
� TOWN�IOMES AND SURR4UNDING SINGLE-FAMII.Y DEVELOPMENTS
��
�� ,
Copyrighr�1997 by MARDELL AMUNDSdN JOHNSON&I,EIItNESS,INC. Ald rights reserved.
I 970327 A-1'
., . �
, .
���
. . I
.
: ,
�.=. : '- � II
� '4�
.� I
� . �� � ,��� . . �II
♦ '
�
� - � . 4� � � � . . . ,
. . .. . I � .. .. . � .. . �
. j�e�� � . . . . � . . - . I
.. . :�� . � � ... � . . .
. .. � � �� l � . � . � � li
--f
. . _ �. � . _ ��_.:- .
{
.� . :w. . . �,
� . � _ �� r i'; ;� .. � ''�..
� �.. �. � . .�_ Y . . -.. '�.
����
View of Hunter's Run building at left of photo and rear yards of adjacent single-family homes.
_. _ _ .: : �
�$�'x��` =�� ' '
� � � -
� � - �
�= -n . .� ��;j=
_ �. - _.�_. I
.. . . � . . a . .. .. . . ,.�.: -^v� . ,�- �
_ ,
.. . . . �i. �. .. � � � �I
. � . . . '� ..- _ . . . . . ' . � .. . . ,.
.. � . y . . . . � �I�
. .. . . . . - . .
:
�' I
. � �/ � . � ����I
. . �e' . . . � . . .
. � . i��. . . . . . . .
�.... '_ .�.. .
. � -��.- � � . � '.
. � � = '.:':_`�'. � . .
. � � . `'`f... . � . .� .
. . � ��.. � . . � . .
View of Hunter's Run building at left of photo (note: .single garages)"
and rear yards of adjacent single-family homes.
Copyright�1997 by MARDELL AMUNDSON JOI3NSON&LEIRNESS, INC. All rights reserved. '
97032� A-2
i
� •
� _. __. . -
- b�.=-..- , .�., ,. ; �, �
_ � - -_ �:� �- -�
F � _ x-- .. ,�. �
. . �..- .. ��
. . . � - �'�'-z� �z' -��� � _ . .
� = j ' ,�.�� "�-,:3 k S '�'' �' �� ..
. � � . . � . . � � . . . �t_' � . .. ..
� � �. ..� � ... \,y. . . . � - . . . . ..
_ �:i
� . +�. - � . . . .
- �`!
�' �x _.
I • __. _._. �.
+� - ` \.
� --�
_ �� �
`:
�
,-,-.__;'_ �
'��
View of single-family home at left of photo with Hunter's�Run building adjacent to its rear yard.
� } ,
,�,
- �,�
� '
` View of newly constructed single-family house at right of photo and Hunter's Run buildings
on left of phota
Copyright�I99�by MARDELL AMU2I�DSON JOFINSON&LEIItNESS,INC. All rights reserved.
970327 . A_3
F.. �+ �i
Resolution 1997- I
Residential district that are 'oined to one another b floor or ceilin which is s ecificall I
J Y g, P Y
excluded from the definition of attached single family dwellings applicable to the R-2
district.
4. The proposed multiple family housing including vertically stacked dwelling units and
single stall garages is a significant change in the gradient of building type that does not
represent a logical transition between the development and adjoining single family uses,
and is therefore, inconsistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Guide plan.
5. Sixty one percent of the units have single car garages which is considered to be a
significantly high proportion. This represents an inadequate number of enclosed parking
and storage spaces resulting in an unacceptable level of outside parking or storage. This
lack of available storage is exacerbated by the proposed"slab-on-grade-construction".
Such levels of outside parking are not consistent with the single family residential
character of the neighborhood and will be detrimental to surrounding properties. Existing
neighborhoods closest to the proposed housing all have two or three car garages. The
only housing in the City with single car garages is twenty or more years in age and is
located elsewhere in the City. Most such projects have some space available to add
garages. The City has previously granted variances for such garage expansions. The
planned unit development has no provision for expanding the number of garages if
inadequate. ',
6. Image sketches contained within the Architectural Guidelines (Section 8) of the I
Chippendale/42 Partnership Planned Unit Development booklet dated June 18, 1996
portray a four unit residential building with two story units arranged side-by-side,
featuring accent brick and two car garages. The Town& Country proposal is inconsistent
with reasonable expectations of the City that were presented by the Developer.
ADOPTED this 7th day of October, 1997 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
Cathy Busho, Mayar
ATTEST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
:. _ , .
__ _ ,
. QUALIFICATIONS OF JEFF`REY A. JOHNSON, MAI '
� : . . . .-
_
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA AND EDUCATION '
i . ` ;'. . - .
Bom in St.Cloud;Minnesota. Gradua.ted from University of North Dakota with a Master of Science degree in Mathemafics.
Successfully completed the following educational real estate courses and appraisal courses:
_ . . _ _ _ .
,
APPRAISAL INSTITUTE . - : , .
,
< Basic Principles;Methods and Teclutiques lA Valuation Analysis and Report Writing<
Single-Family Residential Appraisal ` ' `Going Concern Valuarion -
Capitalization Theory and Techniques 1B Litigation Valuarion
Standards of Professional Practice Income Capitalization Workshop
Case Studies in.Real Estate Valuation . Appraisal Practices.for Litigation �
_ NATIONAL REALTORS MA.RI�ETING INSTITUTE �
CCINI Course 101,Invesiment and TaYation ` �
� PROFESSTONAL QUALIFICATIONS OR ASSOEIATIONS:: . . ` � . '
APPraisal Institute-Member(MAI) '
—Appointed to Publications Review Sul�committee, 1996-1999 -
, , ,
=Appointed(1991-93)to National Textbook and Dictionary Committee,reappointed 1994-96,agpointed Vice Chair 1995 8c 1996
, - � —Selected to develop Appraisal Practices for Litigation Seminar,pilot classAugust:1993 in Dallas . .
—Region III,Regional Governing Committee, 199I-93 -
-Instructor,national valuation courses(�asic Income Capitalizatian-310 and Advanced income Capitalization-510),
-state licensing courses,and seminars(Discounted Cash�Flow Analysis,AppraisaI of Retail Properties,and t�ppraisai
Practices for Litigation) ': . . .� `. . -
-Board of Directors,Metro/Minnesota Chapter 1992-94
The Appraisal Insritute conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designatedmembers. MAI's and SRA's who
meet the minimum requirements of this progcam are award�d periodic educational certification. Mr.Johnson is currently =
certified under this education progcam: ,. ' ' � � ` - ,
Licensed Real Estate Broker in.Minnesota Minnesota Shopping Center Association—Member
— REALTOR: -
- Member of Organization of Commercial Realtors • 1Vlinnesota Multi-Housing Association—Member
. _
� • Certified General Real Property Appraiser in,the • Minnesata Association of Professional.Appraisers
State of Minnssota;License No.4001460 =Member,Board ofiDirectors,1993-1995
- International Council of Shopping�Centeis-Member
• ,International Right of Way Association .= ' =
— Approved instructor of national appraisal courses I
— Contnbuting author of valuation sections of nevK right-of-way text I
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE : , :� ' ' � .
, _ . . _ . �
Mardell Ainundson Johnson&Leirness,Inc.- Appraiser and Principal since Februaty 1993 �
, Johnson'Liedl&Bakken;Inc:(Johnson and Liedl Appraisal)_—Appraiser and Principal,April 1987 through Jauuary 1993 '
American Appraisal Associates,Inc.—Appraiser and.Manager,7uly 1982 through April 1987
Howazd E.Shenehon&Associates,Inc.-Appraiser;February 1981`tt�rough July 1982
• Patchin Appraisals,Inc.='Appraiser,June 1980 through January'1981 ` �
. Erissell:Appraisals,Inc.-Appraiser,JuIy 19Z8 through May 198Q : . " : .
' Duties and Responsibilities: Include valuation consulting and appraisal ogimons m matters relating to investment,commercial,
� industi-ial,residential,land and special-purpose real estate properties.,These services-are completed far:purposes,of assisting clients .
with mortgage financing,condemnation,tax abatement,gifting,sale=purchase and lease negotiations,special assessment appeals,and
partnership,corporate and marriage dissolutions:;Mr.Johnson specializes in litigation valuation of commercial and investment
, properties. He has lectured"at legal education seminars and'real estate courses conceming valuation,including a speech given:to the
1987 Intemational Conference of the American Society of Appraisers entitled"The Tax Reform Act of-1986 and Its Impact on _�
Marketability and Properiy Values." - ' - _
a
!
TOV'VN S� Y HOI��ES
Minnesota Division
October'7, 1997
Mayor Busho and Members of the City Council
Rosemount, MN
Re: Town& Country Homes Townhome Proposal
McNamara Addition/Phase I
Dear Mayor Busho and Members of the City CounciL
In an effort to respond to the comments and concerns expressed by yourselves and one of the
neighboring property owners, we would like to present a revised plan for Phase I of the townhomes
proposed for the McNamara Addition.
Phase I covers that property on the South side of 151st Street between Shannon and Claret. The new
site plan being presented to you this evening addresses the following points:
1, Concern- Stacked flats. In Burnsville, we are building out 24 stacked flat units out of 108
total, or 22%. For Eagan, we aze at 60 flats out of the first 142 units, or 42%. The submitted
plan for Phase I allows 50%to be flats. The new, revised plan being presented tonight limits
us to 33%by building configuration. The lower level stacked flat facilitates accessability by
physically challenged persons and senior citizens. We have letters from senior residents of
Burnsville and Eagan indicating their satisfaction with the combination of a one-car garage
and the lower level flat.
Note: In Phases 2 and 3 combined, the submitted plan allows up to 39% flats. If you approve
of the 33%threshold in Phase I, we will put the same percentage limitation on Phases 2 and
3.
2. Concern-One-car garages. The Phase I plan, as submitted, had 39% two-car garages. The
new, revised plan has 42% two-car garages. If you think it would be helpful, it would be
possible to set up the Homeowners' Association documents so that additional detached
garage spaces can be built on pre-deternuned locations at a future date. This would obviously
increase the two-car garage percentages. For Phases 2 and 3, the submitted plan also shows
42% two-car garages.
11471 Valley View Road • Eden Prairie,MN 55344 !'
i612) 94�F-3455 • Fax(612) 944-3437 MN Builder License#9137 � � � ���
r
Mayor Busho and Members of the City Council
October 7, 1997
Page Two
3. Concern - Off-street parking spaces in large groups encourage the parking of
junker/abandoned cars. On the new, revised plan, we have eliminated a significant number
of large-group-type spaces. We ha.ve not, however, e�erienced a problem with this concern.
The covenants specifically prohibit repairing non-operable or any cars outside of any
resident's garage. Furthermore, there are specific conditions in the Declaration and in the
Rules and Regulations of the Homeowners' Association that prohibit derelict or abandoned
vehicles or vehicles other than cars to be parked in the driveway or designated off-street
parking areas. All such vehicles can be towed offproperty without prior notice to the owner.
4. There is a considerable amount of storm water that is generated off site and from the
cornmercial area on the North side of 151 st Street that must be retained in a series of three
ponds on the South side of 151 st. As a result, one of those ponds on the East side of Claret
has become so large that it imposes on the proposed park area, as well as our development.
The revised site plan being presented to you tonight permits some additional ponding area to
be placed on the West side of Claret. Therefare, the park area and the developable area on
the East side of Claret can be increased in acreage because the East pond can be reduced in
size.
5. One of the neighboring property owners has expressed concern with the close proximity to
his property of one of the buildings on the plan presented before. The new plan obviously
eliminates this close building-to-building relationship.
We have attempted to modify our site plan to address your concerns. We are willing to substitute
the revised plan for that site plan previously presented to you if it meets with your approval, and to
proceed with development.
Sincerely,
/ (�. �
,- _
Allan J. Block
Executive Vice President �
Land Division
' OCT-07-97 TUE 12�20 PM ENCLAVE AT RIVER RIDGE FAX N0. 6128951211 P. 02
�aie: OGibbex'7, 199T
To: Whom it n�ay concern
Fram: Fr�ci 8L Caco��z�ovd�
2162 Water Liliy Lane
Eagan,NiN 55122-1931
Subject: Simgte Lev9e1 Toqmhc�mes
�Ve have beea xrsidents of a single-lcvcl taw�tomc budlt by Town&Cow�y Hames since
May af 1997. The selecrian of this design fatls our needs for x�tiremes�t]iving with.irs
concern for access, cxass v�tnt�ai�.aa, aad apenness of desiga.
Our search for a home which met aur physical re,quaem�nts had continued for aver t�ro
ycats. Wc havc bcc�t plcas�d with tbe cr�#io�as of�c�red,the v.�tue'sn tho construction,the
use of quality matesials, and the ov�erall coap�ration of the�ates aad co�struction
r�preseatatives of Tawn&Cou�y Homes.
�. ����
OCT-07-97 TUE 11:43 AM ENCLAVE AT RIVER RIDGE FAX N0, 6128951211 P. 02
October 2, 1997
To whom it may concem�
VUe have lived in our townhome for one year this November. We spe�two moi"�ths bokirt8 fo�
a townhome and we found what we{iked at Tawrt S�Courttty Homes-a tx»e-level townhome.
What we like about the floor pian is that it doesn't have stairs. We aisc like that there�s ar�
Assoaation to take car of the exterior maintenance,espeaalty the fawn cara and snaw r�maval.
These are the m��rt reasons that we moved from ouc house o�37 years to a tov+mhome.
And we are welE satisfied. �
Sincereiy,
�..�-- � �.��.�1��
6ob and Semice Huber
�z z�8 c,va�� �;!! ���e
C ��-q�l �1�(1�
� �
�������
�'���jl�'� ��°�'"1 0�z�
��'�� � �l,,�ro�o�
'----��'�������� a��-�r-� �
� f� �
- ;� �
� CT�i.�s�S ���� � ..�-
6' _
� ao/
.��i�" o�
�' � _.
,� "�'-�} , oli
�
�' O
, �' .� � 9� ..��
�
��' �� 7 -fy --s�� / �
. �"i � --
� , �' �- . .� -�'
� ^✓ o �Ui a� ��� � d��S �-N ��� ��ar�
" ��o��v -�y-� .�o �o�y_;� O/a✓-b' ��/�? C7
�Y--� � � ��-'�` -,�=7 v��a' i�-b t��� O -�f,'�
y1i � ��as �-�'o%r,, ��-:� s� ��a � �
�'�y �'��',y� S � 4�io� ��� � U�a�a'��l�
'� v�! �u��!��� �-.�'•�__� I�,�7�
.�`�`-d`�c�" � cz �-7./ �'�-�P J �' ��d/� ���/ �'7r .�J
"'-�-�.� 1 d ..3 5'��a--��' ��� �✓ �
� � � �=� G� -�'-,�0' �P rv�,` `�.� �` �Sn'..�'7 ql --�a' O,� ? � �,I
�
s�a������` �a�� /��� /<v�!�/ (,�� ��..��� -� �',
� .�� � -�
.�.--�o ���,o, �,s �-��� :.��'����" ��,
� � � �� � � � ��>� �'lj' '��� �
���;��- ���,��o� --� ��c��`
,
.
,