Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.b. Kelly Trust f ' CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SLJ�vIMARY FOR DISCUSSION II COMNIITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1997 � AGENDA ITEM: KELLEY TRUST AGENDA NO. 2.B. �' PREPARED BY: RICHARD PEARSON, ASSISTANT PLANNER ATTACHMENTS: IVIAP, CORRESPONDENCE, NBNUTES, ZONING ORDINANCES, COMP GUIDE PLAN EXCERPTS Planning staff has been working on various zoning strategies regarding the Kelley Trust property as a result of the direction provided by the City Council after the June work session. Tim Dwyer representing the Trust attended August 27, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. Dwyer expressed his concerns regarding some of the pending city initiatives, but he also expressed a willingness to work with the city. The Planning Commission directed sta.ff to continue discussion with Mr. Dwyer in an attempt to arrive at an implementation plan that addresses the concerns of the Kelley Trust as well as accomplishing the policies of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Staff proceeded to explore zoning strategies and was reminded of the Assessment Agreement between the City and the Trust for the street and sewer project, City Project 194 which guaranteed 275 dwelling units within the service area. Subsequently, the Trust hired Gerald Duffy, an attorney who specializes in land use and development issues. Several meetings have occurred between Mr. Duffy and the City with positive results. The Trust has decided to pursue the development of the property itself rather than to sell it to one or more developers. Staff will be working with consultants hired by the Trust with the objective of arriving at a mutually beneficial development strategy. The speculative development timetable would have planning issues resolved in 1997 with initial construction occurring in 1998. RECONIlVIENDED ACTION NOTES: CITY OF RUSEMOUNT M�p 5 �Ft""`'- � 1? '`` 0. a Q j�;. y�� o l -:.. ' - '�4-ioa soaw� .�t, ' � d " � �� � � � ' ;� � '� a'' � '` 1 � ;:_i�N �` �: Ct- � - , �, � 1�. �-/'..� if�..r-- . . f , � Q'' � �4u mu.sms y. .. � �� i �. - /; � :� p ca d .;� F?-- E_, � , ..,� � � �` ; � F� ` , , , r ' : t - ` - �-� � . ., . . - a _ _. ' � - :.,. --- �. � I ...::.. ,. ;: �� : a . . ... -�llt p��_jc q Qi� a p. ca a � a. �<��; "X ' , . � • : }� V . o G . . � �� � . 13 ' 0 '� �l�q . 4c �` f.. � i � ,s f �-� ��,_ �. . . _ �p Y�s:, ,`. . - � �� �` _ ���'� f. � • � �;. � �. * � "?, 1 r,' 1 ' a � ,,.'�� x-' �5� ' ` .•� �.� �,� _._�Fi� . �i' - . ��.. � ..1 �v'. /.���+.�. �yv;a+ �t ��. _.. �•{ r�0°r�p��'�3 _ �_... � .... .� � y�. - .. - � ....:. � �_ I �: ` � � "'n+. J _ .�`...� � . . ,., i ��� _ i E . Q,. �T. ._ :.., � .. .ro . . .� �:� ,•+I fj . ,� i ; � . � , ,_ / i � �. :._', � �\, J f�� � �. 49 .... ' � .., v, f I� {�,� . � I ; . • , � .., ' l _ ' _ _ '_ __'_ '_ Y , 4`• � t � . ,:�,- - ' �. f LOCATION MAP r_. . ._. ,_• .. . .. ..- .. . __��—�"-=- +'--�.'"� ��* .- ;-� rr ' � 1-�. _.,,- �.. . . .. . . , .. � ,,. rh . � ��-�•; � r -y�/s Y a;� d°c�3- � • - Phasa t1 ��� „ .. �� ... ,;� , a __ ,�a . � y . � � �- _: .. ...,. . }� ..a - , � , � � . ,..: .. . , " . _ . yi . . . ._ ..�. . Phese l, ; .. , . p . ..� , � .. �.• 4�. r �� f ,��0 ry ..�V � NZ aY,y� (� j. t� `i /�` '.}' �.� . �F � � � ��r�i"i �� T'� � � �� o � �` � i. .i pa�uf.t�' i �4 � -� . � . y�II ... - � L`�t �!m�" � � �4 �t -cics a + r 61\`�1��`� � _ ` � � n,'� w , . y h � � r r { r � � , d��. _ �f '� Q�..�,'•. (� & ��� ^t h z r�s � ` - �t,�L B� .'��ti i•,4 . � . . . ., y� , .�.( .�� �' ' o . � F` .�1., �a . , � i � �f �E� � � � b�� ,� �t R ��..p G�'�`�t? !Tr ;� .` , �?'.Ch ��, '' - — � � Cy � C 0 a ,, � l� oa!�y � � II x��u �4 b' fl�� �'. '�i � : - r� ���� _�� -- _ .`•.r"�n D��P, �3 .: . /' ;�.,--- � .�, c� �, � ` 8 +�, � � �. - - _ _ ,:�� ��^.A` ;� Q ,�n � ! ;4 r'• f' Q-0 ; o � , - _ ' . ,. . t r }.. E . � � i-:D c.,� s r,�'r ��;4 fi-- Ki f�'/�/_�u , it, . . ` `t r A� \ . + ' I i . 1�qf 1!o a . ..... . � ,c , � � �:OpO,4Q , Y '� / .� � . � �.. - y--_ .�...—_j�`_-_..�___'�t —__'_` 3—a ar� .....�...o._..�.�.�..�..� __ ` 1' — / LEGEND , RE�SIDENTIAL PLA►NNED � Woodland Areas � Wetlands with 50•faot Buffer Zone DE♦ri1.rOP1Yl�.1,1 � Slopes aver 20%Grade witfi more - � JaIIIlaty, 1993 than 20'change in elevation Tra�Connection �� Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. � 7300 Metro Bivd.•Suite 525 Comprehensive G�ide Plan � Buffer Yard �Road Connectian : � Minneapolis,MN 55439•(b12)835-9960 UpdatC 200� Land UselEnvironmrnul r Planning/Design �MUSA Phasing Boundary CITY OF ROSEMOU NT z8�5-`�TMihA��W�t P.O.Box 510 Ever thin s Comin U Rosemount!! Rosemount,Mrv y 9� 9 P 55068•0510 Phone:612-423•4411 Fax:612-423-5203 January 7, 1997 Mr. Tim Dwyer 408 St. Peter Street Suite 425, Hamm Building St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Kelley Trust Property Dear NIr. Dwyer: Thank you for contacting me last week regarding the status of the Kelley Trust property in Rosemount. Although you indicated to me that you or Gerald Duffy would be getting back to me within one week, I thought that I would give you an update from my perspective. Staff is getting questioned by members of the city council as to the status of the zoning process with expectations of action very soon. Therefore, planning staff is putting this issue on the front of its action list in order to bring it,back to the decision makers. Cunently, stafF is expecting to have zoning of the Kelley Trust property(per the PD-R conditions in the Comprehensive Guide Plan) at a city council work session on Monday evening, February 4, 1997. I anticipate that staff will present three options for action: (1) rezone the property to three varied districts in order to achieve lower-higher housing density transitions; (2) utilize an overlay district with an underlying zoning district that will encourage/allow clustering; or(3)utilize an overlay district with specified locations of clustering that will ultimately preserve certain slopes, woodlands and wetlands. The planning commission and parkskecreatian committee will also be invited to attend that meeting. Ultimately, staff is looking for direction from the city council before we proceed further on drafting a zoning ordinance amendment and/or initiating a rezoning application. As stated previousiy, we would greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with you to formulate controls that are supported by staff and the property owner. Since time is of the essence, sta.ff is willing to set some time aside to work with you prior to February 4th. I Sincerely, ', �� � Dan Rogness, C muni Development Director cc: Tom Burt, Bud Osmundson, Rick Pearson, Gerald Duffy . � . � . � . .� ��,mndnnMv�,ed,,,a. �. �,ma,mm�a�:. .�.�-rmrvu�wr mann�k. � C l TY O F RO S E M O U N T 2875 Ci 45th Sreet West P.O.Bax 510 Ever thin s Comin U ROSE'mOUtlt!! Rosemount,MN y g� 9 P 55068-0510 Phanes 612•423-4411 fax:612•4Z3-5203 December 16, I996 . Mr. Tim Dwyer 408 St. Peter Street Suite 425, Hamm Building St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Kelley Trust Property Dear Mr. Dwyer: On my"year-end" list is the Kelley Trust property in Rosemount. On October 30, 1996, staff met with Mr. Gerald Duffy to discuss the development/zoning process for the 520-acre parcel owned by the Trust. We had a very good conversation based upon an outline that I developed (enclosed) for purposes of resolving the zoning versus comprehensive guide plan issue. Staff would greatly appreciate receiving an update from you or Mr. Duffy prior to the end of this year, so that we can begin to develop a timetable for 1997. I would recommend that we a11 try to get some (zoning) proposal before the Rosemount Planning Commission during the first quarter of next year. By doing so, we can start to implement zoning regulations for the property in anticipation of some development activity starting in 1997. In a related matter, city stafF is starting to formulate a MLJSA expansion proposal that will likely be presented to the Met Council in early-'97. Our strategy is to propose a new MUSA boundary for 1997-2005 and a second boundary through 2010. So far in our analysis, all of the Kelley Trust property would be included in the first MLTSA expansion boundary. Thank you for your cooperation ... happy holidays, too! Sincerely, _ ----._._,,,_ � Dan Rogness 1 Community Developm�i\ire tor cc: Gerald Duf�y, Attorney at Law Thomas Burt, City Administrator Bud Osmundson, Public Works Director , Rick Pearson, City Planner ' � ,,��.,,,.fK,.�w�. ��MIJ�hin(J� anf��vIwIMY mJfn�d�f. i OUTLINE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ISSUES " KELLEY PROPERTY, CITY OF ROSEMOUNT A. Assum�tions 1. The Kelley Trust property consists of approximately 520 acres. 2. Approximately 320 ac�es (or 60%) of the Kelley property is zoned for single family residential (R-1). 3. Approximately 230 acres (or 45%) is outside of the MUSA boundary. 4. Approximately 110 acres (or 20°/a) has been assessed for municipal street and utility improvements. This area was guaranteed a minimum of 275 housing units determined at a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. 5. Approximately one-half of the park dedication requirements have been met for the 520 acres (city park east of elementary school). 6. The city's Comprehensive Guide Plan, as amended in 1993, guides this area as a separate land use designation, "Planned Residential Development" (PD-R). The plan identifies the 520 acres as a critical transition area between rural and urban residential neighborhoods. lt is intended to have an urban/rural character with relatively low overall density to protect wetlands, hardwoods and variable topography. B. City Objectives: 1. Cap the gross density at 2.0 dwelling units per acre (or 1,040 housing units). 2. Encourage clustered housing in order to preserve natural features. 3. Allow design flexibility (variances) through the PUD review process. 4. Allow transfer of density within the 520 acres, acknowledging that numerous developers may be involved. 5. Utilize existing zoning districts with new overlay development controls. 6. Develop a public park around the Birger Pond area with trail connections. C. ProposalOutline: The City of Rosemount currently uses "overiay districts" for shoreland, wetland and Mississippi River Corridor districts. This proposed overlay district would create some restrictions and allow flexibility that is not allowed in a standa�d zoning district. It is anticipated that the underlying zoning districts would include Single Family Detached Residential (R-1). 1. All subdivisions would be required to go through the existing PUD review process as identified in Section 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. PD-R Overlay Proposal Kelley Property Page 2 2. Development standards would identify the development objectives as identified in the Comp. Plan (i.e., preservation of trees, slopes and wetlands). . 3. The gross residential density would be capped at 2.0 dwelling units per acre with the ability to increase net densities in any subdivision (clustered areas) by transferring density from one area to another. 4. The underlying zoning would dietate minimum lot sizes and setbacks with the ability to vary in exchange for preservation of natural features. For examp{e, the R-1 zone would allow 10,000 sq.ft. lots (80'x120') with additional development standards that encourage clustering. � Regular Planning Commission Proceedings August 27,1996 Page 2 �' A discussion occurred regarding the location of the east/west collector street connection to 145th Street, the overall street design and connections, and private versus public streets. The Commission requested Staffto clarify condition#8 before forwaxding to the City Council. MOTION by Shoe-Comgan to forward the attached findings to the City Council recommending approval of the CMC Heartland Partners Site B Concept subject to the attached recommended conditions of approval. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, Shoe-Corrigan, McDermott and DeBettignies. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5-0. : Old Business: Planned Develo�ment/Residential- Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Assistant Planner Pearson stated that pursuant to a joint worksession, Staffwas directed to draft a new residential zoning district in order to protect sensitive areas in the City that include wetlands, trees and unique land forms. It was decided that this could be accomplished by transferring density away from the sensitive areas and into cluster areas within the same contiguous district. Mr. Pearson briefly reviewed the proposed ordinance and showed the Commissioners a picture of a clustered development compared to a conventional development. He stated that the ordinance needed some fine tuning and the City Attorney has yet to review this ordinance. Mr. Pearson stated that Staff is requesting that the Commission direct Staffto schedule a public heaxing for this matter. He also mentioned that Tim Dwyer, attorney for the Kelley Trust Property, was invited to attend this meeting but was not present at that time. A discussion occuned regarding the process of this proposed ordinance as it relates to the Kelley Trust Property. It was concurred by the Commissioners that t}us item be scheduled for a public hearing. n EAS� i'� �E�� Chairman Droste explained the public heaxing process for tonight's meeting to the audience� �� �� Public Hearing: Chi�Fendale/42 Partnershi� - Final Planned Unit Develo ment P� Chairman Droste opened the public hearing to hear public testimony regarding the Final Planned Unit Development application of the Chippendale/42 Partnership. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication and Af�idavit of Mailing and Posting of Public Hearing Notice on file with I the City. ' Assistant Planner Pearson stated that the Concept Planned Unit Development was approved by the City Council in December 1995. At that time conditions were laid out which the Final Planned Unit Development must comply with. Mr. Pearson briefly reviewed these conditions and also summarized the 6 pages of recommended conditions Staff has compiled for Final Planned Unit Development Regular Planning Commission Prnceedings ' Au�u�t 27,1996 ', . Page 11 ', MOTION by Droste to continue the public hearing regarding the John and Joyce Remkus variance i application until September 10, 1996, at 8:00 p.m. Seconded by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste, Shoe- ', Corrigan, McDermott, DeBettignies and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion passes 5-0. I Chairman Droste closed the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. �!, Qld Business: Planned Development/Residenhal - Zoning Ordinance Te�t I, Amendment fcon't� �I Senior Planner Mack stated that Tim Dwyer, attorney for the Kelley Trust, was present. �'�, Mr. Dwyer claimed that he only just became aware of this item and that he needs time to discuss his 'I concerns with City Staff. He mentioned a few of his concerns. '', After a short discussion, it was decided that Staff would meet with Mr. Dwyer regarding his concerns �'�� and then bring this item back to the Planning Commission for discussion before scheduling a public '�, hearing. If a problem occurs between Staff and Mr. Dwyer, then this matter would be scheduled for a !, joint worksession with Planning Commission and City Council. It was also reaffirmed that Mr. '�, Dwyer would be kept informed on the progress of this item. ��, MOTION by DeBettignies to adjourn. Seconded by Droste. There being no further business to � � come before this Commission and upon unanimous decision, this meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, � � • ��vVVI � � ���V� � Kelli A. Grund Recording Secretary CITY OF ROSEMOU NT z8�5`�5�hs�W� ', — ` P.O.8ox 510 ' I Everything's Coming CIp Rosemount!! R 55068-05 ON ! � Phone:612-423-4411 II Fax:612-•123-5203 � I Planned Development-Residential (Kelley Trust Property) I� StT�vIlV1ARY OF 70INT WORKSESSION-NNE 25, 1996 ` I'� Mayor Cathy Busho called the joint worksession to order at 5:35 p.m. with City Council Member Dennis Wippermann, City Council Member John Edwards, City Council Member Kevin Carroll, I Planning Chairperson Bill Droste, Planning Commissioner Mark DeBettignies,Planning Commissioner Jay Tentinger and Planning Commissioner Kim Shoe-Corrigan present. Also present I were City Administrator Tom Burt, Senior Planner Andrew Mack, Assistant Planner Rick Pearson, I Director of Public Works Bud Osmundson, Director of Parks and Recreation Tim Topitzhofer and Intern Dean Lotter. � Assista.nt Planner Pearson stated that the Kelley Trust properry is approximately 520 acres, all of which will eventually be located in the M[JSA He stated that this piece of Iand is a transitional area betwesn urban residential and rural residential and contains many unique topographical feaxures. Mr. Pearson then reviewed a base map of this a.rea and the location of the topographical features. He mentioned that Sta�ff has divided the Kelley Trust property into 3 separate development areas and he discussed net acreage and density for each azea. Staff has concluded that the developer is entitled to 1,020 dwelling units pursuant to the Comprehensive Cruide Plan. Mr. Pearson also reviewed possible street connections to each of the 3 separate areas. Mr. Pearson mentioned that the Planning Commission discussed this matter at a worksession on May 14, 1996, and that Staff was looking for further direction from the Planning Commission and City Council in regards to possibly transferring density from one area of the Kelley Trust property to another area of the Kelley Trust property in order to preserve some of the land for open space. Director of Public Works Osmundson stated that he had a telephone discussion with Tim Dwyer, a representative of the Kelley Trust, and that NIr. Dwyer stated that he is currently negotiating with 3 potentiai developers/buyers of the property. Mr. Osmundson mentioned that the area along Shannon Parkway has been assessed to the Kelley Trust property and therefore, the Kelley Trust is guazanteed to develop approximately 200 dwelling units. A short discussion on MUSA issues and timing concerns occurred. Assistant Planner Pearson displayed an otder map which showed the Kelley Trust property all developed as R-1 Single-Family Residential (approximately 1,050 dwelling units). The majority of the trees, ponds, slopes, etc. were eliminated with this proposal. A discussion took place regarding the following: (1) open space; (2) protected park area and trail system; (3) the possibility of transferring density from the area along Shannon Parkway to the Daly —' Farm area; (4)tree preservation; and (5) park dedication. � ».».,,��.x.,.�. ��� ,a.�,M..�..�..� , � Joint Worksession ,June 25, 1996 Pa e 2 g i Council Member Wippermann stated that he has 2 objectives: (1) to preserve the natural resources and topography of this property; and (2) remain sensitive to the rural residential neighbors (need transitional area). He seeks to keep the density on all 3 areas as low as possible. Mr. Wippermann felt that 1,020 dwelling units on this site is excessive and the character of the land will be destroyed if this many units are atlowed. He felt the City needed to challenge this number and develop another scenario to lower the dwelling units ailowed. -- Council Member Edwards felt that the same issues were being discussed now in regards to this property as were being discussed 6 years ago when the Comprehensive Guide Plan was being redrafted. Mr. Edwards commented that the consensus was for lower density and downzoning. He requested that Sta�ff design language consistern with this consensus and bring that back for discussion. Mr. Edwards stated thax he needed to see something more tangi�le and believed that the City needed to act on this issue expeditiously to mitigaxe some of the timing issues. Planning Commissioner Shoe-Corrigan stated that she was concerned with the future of the wildlife in this area if it were all to be developed. She mentioned that possibly the Kelley Trust would be open to conservation easements. She stated that this was the last open space area left in the westem end of the City and would like to see it stay open space(which does not include pazks, ball fields, etc. but left as undeveloped land). Ms. Shoe-Conigan also requested that the community ha.ve some input in this issue. Planning Chairman Droste felt that the majority of the community would support open space in this .__ area and commented that if this land were all developed as R 1 Single-Family Residemial the natural features would be lost. It was concluded that Staffwould: (1) schedule a bus tour in the neaz future to allow the City Council and Planning Commission to view clustering developments, multi-family developments; etc.; (2) create draft language (with guidance from the City Attomey)for the City Council and Planning Commission to review in the near future; and (3) obtain acreage and total dwelling units of various developments in the City. The worksession was closed at 6:50 p.m. � 6.3 6.4 6.3: RR RUR�L ItESIDENI7AL DISTRIC"T: � A Purpose and Intent: It is the purpose ofthis District to provide for a large lot nirai residential lifestyle which is sepazate from and not in conflict with commercial agricultural activities. Within these districts, public sewer and water systems are not available and on-site systems shall meet the City's minimum requirements. B. Uses Permitted by Right: 1. Sin.¢�ie-family deta.ched dwellings and accessory structures. 2. Commercial horse stables on not less than twenty(20)acres provided all structures shall be located a minimum of seventy-five feet(75') from all residential properry lines. 3. Roomers: The leasing of rooms to not more than two roomers provided no signs are displayed, the rooms aze not equipped with kitchen fa.cilities of any kind and one on-site parking space is provided for each roomer in addition to the minimum number required for the residence. 4.Private noncommercial recreation customarily associated with a � residence and including such uses as tennis courts, sv�►imrning pools and cabanas provided they are located no nearer the front lot line that the principal structure and are not less than ten feet(10') from a properry line. Swimtning pools shall comply with Section 5-3-1 of the Rosemount City Code. 5. Home occupations subject to requirements estabiished in Section 4.16 of this Ordinance. Ord. B, 9-19-89 _ 6.4: RL LOW DENSTTY SINGLE-FANIILY RESIDENTTAL DISTRICT: A Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this District is to allow low density residential development within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area while minimizing negative environmental impacts on areas with greatest physical amenities (rolling topography, forest,water bodies). The twenty thousand (20,000) square foot minimum lot size will accommodate larger homes than the R-1 (10,000 square foot lot size)District, will mandate increased structure separation and will allow for more selective siting of homes. City of Rosemount 6.4 6.5 B. Uses Permitted by Right: . 1. Single-family detached dwellings, private gara,ges and accessory structures. 2. Day care cerners licensed by the State ofMuuiesota for twelve(12) or fewer persons. Unlicensed centers shall comply with the requirements of customary home occupations. 3. Residential facilities licensed by the State of Nfinnesota serving six(6) or fewer persons. 4. Home occupations subject to requirements established in Section 4.16 of this Ordinance. 5. Day caze centers, nurseries and Montessori Schools licensed by the State of Minnesota provided they are located within an elementary,junior high or senior high school or a religious institution. 6. Private noncommerciat recreation subject to the restrictions established in 6.3.B.4. 7.Roomers subject to the restrictions established in Section 6.3.B.3. . C. Uses Permitted by Planned Unit Development (PUD): 1. Single-family detached ciuster housing. (Ord. B, 9-19-89) 6.5: R 1 SINGLE-FA.�1�.Y DETACHED RESIDENCE DLSTRICT: ', A Purpose and Intent: This is a low density residential district that is intended I to accommodate newer single-family detached housing development within the Metropolitan LTrban Service Area. Dwelling units within this District are intended to be connected to the public sewer and water systems. B. Uses Permitted by Right: City of Rosemount � 3 b.5 6.6 1. Singie-family deiached dweliings, private garages and accessory structures. 2.Day care centers licensed by the State of Mmnesota for twelve(I2J or fewer persons. Unlicensed centers shall comply with the requiremerns for customary home occupations. 3.Residernial fac7ities licensed by the State of Mlnnesota.serving six(b} or fewer persons. 4.Home occupations subject to requirements established in Section 4.I6 of ttris Ordinance. 5. Day care centers, nurseries and Montessari Schools licensed by the State of 1Vfinnesota provided they are located within an elementary,junior lugh or senior high school or a religious institution. 6.Private noncommercial recreation subje�t to the restrictions established in Section 6.3.B.4. 7.Roomers subject to the restrictions established in Section 6.3.B.3. C. Uses Permitted by Planned Unit Development(PUD): 1. Single-fam�y detached cluster housing. (Ord. B-22, 12-12-92) 6.6: R lA SINGLE-FANIII�Y DETACHED RESIDENCE DISTRICT: A. Purpose and Intent: This is a low density residential district irnended to preserve the character of existing single-famiiy neighborhoods platted on or before 1979 within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.Dwelling ; units within this District are intended to be connected to the public sewer and water systems. B. Uses Permitted by Right: 1. Single-family detached dwellings, private?arages, and accessory structures. - City o,f Rosemaunt ' � � 6.6 6.7 ` 2. Day care centers licensed by the State of Nfinnesota for twelve(12) or fewer persons. Unlicensed centers shall comply with the requirements for . customary home occupations. 3. Residential facilities licensed by the State of ll�finnesota serving six(6) or fewer persons. 4.Home occupations subject to requiremems established in Section 4.16 of this Ordinance. 5.Day care centers, nursery and Montessori Schools licensed by the State of 11�I'innesota provided they are Iocated within an elementary,junior high, or senior high school or a religious institution. 6. Private noncommercial recreation subject to the restrictions established in Section 6.3.B.4. 7.Roomers subject to the restrictions estabiished in Section 6.3.B3. C. Uses Permitted by Planned Unit Development(PUD): 1. Single-family detached ciuster housing. (Ord. B-22, 12-12-92) ' ----� 6.7: R 2 S1NGLE-FANIILY ATTACHED RESIDENCE DISTRICT. A. Purpose and Intent: This is a low to medium density residential district � which is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and is primarily, but not exclusively, intended to accommodate atta.ched single- family dwellings. Dwelling units within this District are intended to be connected to the public sewer and water systems. B. Uses Permitted by Right: 1. All uses permitted by right in the R 1 District: refer to Section 6.SB. 2. Attached single-family dwellings at densities not greater than three(3) units per gross acre. 3. Attached single-family dwellings up to a density of six(6)units per gross acre provided as follows: : �I City of Rosemounl � ' 6.7 6.7 a. The parcel is near or at the edge of the neighbarhood(the edge being defined as a major thoroughfare or a change in land use). b. Sewer capacity is sufficient to accommodate higher density development in the area. C. Uses Pernritted by Planned Unit Developmeat(PUD): 1. Single-fam�y detached cluster housing. 2.Manufa.ctured home parks subject to the following minimum requirements: a.Permitted Uses: (1)Manufactured homes and accessory structures. (2) Community building, mana.gement office, priyate recreation facilities. (3) Condominium siyle manufactured home parks. (4) Public and institutional uses required by the resident population. (5)Home occupations subject to requirements established in Section 4.16 of this Ordinance. b. Required Conditions: (1)Manufactured homes not meeting requirements in 4.15 are perniitted only in planned manufactured home parks. The PUD procedure is required for all pazk proposals. (2)Manufactured home parks must be serviced by pubtic sewer and water systems. (3) Manufactured homes must have a full basement or must be affixed to a permanent frost free foundation with a completely enclosed crawl space. I Ci o Rosemount h' .f � pZ,ANNE� DEVELOPMENT �L.REAS ' Areas designared Planned Development (PD) warrant exn'aordinary environmental considerarioR. They are characrerized either by unique narural features such as woodlarrds, wcuer, and topographic relief which warranrs sensitive mearment or they o„�`'er opportuniries jor carefully corurolled rruxed use developmenr at prominenr locarions in the Ciry. They will require careful evaluarion mrd review by the Ciry. The PD designarion is inrended to be mandarory within areas so designated. PD R PZ.��.��NED RESIDENTTAL ��g �� residenual development. Those azeas located near podd Boulevard should accommodate The Planned Residential District has been created to clustering or be sufficiendy low in densiry to protect guide developmern in a critical transition area the maximum amount of existina woodland. between rural residential and urban residential �e PD designation is inteaded to foster planned neiahborhoods of the City. This area is located development as a sinale unit with build out phased north of the cunent urban residential development � mazket conditions. Clusterina is intended to be boundary alona Shannon Parkway between the employed as appropriate to maximize the �;�+�u �j J, ���g t�.ry an� Dodd Boulevard. 'i'his relationship between development and the naturai approximately 524-acre tract of property is cunently environment. owned by the Kelley Trust. When developed, this area is intended to have an �S��C�PRD�C7'1O� urban/rural character with a mixture of housina Q�j,E�,�IVES types, but with a relatively low overall density - - needed to protect its unique stands of upland u�s the City's obje�tive to protect natural resources hardwoods and variable topoa aphy. It is an azea by. that is intended to have urban landscaped streets i, ad tin; developmern to natural landforms rather with curb and autter, sidewalks, and all public - aP utilities. than SigIIificantly alLeriIIa them; 2, protecring and�or replacina natural resources and Part of this azea already has public sanitary sewer incorporate these resources into the overall and water services available. It is in sin�le developmeut plan; and ownership which will readily allow it to be planned 3. protectin; of the rural lifestyle of adjacent rural as a unit. Areas of special natural resource concern residential areas. are the hilly areas along the nor[hern edge of the property, the dense woodlands with cleared openinas lyin; westerly of Dodd Boulevazd and P�j,jCIES numerous wedand azeas. Densities in these areas aze intended to be low enough to allow for the creation In addition to applicable residential policies, the of open space which correlates with natural feawre followina policies for natural resource protection preservation. PD-R plans must demonstrate their with Planned Residential Developments (PD-R) are sensitivity to existing natural land forms, wetlands, intended to: and vegetation protection. 1. have major collector and arterial sueets constructed, as much as possible, through The Planned Residential PD-R is intended to clearin;s rather than throuah stands of siDnificant accommodate single-family housing both attached ��� I and detached. 'fo the extent that higher densities and 2 have streets desianed to follow the natural clustering are wananted to preserve natural features contour; or attain the overall gross densiry, hiDh amenity 3 ��bl�sh a trail connection from Biraer Pond to townhouses may be considered. Generally, density Schwan Pond/Carrolls Woods via Shannon alona the northem edDe of the PD should be lower Elementary School; than the average PD-R densiry so as to respect C(TY OF ROSEMOUNT SECTION V(A)- 12 OCTOBER 1993 require landscaped buffer y. or building 5. require iree ; acement with similaz species to setbacks a minimum of one hundred feet (100') re�reate approximauly the oriainal vegetative in width adjacent to rural residential areas. As �- . adjacent densities increase beyond those of R-1, � :_ ' buffer yards should be increased in size proportionately; and RESIDE1v'1�7� PD-R P�oRn�vcE Cxrr�� Ia the interest of protecting natural resources and the rural lifesryle, the followina pezformance criteria will apply to all areas designated PD-R: 1. ninery percent (90�) of slopes steeper than twenty percent (20� {a vertical elevation difference of twenty (20) or more feet})to be protected; 2. one hundred percent (100%) of lands having the characteristics of a wetland (hydrophytic vegetarion, hydric soils, and intermittent saturauon) to be protected and/or value replaced in accordance with the requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991; �-:� 3. eighry percent (80%) of existing s aanificant trees 4� ��=°=� (a 12-inch caliper or lar�er deciduous tree �`'`� excluding elm, willow, box elder, and aspen, or an 8-inch caliper or larDer coniferous tree) to be protected, maintained and/or replaced for the overall site (see tree replacement ordinance); 4. one hundred percent (100%) of existing veaetation to be protected and/or replaced within designated buffer yards; 5. one hundred percent (100%) of an estabiished buffer yard to be privately maintained in . permanent open space; 6. 2.5 uniu/acre permitted as an overall PD R density, excluding park land dedication, wetlands and slopes (twenty percent (20%) or greater); and 7. sixty percent (60�) of site to be maintained as soft cover (maximum forty percent [40°rb] hard surface coverage). . ' r � SECIION V(A)- 13 OC�'OBER 1�3 CtTY OF ROSEMOUNT , .. �-_ �.�.�.�..�.. .................... .-.v��v��. _ .. � _.�_. � .__--_-_.____�___.._._�.._�" __.. �--_..