No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.b. Hampton Development - PUD Findings for Denial of Concept PUDCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 19, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: Hampton Development - Findings for Denial Of Concept PUD AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Dan Rogness, Community Development Dir. AGEJJ5� 7 5 ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution APPROVED BY: The attached resolution has been assembled to summarize the findings of fact needed to support the decision of denial of the Hampton Development Corp. Concept PUD for the former Gergen Farm area. Charlie LeFevere, City Attorney contributed the bulk of the draft findings language. However, the Council is asked to add any additional comments that could support additional findings, language or clarification of the draft findings. If necessary, the revised findings would be available in resolution form at the next Council meeting - September 2, 1997. If the Council is satisfied that the draft resolution accurately addresses the findings for denial, then the resolution could be adopted immediately. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt A Resolution for Denial of a Concept for a Residential Planned Unit Development Requested by Hampton Development Corporation Based Upon Findings of Fact. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 1997- A RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL OF A CONCEPT FOR A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUESTED BY HAMPTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT WHEREAS, the Planning Department received an application for a concept planned unit development for residential development involving mixed housing types from Hampton Development Corporation on April 2, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing as required by the zoning ordinance on April 22, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend denial of the concept to the City Council after receiving testimony from adjacent property owners in attendance; and, WHEREAS, the Developer modified the concept in an effort to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and property owners; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted another public hearing for a revised concept on June 10, 1997 and adopted a motion to recommend approval of the revised concept to the City Council against the objections of the adjoining property owners; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the revised concept on June 17, 1997 and adopted a motion to deny the concept residential planned unit development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby denies the concept for a residential planned unit development requested by Hampton Development Corporation based upon findings of fact: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that its proposal is consistent with the intent of either the provisions of the zoning ordinance or the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 2. The subject property is surrounded by existing, established single family detached residential housing on all sides in the City of Rosemount. Generally, it is in the best interest of the public to maintain homogeneous housing types in a neighborhood 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. There is no need for the establishment of multiple family housing (referred to as single family attached housing in the zoning code) to provide a buffer between existing single family detached residential uses and more intense uses such as commercial uses or major roadways. Resolution 1997- 4. The proposed multi -family housing types in the development are located between single family detached residential uses and ponding areas. Thus, the multi -family housing uses do not represent a logical transition from a higher to a lower intensity of use, but rather a higher intensity of land use between two lower intensity land uses. 5. The proposal is essentially a mixed-use planned unit development which provides single family detached residential housing along with multi -family housing. Such mixed uses through the planned unit development process may be justified by, for example, more creative design, the protection of larger expanses of useable open space and unique natural features, or high design standards. In this case, the proposed design is essentially a string of multi -family structures along the edge of a single family residential detached neighborhood, or a strip of R-2 zoning surrounded by R-1 development. Although a substantial area is reserved for ponds, this area is not incorporated into the design of the planned unit development in such a way as to make it useable and thus justify the mixing of housing types. The design does not provide through creativity or overall planning design for a more desireable environment than would be possible under strict ordinance requirements for R-1 zoning. 6. The development involves the use of existing local single family residential streets for access to the multiple housing portion of the development. 7. Little or no buffering is provided between the single family and the multi -family housing types. 8. The multi -family housing does not represent a logical extension of multi -family housing but rather a strip of multi -family housing in an area which would be a logical area for extension of existing, established single family detached residential development. ADOPTED this 19th day of August, 1997 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. Cathy Busho, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against:_ Member absent: Seconded by: 08/19/97 TUE 15:24 FAX 612'376 4299 BERKLEY RISK SVC facsimile TRANSMITTAL To: Bud Osmundson; Public Works Director Fax #: 4235203 Re: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Date: 8/19/97 Pages: _2_, Including Coversheet Dear Bud, In regard to your question regarding the Monument where no legal ownership is known. I have now been able to complete some research, and come up with the following conclusion. First, my understanding is: 1. The Monument is not owned by the City; 2. There is no public record that the City was 'given', or ever took possession of the Monument from the developer, only the minutes of the Council meeting showed that the developer erected the Monument; 3. There is no "home owners association" for this area that could take possession; 4. It is on the City's right of way; 5. The adjoining property owner does not want to take ownership or the responsibility of this monument. 1 have tried to discuss this issue with Mr. Charlie LeFever from Holmes & Graven, unfortunately, he was not available by the writing of this memo. Based on the above assumptions, it is my opinion that the Monument is in the "care, custody and control" of the City, therefor is insurable under your Property Insurance. This would be applicable even though the property is owned by others. What would be necessary, would be to establish a replacement value, or the 'actual cash value', In order to obtain insurance on these monuments. it would, further, be necessary to make it fully clear to the insurance underwriters and claim personnel that the actual owners are unknown, so that they do not deny coverage, based on the fact the ownership cannot be established. I hope this gives you some guidelines, I would be happy to negotiate with the L.M.C.I.T. Underwriters, to eliminate any misunderstanding as to the validity of coverage. Please advise what further action you would like me to take. John S. Since sending the original Fax, I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue of ownership with Mr. Charlie LeFever from Holmes & Graven. He advised that it would be a rather simple task to take over ownership since no person or group of persons has stepped forward to declare ownership. Based on this, it is my recommendation that the City take over ownership, repairs them and insure the Monuments so coverage can be there from this date forward. John S. [a 001