HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.a. CMC Heartland Partners Concept Plan �
�
� ''
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ';
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR DISCUSSION
�
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING DATE: April 15, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: CMC HEARTLAND PARTNERS CONCEPT AGENDA NO.
PLAN(226-acre site) '�� � � �
PREPARED BY: Dan Rogness, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS: Plans and Correspondence
Please review the attached information regarding sta.i�s review of the latest residential Concept Plan from CMC
Heartland Partners. This meeting is intended for CMC to present its revised plan to the City Council. You are
being asked to then provide input to CMC and City staff as to issues including overall density, lot design, mix of
housing unit types, park location, and the street/pedestrian system.
It appears that the City will receive a waiver(approval) letter from the Met Council within one week for the
NILTSA amendment application.
RECONIMENDED ACTION NOTES:
.� c► �,� — (�--��c..-�- �1 c� �'t-�-�- .
�_ t ,
. � ..., .
_ o �' __ - _ � s� . �
/ � �
�\ � OHT W'L �% �
1 , � � `l _ � - 1 ��:,�
. � � �-�:. ,�� 1 �i:
,�, ,. _ � ..I
� ' ! � �•.; � � � � , ✓ - .,'� -- � u�.�I
� � ,� � i . '�,, � �; / � \ � � - �. �\ ,r•�'`�l ` '•✓' � �52';.'
� �.i,���� �./ ,� �� i . � ' /� - .: \Y� �' u i
%�` , � � �.
Y � � � � ,�•--7-•-i-� r � � I // �. . "'- � s:
y �. � ��
L � ; / �� � � I /" / �` J 1' ` �U�
� ��,"� i,�� � „x � �\\ � � ^, •�' •- '
; � � �/ >�. � � �" � � ti � ���� � ' �� !
1 ^,i � �, ���� � �� � / ' \ �� a � \ J`� I
� `� i� ; "��� �����, , � � •//.--' l---C' �' � � •
i � ' , t I � , �//�. ' � � .�^ /_ .� `' �. ` � y+l ��
r-U-'''��, �I � �• � � y;;' � '� � � i.h �
,--!"� � ' ,` `- �s �� ` � :• , — s � �
'.i � �•�---�� "'. y,y�� , - I •. :� , ' •� f�`'
r--r--�"� �� ` �� 1r L'i ,,�'' --,-_' � ' u� • r
1 ` "��`� •�. �
` i �-y' 'r- c�K�� �� �' '��' `��� • 1 � .
� ' , �1.1 �^' _\ _� ...- ✓ �( � ' / .�•
J_�. 3 . �-� 1-- ���N_��\ _� \ � _ . ,� ���� � -•,��C_ -�� _ � ^ �i �
... �` —�''r''—I 'Y. /"9' / ,^"— . r\�LJ! �..--�_ � �'. _ I �: i ( 1� .
. � _.+�i'\� � �' --i----� - `�."''� ;< , [__ ��
•� 1 `• � I _���i��,, " • "1'
����� � `�� ' t � `�� - � � � � _ �0_
�� � ` � �';� � � f��'J/,� � � �` 'i��••��, � � _�—�
' '/-'� . .� 1 i 1 �I�� ���:� �� �T� � .1� ��� ' - -- u
�l /i i� � . �.� c / ,� �� x ..— ' t' ' . � , ��� r-
. '�,-�,/ {� i �,�"/L"' ���.�� 4� ._ -• -- -�, L„ �+ -•�� �___�_} � � N 3
'� ^ " F$ � . !}�', $� /�� �ti � ��/'q�J� � � ^\ _ � _ _ '
� -T-_i._"C--'T-� �1 �� � � \ ' :'i'' �i^,h� ` .` '~r-- �, � m^ :,
,=-�.--^, � �_1 � _%2�r ' � •.�` � ` �� 'i•• ,
--�-�• �-i-�-�- --�-- __� ,l � �, r��Nu ' �:w;.
� , J �1 �T--F'�' _ . : � p� ;;'/T",l,`�.}�� 1�(' -_I I �� . `t- __ �� �� �� 1
. �; �-J_. �__y—y_�.��a�+_ C.�� 1• •�' • ' 1 I' :- � � -�Y ,
��; ` „� ; . • .�. �. s. .� r�eti � / t�'_ � �-� � - �C � \ ( � r
,
._�. . � - -- -- - - -= - - --
-------- - __ -- -- -_- - -- - - -
.. _ - -- -- - -- � " -"' �� -�_-__�`_._-�- _ --
� r --- .1- � c- --- `-� _- `�.F -
I � - . g. � 4 i l ,^ � .+;`�- --`_'"",-\-=-�-�--��.�-�. - , --
I � I� I I r �..j � ' , _ /
� �/ I � " .____ ,,.,-. • j; ' '' jy/ � ���1'O'I�L AC. 226 AC. i 1 _ I �
�� —�— i: � . � . � �'' � I'ARk� U.J AC. ! ! _ � '
� _�_�_ _ - I I� ..�.�.- - . � �-'� /% oi��T z.� ac. � ( ..=-f'.ONCEPT' PL.���
< -- - - _ �!�.._ . / �� . T ''v 3.5 AC.
� NET DGVELOP.4BLE 171.1 AC. �
r- -I-I= (I . • ' , � � � �� q`� �' , J_� _ -
- ..' �:.� . t/ . -�
/'�`i �f • ,x�� UETACHEll S.F. 35I�6•1^0l �c�ra ��-
� �� ``'j{ {'•�'' ! '�y''. �n�..i.ur�ciirrfi x�r ATT.4CHEU S.F. r
ty6�3f�,�i
i
_�_....,,..r..�......_:1�
� �► — ��7��Dc�s I�t-� C���� '
� � .i \ � ��
I .-OU7'40'1. �i t
` I . ���/' ! / ��;�
�-- ` � �15.�
` �
<LOPMENT SUMMARY -'��` �A ' ��{`c . - - ���'
� ,?, Ni:KiH{It11i1 x�)� V�.�
. �:"'� 11 L�T5 �
�L AC. 'toTAl,- 226 AC. \ �xen �� P ��� • \ �
' '" � �"" C! ��'�
�, R,pW 40 AC. J¢-" ./' .-ti 1 , u ��
. SPACE OP�M 60 AC. �/ — - 1. � �\,, ,� ., ' '
'`- / ` ` �'-.� "')U'7
I'ARK 'f. 17 AC.• �1 G.-,.( ; - � .;' • l �.y;} ��� I
AC. NG'f !U9 AC. .,. �, y,-��� /, -/`n � j� - -- � `'�) 1
, / �-��� � ',�. ,1t
)1� S.F. LOTS 400 .,,. �,.�.��." � �.. , - ,�ti �
NEIGHBO � CITY P_A�� � j!!��
)F MULTIPLE UNITS 234 �:�� •• �' ��TAAII I�AC. OA N •. - "'E �iii i
. j u�DE /�A_ ING IT �r � � �
� ' O •• . ` �
TOTAL UN�TS 634 ',` � ,, � - ( \ -j �;
C � ... E� ��\ \ / % i �` :
� T OA N r -- _ __ j s
. � _______ �- ��� - _ - , � i f. : o �_
�� ; �� _ .. l ��.. , ; ,; ,� _
�}(�f2HOOD 0'. � \ •. .
, ,�� � \ " .�. _
' j 2�u-fri.uNirs � , i � �' +
�} z,���.�� �T5 � � _ , . j ,-�
, , �� �
. /�� ^ � ° �(/ „^�^��\ � �
'/ I/ Yt � �\`�, tir�(� 1 If/ ` .t (I Hl�l . Ul f
,,'�v�/ � " I( �, \ �
�.. ; � C��.� � i � �_ ���. �\1 nME SPA��� op^ _ .
� �� � � - ! � ;..�.�. �.: � °.. ,, .
�-� � � i i ; I - �'�'..' � ,_, .. '
��M M��-(-a _ YRA�N\IE,,/Wpll W�lA�4 p : It �
1� 1l��'u �l�r , � ,• � i J: �
� \. •�.: � E�C ; ! � �1; �� �� � : : � + . / 3
D y� Lw1 C'"`7 � er, • ` . . � � �•` t` _ -- �'
� �1�����' �/'��`)ry'�� � � � � � . \L K aI.�FLnN'ERGANn 1 \C _
� w V L�J� (' ' �.i � , � ��\b Tl Y 1`-��,". M' �;L? MA1 �
, �� � ♦11 11 i � � '�_--'-r�''^'t :E:�. .. -�... ... .. "' .._ _ .
'J w� ` '� � � . - . .. , _ . ,. _ .. . _ __""'— \ / .
17 1
J `
� • � . . ---
i � .... .., ... ..: �. �SPdCt , -^-' - - - -- --
_. _
.. -- -
_ - . . _ _.__... - �"'-----,��'
� �
�. . . .•,•,.�. . - l'1 fiF.IGHti(1RH(IOTI... ....... ' .
� -----._�... . .
�i+c � - .. .- :'.
� �' --- � ' � _ __ -- _ , IZ��1.(��_.� . .___
- ------- - ----- ' — . ' — -- -<'�LI.F.('TQ� : All. .i--,
l'
'__��' �-�Q\, .�I i � - /
��� �. rl��•r-��. o.�A o . �' �
i
�
�
;i
f
....
�
��w:. cmr Hn��
C I TY O F RO S E M O U N T _9-= _ �a5�h�t��t����
� �o. sox�,o
�2osemount,MN
��� Everything's Comrng Up Rosemounrl! ;5C68-0510
P�one:�1:.aZ3..i411
Fax:�i�•�2:•��03
March 14, 1997
Mr. Reid Hansen
McMenomy, Hansen& McCann
14450 South Robert Trail
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: CMC `B' Site Concept Plan Dated ?5 February, 1997.
Dear Mr. Hansen:
The Rosemount Development Review Committee has reviewed the sketch given to Dan Rogness
on Friday, March 7, 1997. Overall, the concept was favorably received by the group, but several
concerns/issues were identified at the time including:
1. After considerable discussion, the city will not support lots fronting on the east-west
collector street. Recent discussions with Dakota County, Mn.DOT and the Met Council
have indicated to the City that secondary collector streets(such as the east-west collector)
that parallel CSAH 42 will be very important in order to maintain CSAH 42 as a principal
arterial highway. The Dakota County Plat Commission will be reviewing the concept with
the objective of"protecting" the function of CSAH 42. The County Contiguous Plat
ordinance gives the Counry the authority to deny plats that are inconsistent with County
standards.
2. Intersection minimum spacing criteria must be followed with 250 ft. between local street
intersections and 500 ft. minimum separation between intersections on collector streets.
3. Intersections must oppose each other if they cannot meet the minimum spacing criteria for
off-sets and have perpendicular alignments.
4. Land for park dedication will not be acceptable along CSAH 42, and as a result, the lots
with side or rear yards adjacent to CSAH 42 must have a minimum lot depth of 155 feet
for berming and landscape screening.
5. Similarly, a"finger park" will also not be acceptable alon�the pipe(ine easements. This
area may be open space maintained by homeowners association or private rear yards.
- � 6. Lot desi�n must accommodate present and future trunk sewer ali;nments; specifically, the
trunk sewer which must be constructed from the"corner" MCES sewer to the northwest.
These infrastructure improvements are more acceptable in rear yards than in side yards. In
� �...,..:...,,..,,,. I
�eid Hansen
March t 4, 1997 '
Page 2. '
addition, the new trunk sewer will not be allowed to have excessive numbers of"elbows" I
that result only from lot dimensions.
7. Curve linear street design provides interest and"traffic calming" benefit. However, care
must be given to emergency vehicle access.
City staff appreciate the efforts devoted towards the latest concept revision. We are confident
that concept refinements that include the abovementioned considerations will receive a positive
recomrnendation. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 322-2052. Questions re�arding
street design should however, be directed to Bud Osmundson at 322-2025.
Sincerely,
Richard Pearson
City Planner
cc Development Review Committee
w Ati,,,
��
�� C 1 TY O F RO S E M O U N T ?875 Ci 45th SAt eet West
�
' P.O.Box 510
` Rosemount,MN
� Everyrhing's Coming Up Rosemount!! 55Q68-0510
- ���� Phone:61 Z•423-4411
Fax:ot2-�i23•5203
March 21, 1997
Mr. Reid Hansen
McMenomy, Hansen& McCann
14450 South Robert Trail
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: CMC `B' Site.
Dear Mr. Hansen:
The attached information is intended as a follow-up to my letter dated March 14, 1997. I felt it
was important to relay comments from Tim Brown, Rosemount's Water Resources Coordinator
regarding the wetlands associated with the CMC "B" Site. Wetland issues have been previously
discussed, but it may be useful to indicate the wetlands along with the 100 year flood elevations/
ponding ares on a topography map.
Given the benifit of having received direction from the City Council, the enclosed topography map
is intended to graphically indicate the primary issues that will be the initial focus of the Staff
review of the anticipated revision.
I can be reached at 322-2052 if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
-�._
Richard Pearson
City Planner
cc Development Review Committee
� ;,','',";,,.,,,,�.�,,,, ,,.
,,,�'�,
,-�
; I
/��•���. �
------r— �,r---.�.—�-fr-�%'_' � -�
•-_. - ' �.�. ,�W ,�:. :�,,,�—�,��,: . , �
-- _" `. �h�'� - _ '!'��- ; -�; �t �- �..= �' ' � .
. .:`; ;�.., . -r; , ; � ♦ ,-,�"�!�_��� �`�= ' '',f � -
� •. " ( m.p.no�mp '� ' . . .� � , '�
; �; ;i�, : � ,,.;,:, .. ;-�;�- ��:���'"�;� i ,�,
: � . ,� � �-,� �, �� ��['(��, �:� - ,�;,,� �,�� �� ,�,,... ��
., �� ���,��, �� L'w � C^` //�y/� j/i Xi� �' �� -� .
_• �� ��`rc �' �// y��� ' � � � _
� . A6f�.iu rY�o , - . . /'t� ; �: � . • ' � � " . !
i , #�� .� ✓'�,/'�/i /�/� � F �� . . ��—�
,' :� �.:�., " , ;�;�._ �..,, �,,�,,��'J(�,�,.; ;, , �
' - , � I ' `/�..y�+C'�}�'�-���� _ ' �Y�j��.��^i,� /%�y'��T , �
� '� r'v. , /, � �� ,;�'
' -- -' �, I `��!����� rc �5 a�ac aar,� �����%/��!q�.: �Y� '�� ' . '
f ' .,i?'ro ."r� ' � .. �/ ;�%/%j;�.ti1►: �,. /����. � \ � ( .�'.
� --0y/'�. ; � : �� � � , � � ,
T /� I � ,'I1' ���I ��� ������ �
' `i�s�� _ �� .��' ff/ � '' �.��„■�� ���{- i
� �� ��:•.,,�,r_ "�.� .._ . ..__. >`i�. �.-� .1. r�`y_ ._.�1_ �.—� .1 � .. . .
, -__ — �_ i ' --;, e;, _=�I.`�'�. , �� t � � I
T-��.�,.. s � , , +_�, , , ,� , -F',;,�.;,;� `_, � 3 :t k � *�:j � _ •`' .
.�i --i/���,,;� �' .' - � •���: •'�. ��:`-;�;;,;`` .. o .� -,}' . �)
;/ �', ,�, i I '. � ,.{/� . t ., .- ij� ` � : ...
�,�1�p � ,` �_�_i`�� �i 1r/�,/, ,,�
M�I* 1�1\��� I •�I pUir�tfP`' 1 �� -"'_'" �� �� 11�� � . /�J/� . .
. ' i' I . _ : _i� �`t'.`\. .'� �� � � t� � ��� .�/ ,%j/� �rf
�� , � , , �• �;'; ' �•;. • � ,, ' t' ,�,/t
� `: , I l � ''i - , � ,,�'`• `�����
_--<
NiE�10
Date: March 14, 1997
To: Bud Osmundson
Jim Topitzhofer
Dan Rogness �
Doug Litterer
From: Tim P. Brown, Water Resources Coordinator
RE: CMC EAST ADDiTION PARK/POND WATER QUALITY CONCERNS
The latest version of the CN1C site plan shows the location of the proposed pazk well west and
separate from the currently e:cisting wetland/pond that lies along the railroad tracks. This wetland
will likely stay with proposed development as part of our storm water systern as well as havin�
other values and benefits to the community. The wetland currently is of relatively high quality
with diverse flora and fauna.
I would like to recommend that plans for this development link the park and this wetland/pond.
Placing the pazk adjacent to this pond, as was earlier proposed,could have significant benefit to
the water quality of this pond and it's value to the local community. My reasons are as follows:
1) Common access greatly increases the value of a surface water body to the community. When
the"value" or priority of surface water bodies are quantified,the level of public access is a key
criteria. Public access for recreation, education and aesthetic opportunities widen the beneficial
impact to the community and instill a greater sense of community responsibility for water bodies.
A wetland/pond with adjacent pazk has a much greater impact and therefore value to the
community as a whole than one surrounded by back yazds.
2) Parks provide excellent buffers for sensitive surface water. In terms of water quality a park
area,even with high use,provides a buffer from the effects of roadways and residential azeas. By
providing a lazge area of maintained vegetation, urban runoff may be treated and filtered providing
uptake of phosphorus,hydrocarbons, metals and other pollutants by grass and other vegetation.
Buffers are extremely important for surface water quality and an adjacent park should enhance
water quality and habitat for wildlife.
3) A ciry park managed by professional staff provides an opporiuniry for optimal water qualiry
management. Most backyard storm ponds are managed helter skelter by various homeowners,
often with little awareness of best management practices. Our crack staff can lead the
neighborhood in providing the best practices for managing the shoreline zone. We can thereby
- . maximize the value and function potential of this water body.
1
.e./
— 1
i
4) This is an unusual wetland This particulaz wetland is rather rare in the southerly part of town.
Not only have sandy/gravelly soils provided few opportunities for impoundment here, but most '
wetlands that did exist are now cropped. This wetland has been partially drained but appears to
have retained much of its original diversity. We probably won't have many opportunities to
enhance wedand resources in this part of town.
5) Erosion and other construction related impacts can be better managed. Limiring residential
construction to one side of the pond would greatly reduce the construction impacts that aze
difficult to mitigate and that are associated with residential construction. A pazk area can be
stabilized much more quickiy.
Based on my observations of wetlands and their associated surrounding uses in Rosemount, I
believe moving the park away from the wetland would mean the difference between a quaiity
resource with the park, and a hidden, heavily impacted storm pond without the park.
Please let me know if you have questions or need more information.
2