The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.b. CMC Heartland Partners Eastbridge Planned Unit Development Findings of Fact . ' City of Rosemount Executive Summary for Action City Council Meetiag Date: July 5. 1995 Ageada Item: CMC Heartland Partners Ageada Section: Eastbridge PUD Findings of Old Business Facts Prepared By: Andrew Mack Agend�� Senior Planner Attachmeats: Resolution Approved B • At it' s meeting held on June 20, 1995, the City Council approved a motion directing that findings of fact consistent with denial be prepared for CMC' s Eastbridge PUD amendment request. These findings have been prepared and reviewed by the City Attorney. This item has been placed back on the Council agenda to provide for final action upon the request. Adoption of the resolution establishing findings of fact and a decision for denial of the request as directed by Council is recommended. Recoa�meaded Action: MOTION to approve a resolution adopting findings of fact and a decision for denial of the request to amend the Eastbridge PUD Final Development Plan approval condition requiring execution of an agreement with the CP Rail " providing for the relocation of the railroad spur. City Council Action: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MIl�INESOTA . RESOLUTION 1995 - A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A DECISION FOR A PUD A,MENDMENT REQUEST BY CMC HEARTLAND PARTNTRS I, LIlVIITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE EASTBRIDGE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED U1�TIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Rosemount, 1Vlinnesota (City Council) has considered a request by CMC Heartland Partners I, Limited Partnership (Applicant) for an amendment to the Eastbridge Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) Final Development Plan approval condition requiring, "Execution of an agreement with the CP Rail (Soo Line) providing for the relocation of the railroad spur line"; and WHEREAS,�the Applicant has been unsuccessful to this date in reaching an agreement with the CP Ra.il for the relocation of the spur line serving Grief Brothers Manufacturing and requests approval of an amendment to allow the project to proceed with the initial phase without said agreement in place; and WHEREA5, the City Council conducted a public hearing on 7une 20, 1995 for the purpose of considering this request by the Applicant and received public testimony, both in support and against the proposed PUD amendment request; and W�iEREA5, the Planning Commission for the City of Rosemount has reviewed the Applicant's request at a public meeting on June 13, 1995 and has recammended that the City Council deny the Applicant's request for the PUD amendment. NOW THEREFORE, on the basis of the approved PUD for the development project and the record of proceedings before the City Council of the applicant's request for an amendment to the PUD approval condition requiring relocation of the railroad spur; the Ciry Council hereby makes the following fmdings and decision: P�11�IL�I�IIT' � l. The original PUD was designed as a unified, integrated plan including residential development over the land currently occupied by the spur railroad line. The approved plan was predicated on the relocation of the railroad line spur which is used for switching of railroad cars. Therefore, a condition of development was that the Applicant enter into an agreement for relocation of the railroad spur line. / r 2. The Applicant ha.s submitted a plan for residential development of a portion of the property covered by the PUD lying south of the railroad line without such assurances that the railroad line will be reloca.ted. 3. The proposed residential development of such property is compatible with the e�stence and use of the railroad line for switching purposes because of noise, safety and aesthetics. The closest proposed residential structure is within 165 feet from the railroad line, and no proposal was offered for screening, fencing or buffering between the railroad line and proposed residential development. 4. The proposed plat would leave an irregular shaped parcel, Outlot B, between residential lots and the railroad line. No proposals were offered for development of this outlot or for providing adequate access for development of Outlot B. Outlot B would be isolated by residential development to the south and the railroad line to the north. The proposed residential development of Blocks 1 and 2 makes it unlikely that Outlot B could be used for any commercial or industrial uses, and residential development would not be compatible with the existence and use of the railroad line. Therefore, the proposed development would create an outlot of questionable economic viability. S. The amendment proposed by the Applicant involves the mociif'ication of the requirement of PUD approval that the Applicant secure an agreement to relocate the railroad line before proceeding with the initial phase of development. With the deletion of that requirement, the suitability and appropriateness of the entire PUD plan, not only that part calling for residential development of Blocks 1 and 2, is destroyed. The proposed development of property under the PUD to the east and north of the railroad line would no longer be appropriate if the railroad line were not relocated. 6. Leaving the railroad line in its current location makes it questionable whether the land covered by the PUD is appropriate for any residential development. If the railroad line is not to be relocated, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the suita.bility of residential development for the entire area covered by the PUD. Other uses which are compatible with, and may even benefit from, the railroad line may be more appropriate and beneficial uses for the land. In any case, the existence of the railroad line would require the development of plans specif'ically designed to accommodate the railroad line to assure compatible development. 7. The railroad spur line has substantial impact upon the overall design of the PUD and preliminary plat for the Ea.stbridge Development and therefore the City Council must have proper guarantees and assurances that the railroad spur line will be relocated before allowing the developer to proceed with the initiat phase of development. 8. Circumstances sunounding the original basis for the spur relocation approval condition have not changed and therefore do not support a basis for modifying this requirement. - 9. The City Council considered the intended relocation of the railroad spur as a basis for 2 � changing the future land use designation in it's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Therefore, the City Council does not support authorizing the developer to proceed with the initial phase of development, absent the agreement necessary to assure reloca.tion of the railroad spur. 10. The potential for the railroad spur to remain in its present location without assurances of its relocation would cause a disruption to the neighborhood environment envisioned by the City as part of the overall PUD project. DF.C:TSTnN On the basis of the preceding Findings, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby orders that the applicant's petition for PUD amendment be denied. ADOPTED this Sth day of July, 1995. ATTEST: E.B. McMenomy, Mayor Susan M. Walsh, Ciry Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Voted in favor: Voted Against: 3 FINDINGS 1. The original PUD was designed as a unified, integrated plan including residential development over the land currently occupied by the spur railroad line. The approved plan was predicated on the relocation of the railroad line spur which is used for switching of railroad cars. Therefore, a eondition of development was that the Applicant enter into an agreement for relocation of the railroad spur line. 2 . The Applicant has submitted a plan for residential development of a portion of the property covered by the PUD lying south of the railroad line without such assurances that the railroad line will be relocated. 3 . The proposed residential development of such property is compatible with the existence and use of the railroad line for switching purposes because of noise, safety and aesthetics. The closest proposed residential structure is within 165 feet from the railroad line. 4 . 5. The amendment proposed by the Applicant involves the modification of the requirement of PUD approval that the Applicant secure an agreement to relocate the railroad line before proceeding with the initial phase of development. 6. : 7. The railroad spur line has substantial impact upon the overall design of the PUD and p�eliminary plat for the Eastbridge Development and therefore the City Council must have proper guarantees and assurances that the railroad spur line will be �, relocated before allowing the developer to proceed with the initial phase of development of the Eastbridge PUD Agreement as it presently exists. 8 . Circumstances surrounding the original basis for the spur relocation approval condition have not changed and therefore do not support a basis for modifying this requirement. 9. Therefore, the City Council does not support authorizing the Applicant to proceed with the initial phases of development, absent the agreement necessary to assure relocation of the railroad spur or the Council's review and approval of a land use plan which contemplates no relocation of the railroad spur. 10. ��s�.. -C��'1 C