HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.a. Chippendale Partners Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Concept , ' City of Rosemount
Executive Summary for Action
Ci Councii Meetin Date: December 5,, 1995
Agenda Item: Chippendale Partners Mixed Use Planned Agenda Section:
Unit Development: Concept Review OLD BUSINESS
Prepared By: Rick Pearson Agenda No:
Assistant Planner ITEIYI � 7 A
Attachments: Revised Concept Approved By:
�� _
-SEE ATTACHED MEMO-
Recommended Action: If the City Council finds that the concept for the mi�ced use planned unit
development provides the gradient of land uses as specified in the Comprehensive Guide Plan then concept
approval should be granted with the following conditions:
1. The quantiry and arrangement of concept designated commercial uses is supported by a mazket study that
establishes market absorption capabilities.
2. Access to the interior of the development will only occur via e�cisting cross streets per the Comprehensive
Guide Plan. Existing cross streets include Claret Avenue,December Trail and 151st Street West. Access
from CSAH 42 will be allowed in accordance with the approval of the Dakota County Platting
Commission.
3. A traffic study must be completed that provides recommendations for access and circulation design
elements that support access and circulation to be reviewed with the final development plan sequence of
the planned unit development process.
4. Commercial development consistent with current minimum ordinance standards is considered to be
incompatible with existing adjacent residential land uses,including residential land uses across from
public rights-of-way. Therefore,enhanced design techniques shall be required to mitigate the
incompatibility. Such design techniques shall include,but not be limited to:
A. Increased setbacks for buildings,pazking lots and driveways;pedestrian amenities;landscaping;
berming;building layout and circulation plans;hours of operation;limitations of uses that generate
excessive amounts of traffic,noise,light,or other objectional impacts.
B. Enhanced architectural standards which,at a minimuxn,conform with Section 7.2 A-(2) Commercial
Districts and 7.2 A-(5)(a and c)of the Single Family Dwelling Requirements of Ordinance B,the
Zoning Ordinance for the north,west and southern perimeter of the Commercial District adjacent to
Shannon Parkway;
C. All driveways and parking lots in front yards adjacent to right-of-way or residential districts shall be
screened from view with landscaping and berming and/or landscaping and grade separation;
D. A sign plan that meets current standards and also screens signage from residential districts must be
prepared as part of the final development plan;
E. A lighting plan must be prepared that shows lighting arranged to deflect the light away from
Residential Districts and public streets and limit light intensity at the perimeter of the Commercial
District.
5. The pla.nned unit development must conform with requirements set forth in Section 12.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance for fmal development plan review and platting requirements as specified by the Subdivision
Ordinance.
6. Townhome densities shall be limited to a maximum of six dwelling units per acre. Final PUD plan
approval shall not be given until the developer has provided building layout and related site design details.
Such design sha11 provide adequate setback and design considerations to provide a gradient transition
between the sin le famil detached and sin le famil attached land uses.
Council Action:
11-21-95.001
:�
� �
� CITY OF ROSEMOU NT � za�s-`;��t""`��W�t
P.O.Box 510
�'' Everything's Coming Up Rosemounr.►! Rosemo��c,nnrv
'; 550b8-O510
Phone:612-423-4411
fax:612-423-5203
TO: Mayor McMenomy, Council Members Anderson, Busho, Staats, Wippermann
FROM: Richard Pearson, Assistant Planner
DATE: December 1, 1995
SUBJ: Chippendale Partners Concept Review for a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
ATTAC�IMENTS: Revised Concept
On November'7, 1995, the City Council tabled action regarding the concept proposed by the
Chippendale Partners for a mixed use planned unit development south of CSAH 42, between
Chippendale Avenue and Shannon Parkway. Residents from surrounding neighborhoods attended both
the Council conducted public hearing as well as an informal informational hearing conducted by the
Planning Commission. Concerns and issues identified on these occasions as well as three subsequent
neighborhood meetings have resulted in a modified concept prepared by the Developer that responds to
some of the issues.
A common complaint heard at the meetings was the expectation that development would be limited to
residential on the McNamara property. The mixed use planned unit development language that guides
future development had been explained to several prospective buyers as well as realtors by the Planning
Staff over the course of several years. However, discussion in the abstract results in many different
interpretations in the absence of a plan, conceptual or otherwise.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ISSUES: The following represents the primary concerns identified by the
groups of neighboring residents regarding the concept proposal in the O'Leary's Hills additions adjacent
to the south:
* The quality of townhouses that would be developed adjacent to the O'Leary's Hills additions and the
concern over low-income or subsidized housing. The townhouses should be regulated with a
homeowner's association and be owner occupied.
* The need for a park to serve the northeastern portion of the O'Leary's Hills additions, higher
densities of the proposed townhouses with the added ability to further screen the existing housing.
The paxk should not include ball fields or paxking lots.
* The service station on block six should be relocated elsewhere and there should bee no commercial
south of 151st Street.
* Claret Avenue should be terniinated with a cul-de-sac and not provide through connections to
CSAH 42 or the commercial uses. �
* The "big box" should be eliminated or moved farther north away from the single family housing.
Furthermore, doubts were expressed that current and future market conditions would support so much
commercial development, let alone the "big box" concept. The suggestion was made that the land east
of STH 3 should be developed for commercial use.
Printed on recYtled Paper
. � � � containing30% . . .
post-conwmer marenals.
Chippendale/42 Partnership - Miaed Use Concept PUD �
December 5, 1995 '
Page Two
The Carrallton addition neighborhood north of CSAH 42 and the Wensmann Sixth Addition
neighborhood west of Shannon Parkway had many similar concerns that are combined as follows:
* The northwest corner should not be developed for commercial use. Housing should be developed
across from both CSAH 42 and Shannon Parkway on the western half of the property.
* The ondy non-residential use appropriate for the northwest corner would be day care or
recreational.
* Lighting, noise, litter and increased traffic will tower property values in both neighborhoods and
will be especially deirimental to the Wensmann townhouses that have large picture windows and
sliding glass doors directly across from the proposed drug store.
* Turn-over at Rosemount Market Square was cited as an example of the lack o,f demand for
commercial uses.
* Commercial development should be started on the east side near the bank only with fuiure phases
expanding westwarc� A large "gap"will result from commercial development starting on the west
side.
* The City should require a higher standard of aesthetics and architecture for commercial
development especially in this location: The development should be integrated with a strong central
theme.
* The commercial development should be pedestrian orientated and focus on specialty shops and
boutiques, examples include Wayzata, Stillwater and the SOth and France area of Edina.
* Extensive landscaping should be required to screen the residential uses from the commercial
development with particular atten�ion given to parking Zots.
* No businesses with 24 hour or late night hours should be located near or within view of the
residential areas.
* The "balance"of uses is much too heavily weighted towards commercial. Insuffrcient residential
development will not provide the needed buffering or transition to the residential neighborhoods.
* Signage must be carefully controlled to eliminate intrusive effects on residential areas.
* The number and quality of townhouses is in question and the possibility that they will eventually
become rental housing.
* The types of jobs created by retail and"strip commercial"style development are not the kind of
"head of household"jobs that the community needs.
* Increases of traffic on Shannon Parkway resulting from the commercial development will have a
detrimental effect on the Wensmann tawnhouses.
Some of these questions were of a general nature and City Staff had the opportunity to respond with
answers and explanations to process issues. However, many of the concerns are very real and should be
integrated into design solutions as well as the larger question of appropriate land use locations and
relationships.
CONCEPT REVISION: The revised concept focuses discussion on land use as well as general access
' and circulation issues that will integrate the development with the City's transportation system. Building
"footprints" have been removed with only the drug store and day caxe as specific uses. Auto and Food -
Service, Commercial and Retail are general enough that the same basic development standards would be
applied to all of them.
CIItCULATION: Three access points remain at CSAH 42 consistent with current Dakota County
Standards of eighth mile spacing for right-in, right-out and quarter mile spacing for full movement
intersections. The east-west circulation is maintained with a 151st Street alignment that connects
December Trail on the West to 151 st Street on the east side. Claret Avenue provides egress from the
O'Leary's Hills area to 151st Street West with an off-set to the full access street connecting to CSAH
42. The of�set will have to be increased to meet minimum City standards.
_ �
" Chippendale/42 Partnership - Miged Use Concept PUD
December 5, 1995
Page Three
BLOCK ARRANGEMENT: The most significant change to the concept is the "big box° configuration
that was recommended by the Planning Commission. Relocated 151st Street now separates the retail
uses from residential and is about 100 feet further north. The area large enough for a stand alone retail
use is split by the central north-south street connection to CSAH 42. This street could be vacated if a
large enough use were to be established that requires both Retail parcels.
The City Engineer is concerned that the presumably private streets that separate the Retail blocks from
the Food Service and Auto service blocks are too close to CSAH 42 with a resulting traffic conflict
occurring with insufficient vehicle stacking space. Ultimately, the situation causes vehicles to be backed
up to the CSAH 42 intersections with traffic blockage a result.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD-MU PLANNED MIXED USE: The Comprehensive Guide Plan
acknowledges the 77 acre McNamara property as sensitive because of previous expectations of
residential development and close proximity to existing residentialland uses. Planned Unit
Development is ca.11ed for so that the area shall be planned as a unit that provides a gradient of land use
from higher to lower density.
Commercial development is intended to be allowed in sufficient quantity to allow for demonstrated
market demand that provides opportunities for commercial uses that complement and extend the
downtown but do not replicate the downtown or inhibit full development or redevelopment of the
downtown central business district. The PUD process presents an opportunity to create an entry way
design element that suggests a "gateway" into the Rosemount commercial districts.
The most effective way of creating a "gradient of land use from higher to lower density" is to arrange
the land uses in a sequence or order that descends from high to low impact. Commercial to of�ice to
multiple housing to attached housing to detached housing is an example a gradient. Concept approval
gives the City Council the authority to approve the arrangement of proposed land uses on the site.
Once the land uses are arranged to the satisfaction of the City Council, then design techniques can be
used to enhance the quality of the development and mitigate negative impacts.
The neighborhoods do not consider CSAH 42 and Shannon Parkway to be barriers that protect the
integrity of their neighborhoods from the impacts of potential commercial uses that depend on highways
and streets for patronage access. Design can mitigate but can not eliminate the impact of traffic
increases related to development. Given the e�sting and projected traffic volumes on CSAH 42 and
Shannon Parkway, the developers of the Carrollton and Wensmann projects had some responsibility to
internally buffer their developments from the busy streets and highways.
The PD-Mixed Use section of the Comprehensive Guide Plan indicates the use of existing cross street
alignments for traffic management and to eliminate the possibility of access points across from
residential districts on local and collector streets. Such access points encourage trai�c movement that
impact the residential neighborhoods that could not have been anticipated by the residential developers.
Chippendale/42 Partnership - Miaed Use Concept PUD � .�
December 5, 1995 �
Page Four
CONCLUSION:
If the City Council finds that the concept for the mixed use planned unit development provides the
gradient of land uses as specified in the Comprehensive Guide Plan then concept approval should be
granted with the following conditions:
1. The quantity and arrangement of concept designated commercial uses is supported by a market
study that establishes market absorption capabilities.
2. Access to the interior of the development will only occur via exisfing cross streets per the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. Existing cross streets include Claret Avenue, December Trail and 151 st
Street West. Access from CSAH 42 will be allowed in accordance with the approval of the Dakota
County Platting Commission.
3. A traffic study must be completed that provides recommendations for access and circulation design
elements that support access and circulation to be reviewed with the final development plan
sequence of the planned unit development process.
4. Commercial development consistent with current minimum ordinance standards is considered to be
incompatible with e�sting adjacent residential land uses, including residential land uses across from
public rights-of-way. Therefore, enhanced design techniques shall be required to mitigate the
incompatibility. Such design techniques sha11 include, but not be limited to:
A. Increased setbacks for buildings, parking lots and driveways; pedestrian amenities; landscaping;
berming; building layout and circulation plans; hours of operation; limitations of uses that
generate excessive amounts of traffic, noise, light, or other abjectional impacts.
B. Enhanced architectural standards which, at a minimum, conform with Section 7.2 A-(2)
Commercial Districts and 7.2 A-(5) (a and c) ofthe Single Family Dwelling Requirements of
Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance for the north, west and southern perimeter of the
Commercial District adjacent to Shannon Parkway;
C. All driveways and parking lots in front yards adjacent to right-of-way or residential districts shall
be screened from view with landscaping and berming and/or landscaping and grade separation;
D. A sign plan that meets current standards and also screens signage from residential districts must
be prepared as part of the final development plan;
E. A lighting plan must be prepared that shows lighting arranged to deflect the light away from
Residential Districts and public streets and limit light intensity at the perimeter of the
Commercial District.
5. The planned unit development must conform with requirements set forth in Section 12.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance for final development plan review and platting requirements as specified by the
Subdivision Ordinance.
6. Townhome densities shall be limited to a maximum of six dwelling units per acre. Final PUD plan
approval shall not be given until the developer has provided building layout and related site design
details. Such design shall provide adequate setback and design considerations to provide a gradient
transition between the single family detached and single family attached land uses.
� ' � •
� . . • • � g
. N
_' . elosauu py-� � n'o ,as }� tD
�
� � j .. �
S�i3Ni � 3 � . , �
� . � � �,.�_� � ea'� � S . P-� £ S6 � cn
�
� \` �� 1 r/ � _ \ '` �.`'' '� tl� W
sasf.r ow7noK ' - ,._.�� �`� � \ � � ' � � � t11
�C OL Ot , .`)I �r �`` `\ �/ .� / � / �/ . �� /��`�1� � �.�..._ .� --�_'' , Q1
. �.�/ \ \ \. � � n` // � �' � _...,._—...�.i�--�� .l �
' , / \ � . � '" — ' f � � .�.� ��� \ � ��
� + , �1��`�1J �S �Z�.i" _�1 /' ' � }/ � '--~. '�ZI O
�( iv► u �i� sa ad ... .. .� �,' �'�' " -' ' ` `__ , � ` �--``� r►' r' �
- � � ,, . ��' , �� � � �. -—^ ' ; ���_��.-�--�� � ''' �
, __ _
� �i _� . -r � r � i � ,�� ; . ; t � �-:(papusdxa � �_r � i -o D
,a' ���.,�.-� t� i� � � , � � � U�� . . ��`•��i��.=��.,.=;`��. U! UO �"'='_�=�1 ° n
(�'� —,_ ���.X�, i� .� ��� i�I / ' `��. `�. j �� — I 'i =
'v � �� ' ! ' � � � '' �' � .��_'` �:� ----- � / �—�_I �� =�
� �_ •'���.�ti_—� � � � � Qi � r i f� i ��—�� .����� i" m
f �'�-�• � '�� 1,� - � ` � : -� / ��'��• ��� "�.,��/ � � -�i
�. � . ♦ � ! . ,t,� 1 � �. � . . � UI
r • �t_--
a \ S'�(bi�y V hh0�— r i i � .p � Q r l � �� +� '-'.�;= �'�'� _ J r °
� ' � //- f �`. � � � 1 . � � ` 1 �G
'j ��. / / � �/�: r� ���p' �� �� •► ts .��a. �, , �\' ``�\� � 1(
� O t\ ` `J � /// f , i � �� _• ai�,i �� '�` � � �� /l
(�^�\ �. t\ _-�"�, '�i�� , a �a��1 I / ♦ L !,� ������.���. ` � `\ � ��r.�� I
� ics�t7� �s�'�/� ..j �/(��� � ��:7� �� �������1 � ,\`�'+�+r� • •�`���i_i=�� ���►•
�� : ,•� �• . ���. //�� /,/I��'� / � �� � \ �y�3}T �.�.�i� .�� � �'�1�• _��C�f � t/��/
�;` ' �-•"'/��� � /�T� �// ��J�' �/ r �� .tl.~�' �..�r—r. ``` , �\ � —�� �{yp�� r�
) 1 � �3;� ��� __ / ' / �� �'��' � � • ,� ��,� �� ^ ��� •
y' � �
] � D �; ' �,'.`+j��� �Sy��`-� —//!��`� S� I� \��., �t \t �� �` � Q .r ��-�„� .
li .
»r
' . , < ��� \ \� /ti"'� ` � " ' ` __ �,. _ ^„ !Jl
�s zs �s � 'D � y �_, , ���,� ,_������- — ,_ �. � — _=a«�a��— � _�%��y ne�t � .6.eQ �'
"` � �y .
3 ;�-�l • �-_ '`• � u �� r' �� '� \� � `� � D�`'o c;u3�' �'�:
� � ;p � ti ��� o� n � � a � ,` �- r, .�+��'• o lo��;
�p ��� �` �� Nµrt` J� � a � / ��.���- � � / !�ti U / Br. r
� ��� �� � j� � ur�'tsdar�c�.cc�a�r_y� c���r�r�,s�'���� � � j�' i�U:
�D ��1� . , �r J i tJ � ��.s��.., r��a a`c�ar� �Q a g a�,� ---��$' t�a 1 �u e"JO�S ; �
. � t � 1 �_ .. - - _ � �_ �-- �• } � ��
•Q u �` ``�a�� �+ � "�-�'�-�""'� � ' .(�'��1A13S�]OQ,3-�"�--A-J ,' r���!1 J�� W
:� � .. - .� dj �-�'�s°��� `-� ' �_, _ _--- _�— - -,—' ' 3 oc. �
n _. , —_(7 _. n [� ,
� � ��c3�� \`'��� �� J���/ Q��:�p +' .ul��������i'ii�U �,G��"L���; C •,��� � C,J
Z�• •��� ► ��• �����• • t���l . "'t�'��.Ti�.���•►�• �♦s•i� , ��-� � �i��'����...�.�rr�r m
�.�r:a .�tu iN`-��z W
o J.irr� rv�n.iln�� � o o L! ! � u n,o J ��iw e/,
-� �-��w �/t , z�� � -
D , I� " � c�l)N `J�: �i Tt�JY;7�J a'11�1� b�! � ��_--- �
� �_______- .__•-_--_. _- __-..-.._.._�...__._._._.-- � N
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, 112INNESOTA
RFSOLUTION 1995-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONCEPT FOR CHII'PENDALE PARTNFiRS MIXED
USE PL�STNED IJNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SETTING OUT Tf� CONDITIONS FOR
A FINAL DEVELOPNIENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount has received a concept fvr a mixed use planned unit
development for the following legally described property:
North 1/2 of the Northeast quarter of Section 31, Township 115 North, Range 19
West, City of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota.
�V:EIEREAS, on September 26, 1995 the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
recommended approval of the concept for Chippendale Partners Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development subject to conditions; and
WHEREA5, on November 7, 1995 the City Council held a public hearing to heaz testimony
regarding the Concept for the Chippendale Partners mixed use planned unit development, in
accordance with the City Zoni.ng Ordinance and State Statutes.
NOW, 'TFiEFFFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount
hereby approves to Concept for the Chippendale Partners mixed use planned unit
development subject to:
1) The quantity and arrangement of concept designated commercial uses is supported by
a market study that esta.blishes market absorption capabilities.
2) Access to the interior of the development will only occur via e�cisting cross streets per
the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Existing cross streets include Claret Avenue,
December Trail and 151st Street West. Access from CSAH 42 will be allowed in
accordance with the approval of the Dakota County Platting Commission.
3) A traffic study must be completed that provides recommendations for access and
circulation design elements that support access and circularion to be reviewed with the
fmal development plan sequence of the planned unit development process.
4) Commercial development consistent with current minimum ordinance standards is
considered to be incompatible with existing adjacent residential land uses inclnding
residential land uses across public rights-of-way. Therefore, enhanced design
techniques shall be required to mitigate the incompatibility. Such design techniques
shall include but not be limited to:
A. Increased setbacks for buildings, parking lots and driveways; pedestrian
amenities; landscaping; berming; building layout and circulation plans; hours
of operation; limitations of uses that generate excessive amounts of traffic,
noise, light or other objectionable impacts.
B. Enhanced architectural standards which at a minimum conform with Section
7.2 A 2 Commercial Districts and 7.2 A 5 a and c, the Single Family
Dwelling Requiremen�s of Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance for the north,
west and southern peri.meter of the Commercial district adjacent to Shannon
Parkway;
C. All driveways and parking lots in front yards adjacent to right-of-way or
residential districts shall be screened from view with landscaping aad bermi.ng
and/or landscaping and grade separation;
D. A sign plan that meets current standards and also screens signage from
residential districts must be prepared as part of the final development plan;
E. A lighting plan must be prepared that shows lighting ananged to deflect the
light away from Residential districts and public streets and limit light intensity
at the perimeter of the Commercial district;
5) The planned unit development must conform with requirements set forth in section
12.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for final development plan review and platting
requirements as specified by the subdivision ordinance.
6) Townhome densities shall be limited to a maximum of six dwelling uaits per acre.
Final PUD plan approval shall not be given until the developer has provided building
layout and related site design details. Such design shall provide adequate setback and
design considerations to provide a gradient transition between the single family
detached and single family attached land uses.
. ADOPTED this Sth da.y of December, 1995.
E.B. McMenomy, Mayor
ATTFST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
,
. +
` C I TY O F RO S E M O U N T Z875 C145tH5�t eet West
P.O.Box 510
Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!! Rosemo��c,Mrv
' ' S50b8-0510
Phone:bt2-423-4411
Fax:612-423•SZ03
TO: Mayor McMenomy, Council Members Anderson, Busho, Staa.ts, Wippermann
FROM: Richard Pearson, Assistant Planner
DATE: December l, 1995
SUBJ: Chippendale Partners Concept Review for a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
ATTAC�IlVIENTS: Revised Concept
On November 7, 1995, the City Council tabled action regarding the concept proposed by the
Chippendale Partners for a mixed use planned unit development south of CSAH 42, between
Chippendale Avenue and Shannon Parkway. Residents from sunounding neighborhoods attended both
the Council conducted public hearing as well as an informal informational hearing conducted by the
Planning Commission. Concerns and issues identified on these occasions as well as three subsequent
neighborhood meetings have resulted in a modified concept prepared by the Developer that responds to
some of the issues.
A common complaint heard at the meetings was the expectation that development would be limited to
residential on the McNamara property. The mixed use planned unit development language that guides
future development had been explained to several prospective buyers as well as realtors by the Planning
Staff over the course of several years. However, discussion in the abstract results in many different
interpretations in the absence of a plan, conceptual or otherwise.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ISSiTES: The following represents the primary concerns identified by the
groups of neighboring residents regarding the concept proposal in the O'Leary's Hills additions adjacent
to the south:
* The quality of townhouses that would be developed adjacent to the OZeary's Hills additions and the
concern over low-income or subsidized housing. The townhouses should be regulated with a
homeowner's association and be owner occupied.
* The need for a park to serve the northeastern portion of the O'Leary's Hills additions, higher
densities of the proposed townhouses with the added ability to further screen the existing housing.
The park should not include ball fields or parking lots.
* The service station on block six should be relocated elsewhere and there should bee no commercial
south of 151 st Street.
* Claret Avenue should be terminated with a cul-de-sac and not provide through connections to
CSAH 42 or the commercial uses. �
* The "big box" should be eliminated or moved farther north away from the single family housing.
Furthermore, doubts were expressed that current and future market conditions would support so much
commercial development, let alone the "big box° concept. The suggestion was made that the land east
of STH 3 should be developed for commercial use.
Pnnfed on mcycled paper
. � � � . � � � � � m taining30%
post conwmer matenals.
Chippendale/42 Partnership - Miged Use Concept PUD �
December 5, 1995 +- .
Page Two
The Carrollton addition neighborhood north of CSAH 42 and the Wensmann Sixth Addition
neighborhood west of Shannon Parkway had many similar concerns that are combined as follows:
* The northwest corner should not be developed for commercial use. Housing should be developed
across from both CSAH 42 and Shannon Parkway on the western half of the property.
* The only non-residential use appropriate for the northwest corner would be day care or
recreational.
* Lighting, noise, litter and increased traffic will lower property values in both neighborhoods and
will be especiatly detrimental to the Wensmann townhouses that have large picture windows and
sliding glass doors directly across from the proposed drug store.
* Turn-over at Rosemount Market Square was cited as an example of the lack of demand for
commercial uses.
* Commercial development should be started on the east side near the bank only with,future phases
expanding westward. A large "gap"will result from commercial development starting on the west
side.
* The City should require a higher standard of aesthetics and architecture for commercial
development especially in this location. The developmentshould be integrated with a strong central
theme.
* The commercial development should be pedestrian orientated and focus on specialty shops and
boutiques, examples include Wayzata, Stillwater and the SOth and France area of Edina.
* Extensrve landscaping should be required to screen the residential uses from the commercial
development with particular attention given to parking Zots.
* No businesses with 24 hour or late night hours should be located near or within view of the
residential areas.
* The "balance"of uses is much too heavily weighted towards commercial. Insufficient residential
development will not provide the needed buffering or transition to the residential neighborhoods.
* Signage must be carefully controlled to eliminate intrusive effects on residential areas.
* The mrmber and quality of townhouses is in question and the possibility that they wild eventually
become rental housing.
* The types of jobs created by retail and"sirip commercial"style development are not the kind of
"head of household"jobs that the communiiy needs.
* Increases of traffic on Shannon Parkway resulting.from the commercial development will have a
detrimental effect on the Wensmann townhouses.
Some of these questions were of a general nature and City Staff had the opportunity to respond with
answers and explanations to process issues. However, many of the concerns are very real and should be
integrated into design solutions as well as the larger question of appropriate land use locations and
relationships.
CONCEPT REVI5ION: The revised concept focuses discussion on land use as well as general access
and circulation issues that will integrate the development with the City's transportation system. Building
"footprints" have been removed with only the drug store and day care as specific uses. Auto and Food
Service, Commercial and Retail axe general enough that the same basic development standards would be
applied to all of them.
CIRCULATION: Three access points remain at CSAH 42 consistent with current Dakota County
Standards of eighth mile spacing for right-in, right-out and quarter mile spacing for full movement
intersections. The east-west circulation is maintained with a 151 st Street alignment that connects
December Trail on the West to 151 st Street on the east side. Claret Avenue provides egress from the
O'Leary`s Hills axea to 151st Street West with an off-set to the full access street cannecting to CSAH
42. The off-set will have to be increased to meet minimum City standaxds.
' Chippendale/42 Partnership - Mixed Use Concept PUD
` � , December 5, 1995
Page Three
BLOCK ARRANGEMENT: The most significant change to the concept is the "big box° configuration
that was recommended by the Planning Commission. Relocated 151 st Street now separates the retail
uses from residential and is about 100 feet further north. The area large enough for a stand alone retail
use is split by the central north-south street connection to CSAH 42. This street could be vacated if a
large enough use were to be established that requires both Retail parcels.
The City Engineer is concerned that the presumably private streets that separate the Retail blocks from
the Food Service and Auto service blocks are too close to CSAH 42 with a resulting traffic conflict
occurring with insufficient vehicle stacking space. LJltimately, the situation causes vehicles to be backed
up to the CSAH 42 intersections with traffic blockage a result.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD-MU PLANNED M7XED USE: The Comprehensive Guide Plan
acknowledges the 77 acre McNamara property as sensitive because of previous expectations of
residential development and close proximity to existing residential land uses. Planned Unit
Development is called for so that the area shall be planned as a unit that provides a gradient of land use
from higher to lower density.
_ Commercial development is intended to be allowed in sufficient quantity to allow for demonstrated
market demand that provides opportunities for commercial uses that complement and extend the
downtown but do not replicate the downtown or inhibit full development or redevelopment of the
downtown central business district. The PUD process presents an opportunity to create an entry way
design element that suggests a "gateway" into the Rosemount commercial districts.
The most effective way of creating a "gradient of land use from higher to lower density" is to arrange
the land uses in a sequence or order that descends from high to low impact. Commercial to office to
multiple housing to attached housing to detached housing is an example a gradient. Concept approval
gives the City Council the authority to approve the arrangement of proposed land uses on the site.
Once the land uses are arranged to the satisfaction of the City Council, then design techniques can be
used to enhance the quality of the development and mitigate negative impacts.
The neighborhoods do not consider CSAH 42 and Shannon Parkway to be barriers that protect the
integrity of their neighborhoods from the impacts of potential commercial uses that depend on highways
and streets for patronage access. Design can mitigate but can not eliminate the impact of traffic
increases related to development. Given the e�sting and projected traffic volumes on CSAH 42 and
Shannon Parkway, the developers of the Carrollton and Wensmann projects had some responsibility to
internally buffer their developments from the busy streets and highways.
The PD-N1�ed Use section of the Comprehensive Guide Plan indicates the use of existing cross street
alignments for traffic management and to eliminate the possibility of access points across from
residential districts on local and collector streets. Such access points encourage traffic movement that
impact the residential neighborhoods that could not have been anticipated by the residential developers.
Chippendale/42 Partnership - Mized Use Concept PUD `
December 5, 1995 t- �
Page Four
CO1vCLUSION:
If the City Council finds that the concept for the mixed use planned unit development provides the
gradient of land uses as specified in the Comprehensive GuidePlan then concept approval should be
granted with the following conditions:
1. The quantity and arrangement of concept designated commercial uses is supported by a market
study that establishes market absorption capabilities.
2. Access to the interior of the development will only occur via existing cross streets per the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. Existing cross streets include Claret Avenue, December Trail and 151 st
Street West. Access from CSAH 42 will be allowed in accordance with the approval of the Dakota
County Platting Commission.
3. A traffic study must be completed that provides recommendations for access and circulation design
elements that support access and circulation to be reviewed with the final development plan
sequence of the planned unit development process.
4. Commercial development consistent with current minimum ordinance standaxds is considered to be
incompatible with existing adjacent residential land uses, including residential land uses across from
public rights-of-way. Therefore, enhanced design techniques shall be required to mitigate the
incompatibility. Such design techniques shall include, but not be limited to:
A. Increased setbacks for buildings, parking lots and driveways; pedestrian amenities; landscaping;
berming; building layout and circulation plans; hours of operation; limitations of uses that
generate excessive amounts of traffic, noise, light, or other objectional impacts.
B. Enhanced architectural standards which, at a minimum, conform with Section 7.2 A-(2)
Commercial Districts and 7.2 A-(5) (a and c) of the Single Family Dwelling Requirements of
Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance for the north, west and southern perimeter of the
Commercial District adjacent to Shannon Parkway;
C. All driveways and parking lots in front yaxds adjacent to right-of-way or residential districts shall
be screened from view with landscaping and berming and/or landscaping and grade separation;
D. A sign plan that meets current standaxds and also screens signage from residential districts must
be prepared as part of the final development plan;
E. A lighting plan must be prepaxed that shows lighting arranged to deflect the light away from
Residential Districts and public streets and limit light intensity at the perimeter of the
Commercial District.
5. The planned unit development must conform with requirements set forth in Section 12.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance for final development plan review and platting requirements as specified by the
Subdivision Ordinance.
6. Townhome densities shall be limited to a maximum of s�dwelling units per acre. Final PUD plan
approval shall not be given until the developer has provided building layout and related site design
details. Such design sha11 provide adequate setback and design considerations to provide a gradient
transition between the single family detached and single family attached land uses.
m ( _..__._ ------...j.----�-�--- � Nc�L.= -----�---- -------�'�- - a'
a � ,�4 ,.«L c ��c.�tic��_..�;; �� , 1 __ � . ¢
��g M�LE C o�u n t y R o o d �t�2 � r/� �'�-= a
M �IC�HT T13� O`dl.Y RlG1-{T7'U�2N UILY --F-
� �r-�-�r��.��_ "'�r—��'nir�t � r . �r���1 • •����� •�� � •��• •�_ .
M � �.�.�� • • ��=��ss •�� . �• •��. � •.. s.rv .• • . ��•..�... . .e
1c� �[1 n cZ_ a cs,L�a��r��cP tc(�c��t�r.�o��3-c.�-'� �cs�c c c c�. D
� •�'J 4" ��--���� "�i �� ���''" U\ �„// �rl�r� �•\ �\ � �•
�� � � � �,,���j •
n � r � a',� �
7 J r�'t1.� r_ �WL1.�M���...`._� p t#�'`\� 7'Su`�_'�Ce_-�� f � �*C� ,,,�;�\ ,.nc Q.
J►��tl�Q"�i r`�, �`- _� -� /"tJ� �-----`_/_"`\-- 1 � h
�� : �' �e� 1--�- -�'- � �-- D ' g- -_ .. ,_t� , '� � ; � ' �r:
•., . SfO.Y_0.�� l � t�-��-�,��a essa t�� �c�a`� g ct c3rs's�o � � � • ��r� 1 ' �� R.
� :��� f / ,,/'"''� p�3_T�Y'c'sa�csa� �crc�a�+Ls�s�f-�ii�� � i ��� u: G1
�' :II � �Q� � ' � -��—�� � 1! G ` 1r �'" �� ` '�'� q:
=��r� pr� o'c���' � "� �� . � � � �' [�O [Ctd ti �` Q• 3 �
� r' . � .
��`� �o �P�Q l�-l--�.i � ��_ _rt_ � � _��J � .- ,, �� p .i_`� • �'--�rr' c
� -t,, ii`` / � ti.` � 157 St St�
�--�aay` � A�t�ai� ���ti� � _,Aetait_-.-- - �� F�----.-SR'�t2�ifi _`;���-.�{�-�. �,� �'� ;��.%�� � . .
.� n � ' �- t t `- � � i .,J ^ ��`�"�y ��•�'C1 �
' c�� t�'��U �'��l ��` ' i \•_'`_' �� �/fi �' '`J �i i�'' 'a� � t � `� Q . � C
��j �"/ �:
"'...�7"" ""l' ����.. \ , �� _. .r�^.�� J / � �/�/ • � . \ t�
� r ����"` ,� � ��� .,.�" �� ��� ��/ �,/� /f�I ji� •}'� �/'�._ � 1
i 1 � - �� .� � -� i l �� yX i �,�� . • ,:
���.-=`,-`�����` • ����'�"'� .�+��`,\` 1�� ��i'��-�� `�����i�rr ��', � ,j��j' "�'r��. � �cs¢c� � C!
\ . � � � � ` ^ �
�/� ���ti�\ �. ��� ��f`1�t•\' •'�R��� � s`�� �• ��"�� ����1� i' //� �r �' , , �?��.-� 0 .
�, r `;�1�7�s �� �� l�\�� `� ������ •�.' ��.�! � i � �-J l r' � • �
�, o ,' � �---��_..�'-a�T,`�: `�".; � ' � �� �. 1 �' .,1'�i� —�awnho�s "v j
� 3 � --� � , �. ��, � 1 . � � - � / �..,_, /-.'''-'� r �
,� t
i 1 �,. .� _-.
1-W- Y f'_ ��"/ f'^������ �� �``�I �j/�� `��� � � r ) 1 / /�� � ��" ' �
� 'ti � � ��/ / `� � j . Q.
_/ � � ` / / i �. . if �—� -.....��i'tl
/ -� �. �. � � i \
V ` ��+^� ~_� ! �-���� - :� /f ,�-,, . .�� •' �� ' I � i p ��- _�- ��'( a
� v i --" .. on in . �,- ��.�_��� : � in I � . � � r ,� -
¢ a- 1 � ^-' � ! ; : • •._ {J •-
� , r � expanded)__. _ • ��� ' � ' . s
. � � � ,.
c� . t", I , ii�"`1��'"� �` -_-`'-' '� . / � � � t� i /- �� _ U _
� it �: �`. � ��' � � , ,� r�� r• •. ... pe es ri n w y
� �'�__ -`• � `• ''_- ` - ' � .
�i� . _ -- <t !- � �----''�2in 5 t r�g�@�� � �
.
1 C (t��-�-�_^�----�.; i lJ i ii. '� ' _ �! ♦ �� � � h; �o..._.2O �`
� - ---� _ � `�f.- 1 � � / ` � !
(D Cf �...---� � j t ��1♦ � ♦� \ .... �..
.,� � � \ � �
� � J_ - `. `` -�, . �\ - � i \ \\ <�"-. �. Hovire Ria43
.-� ? ' t � � � � 1
� � 153 rd ' St �
tn ree � - -�� 1 � ` �
a�i
�, .. E A TNER� .
� l � � � R se` o�u .-M nneso, a � .
. �
� , . , . � • .
z
, , ' i.
i -�
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, 1�2QVNESOTA
RESOLU'TION 1995-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONCEPT FOR CHIPPENDALE PARTNERS MI��D
USE PLANNED TJNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SETTING OUT TI� CONDITIONS FOR
A FINAL DEVELOPMII�IT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Ciry of Rosemount has received a concept for a mixed use planned unit
development for the following legally described property:
North 1/2 of the Northeast quarter of Section 31, Township 115 North, Range 19
West, City of Rosemount, Dakota. County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, on September 26, 1995 the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount
recommended approval of the concept for Chippendale Partners Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 1995 the City Council held a public hearing to hear testimony
regarding the Concept for the Chippendale Partners mi�ced use planned unit development, in
accordance with the City Zoni.ng Ordinance and State Sta.tutes.
NOW, TI�_RF.FORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the Ciry of Rosemount
hereby approves to Concept for the Chippendale Partners mi�ced use planned unit
development subject to:
1) The quantity and arrangement of concept designated commercial uses is supported by
a market study that establishes market absorption capabiliries.
2J Access to the interior of the development will only occur via e�usting cross streets per
the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Existing cross streets include Claret Avenue,
December Trail and 151st Street West. Access from CSAH 42 will be allowed in
accordance with the approval of the Dakota County Platting Commission.
3) A traffic study must be completed that provides recommendations for access and
circulation design elements that support access and circulation to be reviewed with the
fmal development plan sequence of the planned unit development process.
4) Commercial development consistent with current minimum ordinance standards is
considered to be incomparible with existing adjacent residential land uses including
residentialland uses across public rights-of-way. Therefore, enhanced design
techniques shall be required to mitigate the incompatibility. Such design techniques
shall include but not be limited to:
A. Increased setbacks for buildings, parking lots and driveways; pedestrian
amenities; landscaping; berming; building layout and circulation plans; hours
of operation; limitations of uses that generate excessive amounts of traffic,
noise, light or other objectionable impacts.
B. Enhanced architectural standards which at a minimum conform with Section
7.2 A 2 Commercial Districts and 7.2 A 5 a and c, the Single Family
Dwelling Requirements of Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance for the north,
_ _ __- __ ,. . ._ _ ___ __ _ _ . _:.,_,
— ------_---------- ------------- -_--- ---_ _ . _ •-:--.-�-�
, . r
west and southern perimeter of the Commercial district adjacent to Shannon
Parkway;
C. All driveways and parking lots in front yards adjacent to right-of-way or
residential districts shall be screened from view with landscaping and berming
and/or landscaping and grade separation;
D. A sign plan that meets current standards and also screens signage from
residential districts must be prepared as part of the final development plan;
E. A lighting plan must be prepared that shows lighting arranged to deflect the
light away from Residential districts and public streets and limit light intensity
at the perimeter of the Commercial district;
5) The planned unit development must conform with requirements set forth in section
12.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for final development plan review and platting
requirements as specified by the subdivision ordinance.
6) Townhome densities shall be limited to a maximum of six dwelling units per acre.
Fina1 PUD plan approval shall not be given until the developer has provided building
la.yout and related site design details. Such design shall provide adequate setback and
design considera.tions to provide a gradient transition between the single family
detached and single family attached land uses.
ADOPTED this Sth day of December, 1995.
E.B. McMenomy, Mayor
ATTFST:
Susan M. Wa1sh, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
--�__��_�._-. ---- --__ _---- ___ _ __ . _,... .
-- - - -_ ____ --- - - -- ----- -� --- -- --�
v�i b°��
. �lills 5��
� � � � �
�h���
���ot�b � � � � �
� � � �ori�� � � � � �� �of��'d`� �"� � � �
�S th�pe�cen��
��S . , �mtnercial use f aT e�G �
�on � to e�s�i $
� �ded�ca� � � �t���Ose �
o�la� ,
e p�rcen�`�' • use. s�tton
1� � resider�tial road IS'p° erc�aL
aside for far saUth. T1�e . to�°m� . -
too s�t�o� ��e�,�re�,il
#,cur���or a sufficient� lnt ta
The�ute of �51st stree ess P°
. �a��not allow ��pr���sed'�ar,c
2.
residefiCial� d(�laret�
f a�,�or resid��tial roa t��ectlY t°malozc����,
3. The use a �f�,�f 151st street• ��at vviU con��c in�se�eral
�bri���to�
�evelap�'►ents �on bord�rs on a roa ���ox r�
locat� ro�mY�'to �,s�d deliv.e�'�cks,
�, The prol�°sed P�k' T��c1os�P i�;,sem
rn�ercial• mercial vehicles,
retailtco ��arg��°m in or��th��`rk
su�h�� veYiicles� ldre�p�a'�ing �rcial
� �vin�et h� cl:v ����; co
� �t�x a saf � d to •Sting resid� d t of do�,t�ta�'�
p�s h af a sight�����n�� in�bit the foll d�velap��n
,not,e��ug locat�on�'auld -
� tkiis
�si�crn from
oun�of commercial in ��'icien��.rz�
'Th�� �o�n;fQr�s
5' .g�erc,ount. - a,oulc�not al
�� n�������i���et�,
.�ercial saut�i
�� l�lst st�eet ,
6, Pla�ing����netcial. ��d��fic s�.udY Frese ,
�ow�o'n pon studY
k�t a�°� �
m� , � �I_
no��� $uideli�es• .
�, Therehas � ��
� �� as sugg�ted Y � � � � �
� . '''" `a.�-: � �
. ��� � "��
1��� � . , �..� �y�,�,�,
� -
� �- � ��� � � � �3 ���
�
�
.
� y
� �
_ r,,, , 1�
V
-
.:y-1-=-�`"�
�- ._.=- : ' �
� ���
a R-��
('�,�,`�,�'�- � �.
-� ����
.R �G - .,.:,._...:- --�
�
__i---�
�-----.:"_----
�._----�.
r
�
�'� � 'W� ,
�y,- . � , � -___ _. -
f,-/ '� �,/t �� JJ � � . �_ � . .
� . . �! . . r ' ��� _f� � .. � , '.' . ._r
. � ... /�. - 4��5� ' .^^�,. . � � . . � . �� � . .. �. `V
. ' . ,`f r ' ) ��.. � � � "*..�� �" -..�-.�y�'�" � � - _.
� �ax �
. � ��r ,� :� . � � � . � . . . °��� 1t��� . . � . .
� - -V ... .. ��... .. �� � : :. . . , . � ' .. . .. . . .
: . ;�.. � �S��� ,
� � ;�� ; ��„ � � � � �� � �� � �
,�3�<-�--
A ��� . . / .. . ... ., .
G ��Na
���
s�., �,
, �� ��
.
���
, _ � �
k=�,,�� �'`''�- .�i��� l
_ .-� s�
�
_ � �
�., � �,�_ �� �o .
�� � �� � , � _... � -� ��: ��
1 ���� '� �'"'-
C��e r / � �"'`_
` C�'�� �� / �; �� � �
_
���, t z
� . . --_-.-,-_ � _ ��
�__,.�_, � ��� ,� .sZ� s� �
,, � �
-==-�._'`-� '�� `� '� 3��7�
'..�_� _ /s `��'`� ��'`^ �
�....�.f� , � ��
��
- _
� �- �� ��� `"`.-_.,,,,'`,�;�� �
�� � � �r���� �
,� ^ ��
� � ,,,� �
,
��f`�"� � � �
��;c.,,.�7 ,, � 6 �� .-
..
4 �h �
,,� . . , � �-
,� �'� �--
r � � --
,
��l ,�� <'� �� � �r .� � � �--.;, � � �_��''' --,..�,,,�.,,_ � _
�-� �'{� �`�L�-,: .-: � %�� � -�.��� � � � � � ��
, ��. . .:,t� ,,��
�� ,`�� z'��� � � � �
_ ,� �
� --�---.r,.�
� ""`~
.
� ?� �a
?�
9'� -/��v.�
� �
�:
��
,- � �� ��,:��
, � _ ��, �,
{�����`� .� ~ .
d� ���� �� ��,
' ,�r � �... � � � � ' �� �
� 3 �
.. , , ,
. .
, � ��
��S � � �
.�__ � ,
_ ��.� -- . - - ,
. `.�,i �.-..
---� ��_
, . !
� Q, , G� � i W -
. � ��i l�1, �-
-�/ . , �
, , ,
�������� `� ��� ��.5' ,�� 3S"J � /�``'�'- �r
, ,
.--
� , � , , " ��� �; � ����� �
._.T e �
� 0 35 /Sa-N° s�, l,t1�
` 4 � � �sz.�� - �-
�rs�-z s;�
k+a�r��� �-c- 3� �r- i � �o�}:
�
� 3�� ��� � w
�:�
,
�>r.9.� � C.�.�ry L 1► 1�i/!l� 3>�Z 1 S-L.�� S� �
�
��� / � ' �,�:��►... ��.�,� .�(��7�i � /S� ti'.a `��- c-`� -
�
,
.�„� .�--�- I: 3E-E / f :5��~'� S�, 1�:,
!
. . . �. : _ :
, �a� 6 /Sa.� � �. t,t� � :
-���
l� `r'"`��''��' �L"!ti��: '-L� /`� � S"'�,a" I�'�t � [(�
l ~ �
�,� � t-� .� �
, , ���'
- ��� � �'��_�+�.Ciluw y''���```% iC
, , , _ /
-
; � . ,. � — �
`
� �3 9'd /� ��5�. . _�
� fi � ��f�: �s�.�'� ��_ c,J-
r �.�� OY� 1�7�C� ��. � ��
.
�
. � � 3 � ��: Gt�,
,. . �
` � � :; �� �> _
-� �...� �� �--.
�- v� ��
. _------- _
. . � . .� . " � . . . ' . . .. . . . . . . � . .. � . .: ;
Coneerns not�d b� the C�'Leary Hills 5th neighbarhoc�d
��s��
1. The pereenta:ge of lan�. dedicated to commerciai use fax exceeds the per-
centage of lar�d set asic�:e fQr residennal use: ,
,� �,
2. �'he route of 151st street curves too far south. The roaa is pt�sitioned too.
close to existing residential anci does nQt allow for a sufficient irans�tion to
commercial.
3.. The.use of a minor resiclential rQad (Clare�} as a prc�posed acces�paint to
- several retai� develt�pm�nts t�ff af 151st street.
4. The propc�sed par�3oc�tio� borders on a road that will connect,c�i.rectly t4
major retailfeorrirnereia:l. This close pro�mity to a major road brings to
mind several conce�ns, suc�i as:
• fast-rnc�ving vehicles and large cc�mmercial vehicles, i.e,, semi's and
delive trucks
park � � Present a s���y hazard to child�en playin� ir�oF near tt�e
• no�enough of a�ight break between e�cisti.r.�g residential and com- '
merciai : . :
5. The amaunt c�f comm�.rcial in this lcjcation would inhibit the f-u11 develt�p=
ment of dovvutown Ro�emount. >
� � � �
�i. Placing comrnercial sQuth af 151 st street would nQt allrnv for a suf�irient
' t�ansitian frorn town.hQmes to co�nmercial.
7. There has not been a mark�t absQrptian s�udy and a traffic study pre-
ser�ted to �h.e council yet as suggested b�PD-h�U guidelines.
� - ��� _
.
�
���� t��z � /2����� �
_ a
� � � � rc� � �
f� ,T�t�.C'''t'�i A p
... � � q � �� � � .. . . -� .��
�y.. � _ - .�. .
� �(O ��"5�.� � �Z.n.J i �',�j 1.J
- � � ��S��'�
.
------�-----� --�---- - � � . . ' �
-------__
- --_ . _------ --
---- -
,� �ti. - � ,� ., __
_
. : _
� , __ �U�AC�C� ,' _ ----
i/t3 1J,�_G �. C��,: n t ./ r� o C �� ¢_ —�------Kt�,F:`,,,., �`S :�.�. ____._------ _
2'a'r .:2`. :�.= .
'_- - - _ .. — - . �-w.e�ra,. � .� �a�rr-�:�a.-+�-_ - ._ „ .r��G - �
---� - .. r.�s'r e�".� -�.r. �
+� P� . . .�.,, . a•i'a���i'���q.�� ���. ��e� ��,��J ,'." . � � + ;
�.�. � ._ . �_ �� � . , o
�, . , �
�� _ _ - � � �
�� J���� � I
� �� '
�,�'`� CC� ►�1M�--� C� ��� - � - - . . � ��
,��. ,, ° �
_ . _ _nj 1 51 5t S i ,•
- ;
_ - � � 4
-- � �����
�� S � C� L�
� � �
,'`\ ` \ M1 ` _ ' . _ J _ �_
\ � \ � �. , - _.. = / , i
/ �\ � � ". '� �� � � .. J ,i/ / � �l � \1 0 --
� - - - ` \ 1 `� ` \ `` / \` f• � ' / / '' v/ �� ( �
..` _ Tiames.�'�,_ � � J �� '.i � nho �s. � �� �
� __��,.� \,` , ; 1 � 1 .; ��; � , ._.-�C� !� � �
i � •� _ _, • ., –- � , i ,,� �•� , � � _� /'�� � —
� .`� -� � ^� ���� ` f � / � ^\ � ' ��' � / � / / � `'�/'/ '" �
�\ \ � �i // . .t • � . �%
_ -//' � i, � `�`1 �/� �/ \\. �� •� _ 1 •�� 1 f ��.' �� _ ` . _ � 1 p. .
� Z�
l � �� :) •�• � / �I \`�' � / Ll
//� � � Of1C��(i '�! �" �/ _��J` • . l�tl � I � I /, ���( ��� �) ..�' ( "`,1� _ -.----
� �J (expanded) \`, � ; � , ! � � , . -;�'� - �i
�
., � , • i i i �
I \i-'�_\���.�.. :, _ __..- � '� � � � / � i / �� U
/
.-: __--- ��\ � r%' � '-- � ` ,. ! � ,'�, r. ...... pe es ri n w y
-,� i _ �, ^ • �
���`��J - - � i( �i � ,i ..�- - �1,52,n Str��� . � i
��-- ------ �• `�' �� ' � - - - i � �
- - - ---_� �`.\�-,i ll i /� ~�� .�' � ��\�\ 1 r� �o zo �Q
� \ i ' i� �/ � ^ \ •\ \ _ ..- f,1_
.- -� � ,�` � \ ' � �\ _ ` � � �.. �\ �iT-- �_ HOVEMBER loOS. �
> � ! � �
\` �
. 153 rd � St �ee t. '�_ _ �•.. ' �. ` �
. ••. ` � I
I i� E A TNERS
, _ R se' d�t . M nneso—fa�.-
I __���
. ,
, � .
i 2•05'�N. L�'�� ���'�,►^",,,,,o�''�'
��,,11,��R ���"
"j�AL`� �*U°�
17�H F�" �O�FMpty• �Y$ �� lAW
pROM �pRKIN HO�FMAN ARK�N' p'iSdRN ft `�M��~
. L �,�a,,cE� ,�'„�„�,..R�
gt F�w� � �",�R
• �,"u,�, ,boo N°trN� �S AVEKv�� �,,.,,a ����„�,,.
,�a•* M.}'�,' �eoox�N MtiMNEso'�p�
�;!�°""°a'� s�ooM�Na�OHON��b,z��o-�°°° . ��'°`''�,�„
a�"`o.�w�"�"` �t�P `s1110�g39 *.
N,w�'" �*t��,,
����wo�o�w�yN fAX w�w,v�a�
� �
N.�'w"�a,w++ ���°'s.k�"u'
�'�+►�""" o����,w"
� � ��
a�`�"`��" a :.'�°o������
�'•,`�`�.
W"���
►r��,a�.aoiwpna►�'`�""M�
W� tN�'' OM
�YL��'T�D � . . .
O��V►+��� . � .
0►���,►�'M��yMlt
�pAdT��10tR�
�������
��i��'�"N'
�a�''
�e�e�bet 5.1995
�c�,�(,enom`I �mbers
1JiaY°x��� ttY Goux►�i1�m �
ou��C,
R�Se a f Rd�em��n� � 4�o��°t
Ctity � . eso� �� �t
�$ ers p
g.�, o�.`�{��►�n ��p e�►da1et42 ose�'°'�'�t
g,osen�o'�#' xova�fo=��p�' , ya��y t�'��t o m nt tth�
���pt�l��'p� un��imembe�s• ��5ts�FPr° ed aGve P
Co ���tily xeti • ertial P��' t�o�S.
'��� �iC1��norn�' ��Ca
etship� x�sp etciaU=esi��o��g�$uie un�e
'DeaC�'a��t �hip�'�'���mix�d'�e ni D ve1�'P�'�'�n�' , �}use d�velop o�r8 use
�,�1e��,�,�,ch�c°,�,�plar�e��S �X fo
en4�le�� tn . e
�(cop`1 , th ,W�i�h is Buldea�1y tcG48'�et�ic�.��'�'fo�d�'
����b���riF p�a����tr , �l�s?r�
land S ec���c�► « rwa9 � sU4p
i �cc �tr��t af �e pla°,p gita: �1$ build�.n8
Pt���°t��� to de`�el�ap Y �qg3. �,�o�cct , �QV�ment, „
ers r l p"��°�Q�es d��d pctob� m�n�,an� �o��t�t►4, ���,tvi�' �'' �, c 1�d�d
a�'' ive�'1� „ ��ev�1a4 , ��ych� ��es�d�►� �t►
'Ch�P � cebe� Q m 4�tib1� f e r a�te 4i0�� s�r�s 4�a �o�� e s s 4P�°tru
Ci�`!'� mp � ° �,d�h����rr►;S�nB ��a1����o�`►�u$'n
� �� �� o ir
t�ble" �' �s� Sc p
��acceP , etatlu$ t�o�to �
ven1e�+ce r 1 ���s,�" emou� �at�'e=�r td�Are�`• ���Ca�'
co a$�a��,aup4 Y i1_aF'P°'�'tea Re�Cor�BuOus �n t����� . way��voht����
a� • �Q`an° Asg°°�a• b1e foi 1o�at��t a11�W �d 1� 11i� �,c,ot,or�
t �,�Ctri/, Capose� e99 g��'a be�n�� 11 be�°G�tc �1is�►�'es�ts;
S°�'a�t S�te�tl�in C�ty�b�,t a��p�o��ct�i��.��istr►��;e�t1���s�
'�=��ec 'r�8 x��ula�on�s��sa1a��'d�
��ri�ftclal t�t�en�Cd�
nti . de
�ar� r�co .
C��C►'4��to thc Ci'�Y�,3 uscs�n�lu
P���h&bv�sibili�`I•
w�t
et�•
FROM LpRKIN HOFFMAN 17TH FL 12.05. 1995 15:21 P. 3
LARKIN,I�OFFMAN,DALY&LINDORLN�LTD.
Mayor E.B.McMenomy
Rosemount City Council
December 5, 1995
page 2 .
The Conce t Plas� submitted bY the Partn�rsbip has been modified in a�n'u�n�tlPlan sa sfies the
p
address concarn5 raised by the Ctty Coun�l��llows��d residents. P
City's critetia for Concept Plan approval
' gs usable o en space for passive and active r�creation use,including a"tot lat" as rec�uested by
. Provid P
residents.
. e Plan eam lies with the specific intcnt af the Cit3''s Co�r►Prehe�sive Plan and Scoping Cem�itte�
'I'h P
report for mixed use developra�nt.
the Cit to develop a larger complement of eommercial r�tail uses,��n�festtues
. The�'lan vv�ll allow Y �o r�ate rotect�ve des g
additicnal high quality housing,to support future growth,with app p P
ta minirnize impacts on surrounding r�sidential uses.
in under a lanned unit development(PUD),the Partnership and then ity��h��ng
• ay praceed g p
be�nefli ciaries of a project that is mare creative aad provides a bettcr liv1ng,war S �p
en�vir4nment for the City and rts residenta.
ectfu�l ask�'or the City Council's support of the Partncrship's revise�Ce of he PartnersY�ip'sk
'We resp Y
forwaYd to v�►ar�i�B eaoperativcly with the City�nd its residents on the next s g
�pp3icat�On f�r the proposed Proje�t.
' erely,
�
Peter J� �oyl�,f
LA�RYCIl�,HOFFMAN,DALY&LINDC�It�N,I�td.
cc: Mike McNamara
Attact�lr►ent
Q168010,Q1
� . .
FROM LARKIN H�FFMAN 17TH FL 1:_..05. 1995 15:21 P. 4
• � p IOlUl ' ' �
r •
sn �annon Par .kWa. Y
� �._�" � `� -, � '`-�� �
�, � 1 � �
- --,:-�-- , � r � � j .j '~" `�y � r �\���� � �Q�� :� ' N ,
1 I l �� `'� { ; 1 l��"1��� ��� � �: ��
1 � 1 \ � l � ' . � � � �►„�� ��
i 1 1 t 1 • 1 � � ��• f� ,�� ��i � ��� �
` �, � � 1 � ` �'� 1��• �. r�cr� s�w ��'��: � � . .
! � ( � � .,.,, � �. /� ��-,. �s Q��� �T� � �
e
� � I j � �r� X �� �j /l ��i � !T `� '
'. � � i � � ���,t r� �� i��`�. �_� Q� �� � � � �
. , �,; ; , ., �a , � , , , : j� t �,,�.n, r � ��: {
. � � ' � a� , � 1� ����. : � � �� � ; . 1il = ,
�� � � ro i i � • t ! � 1 t * n
' � , f 1 /-. � !��� / / :� +� I � � �`a � + b
� 1�` �fl�' f ��� �/!�� � y.�� `� �� ,
. w � j�, I� ��� , i��. ; ;� �;,��",ra,eb t�''�.a
1 � �•� � � r � r � It i �, �
' p, '� �.'`'`,` !�i � � t � . r� � '� � � � � � r,
, , , \` � ��l. � � .���''' �� � � � � 1� � •
�y i � /� �� � 1 �wM�!� � �� � �r"� ~ � � •ti � �
,... : + � ; l ����/� pr r�.;� + j � � � �
u
� ' ,� , j� �:��� `►....'' ' � � 1 � r.,`��-- � �� � � �0i ap � ' •
ro ti -��� � � �
,. - � � � r-� ► � 1 � �: ��$, ' a� ° �
' '~ . L ��`�, • t;1 � ! � f y```��1 .l �: Q
` � � �Z + , � ` a
y� � , , ,.� /�/��� /f��l t t � ��� t ' j �
` � -''rf� �-�^�',�� J lr�i i j f ` �� � � �.� r,
'�\ � � '� N��`
- � ,� • � : � .! . .
� � � �C1�� 1 �
� '' , ,ti. � { , ► ���a , � . t�
�`^r"' � f � � j • 1, ! 1� 1 ; �� 1 j , �+ �
� � � �'� � ��,� 1 � ��� � J �+ ' •
••"�.,....._ } ,, � � ..�, R ` w� t�y •
t � � . ��� �� �� � � � '
� . . - � ` � �: -:�_ -�"� ��p �� �'
___�__ ; . �, ` _ m�' �*�'•` `,`',�',; �� �c �, ' ��
.. 1 ,�.., �"'�y ��,.: �� � �\ , � � �� � � i1i
, .� ..�.,, .
� .r � ''titi \ � E . ♦' �i � ,
�1 1' � .
• .,�� �`���.,�k` �, 1 t j � �
. u► • �~� � *' � \� ��` a
�. � � �ti�;` ��� � �t��'��°����
t+ � �'� � �\"�'`'�, �t�a+�►�xw .
y � � �+'`� �� � � ��,1�� '91.� ���i .... ��y:� ��
. � .. � .'� f , •
� � . � 1 1 �c� � • �" � �� ��r� ��
� ` " �' ' � �`` «.� ,� ��Q '� �� � � ' ��~ti � ''-3'"�J,�'��/ : �
, � - .. ; , , � �a � � a�, ,• �.���; : ��
,. , , � � ; `, ' .►�1 � t— -` " �+�
� '� �� t �✓' . �� � ,
/ „ t W r y • � „��, �� '!i
� f �� � � 1 � � r� �.• ....�" • r� 1 �y, .
�Qi J ... � 1 / 'Q I -�'+�� �r ^ � / �w
/ n �' ""' •�, � `�. f�"' / I ,'� �•• � ,V ��4 �
� �" � � ' • ' p � «
� �' �� t � t / `,�� . ��.. eJ"r �' � �-.i• � � �.
r � ,� ��::.
� ' A v C n .0 �
� � �';� �` `'� � h i' A P � ri d a 1 g
. � . . � � ;
.. !� . �j � ,
�f. ,� , ' � �
1M �f N
� Tfa�f-�T �c.C.T�G�..P,f t1..1
� � r i^Y�t T Wti�lla U4.1^�
N1
��..... .�t�M ��... . . � � . . � . .
***EN6***