HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. Eastbridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Request \
,
= City of Rosemount II
Executive Summary for Action '
City Couacil Meetiag Date: June 20. 1995 ,
Ageada Item: Eastbridge PUD Amendment Ageada Sectioa:
Request Public Hearing
Prepared By: Andrew Mack Agead����.,Yi � �
Senior Planner {
Attachments: Planning Commission 6/13/95 Approved By:
Executive Summary & � /
attachments; Letter j //
received on 6/13/95 from ��u�� �'C�� �
Robert & Lynn Sebion
At it' s meeting held on June 13, 1995 members of the Planning
Commission reviewed the PUD amendment request by CMC Heartland
Partners. On a 3-1 vote, they recommended to the City Council
denial of the requested amendment to the PUD approval condition
requiring execution of an agreement with the CP Rail prior to final
platting. The majority of the Planning Commission felt that this
agreement (which provides assurances to the City that the rail spur
to Greif Bros . will be reiocated) is critically important to the
overall PUD project design as approved. Commissioner Ingram cited
the importance of getting new urban residential development
underway east of Highway 3 and the acceptability or compatibility
of railroad lines adjacent to residential in her dissenting vote.
Staff has recommended to retain the approval condition as a means
of ensuring that a significant feature impacting the approved PUD
design will be resolved. This recommendation is based solely upon
the ability to implement the approved design and not the merits of
residential land uses adjacent to the spur. The assumption all
along has been that the spur will be relocated. Therefore, the
issue should not be viewed as a means of identifying potential
design compatibility with the spur left in place. If this were
allowed to become a worst case scenario, then substantial
consideration would need to be given to the PUD design as a whole,
including the initial phase of development and perhaps the
philosophy surrounding overall land use for the property.
The condition to require execution of an agreement was modified
during approval from a stipulation requiring the physical
relocation of the spur prior to proceeding with final plat
approval . Evidence of an executed agreement was viewed by the
Planning Commission and City Council as a satisfactor�r assurance
that the spur relocation would occur. Absent some other form of
guarantee for the spur line' s new location, Staff cannot support
the applicant' s request as presented and would recommend that the
Council direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact
consistent with denial.
Recoannended Actioa: MOTION directing the City Attorney to
prepare findings of fact consistent with 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 Actioa:
;
' , • • City of Rosemount
Executive Summary for Action
City Couacil Meetiag Date: Juae 21. 1994
Agenda Item: Eastbridge Planned Unit Agenda Sectioa:
Development (PUD? ; PUBLIC HEARING
Preliminar•y Plat & Rezoning
Prepared By: Richard Pearson Ageada No:
Assistant Planner l�C� � � `"� �::�
i C
Attachments: P.C. Memos; Applications; Approved By:
Resolution; Ordinance;
PUD/Ma.ster Subd. Agre�ment;
Informational Documentation;
Public Notice; Mailing List.
Mr. Wayne Delfino, CMC Heartland Partners, is requesting approval of
a residential planned unit development (PUD) , preliminary plat, and
rezoning to develop 192 single family lots on 81.1 acres of land
currently zoned SP Industrial Park. The PUD will facilitate the
phased residential development. The preliminary plat will define
lots, outlots, and street right-of-way. The single family lots and
associated streets will be rezoned to R-1 Single Family Residential
(detached) .
A final plat for each phase will require review an.d recommendation by
the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council as each is
completed. The rezoning can be approved at the time of final plat
approval which will legally described the properties and enable the
recording. .
The Comprehensive Guide Plan Land Use Designation for this property
was changed to Urban Residential with the Met Council approval of
ITpdate 2000 in December 1993 .
The Planning Commission approved the Concept PUD on April 26, 1994 .
The preliminary plat and related rezonings were discussed and
reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting on May 24, 1994 .
The Planning Commission recommended approval after considerable
discussion encompassing the following: 1) the double frontage lots
adjacent to CSAh 42; 2) park development location and timing; 3}
acquisition of railroad right-af-way for residential development and
spur relocation for Greif Brothers, Inc. ; 4) variances as indicated
on the plan and identified by staff; 5) problematic lots similar to
others that have required variances; 6) undevelopable outlots; 7)
circulation and street design; and 8) concerns regarding the change
in land use.
The attached draft resolution outlines conditions of approval as
recommended b the Plannin Commission and Cit staff.
Recommeaded Actioa: MOTION to adopt A RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL
OF TI�iE EASTBRIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND PRELIMINARY
PLAT AND SETTING OUT THE CONDITIONS FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
- and -
A MOTION to table action on the rezoning request for the
Eastbridge subdivision until final plat approval .
City Council Action:
' 6-21-94.004
� ___ _ _
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAROTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RE50LIITION 1994-77
A RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL TO THE
EASTBRIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMEN'P (PIID)
AND PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SETTING OUT THE CONDITIONS FOR
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount has received a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and preliminary plat for property
legally described as follows :
Lot Sixty-five (65) of Auditor's Subdivision No. One (1) , Rosemount,
according to the plat thereof now on file and of record in the office of
the Register of Deeds in and for said County and State; the same being all
that part of the Southeast Quarter {SEln of Section 29, Township 115, Range
19, lying East of the railroad right-of-way of the Chicago, Milwaukee and
St. Paul Railway, excepting therefrom the following: a) a strip of land
heretofore deeded to the Burlington, Cedar Rapids, and Northern Ra.ilway
Company of Iowa, by deed dated October 4, 1901 and recorded in Book 113 of
Deeds, page 190; b) an easement to Minnesota Northern Natural Gas Company,
a Minnesota Corporation, dated September 30, 1933, and recorded in Book 195
of Deeds, page 15; c) a strip of land containing 9 .9 acres, more or less,
taken by the United States of America and described in Judgement on
Declaration of Taking No. 1, dated September il, 1942 and recorded in Book
51 of M.R. , page 58; d) an easement containing 3.37 a.cres, more or less,
to the IInited States of America described in Judgement on Declaration of
Taking dated December 15, 1943 and recorded in Book 51 of M.R. , page 552;
e) existing road and public utility easements; and 5) all that part of Lot
65 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 1, Rosemount, according to the plat thereof
now on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds for said
County and State; (the same being all that part of the Southeast Quarter
(SEln of Section 29, Township 115, Range l9, lying east of the railroad
right-of-way;) which lies north of the north line of that certain easement
dated December 15, 1943, and recorded in Book S1 of Miscellaneous Records
at page 552, in the office of the Register of Deeds of Dakota County, and
west of a line parallel to and 920 feet west of the east line of the
Southeast Quarter (SEln of said Section 29, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota
County, Minnesota. Subject tot he rights of the public and public
utilities easements in the roadway along the north side of the premises
herein conveyed, containing 16.6 acres, more or less.
WSEREAS, on Ma.y 24, 1994 the Planning Commission of the City of
Rosemount reviewed a PUD and preliminary plat and submitted its
recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residential development is consistent with
the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan: Update 2000 land
use designation; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 1994 the City Council of the City of Rosemount
held the required public hearing for the Eastbridge Planned Unit
Development and preJ.iminary plat.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Rosemount approves the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development and
preliminary plat subject to the following:
1. modification of the phasing plan to include direct access to
Biscayne Avenue or 145th Street West in the first phase;
- • EastBrdg.PUD/PRE
June 21, 1994•
. Page 1 of 2 r�
. - � . � M. . . . � .
�a�, .._ _ �. __ . .. . . ..., _ _
���
�, �
2 . provision of sidewalks and trails �as specified by the Parks
and Recreation Committee with grading and seeding of the park
at the time of initiation of the third phase with park
dedication fees to be paid for each phase at the time of
final plat approval;
3 . �evidence of Developer ownership of the land included in the
preliminary plat;
4 . execution of an agreement with the CP Rail (Soo Line)
providing for the relocation of- the railroad spur;
5 . screening of all residential areas from highways and railroad
lines subject to City staff approval of planting strips that
effectively screen view and reduce noise levels;
6 . proposed densities for the cluster housing and conceptual
street accesses;
7. grading and utility plans and specifications approved by the
city engineer;
S . elimination of all references to variances for garage side
yard setbacks and corner lot street side yard setbacks;
9 . outlot maintenance shall be the responsibility of the
developer and will not be provided for by the City; and
10 . execution of the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development and
Master Subdivision Agreement.
ADOPTED this 21st day of June, 1994 .
� �, ` �
E.B. McMenomy, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sus n M. Wa h, City Clerk
Motion by: Busho Seconded by: McMenomy .
Voted in favor: Wi�permann McMenomy Staats, Busho
Voted against: None
.' ' EastBrdg.PUD/PRE
' June 21, 199Q
. ' ' Page 2 of 2
! . City of Rosemount .
I . � ,
Executive Summary for Aciivn
Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 24. 1994
Agenda Item: CMC Heartland: EASTB�vGE FIN,� Agenda Section:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OLD BUSINESS
Prepared By: Richard Pearson Agsnda No.:
Assistant Planner TTEM NO. Sa.
Attachments: Final PUD Blueprint; Residential PUD Appr By
Booklet; /'���G��
(�
The final development plan for CMC Heartland Partners' Eastbridge Addition has been
attached. The plan does not address all of the previously identified issues. If the Planning
Commission finds that a recommendation of approval is appropriate, then further opportunity
is provided for revision prior to the public hearing by Ciry Council.
Rezommended Action: MOTION to recommend to Ciry Council approval of the Eastbridge
residential Planned Unit Deveiopment with lot width variances subject to: 1) modification of
the phasing plan to include direct access to Biscayne Avenue or 145th Street West in the first
pha.se; 2) provision of sidewalks and trails as specified by the Parks and Recreation
Committee with gra.di.ng and se�ding of the park prior to initiation of the third phase with
Park Dedication fe�s to be paid for each phase at the ti.me of final plat approval; 3) evidence
of Developer ownership of the land inciuded in the preliminary plat; 4) relocation of the
railroad spur(s) prior to appmval of rezoning to a residential distirict; S) screening of all
residential areas from highways and railroad lines with City staff approved planting strips that
effectively screen view and reduce noise levels; 6) provision of east-west through street
access conne�ting Biscayne Avenue to commercial and cluster housing land uses; � proposed
densities for the cluster housing with conceptual stre�t accesses; 8) grading and utilities plans
and specifications approved by the city engineer; and 9) execution of a planned unit
development and master subdivision agreement.
-,�vn -
. A MOTI4N to recommend that City Council schedule a public hearing to hear testimony
regardi.ng the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development.
� Planning Commission Action:
- s.2�-9a.osa
. . . . ' . �: . . .
� � . . . � ' . . . . . . . . • � ..�
� ' ' -
; `
,�?y, -
� C 1 TY O F RO S E M O U N T 28�5°TMth s�t W�t
.`y? P.0.Box 510
� Rosemaunt,MN
-� Everyihing's Coming Up Rosemount�! 55068-0510
�
�$ ' � Phone:612-423-4411
:Y '
Fax:012-423-5203
T�O: PLAu�1NING COMMiSSION
FROM: RICHaRD PEARSON, ASSISTANT PLANNER
Da�: MaY 19, 1994 .
SUBJ: MAY 24� 1994 REGut.a�t NI�'rIlVG TtEv�ws AG�rma I�i 5A.
ATTACHIVIE��ITS: Blueprint Revisions and PUD Narratives
Sa. Cl�IC Heartland Partners: Eastbridge Residential Final Planned Unit Development
On Apri126, 1994, The Planning Commission agproved the concept plan for xhe CMC
FIeartland Partners residential PUD known as Ea.stbridge. The Planning Commission identified
several issues during the concept review that should be considered for the preparation of the
final development plan that will be forwarded to the City Council for public hearing.
IssuE Su�rn�tY:
1. The lar�e number of double frontage lots and the resulting proxirnity of the houses to
CSAH 42. Although the lots me�t minimum standards, the Planning Commission was
concerned that the impact of CSAH 42 will be difficult to mitigate.
2. The location and timing of the "mini park" and the relationship to the neighborhood and the
proposed cluster housing west of Bridgewater Parkway. According to the Park and
Recreation Director, the park should be constructed with the first or second phase of the
development and that connecting trails or sidewalks must be provided to link the major
corridor tra.ils with parks as well as enhance pedestrian and bikeway access to the park.
3. The Developer should demonstrate that the railroad right-of-way included with the
preliminary plat has been acquired and that the rail spur lines will be relocated prior to
rezoni.ng from Industrial to Residential.
4. The comer lot twenty foot street-side yazd setbacks and five foot garage side yard setbacks
indicated as notes on the preliminary plats may not be justifieri and are inconsistent with
the current residential detached development standards of thury and ten feet respecrively.
5. Lots 8 and 22, block 1, and lot 6, block 8 are comer lots on off-set cul-de-sacs with three
frontages. A similar lot in Shannon Hills Third Addition was the subject of a variance
hearing that caused by an awkward yet code consistent house placement. �
6. Outlot B is a 45 ft. gap between Bridgewater Parkway and Greif Brothers, Inc. The City
should not be expected to maintain this unbuilda.ble strip of land.
In general, the Planning Commission had no objection to the large number of cul-de-sacs, but
a stated preference for larger lots was made.
Fnva�. DEv�.or�r P�r.arr:
The Developer has made minor revisions that resulted in elimination of five lot width
deficiencies. Bridgewater Parkway has been moved 15 feet west thus reducing Outlot B
referred to in item #6 to 30 feet wide vs. 45 as shown previously. A buffer yard is appropriate
to screen the incompatible aspects of the industrial use from the proposed residential use. As
previously indicated, the �ity should not be liab�e for associated maintenance.
� . , . � � ?!ir.ted on ree�eled pape� .
!unraimnt 3J'
:WY-fMSYRM'�'i).h'HIJI�
� � May 24, 1994 Regular Meeting Reviews � ` " ,
CI�IC Heartland Partners Eastbridge PUD
Page Two
The street design has not been modified in response to previous concerns about possible future
County action limiting access to CSAH 42. A temporary driveway is still shown between lots
20 and 21, block 1 connecting to CSAH 42 which will not likely be approved by the County.
Lots 7 and 9, block 1, and lots 4 and 6, blocic 5 have acute angles for rear yards. While this is '
not specifically an ordinance deficiency, there is an impact on setbacks and the-amount of
useable space and privacy available in the reaz yards because of the narrow width.
The phasing plan has not been modified to include a street connection to Biscayne Avenue in
the first phase, nor would the park be included in the first or second phase.
The plan has not been modified to include sidewalks on the interior of Blackwell Path nor trails
south of 145th Street and Biscayne Avenue as requested by the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
The conceptual landscaping plan has been modified only to the e:ctent that indicated tree types
have been specified on the basis of type and size. Planning Staff is off the opinion that the
indicated plantings may not provide the level of performance necessary to effectively screen
noise and visibiliry to CSAH 42.
FINDINGS:
In approving the Concept Plan, the Pianning Commission must find as follows and forward its
findi.ngs to the City Council. .
1. The plan provides su�f'icienr useable open space and evidences a subsranrial preservation of
narural fearures to warranr the granring of variances through Plarc�zed Unit Development.
2. The Ptarc complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
3. The proposed development will not be denzmental to surrounding properties.
4. The plan is more creative and will provide a bener livin;, working, or shopping
environmeru than is possible under smct ordinance requirements.
CONCLUSION:
With the excepdon of the eleven lot width variances and the six "problematic" lots, the
proposed residential PUD meets in;mum standards for single family detached development.
If the Planning Commission finds that a recommendation of approval of the PUD is warranted,
then the following conditions of approval should be attached to the motion:
MOTION to recommend to City Council approval of the Eastbridge residential Planned Unit
Development with lot width variances subject to: 1) modif'ication of the phasing plan to
include direct access to Biscayne Avenue or 145th Street West in the first phase; 2)
provision of sidewa�ks and trails as specified by the Parks artd Recreation Committee with
gradi.ng and seeding of the park prior to initiation of the third phase with Park Dedication
fees to be paid for each phase at the•time of final plat approval; 3) evidence of Developer
ownership of the land included in the preliminary plat; 4) relocaxion of the railroad spur(s)
prior to approval of rezoning to a residentzal district; 5) screening of all residential azeas
from highways and railroad lines with City staff approved planting strips that effectively
screen view and reduce noise levels; 6) provision of east-west throu�h street access
connecting Biscayne Avenue to commercial and ciuster housin� land uses; � proposed
' densities for the cluster housing with conceptual street accesses; 8) grading and utilities plans .
and specifications approved by the city engine�r•, and 9) execution of a planned unit
development and master subdivision agreernent. .
. � City of Rosemount
Executive Summary for Action
Planning Commission Meeting Date: Apri126. 1994
Agenda Item: CMC Heartland Concept PUD: Eastbridge Agenda Sectiun: �
Addition � NEW BUSINESS
Prepared By: Richard Pearson Agenda No.:
Assistant Planner I'I'EM NO. 6c.
Attachments: Memo; Preliminary Plat. � Appr ed B :
t%�'��
Mr. Wayne Delfmo of CMC Heartland Partners is requesting approval of a Residentia.l Planned
Unit Development to be known as Fastbridge. The preliminary plat shows 192 single family
lots that would be developed on 81 acres and severai outlots for commercial, future cluster
residential, and ponding uses.
The land will have to be rezoned from BP Business Park to R-1 Singie Famiiy Residential
(detached). Two additional parcels will have to be rezoned to Gl Convenience Commercial
and R-2 Single Family Atta.ched. These actions can wait until the developer initiates
development proposals for the parcels.
Recommended Action: A MOTION to recommend to City Council approval of the concept
review for the Residential Planned Unit Development "Eastbridge" subject to the resolution of
the above mentioned issues with the fmal development plan.
Pianning Commic.�ion Action:
4-26-94.06c
. �
; � '
�w C1TY OF ROSEMOU NT ze�5°TMths�tW�t
P.O.Box 510
' ry�� Rosemount,MN
`�? Everything's Coming Up Rosemourn!! 55aes-o5�o
Phone:6 i 2•423-4411
Fax:612-423-52�3
TO: PLANYING CONIMISSION
FROM: RICHARD PEARSON, ASSISTANT PLANNER
DA'rE: ArxII. 21, 1994 ,
SUs,i: AP�. 26, 1994 REGv�.� �I�'rnvG REv�ws AGErmA I�i 6c.
ATT� �, : Preliminary Plat
6c. C1�IC Heartland Partners, Inc. - RESIDENTIAL PLA1Vi�lED UMT DEVELOP.�NT CONCEPT
REv�w: "Eastbridge" Preliminary Piat north of CSAH 42 between Biscayne Avenue
and the Railroad Right-of-way
PROPOSAL:
Mr. Wayne Delfino of CMC Heartland Partners is requesting Planned Unit Deveiopment
Concept approval for a mixed use project on 115.8 acres of land south of 145th Street West,
north of CSr�I� 42 and west of Biscayne Avenue. The proposal consists of 192 single family
lots, a 2.4 acre "mini park"; 13.8 acres of "cluster" homes; 8.3 acres for commercial uses and
about 10 acres for ponding. Overall density for the single family residential is 2.47 dwelling
� units per acre.
The preliminary plat focuses on the subdivision of land. The concept PUD review focuses on
land use issues with project refinement occuring at the fmal development plan review.
The Developer wishes to concentraxe on the single family component of the PUD which
amounts to 70% of the scope of the PUD. No infonnation has been provided regarding the
cluster homes or the commercial area.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan land use designation is Urban Residential and Commercial.
AccEss. S�T �vn LoT D�Gx
The developer is proposing one street connection to 145th Street east of Greif Bros. Inc., one
access to CSAH 42 and two street connections to Biscayne Avenue. The single family uses are
separated from the cluster and commercial uses by a north-south street built to collector street
standards with no direct driveway access. This design is dependant on full access to CSAH 42
and County agproval. The local streets within the single family area meander through the 80
acres with two connections to Biscayne Avenue. There are six cul-de-sacs. The Developer is
also requesti.ng a temporary access to CSAFi 42 between lots 20 and 21, Block 1 for
construction.
Double frontage lots will back up to 145th Street, Biscayne Ave. and CSAH 42. Private
driveway access will be to the interior local streets.
Sixteen lot width variances will be needed, three lot depth variances are needed and several
rear yard lot corners have acute anales. � ' �
�n����«„�
. . . ` ' . � . . . � `ana,n,nc,�.� � ..
ws�+�anwmer�.�nnma/s.
� Planning Commission Reviews - C1�IC Heartland Concept PL'D Review "Eastbridge°
� Apri126, 1994
Page Two
P.� a.tvn SIDEw�.gs
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed early versions of the preiiminary piaz and
recommended the 2.5 acre "mini park" that has been included. The Eastbridge PUD is a
relatively small service area for a park but it is isolated from existing or planned parks by
arterial and collector streets and the railroad.
Sidewalks will be installed on the east side of Bridgewater Parkway, the interior side of
Blackwell path and also connections to Biscayne Avenue where a bike path will be constructed.
Park dedication will be land for the park and cash contriburion.
PHASIIVG PL��1
Five phases are proposed beginning with 56 lots for the sprin� of 1995 along CSf1H 42. These
lots offer maximum visibiliry and will contain the model homes.
IDEyT'g"IED LSSiJES
Staff has some initial concems re�arding the preliminary plat and phasing plan.
1. The initial phase should have access to Biscayne Avenue. The County review of an eariy
version of this preliminary plat recommended that the traffic flow should be oriented to the
east to Biscayne Avenue rather than north and south to CSAH 42 and 145th Street West. A
possibiliry exists that the Counry will not allow a full movement intersection at CS�-1H 42.
It seems unlikely that the County would allow the temporary construction access to CS�i
42 between lots 20 and 21, Block 1.
2. The Park should be contigous and complete with the first phase.
3. A 75 foot wide watermain easement tra.verses the site from east to west, extendin� from the
south side of the Greif Brothers site. Two lots (lot 21, block 7 and lot 3, block 9) are
sigiuficandy affected by the watermain and easement. Four other lots are impacted,
generally in setback areas. The watermain will have to be moved and the easement
reconfigured to facilitate the preliminary plat, or the plat could be reconfigured to align with
this easement.
4. A grading plan has yet to be submitted and should show all home building pads to be at
higher elevations than ponding areas and higher than the lowest point on CSAH 42. This
co�guration will provide an emer?ency positive overland drainage outlet. As an
altemative, a second outlet pipe crossing CSAH 42 to the south which performs the same
function maq be considered.
5. The railroad spurs should be moved prior to rezoning from IP Industrial Park to R-1 Single
Family Residential Detached. An argument could be made that the current location of the
spur supports the existing IP zoni.ng designation as the hi�hest and best use of the land.
• The Developer has indicated that negotiations with the property owner have been successful.
Planning Staff cannot recommend approval of a preliminary plat that includes land not
owned or controlled by the Developer.
a
� ' Planning Commissioa Reviews - CMC Heartland Concept PUD Review "Eastbrid e" �
�
Apri126, 1994
Page Three
CONCLUSION .
The proposed preliminary plat is a refinement of of a design that was reviewed by Staff last
year prior to the completion of the Comprehensive Guide Plan update. The approval of the
Guide Plan update allows the review process to proceed through the PUD review process.
Given the comments provided by the County last year, a major revision was anticipated in
contrast to the refinement that is currently being reviewed. If access at CSAH 42 is limited
because of a med.ian closure, then perhaps the plat�throughway should be reoriented to Biscayne
Avenue instead of CSAH 42. Recent county action regarding the left turn in to Rosemount
Village Square from CSAH 42 may reflect a different approach that could result in a three-
quarter intersection. Thus, only the left-out would be eliminated.
RECONIlI�NDATION
MOTTON to appmve the concept review for the Residential Planned Unit Deveiopment
"Eastbridge" subject to the resolution of the above mentioned issues with the final development
plan. �
• � 2 � .
i
, � .
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 22, 1994
TO: Ricic Pearson, Pfanner
FROM: Bud Osmundsan, City Enginenr
SUBJECT: CMC Heartiand Eastbridge Preliminary Plat and
� Utility Review
The engineering department reserves the right to review each phase as it is considered
for fina! piat.
A. WATERMAIN
The preliminary utiiities plan shauld provide an 8" connection to the 12"
trunk main in 145th St. West. Also an 8" main should be compieted on
Bridgewater Parkway betwesn the two intersections with Bridgeport
Way.
B. SANITARY SEWER
The site is adequately served with sanitary sewer trunk and interceptor
facilities on CSAH 42 and Biscayne.
C. STORM DRAIN
As the comprehensive storrn water plan exists, we are unable to •
ascertain if ihe proposed plat is in the City's best interests. It appears
that trunk storm system faciiities will be necessary in the proposed Plat
which wiil be addressed by a feasibiiity study which will be ordered on
May 3, 1994.
None of these issues should be considered a road block to approval of this concept
plan.
nk
i
�
3 �
� • ' �
� GARY H.STEVENSON,R.LS.
DA K�TA CO U N T Y lANO I�NFOA T ON OIAEGTOR
(612)891-7087.
SUAVEY de LANO INFORMATION DEPARTMENT FAX(6t2)89t-7031
14955 GALRXIE AVE?vUE APPLE VALLEY.MiNNESOTA 55124-8579
��t+...
�,."��,,r..e-�i
�•�`��
��
� July 13 , 1993
City of Rosemount
1167 - I45th St. E.
Rosemount, I�Il�1 55068
ATT: Stephan Jil]t, Administrator
ROSEMOL'NT BUSINESS PARK
C;SC HF.�.�TLAND P�RTNERS
Dear M�. Jilk:
The Da.kota County Plat Commission met on July 12 , 1993 , to
reconsider the concept proposals of ROS�OL'NT BUSINESS P3.rc..�
and G�1C HE.'4RLAND PART�iERS. Said proposals are adj acent to
C.S.A.E. NO. 42 and a_e, therefore, subject to the Dakota
' County Contiguous Plat Ordinanca. �
The P1at Commission had tabled thesz pla�s until after the
County Board considere� the effect ef C.S.A.H. NO. 42 being
designated as a principal arterial. Based on the County
Board's resolution, a full intersection will be allowed
provided that it is located 1320 feet east of the eas�
railroad track. Other requirements far approval are an
internal road system that provides a throughway to Biscayne
Avenue and covenants are recorded with the plat which
release Dakota County from aII damages causad by future
changes in median access from C.S.A.H. N0. 42. A copy cf
the County Board resolution is attached.
Restricted access is required to be dedicated on the
remaining frontage alcng C.S.A.H. NO. 42.
The preliminarg plats must be resubmitted with the
corrections for further review before a recommendation is
made.
Sinc�ely,
. /�"
GG�, �
ary H. Stevenson
Dakota County Surveyar & Land Information Director
Secretary, Plat Comrsission
GHS/vf �
*;��;i � �
Pnnced on Reryclee Paoer ��`Qs � � AN ECUaL O??OATUNITY c�1?tOYER
,r Bz part Of the SOluiicrc
� �a
s � `.�' . � �
� � CITY OF ROSEMOUI�IT � � z8�5-`;�t""eetWest
P.O,Box 510
�" EV2t" thin S �0171111 U ROSE'illOUl"1t�.► Rosemount,MN
���� � � Y g� g p � 55068-0510
Phone:612-423-4411
fax:61 Z-423-5Z03
MENI�RANDUM
TO: Mayor, City Councilmembers
FROM: Rick Pearson, Assistant Planner
DATE: 7une 20, 1995
SUBJECT: CMG Heartland Partners Eastbridge PUD Amendrnent
A considerable amount of discussion continues to occur between the Developer and City Staff
regarding the proposed amendment to the PUD relative to the railroad spur issue.
Staff felt it appropriate to outline "pros and cons" as an aid to the discussion.
PRO - Amend the PUD to allow final plat, rezoning and development of two housing phases
(78 lots) with no guarantee that the spur will be moved.
l. Expands housing stock east of the downtown central business district (CBD) with
potential benefits to businesses in the CBD.
2. The housing development may spark additional development east of the CBD.
3. Biscayne Avenue is being unproved.
CON
1. The highest and best landuse of approximately 103 acres of land with frontage on
CSAH 42, mainline rail and adjacent industrial use may not be residential given that it
is bisected by a rail spur. Furthermore, another use that benefits from rail access and
proximity to a principal arterial should be considered if the property must be
developed.
2. Sunounding incompatible landuses resulting in noise and visual effects challenge the
developer to create amenities that would mitigate such impacts.
3. The absence of significant natural amenities result in questions regarding the
developer's ability to attract and promote qualiry housing that sustains the ability to
provide essential urban services.
4. The planned neighborhood would be fragmented by the remnant rail spur resulting in
safety concerns and duplication of pazks and other infrastructure.
5. The Planned Unit Development for Ea.stbridge was conceived as possible only with
the relocatio� of the rail spur.
. . . . � � Pr nted on rxYcicd Naper .
mnta nme 30�-�
Do f con9um maten�ls.
� Ciry of Rosemount
Executive Summary for Action
Planning Commission Meeting Date: Tune 13. 1995
Agenda Item: Eastbridge PUD Amendment Request Agenda. Sectioa:
Public Hearing
Prepared By: Andrew Mack Agenda No:
Senior Planner 5 II
Attachments: Applicant's application and letter dated Approved By:
5/18/95; Council Staff Report and PUD M
approval resolution dated 6/21/94; ��l `
n May 24, 1 4 members o the Planrung Commission recommen ed approval o a PUD
final development plan, rezoning and preliminary plat for the CMC Ea.stbridge Development
located North of C.R. 42, East of S.T.H. 3, South of 145th Street and West of Biscayne Ave.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission recommendation, the City Council approved the
project, but delayed action on the rezoning and included a number of conditions to be resolved
prior to proceeding with a final plat for the first phase of deveiopment. A copy of the 7une 21,
1994 Staff report to the City Council at the time of approval has been attached for your review.
Although Staff has been working with the CMC Development Team over the past several
months, a Master PUD and Subdivision Agreement has yet to be executed for the project.
The request before the Planning Commission at this time is to amend or modify one of the most
significant conditions of the project approval relating to the relocation of the Grief Bros.
railroad spur line. The approval condition reads as follows: Execution of an agreement with
��
the CP Rail (Soo Line) providing for the relocation of the railroad spur." The attached letter
from the Developer's representative Mr. Reid Hansen, explains the rationale behind this request
which is asking basically to allow Phase 1 & 2 to proceed with fmal platting and development.
The condition for reiocation of the railroad spur would then apply to the remaining phases, the
majority of which are located to the north of the spur line.
The City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council have maintained all along that a decisive
agreement must be in place so as to insure the relocation of the spur line. The spur has a
substantial overall impact upon the design of the PUD. Without certainty as to it's relocation,
the design of the project as a whole would be in question. Beyond the fact that CMC is still
waiting for the judge to render a decision on the spur line relocation, Staff is not aware of any
significant changes in the factors surrounding this approval condition that would warrailt it's
modification or removal. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the
City Council for action during a Public I3earing for this request wtuch has been scheduled for
7une 20, 1995. Based upon these considerarions, Staff would recommend that the applicant's
request for amendment to the PUD approval condition be denied.
Recommended Action: MOTION to recommend 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 relocadon of the railroad spur.
Planning Commission Action: Voted 3-1 in favor of recommending denial of request to
amend the PUD approval condition requiring the executed railroad spur agreement.
�
r
,..
!� � , - MACHINE COMPANY, INC.
. . � Metal Stampings made in U.S.A.
� • _ 1301 KASSAN DRIVE•PRESCOTT,WI 54021 •PHONE 715-262-3251
FAX 715-262•3252
�
City of Rosemount
Planning Commission
2875 145th Street West
P.O. Box 510
Rosemount , MN 55068-0510
RE: CMC Heartland Partners I Request for an Amendment
to the Conditions of Approval for the Eastbridge
Planned Unit Development
To Whom It May Concern:
We feel that Greif Bros . should have the say in the
relocation of the S00 Line spur. They need proper set-
back from residential housing . We also believe that
this issue must be settled before any construction is
started.
Sincerely,
,
�-
/ ��_�
,
Robert Sebion
Lynn Sebion
Property Owners , City of Rosemount
� •
�
SHORT ORDER SPECtAUST
Date Receivect:
� � City of Rosemount AF���F�
P.O. Box 510
2875 145TH STREET WEST MAY 2 6 �95
RosEHtourrr, MN 55068-0510
(612)423-4411 CITY Ur nu�EtulOUNT
;,
�CJ� .. ::>:<:>::::::::>::.;;>.>.::>:::`>::::>>.
: : : ::
>::>::::<>::::>::::::�.;::::::>::>::::».:>:<::>:::::><> ; : :
::�::::;:::>::.>;::::>::::.:::;::>::;::>...:::::::::� . . . .. .:. .:;. �`... P....... . .. ..........:..�.:...:............. ..
::::.::.::::.::::.:::::..::.::::::::: :::::: :: � :. :.: �: : :.: :: . .: ,� :: ..��,clrr..€���: .::::�...............).:::::::.�:.:................. _.
::::.::::::::: ::: ::::::::::::. , . . : �::��r�rrr�::�i�r�:..::::::::.:::: ::. .:::::._:::::::: :::,:::::::::::.:::::::::::..:.:�:::::.::::::.::.::::: ,::: ,., .
::::<.;;:.;::::.::::::::::::.:::::::::::.::>:A�'�'L��A'T�4j1�I::.F(�::.::.�:::.�:::::::::::;::::>:::::::::::.::::.::.:.:;.:;<�:::.::::.�:::::::.:,;;;:..::,::.::::::::.::.............................
1 CMC Heartland Partners I 312-294-0440
Name of Applicant (to be used on legal doctcments) Telephone No.
2 547 West Jackson B1vd, Chicago, IL 60680-6205 312-663-9397
Address of Applicant Fczx No.
J C Johnson Consultants , Inc . 612-566-6158
3• Telephone No.
Name of Consccltant
6601 75th Avenue. North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 612-566-4374
4. Fax No.
Adclress of Corisultant
$, Same as tt1
Name of Property Owner
6 Same as � 1
Address of Property Owner Telephone No.
Industrial P.U.D. Residential
7.
Current Zoning Proposed Zoning (if applicc�ble)
g Agricultural P.U.D. Residential
Present Use Proposed Use (if applicable)
9• $ Received By
PUD Fee ($250.00) Escrow 1$500.00)
�,.����, v�� Fr.r2 �uD �CE���4.��J
10. Street Address of Property(ies) Involved: N/A
Current Description(s) and Survey Attached? see attached
Revised Description(s) and Survey Attached? No
6. ProjeCt Description: Eastbridcte Planned Unit Development -
Applicant seeks an amendment to the conditions required by the City
of Rosemount as a result of the Rosemount Citv Council _ ac�t-i �n �n
June 21 , 1994. See attached letter dated Ma_y 18 1 �95 .
PUD/APP 8/5!9''.
Scf�i 5Y: ; �-2�-95 ; 14:24 � Ch9C -� 161242311�7;� 2
, ,..., _. ..� .�•::.�, .
: P.4i6 r
• ;
n
12. �32�� z„a�.m�,�.�i�n �:��: ?�e?im�.n$rv" ���tb;,'��. � � :
�nr2B :2� D�c�� �1��t£��1�p�GV�,� '
1?. �:a�y ����, Acti��,: �'��nar Eas�b���ae P?anr��� � �- �vr.$ 2� ? Q .
. tJr.i* I;�ve�o�:n�n� A����V��.
',> �ns�i���� t���u.��,.r�'����; S�� �tt�ch��3 I����w �� ��i�? ,�. ��,n��� c�a���
biay 1 �, 159� . �
�"r��.> ��.����.^�: �;��` � s�����W{,��� � {} �5 y �� �qg� Y� y� ¢p� � {} �# �,+y]{}�� •
� . .S' � L6 �� S��Y��.i"4�� �S.d"���s�43�� .�.�p��SY#�N7� ��$3�p e�1"st3�i3�f� §3 �ft+.�
���� 3"°�bf�3 Ct,J � �'Sd,�3��?����33.#''���"y'• .f'��„� e"a''7 ��' ��3, '��' '�f�;`��-'' ''3�.'f'. ��=�� S�'ests= y�q� q gy� y�
"`.J � 4�b.3a. �� �.��'J ��bii3 Zi��'d��;w'��� _
�r���.�. �"��� ��� �������° ��L �a����� � �'� ��� ����.
,��������� � ����s�� � ��}� �
� ��, ��� �.����i��`.� �9�:���'; ��;'�'� ��;.�'�� �� � �������
� ���` ������ �'n��r�:: .��',���,
��� �� :� a�
� .3�.,��'a ��3'!':.s��V+'�� +� {`S.a�...'-� ��Sx..ir�dL .�1�il.as• �� �����.��"���� �8c���i ����_:���s,
.
t�vl�st7��iT�..FL$`.�.S�i-.ti� f#a"Ys+ i3�t3.�„�.l ii��: � . . �
�.�l� �.�1:'���� _r���...�w�.'�'1 ��.�.�3' �:,�`""��t�r� �ea���',_�f.�• � ...s�i.� �'�;�::fi�.'���� �B° s�� ��- �"��
syy�ygy,rc��+{�� J.�e } �'y� ,�r �+ r� }�ay� �!g � �S 'i ° �� � � y'I rt
l.S.'EGTVO7� VJ' f.��d���r�t��Y dS�+.� �a".7 d N�d�.#:>a �,��r'71i� iV" �E��3;.• ��.d��.sr'�.� iaE�tf��a�" ����j i��3 .�s�. .
,��3`�'��?�'= ��'�� �� .s��.�� ��.�� :���.�� �°��.� ��' �'�� ������'� ��. � ���� ��'�'s4�';'�.r�%����'�
�'�� �`.�� �'i�i:��1yt.� �,:� `.�''�� �'�� :3���r����:�'i .�.,�� �'.�tt� ��'� l3� ����ar=.�� G���1�'�.'{���`1s; d�,,�dl�
3��' ��.� �`J`t����d��� ����.,'�..'°t�,��' ��:�''�, .����, �� .�.:;-� ������� �����`,�.� �� ��� �1�'��.� �.��
�`....a..��.=i:�I::2�"���' �'.� .�'��� �� 1�i�'� s�'�°?=':i;.�i'.
�
�� , � ; + � (`.
�1�� ;�1f� � '
�--�--�-�---�------- "".�-' �`~—.,, ,
���L��� �� �d}��+���, S� ��7 p}
' -_ . �3 '�'aiw�Y �n S iii�,'�,a� ��'i0�ii�i . .
�%x 3'� �.5� �'��/t��'` ,.
._`�"7°'e'�y� ._... 7 .
�� �8 �
�'i}�i�P�,'319�.�
2
File No. 35775C
•�ommonwealthm Policy No. 35775C
� Land Title Insurance Company
SCHEDULE A-3-A
Lot 65 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 1, except therefrom the following:
All that part of Lot 6S of Auditor's Subdivision No. l, Rosemount, according to the plat thereof now on
file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds for said County and State; (the same being all that
part of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 29, Township 115, Range 19, lying East of the railroad
right of way: which lies North of the-North line of that certain Easement dateri December 15, 1943, and
recorded in Book 51 of Miscellaneous Re�ords at page 552, in the office of the Register of Deetls of
Dakota County, and West of a line parallel to and 920 feet West of the East line of the Southeast Quarter
(SE 1/4) of said Section 29, Township 115, Range 19, Dal:ota County, Minnesota.
" _— +-- — __ - --- . _ - — ----- -- - ----_ � � _ -- - ----
_.-- -- _ ,.,�� _ — _
„ ;I��3��. ,r � 3��� �, , ��� (z. I'li; _ -���� -- __ --- ---- r o a a o o v �L_ -�I��
—C� , . - . _ _
5 a I ;
I � �J
. � �� I (�� l � t� ; , .�_��' _ ;�_ � � 2 ��� -z
, ,..
. .
_. . ; ; „ .� - .
o� I ':`.:; 5 _ �,
__ _
O � � � �
L s� :I�" si � � I I�''' . . � � . —��.I -:a i ..
f � I
, .. ;' � � c.}.,� (�o.o-a� ` (((.^^^���}Y�,�.(`'Ftn2n I ri, o �• / . . .... c�,iv � I Q �YQ /� � 4 O. amor o a �,�I �
�t....—' _. I =' �� II 3 �I4� z �I, � Baus. �. i o n �3J O ' . i . }Q � � I�f'� �
_.
_. z
�t �u f� c.Yo2 p,i,�{� 5; S OPU pCfiiT�G� � ,I . / � � �i � • �� � � ��� .
( u i �
I I n �' � � �._„� i�_�____ ��� '�.- JI O O O ° O �r ^ �1.� 5 �
_ _ � � �� � o ' I �
�_.._;��� a-�z �; — . ( " Q � � �—�- t 5 7
`.'i;:"""c����, 05��� � s+ ��=..-...�- �— I , o fl ... . . ... � �, ia,a'ouoraTi°i t n lr,�,. ;.6--,.
1 � si ..��I ��—'� ue�y,`� ' �-I� . i� , �� ��� ❑ " r � cvrwT a 6 �'!� .
'_� _, s� ���� J o k�. . �- � �,�,. � S �° ❑ ,. " � '
, �yo_ _;� , � " , +i
s. s' i I�� ��`u o°�ei� `-� � i� s � �} I ..... � . 7 a O �� ( �•. ���'.. �
.�,..
� : �
�
........ �!i��; n��'aP �5--..'.' � 3 -____� I I � / I� ...._ 3 O i s ¢ 1 p 9 e j//.9'`�g2 /
L O l' ° +=; V
—�.. i .
� . -_�_
-�i ��` .'� . ..1 � �.... � ..e..�..�... I' ' t �� —�tftvi—. O _— A _ ! .', :
���II�:'[�w . � =J �I x � i �• �/I — —. _ — � _I'— t_ -�—t [.ic.c.• P _O _ _F�' _�I � r:ini��� p /
{ ( � � ' " � �� � 1 � n , ... ,� - � �Q� -' ; ¢• / �
---d� �' r.u � � �°'o �___ � � /� + �`'� / � .
-�� �__' _ __' I . ./ O � = o� tl G w � ::'�'
' _' — -��_"'_ �..oc '� S �'� � � � � ^T
�__�-�� ''�r"—_"_� � � ` °�.n�°�� O O z N;�
�/ / ,
—. .__.._ _ _: �
,
�.,.r 9 a
� �:� � r � � � z' . ' � � / '� � ' , � � � �s ° � 't� j:; UNIVERSITY ADb. ��_�
S
I � r
L, �. . � ....._ . e� . O WilOT.8
J❑
£ � .`h� CCN irl '�• /� c••�� �.'OI• O •''• �(� •� �\ � �� . ��1�.' . U�ay
� Z ' -�Z I�Ir n�- I i.. -_...���,', // \' '/ :'.' O ' O�= vO � v `.r?` .
, � 1 �
. . �� s
3 �- .: �,... ..
� �, � � ,, �� o � l - �=�
� \'� - 't:_::?a - `coal � ; / �' � •-" / ^n . � �) — _ . ��`a
:
� f� �-- I / .__... ' .. - -- ' --
�
/- I �I �� _. ••� / -' 6 � 1�
_�V' ! �_I � :3" "_�1' '_ ' _,.' _ ".;�—�_.�-�'��'_� "i � '�! OO O61 c� �I; � ~-
�. ;-� f r� � �. -- __._ _ � - -� � �€
Q:l''�� � � (I Z -�i� ozoaa / �,,��°% � �_L_ _t :_ �� _ �z"� �I. - �
�j��� j z �s I I � �O � � •—'----- 5 -' � � _� � t 7U�
-�-I'( s O T � � :.n" <� �I t az � //,i 1--- — --- '� `O �'OO;— ---e�=; �i 's� i i i �: `�i I. .
r .' .
:...' �I- --- - -��� I�.M C� I! .1 ,. : � �. .� t .:��. / o � a� �� i ` � �f}
�, ,� - r Z �l� _ � auz � , / o, oo , >:3 9 � , a I} �
� i'��,�-8 � I _n F-2 �'i � � �� �� . a _.... - � O e O `� o �oO If � `� � �,1
( I . (
.
__
_ .. '
-..,. n e�
� � �� 9 Q.. I � I �,� e i� z ', � . S ,
F �I 1��.-- -5_'�I�(`��Sl�s i�� ��� � � ��' / ` 0� .._ . _ '/� " n O O � � i,� ❑ � I I . ,'' !;j! 'I
,.,
,.:
� 6 p � �� I , � 0�`5 � �� I vHasE] `15 LJ�S-�all�OS 5 1�-� I
I Q I .. ' �� J t� 3 I` � �fuafF 3 5�l0ff.Sirvu[a OS !� /
Q i l _F , � i; � o_ ; ,,l ,/' � » ,. o° o�, � � o s �
► � / , .:
w N veasf Oa ��tots.r+u onisreiue o> r�lt !
-�.: . ! D 1. O � Ow�t'e� .�610tf.fWUEt 9l
� �
z.li l'i a—i C��,I�:�- w/ J�' / s �� -
o � 3, '�,. Q. oo . o ; ' U j� ,,, �, ;
Iy > ,, � �� �, �� .o =, 'o ,
� + 1..9 �) iI-.s. � . i�f'�I. � S .�,�..Q ` Q O �s O ��z O �S" i I.I�uSDEI CEHtCa � �
I A
� �� {� C �-'- 5`.�,� ♦ � t) �� � 6 '� I
��1��T�� , � � 4 a�: JS Q ,� , � ',� � O � �� �. O t � i.t0i!HCtD f0��095 SaIES �
� �u i �.� � �• * ���� � o ,0 0 �_ 0 a �.� �
, ��� o o �
— . - —��,�� i/ �:, e 3� ,00 =_.: o o m �, �
\ �; f,. �,.�� „ o - /� ss a , , _ :
�� ( ) e
9 Sl ia9 �� �� � as '�'�. /�� ` � `� aO�� zi n O �� r�z�.!a ` O �O �y �, i ' .
U
�. q� � �,;�/ir i� � � C� �, O ��� , �
, � '� ;� �� ° ;, ,_ �o '�o � � �
S+ SS�Sd A `A 59 � `/ � .\ il r �O O I I �
,\'' �O.
�' (:]
. ./ //�' ovnM�I♦ \ O ,O\❑O 1 i I� � Z
— . � . __ . ��/� / , � !1f/ . S",`� .,...�_ .. I7 / i lE6END � 3
, o� i�
� �1 IS
ER A i E W %� �;�:�' o�` .,•`��`� ,E>„�� �i � �� � ' D�O "� /"� �-' � _ ;::ru:�.� o � -
e
,`
;, ° �• ��c' ..�.1c"` � � ��' o..er.�� VF-i
�s a aa ez a i� �or s e'� � � ��" � zs Q '�ro • 1e �,�.ii� x �xs rn�rv+.,n t 6 :
.--
/� . � n w-I , � �'- , � o `-
� .. .. . � �- .. �
� � __._____ '-.—_" Z, _`_ �i�i'._'�/ i I �i ... �4R�Ent
" __�'_ , _��'—_____-.. _.... .. _ eM
... ..............,___ .._ . ... ._..
/. w
. `— ... .� ....... � ' ..w � K�wu
... ..' - _���.�-�---��,y
/ --f_�._L��-'� I � � ♦u(
►
� .� r�_ __ ��LN_�--� ._ _ _�-..........__��..!- xM�� .
_ .. _
__ '7 —'— v— �-- _:_,_-'_ .... ..._--r._._"'... . ... : , •' �
_
—_—� �_:�'_ ._..__....._.. .._._.. __.._.___ "' . .._. , � ..v�.-.�—_-:'° t�� ` ..�. �:�� �"'
' �l� ' ����
' i I I e ,.��<«�.�,
�.�%/// ...,...,
McMENOMY, HANSEN & McCANN
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOGIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LA W
. DAKOTA CENTRAL OFF[CES
14450 SOUTH ROBERT TRAII.
ROSEMOUNT,MtNNESOTA 55068
EDWARD B.McMENOMY TELEPHONE:(612)423-1155
REID J.HANSEN
MICHAEL C.NtcCANN TELECOP[ER:(612)423•1157
RICHARD L.O'CONNOR
May 18, 1995
Tom Burt
City Administrator
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
P.O. Box 510
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510
Re: CMC Heartland Partners Planned Unit Development: Eastbridge
Proj ect
Dear Mr. Burt:
On behalf of CMC Heartland Partners I would like to thank you
and the city staff for taking time to meet with us several weeks
ago regarding our project. As was discussed at our meeting, CMC is
interested in pursuing its development of single family homes on
Phases 1 and 2 of the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development (a copy
of which is attached hereto for your reference) . Also, as we
discussed, CMC is interested in pursuing the development of 0utlots
A and B on the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development for multi-family
residential housing. Since Rosemount's Comprehensive Guide Plan
identifies Outlot B as a multi-family residential district and
Outlot A as a commercial district, it will be necessary to obtain
a minor Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment with the Metropolitan
Council as well as a full planning review of the development since
it was not part of the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development.
As you recall, on June 21, 1994 , the Rosemount City Council
unanimously approved the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development, after
public hearing, provided several conditions be met. As you are
aware, we have been engaged in the process of negotiating and
completing the Development Agreement which addresses virtually all
of the conditions set forth by the Rosemount City Council. We also
expect to have, in the very near future, a set of grading and
utility plans approved by the Rosemount City Engineer. We also
have closed on that part of the property which CMC did not own,
purchasing the same from the University of Minnesota (a copy of the
deed transferring title is enclosed herewith for your reference
together with a title commitment from Old Republic Title Insurance
Company, showing ownership of the land comprising the Eastbridge
Planned Unit Development in CMC Heartland Partners, which was also
one of the requirements of the Rosemount City Council's resolution
approving the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development) .
Tom Burt
May 18, 1995
Page Two
Frankly, as we have advised you, CMC has been unable to date
to secure an agreement with CP Rail, the Canadian company which
owns the "Soo Line" , which presently has a railroad spur located in
Phase 3 of the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development. As we have
informed the City of Rosemount on many occasions, CMC continues to
attempt to relocate the spur amicably in order that no resulting
harm falls upon the Greif Brothers Company operation. As you will
note from the title commitment, there is no written or recorded
evidence of any right, title or interest of the railroad on the
Eastbridge Planned Unit Development. As the City is aware from our
numerous contacts over the months ensuing after the approval of the
Eastbridge Planned Unit Development, CMC anticipated that a lawsuit
between it and CP Rail, heard in Federal District Court in Illinois
last September, would provide a suitable impetus for CP Rail to
negotiate reasonably with respect to the spur relocation. As we
informed you at our recent meeting, the Judge has not yet rendered
a decision on the matter and, accordingly, a reasonable resolution
on the spur relocation has not yet been attained. CMC remains firm
in its belief that a reasonable resolution will occur which will
not adversely affect the Grief Brothers operation, which is the
only operation served by the railroad spur. As you can see from
the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development, no one has a greater
interest in relocating the spur than CMC due to the numerous number
of lots (and planning revisions to that part of the land of the
Eastbridge Planned Unit Development lying north of the railroad
spur) which would be lost if the railroad spur were not relocated.
It is CMC's belief and resolve that it is only a matter of
time before the spur will be relocated. Since it is only a matter
of time, CMC feels comfortable in commencing to develop that part
of the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development (Phases 1 and 2) which
lies south of the railroad spur's present location. The site has
been graded and, upon approval of the final utility plans,
construction of utilities could commence.
I am sure you recall the enthusiasm with which the CMC proj ect
was received. CMC owns approximately 330 acres in close proximity
to Rosemount's downtown area which can be readily served by city
utility services. At a time when most of Rosemount's land west of
Highway 3 is developed (or in the case of the Kelly property at a
"stand still") , proceeding with the CMC development makes eminent
sense from a standpoint of improving Rosemount's tax base as weil
as its economic base for downtown commercial development in
Rosemount.
Tom Burt
May 18, 1995
Page Three
A minor revision of the Rosemount City Council's resolution
approving the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development would allow the
City of Rosemount to commence its residential expansion eastward,
with its attendant beneficial results to the economic vitality of
Rosemount and its downtown commercial district. CMC simply asks
that the condition requiring an execution of an agreement with the
CP Rail providing for the relocation of the railroad spur be
amended by adding the words "before commencement of construction of
Phases 3 & 4 of the Eastbridge Planned Unit Development" to the
condition's conclusion. we would greatly appreciate having
discussions with both the Rosemount Planning Commission and the
Rosemount City Council as soon as it is reasonably possible to
discuss any issues raised by this minor revision which CMC proposes
be made to the Rosemount City Council's resolution approving the
Eastbridge Planned Unit Development. CMC Heartland Partners is
certainly willing to address any concerns the City may have in
allowing it to proceed with Phase 1 and 2 prior to reaching a spur
relocation agreement with CP Rail.
- We thank you in advance for your time and consideration in
considering our request.
Very truly�yo�rs,
/ �
FOR THE� FI �. �
�
. � �
Reid . Hanse
RJH:hml /
Enclosure `
cc: CMC Heartland Partners
�,� � �., �--.=�_A�__.�---= � '-'�•-- __ __ ----- - __ - --r-- -- �=_ --..
i - �_ '- �= _ =_ _-_
- _ _ �._ .--, - - ; �
� ._ _ . ... _ .
`' ,�j� - r ,!� rz> i �',�`�1 � '- o 0 0 ° ' �'=Li�. �
_ _ _ _ �� .. �
_ ___ _ _ - _______ _ _____ ___
� � � ' S ,
„ � ,. 3��� ,�I� 3��� u ,: � � . � d o oa -I�, _z
, � .
,
I .. . O`Y.'' �I.r'v-. ��. .�s �/ . .. �r�. �� — ''I _.'3
. i _:
s 1I ._.. - U +) � � y �, �...�.0 a �� � ' .
t , ��' :_ � ... M1 -
2
�� � P.}.1d OYYa3 ' i_cA��'FLA�A I � I � BREiF � 0 � Q � .•^ L O pJROi D 7 lil
� • '
�
N I /
i � °
. �_..� � l �_ ' ' / . .... ....._. I ,t05. 1 1 - � y �
)i��s � �� _u}o2' S_ �GPA CC{LG: � ; ' �I� : ' _i I ' �} OO� � ,� i�it
Q `~4 O
�I� �'�j. I aoti � I� � I �� � . ' a g c e' u I 1 � ' "5
Oi�
_—.�, �—_ _ 'i`---�I � - - o a o 0a ,.O � " � i -t— 5 ,� 1
_ rl-� ;
. _.
�:.r� - ` c.^aa: osru r s+ � �_..�--=�s.:,—.� 'i . ; �` i iruTr oe.<or'S°f�!1 � � 7��• :�6� )
__- , /
� ;' �,i,� , L ,� , .,,S� . , , �;-0 �. ��-0 �7 ❑ " ��: ; ur�ur . 6 ��;�, ��//
�I�� � � 55 Q� .� o .. �I�<i e � I , Q 5 ia a ❑ ��I � \ �. %i% �� /
' '
`'� N �II...[vH OSG `-'� �� S '� u -l�i. ..��' I 4 �t.��� Z Q O i�O � N• I 7_ /�/.
� �-C {�� `
� ... _..':f I I�I AO++ i/ ,P _ ..`.7 �� I�� .. � ��� � ./ ��J . ....... ' 1�l,O is Q 9.. e-'/j��p��\
� • • f p
I� � '
������ �;� ,-„�fi _a l ,{ I� � : .a t w r 1 —r[,.. __� — i� �� p
[i� s---�� I'� � ---f,�� i _M � , _� ,/� -- — — -f-' �- �.,�.�., _ �; �.,u :k- -�'�. ����,µ��-_-�� '` /
I !ir r.o-u � a' � t___ I� � �-- � _ � O. �. j �L ,
�_�_I� ___-��- _—_'_r��1 � , �,�o.o` / � °�t i ..�. � O y 2 � ( �� v' o � W:: p� � N ;�
' _ _:_l - - � ` Ccx�� � O �u�'i
� ---� — ,- -`_`. v �I I
�� _� f l �-� / /�� Q/�,, �❑ �' a � 't� j � UNIVERSITY ADD. ~��.5
_ , �
, _
. � - ,_..� ��� ___ 3 ►I�. _ �,I _.__. ;� � _ / . '.';% ��0��: C l ,a �� O I WiL�T b ��_:
CPu V ui�
� , £ � ,Z il'f�r..n� �,�- ' // �L', �� � � OO " O. �O O '„�c, I�' .� ��;�
a I
� _� 1� , , ab
\3 `' �"� _ ':'.:.t1 ,___ �.CP62 % / �y� \ / \�\O I I - ,•��] 1 I -- .'.a
�----- Ir `-, / _ _. .. - > , \ O� _ �- 4 -
� ' _
_ _ I
- � -�-- �------ --=�� �- _1 �) • 3 - �I
5
'�_. '!,T__, _ -•�'.�_i.I_75__ __ --7._ .__.__ f / .''f�,p' �r---_��` "'-�—. �a _^� ._� . - __.� 6 __ �._ 1 �S, _ __— ��$y
. Q����Z__ _�i I I� '� -�I�I OME7� �j ,/J°i� —_ z' ._ 5 `-� _��-_ p O ' � �\, � a I��' .. �U�
� __/- i _ __ _ __ '_ __' v' '_ ' ' _ '
t��!�I%__T_�-I ;�+ �-.� �. �:III� 6 . ;. /- r � � . . ,.. �yO ..�0 . - �. ^�� � . 41 �:` �I' I
V �
U��li �C, B Z..��I f.� � ..�yY.T � �. ,.�/ ',oF � OV i , �O e » �3 y�,� a Q � II � 3 E' . �I} j
� �_,.'���� �.( ..n F-z . I I / � � . .._ � � x. uO i �' . '�
,�
� > „ � � 1) ° �°i .I
of
��,'
�°�(,7,I�,_� 9 a� _ �'1 �, �:`,,�; Q , � ^0 O , �n/ [] � I� , ;� N�.
� F,��I'�.. -i•�-�III�'�� �LL_� .�i :.� �• / � �/ I �� Q'�5 !S ( \ �� �1 ❑ Te } l� r� �I i iNatE 1 56lOtf-SPGING95 ,�t I
I . �6 u � (��' I f , O�/ �_ /� ` � pHaSE] t5 LJii.iAl 95 j;i
_ . - .
a��(.�.::.t i I__. II ! � O I ..Jr�+ / / � � �J ' u.G 9�
I iwSi 1 51 10t5-fw�Ei 95 1�!) I
Q h_'—I_ I�:� z ���..�/ �/ 0 "� �i 'I} � OQO:�,n� O :. � ❑ . �i ! vH.s[�+ .Js�o�s.suy�ia9)iR ti!: t
z, ,l. e I. e . �� �� .,,; / Q „ �� �O :s 15 5, 0 5 _I i '„ �
— I ; II'S ��� i; J' c, oJ O �� �O �2 0 0 ,� '
C * (�(+�l�/ ' 1 M-N'%DEL CEnIF0.
��i�''._m-'=._,�6 � 'I��'_ .�: �� i s��`1 O O:•{�.. ` v �' �� ; 6 �I I iL •LOiS NFLD i0N 19J5 SalES �q
� \ I�I`�\`N .�' / " » O'* ` I ��O �i .O []O O� O O c :'. I . -
-- - ' _'.'.'7\,�\�`//// I•// ' ,•`�, » �O *` zz�,; O . _ O ,�O `=! . � ^
_ � ,,. fr o �-.� 0 0 � ; ; _�
ei e e
. '9 SJ�.la ��u a� � ��: �% c � ,` �O 1� :' + 3 O � i i
��qi � �� -/ !� =C� O �� � ��2p `O � � �� � i
i ,�..,/i � ;o s ,� o , ;
St 55 56 S� Sd 59 '/ / �/ • \ � O � � 13 z /\O O ' j I
� � , : . o�,�, .=�Q �`- �oaa oQ,,, �, �
_ . . _�. —+�� / �. ` , J G� �� �` .._....._ ..._.\/ i] � � '/ i IECFND � .�.i 3
0 Dy �
� ��.� � . = o o , o 0 0 ,5 . ; ,_.� � �,� ..,.aW� o �
, ;� .:.
, . .
:
R A E . ,
W ��: �,,;,. . ,� ,o..,;��, � , _ � o �,�— , — _ ;�.,u.�.� �
� GS 4t 63 62 G �`o �°y`' �••� �9 �� .. ��" aa�cr�a A Ul
. :� lor6 E� � '� Zs Q ,tc �s .. .. �!' z- x hcwnvrt� �
' .' � Z� il Zi � ����. ' �I � o M��«[ W
. � � . _'. - __ 2
� ` _--__—___.—_.— '—.._..=i�,...!` I �r ... .
..-.—.-� ' �- ....—." ..--...'___._.______-....... ... . . '_'_ � '.�� �iub4A�4nI
'_ .
""� 1 a L_
- �_ ..._�. _.. ... I CM
•
►
•
' ��� � .w ••• Ch10� �
�
_.�I}3 __ . ,_�--"---'r_... ' �� �bMY�
�t - ........-�-_�..�_�.-.-. ...
.._....... ! ,..���-
. ._.._. ... .......... .......... .___....._�......_....... , _ _ 1
;. i .
.. .
�� [[.+t[xec
_�\ � . — i ± / ��A Y �N
�.�i////��� ��
� ,.,.... I i� Q A�.�,��..,