Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Guide Plan Amendment - County Road 42/Diamond PathCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 18, 1990 AGENDA ITEM: C.S.A.H. 42/Diamond Path AGENDA SECTION: Guide Plan Amendment Public Hearings PREP;—RED BY: Michael A. Wozniak, AICP AGENDAE'a[ ��¢¢ City Planner ATTACHMENTS: Memorandums, Concept Plan, APPROVED BY - Letter from development group. Earlier this year a development group requested an amendment to the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan to redesignate 46 acres of property (south side of C.S.A.H. 42 abutting Apple Valley) from Agriculture to General Commercial to accommodate future rezoning and subdivision of that property for commercial development. A public hearing to consider this iter has been scheduled for this meeting. Please refer to the attached memorandum and attachments for detailed description of this plan amendment. Public notice advertising this hearing was published in the Dakota County Tribune and a copy of the notice was mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the site boundaries. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to deny a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment proposed to redesignate property from Agriculture to General Commercial designation and to include such property in the MUSA for the purpose of development of the Rosemount Retail Center COUNCIL ACTION: Continue Public Hearing to Tuesday, February 5, 1991. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: j P O BOX 510 16 y O 2875 -145TH ST. W �)?Olsem ount� ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 55068 612-423-4411 CITY COUNCIL MICHAEL WOZNIAK, AICP, CITY PLANNER DECEMBER 13, 1990 DECEMBER 18, 1990 - REGULAR MEETING REVIEWS PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT - ROSEMOUNT RETAIL CENTER This plan amendment involves a request to redesignate approximately 46 acres of property from Agriculture to General Commercial land use designation in the Guide Plan and also, to add the property to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The request is coming from a partnership of development interests including Virgil Hammerstad, Herb Wensmann, Raymond Fisher, David Fisher, Curtis Fisher, Myron Stapf, Vernon Gunderson, and Gerald Hirschhorn. This item was considered by the Planning Commission at both its January 23rd and February 27th Regular Meetings. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this Guide Plan Amendment on February 27, 1990 (see meeting minutes). At that time the applicant decided not to request City Council consideration of the proposed amendment, however, the applicant has now elected to re- initiate consideration of the proposed plan amendment. Attached with this review is the following information: conceptual site plan for the project, copies of pages 8, 12, and 13 (Goals, Objectives and Policies) of the Comprehensive Guide Plan, and a copy of the Planner's Review for this item written for the January 23rd Planning Commission Meeting. My review written for the January 23rd Planning Commission meeting is being copied because it includes additional background relating to the staff recommendations to City Council which are summarized in this review. ISSUES: 1. Does the proposed Guide Plan Amendment conform or conflict with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Guide Plan (pp. 8, 12, & 13)? It is the consensus among staff that the proposed Guide Plan Amendment clearly conflicts with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Guide Plan. Most significantly, it conflicts with the intent to keep Downtown/South Rose Park as the primary commercial center in Rosemount. 2. Does the proposed Amendment conflict with the City policy of requiring that Commercial development be located contiguous to existing commercial areas? Rosemount Retail Center December 18, 1990 City Council Meeting Page Two The proposed Rosemount Retail Center conflicts with this policy since it would require leapfrogging 1/2 to 1 mile. It may or not may be true that the McNamara Property will eventually be developed for commercial use, but, that would likely take a long time to happen given current market conditions and would also require changes to the Guide Plan and rezoning. 3. Is the necessary infrastructure in place to serve the proposed development? Connection to the existing sanitary sewer network at this time would be premature. The logical timing would be to wait until improvements to the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant are complete (1992?). If the proposed Rosemount Retail Center were to be constructed at this time the only option for providing sanitary sewer service would be to route wastewater from the development through an existing sanitary sewer lift station situated in the Wind's Crossing subdivision. The Wind's Crossing lift station was designed for use on a temporary basis to pump wastewater from the Wind's Crossing development through a force main in order that it could flow to the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City has planned that eventually the wastewater flow from the Wind's Crossing Development and other developments in Section 31 (southwest square mile of Rosemount) will be served by the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant. Originally the Wind's Crossing Lift Station was intended to serve Wind's Crossing (80 acres of single family and quad homes) and a portion of O'Leary's Hills (80 acres of single family homes). The City has since allowed all of the Wensmann Additions development (97 acres of single family homes) to be served via the Wind's Crossing temporary sanitary sewer lift station. Also, staff is working with a development interest that intends to subdivide the Geronimie Property, 39 acres situated immediately south of Wind's Crossing for residential development. The point to be made here is that the City has reached a stage where additional wastewater water flow cannot be accommodated at this time until the City obtains permission to route additional flow to the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant or unless substantial modifications are made to the temporary wastewater pumping and force main system being utilized to serve most of Section 31 are made. Also, the development would trigger the need for construction of street/traffic improvements such as turning and acceleration lanes on CSAH 42 and traffic signals and these costs may be premature since adequate infrastructure exists in South Rose Park/Downtown Rosemount to meet current commercial development needs. It should also be noted that Dakota County is currently planning to upgrade the functional classification of CSAH 42 in Rosemount from Minor Arterial to Major Arterial status. This change in functional classification would cause the County to be more restrictive in permitting access drives onto CSAH 42 which would preclude the direct access to CSAR 42 shown on the Conceptual Site Plan. This may impact the ability to market the proposed development. 2 Rosemount Retail Center December 18, 1990 City Council Meeting Page Three 4. Market Potential: How feasible is the proposed project given current market conditions? What impact will it have on development in Downtown Rosemount/South Rose Park? Is the development premature? Recent efforts by the City to evaluate market conditions clearly indicate that significant limitations on Rosemount's retail market exist. It has also been identified that there would be significant negative impact on downtown Rosemount/South Rose Park in allowing non-contiguous or leap -frogging of commercial development. The applicant has provided no credible evidence that adequate market potential exists to support the proposed development. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Staff advises that the Council realize the potential negative impact on Downtown Rosemount/South Rose Park of allowing non- contiguous commercial development to occur at the scale proposed. Clearly, text changes to the Guide Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies would be necessary to justify approval of the proposed Amendment. Staff further advises that Council follow the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the proposed Guide Plan Amendment due to inconsistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Plan. 2. Staff further advises Council that the issues being addressed while considering this Guide Plan Amendment are serious ones which could impact community identity for many years to come. This is not a simple land redesignation. It is most appropriate to consider what future land use may be most appropriate for the property in question while undertaking the complete revision of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. 3. Staff advises Council that there would be costs associated with construction of public improvements such as upgrading of the current sanitary sewer network, street improvements, and traffic signals that would be triggered by the proposed development. It is the opinion of staff that these cost would be premature based upon the fact that there are existing properties available for commercial development in Downtown Rosemount/South Rose Park which are already served with adequate infrastructure. 4. Staff advises Council to consider conclusion of recent Market Analysis efforts which have indicated that a commercial development of the scale proposed situated away from Downtown/South Rose Park would significantly impact retail sales volume of existing merchants and would limit the potential for expansion of commercial development. 3 C111 I'll 1111( �, 111 ( J 1 Y () "AP, 1.1',111 "I W IIf 1'.1 Ml 111N 1 MINNI :O 1 r !,511611 Vosemou•n 612-4;3-'1411 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, AICD, CITY PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 17, 1940 SUBJ: JANUARY 23, 19gO - REGULAR MEETING REVIEWS 5b. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT - ROSEMOUNT RETAIL CENTER The City has received a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment Application from a partnership of development interests headed by Herb Wensmann. The application requests City consideration of a Guide Plan Amendment to redesignate the property situated between Shannon Parkway and the west boundary of Rosemount from Agriculture to General Commercial and to add the property to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Enclosed with this review is a copy of a site plan which provides a conceptual layout for the proposed commercial development. The Commission will recall that it engaged in an informal discussion of a similar request from Herb Wensmann back in April of 1989. At that time the Commission recognized that Commercial development on the proposed site did conflict with the Comprehensive Guide Plan, however, the Commission recommended further study and discussion of the proposal by Staff and Council. City Council discussed the proposal at its April 18th meeting and concluded that it would not entertain a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment at that time. City Councils concerns at the time centered around the issue of the negative impact allowing commercial not contiguous to existing commercial areas. In reviewing the Guide Plan Amendment Application for the Rosemount Retail Center (Wensmann Project) Staff has concentrated on analysis of the following four issues: 1. Does the proposed Guide Plan Amendment conform or conflict with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Guide Plan (pp. 8, 12 & 13) . 2. Does the proposed Amendment conflict with the City policy of requiring that Commercial development be located contiguous to existing commercial areas? 3. Is the necessary infrastructure in place to serve the proposed development? 4. Market Potential: Hoisington/McComb Study. How feasible is the proposed project given current market conditions? What impact will it have on development in downtown Rosemount and in South Rose Park? Is the development premature? Conformance with Guide Plan Objectives and Policies for Commercial Development Enclosed with this review is a copy of pages 8, 12 and 13 of the Comprehensive Guide Plan which establishes goals, objectives and policies to guide commercial development in Rosemount. Page 8 of the Comprehensive Guide Plan establishes broad COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOALS. The Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed Guide Plan Amendment conforms with the stated goals. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission pay specific attention to Goals 3, 4, 7, 10, and 11. Goal #3: "Retention of Rosemount's "small town character", would clearly conflict with the proposed large scale retail strip development. The Planning Commission must address the issue of whether this goal is still sound or whether it is time to abandon it. Goal #4: "Controlled growth with a minimum of urban sprawl". The proposed development could certainly be perceived as urban sprawl because it would require leapfrogging a full 3/4 mile from the existing commercial development in South Rose Park. The convenience of having the majority of commercial uses in the City in close proximity would be lost, clearly making it necessary to drive from commercial district to commercial district rather than stressing an orientation to the pedestrian. Goal #7: "A strong downtown Rosemount which serves as the dominant community retail center". The scale of commercial development proposed would clearly compete with and would most likely overwhelm the downtown as the dominant retail center in Rosemount. Goal #10: "Adequate and affordable public services and utilities". There is an issue that exists that suggests that premature provision of public improvements to the property would cause the public to bear costs which are not warranted. Unless adequate market exists for the property to be developed it is not in the best interest of the public for the city to take on added long term maintenance costs for additional public utilities. Goal #11: "Efficient development patterns which foster the conservation of energy resources". In considering this goal the Commission should evaluate the amount of development being proposed. Should the city promote a commercial development pattern which promotes more driving from place to place rather than to maintain a compact pattern which keeps a variety of commercial uses in close proximity to each other. The Guide Plan identifies five types of commercial designations: Community Center, Neighborhood Center, Convenience Center, General Commercial and Highway Service Commercial. Existing Commercial development in Rosemount does not cleanly fit any one designation. However, downtown Rosemount most closely conforms to the Community Center designation. South Rose Park is designated General Commercial in the Guide Plan, however, its land uses would also fit the Neighborhood Commercial and Highway Service Center designations. The types of uses being proposed in the Rosemount Retail Center Proposal clearly could be found within several of the Commercial Land Use Designation�in the Guide Plan. It is the opinion of staff however that the General Commercial designation would most clearly define the proposed land uses within the Rosemount Retail Center Proposal. The proposed site includes two parcels of land totaling approximately 46 acres and is currently designated Agriculture in the Guide Plan. The site is not situated within the MUSA, however property immediately to the south (Wensmann Additions PUD) is. within the MUSA. i1elk er r►6 A 0, On page 12 of the Guide Plan Objectives for the Commercial Land Use Plan are established. The Planning Commission should whether the proposed Guide Plan Amendment conforms with the stated objectives (1-3). The Amendment would not conflict with objective #1: "to meet the convenience shopping needs of Rosemount residents". However, there is a distinct possibility that the proposed amendment could conflict with objectives #2 and #3. Clearly the proposed commercial development would represent competition to the Downtown/South Rose Park. In view of the Hoisington/McComb Study, is this proposal warranted and can the competition be viewed as healthy or detrimental. Objective #2: "to facilitate growth, expansion, redevelopment and rehabilitation of downtown Rosemount as the community shopping center", indicates that it is the desire of the City to promote the Downtown/South Rose Park as the major retail center of the City. The uses proposed within the Rosemount Retail Center would be largely retail in nature and would likely include service oriented businesses such as restaurants, gas and convenience stores. Objective #3: "to maintain and build upon downtown Rosemount/South Rose Park as the shopping, cultural and historical focus of the community", further implies that the intent of the Guide Plan is for downtown Rosemount to remain the principle commercial center of the city while also serving as a cultural and historical focus. Clearly, a development of the scale proposed would compete with and overwhelm downtown Rosemount as a commercial center. The Rosemount Retail Center would likely include many of the same uses found downtown such as a pharmacy, hardware store, florist, restaurants, etc. On page 13 of the Guide Plan six policies to guide Commercial Land Use are established. The majority of these policies would relate to the downtown and not be applicable to the proposed Rosemount Retail Center, however, the Commission should consider policies #4 and #5. Policy #4 reads as follows: "Discourage strip commercial developments which increase access conflicts and impede traffic flows on major streets intended to carry large volumes of traffic. Although the proposal provides for an organized flow of traffic in and out of the property, staff has identified a serious issue of the development triggering a need for significant public improvements such as street construction and addition of traffic signals. Another concern is that the proposed outlots along C.H. 42 lend themselves to further subdivision in a commercial strip fashion. Although access to C.S.A.H. 42 would be limited the appearance would be of 1/2 mile of frontage of strip development. The Planning Commission should evaluate whether it is desirable for the western entrance to the City to take on the appearance of a commercial strip. Policy #5 states that the City should "Require a market study as part of any request for a neighborhood, convenience center or general commercial rezoning. The Hoisington/McComb Technical Memorandum recently commissioned by the city suggest that there are significant market limitations for the type of development proposed. The applicant has not indicated that any market feasibility study has as of yet been prepared. Conflict with City Policy of Requiring that New Commercial Development be situated contiguous to existing Commercial areas. For 20 years, the City has held to the policy of contiguous commercial. There are many practical reasons for this policy including the following: 1. Economy of Scale in Public Infrastructure. Extensive extensions of public utilities would be required to serve the development coupled with street improvements and installation of traffic signals would be required to serve the proposed development. Is it prudent for the City to take on the long term maintenance responsibility and potentially bear a portion of the cost of public improvements for the project when existing serviced commercial property in South Rose Park lies vacant. 2. Complementary relationship of commercial uses. One consideration contributing to the City's policy of requiring that new commercial development be sited contiguous to existing commercial areas is that clustered commercial uses tend to help support each other. Each use draws a certain amount of traffic (potential buyers) to a development. If uses are clustered a person coming to the development for a particular use or service will likely purchase from other businesses in the development. When new development is segregated from the existing by 1/2 - 1 mile this complimentary relationship is lost. Rather than to help attract business to existing commercial areas, it is the opinion of staff, that the proposed Rosemount Retail Center would tend to draw business away from existing businesses. Competition is not in an of itself a bad thing, however, when an inadequate market exists clearly some segment of the market will suffer. The Planning Commission must evaluate whether it is appropriate to allow additional commercial development in a thin market if it may represent a detriment to the progression of development in existing commercial areas. 3. Avoiding spot zonings which may conflict with surrounding land uses. A question the Commission should evaluate is what will be the future of the McNamara property if the Rosemount Retail Project were to proceed. The McNamara property is 75 acres situated south of C.H. 42 between Chippendale Avenue and Shannon Parkway. Under current policies this property would represent the logical extension of existing the South Rose Park Commercial Area. The proposed Rosemount Retail Center project would likely meet the commercial development needs of Rosemount for many years to come. This suggests that there would likely be pressure to open the McMamara Property up for strip development connecting the proposed development with Downtown/South Rose Park. Market conditions further suggest that this connecting strip development would be composed of marginal uses. 4. Aesthetic issues associated with Strip style development. Planning Commissioners must evaluate whether the type of development proposed conforms to your idea of what "small town character" should be. While the plan suggests the development of a "strip center", the plan also promotes the development of individual structures to be constructed along C.S.A.H. 42. This will have the ob41ous appearance of strip development for a half mile and "block the view" of any potential center development. Is the Necessary Infrastructure in Place to Serve the Proposed Development? The two major issues relating to infrastructure which should be considered by the Planning Commission are traffic/street improvements and sanitary sewer capacity. The purpose of this review is not to evaluate site development issues in detail, but, rather to consider major concerns. The conceptual plan for the Rosemount Retail Center calls for development of three access points. Access from Shannon Parkway, C.S.A.H. 42 and Dodd Blvd. (Diamond Path when constructed). Until such time as Diamond Path is constructed south of C.S.A.H. 42 the western access to the site would be from Dodd Blvd. The Developers would have to negotiate with the owners of abutting property in Apple Valley for construction of a drive or public street to connect to Dodd Blvd. It should also be understood that construction of Diamond Path south of 42 has not been recognized as a priority by Dakota County. The access to Shannon Parkway from the east suggests an increase in traffic on Shannon Parkway and may prompt the consideration of the need for a traffic signal at Shannon Parkway and C.S.A.H. 42. A full access to both west bound and east bound traffic is proposed approximately 1/8 mile west of the intersection of Shannon Parkway and C.S.A.H. 42. If a development were to go forward incorporating this full access to C.S.A.H. 42 it would clearly be necessary to provide a traffic signal at the new intersection to guarantee safe access and egress from the site. Any traffic signalization effecting C.S.A.H. 42 would require approval by Dakota County. Clearly it is the City's priority to channel traffic to the existing intersections of Shannon Parkway/C.S.A.H. 42 and Chippendale/C.S.A.H. 42. Since Chippendale Ave. already has a traffic signal the logical step is direct development to access from that intersection. This logic suggests that it would be more appropriate to develop the McMamara Property at this time. The City's second priority would be to promote further traffic control measures including a traffic signal (if necessary) at Shannon Parkway since it serves as a major City collector street. From the standpoint of traffic flow it would make the most sense to limit the site access on C.S.A.H. 42 to a right-in/right-out. Certainly any City participation in funding of signalization required at a site access from C.S.A.H. 42 would not be justified until traffic issues at the intersection of Shannon Parkway and C.S.A.H. 42 are first addressed. In summary regarding traffic issues, it is clear the surrounding street and highway network could bear the added traffic from the proposed commercial land uses, however, clearly there would be costs associated with traffic control measures. Part of the Guide Plan Amendment relates to adding the property in question into the MUSA. The Planning Commission should address the issue of sanitary sewer capacity. The proposed development site is located within Section 31, the southwest square mile of Rosemount. Wastewater from development in most of Section 31 will ultimately flow to the Empire Waste Water Treatment Plant. However, through a cooperative agreement with Apple Valley the City currently has permission only to allow wastewater from the West Ridge Development to flow to the Empire Plant. The Empire Plant is scheduled for expansion to be completed in 1991 or 1992. As such time as the plant is expanded, Rosemount will seek permission form the MWCC to allow additional flow to the Empire Plant. Currently, all wastewater from the Wensmann Additions, O'Leary's Hills and Wind's Crossing Developments is being directed via a temporary sanitary sewer lift station to the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant. Until the Metropolitan Council approves a modification of Rosemount's Sewer Policy Plan when the Empire Treatment Expansion is complete the wastewater from the proposed Commercial Development would have to flow to the temporary lift station in the Wind's Crossing Development where it is directed into a force main to flow to the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant. I have contacted City Consulting Engineer, Steve Campbell, to evaluate the capacity of the existing sanitary sewer network. On the basis of Mr. Campbell's evaluation, I have concluded that sewer capacity may exist for the proposed development to be temporarily allowed to be served through the Wind's Crossing Lift Station. However, Mr. Campbell has suggested that there are two issues to consider. Depending on exactly what current wastewater flows through the lift station are, it may be necessary to increase the lift station pump size. More detailed study would be required to make this determination. Also, Mr. Campbell sited that there may be a capacity issue relating the size of sanitary sewer lines in the Wensmann and O'Leary's Hills Developments which could restrict the amount of development on the proposed site until such time as the Empire Plant is expanded allowing wastewater from a portion of the site to flow directly south instead of going through the O'Leary's Hills and Wind's Crossing Developments. In summary it appears that sanitary sewer capacity could probably be provided but that there may be costs associated with provision of sanitary sewer relating to off-site improvements that would have to be born by the developer. Market Conditions• How feasible is the proposed proiect? It is important that the Commission consider the market for commercial development in Rosemount when considering designating 46 acres of property as General Commercial. I will remind the Commission to refer to the recent report produced by The Hoisington Group/McComb Group, addressing: city of Rosemount Retail Potential. The report identifies the limitations of the Rosemount retail market and further indicates implications of allowing non- contiguous or leap frogging development (see pages 15 & 18 of report). The Planning Commission should also keep in mind that the Guide Plan clearly indicates that the City should require that a market study be prepared to indicate that adequate market potential exists before rezoning any property for commercial use. The applicant has not indicated that any market study has been conducted to determine feasibility of the project to date. The Hoisington/McComb report clearly casts doubt that a market exists for the scale of development proposed. I would strongly suggest that the Commission request that evidence such as a market study be submitted by the applicant to document that a market does exist for the type of development proposed. It will not be in the best interest of the community for land to be designated General Commercial and subsequently rezoned and subdivided and then to sit vacant. Lack of adequate market will lead to a piecemeal approach to development necessitating many compromises in the original project plan much like what has happened in South Rose Park. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The proposed Rosemount Retail Center Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment clearly has community wide significance, however, it has particularly serious implication to other Rosemount businesses. Consultants Fred Hoisington and Jim McComb will put on a presentation for members of the business community to discuss retail potential in Rosemount following the Planning Commission meeting at 6:30. It is anticipated that input from the business community regarding the Rosemount Retail Center will be received at that time. Staff recommends that the Commission consider delaying making a recommendation on the proposed Guide Plan Amendment at least until the next Planning Commission meeting to consider the sentiment of the business community. 2. Staff recommends that the Commission realize the potential negative impact on downtown Rosemount and South Rose Park of allowing non-contiguous commercial development to occur at the scale proposed. Clearly changes in the Guide Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies would be necessary to justify approval the proposed amendment. 3. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recognize the extra costs associated with construction of public improvements that would be triggered by premature commercial development of the proposed site. 4. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider evidence in the form of the Hoisington/McComb Technical Memorandum which clearly expresses doubt that an adequate retail market exists for the proposed development. It is further recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the applicant be required to submit evidence that an adequate retail market does exist for the proposed project. 1 I I OUTLOT #1 000�o o I 1 6.7 ACRl3 67,/33 aL ua _ 1 PROPOSED TEMPORARY DIVE1 I 1 ' o cas I I I. I PROPOSED 1 FUTURE ROAD — — — — — — I Land aping lyp.) IO I I r a I & o I GROCERYDRUG O c.. (PSA I I I Z I ® 7 50.000 tE. 10.000 a. .330000 1 0 E- 3 "` Dock <` I o I e Cj�I I I I D I 1 � I I I I I 1 I j Landscaping Berm (typ.) - � �% �• �,P H�r SSE 11 .3 AC ES3, 00 s.(. .B. Parkirjg RedSt canParkir}R Prd: can rww.t H E I.S E R E I N E N MAC. RAE ASSOCIA� ES " MRM. 123 irwflliMrd Sired. Sunr f01 f.i..i—.P." MM S5401 612 339-372: UNTY ROAD 42 �---- a OUTLOT #2 1 1 a • S3 .C7lS 72.173 V. G.RA .- 1 d / o Q �H;ASE �1 1 4.7 A RES 1b 101 00 s. G.B. I landscapf ( p.) y� 1 Pa,WAS Req red: 51 can 0 i Pat 'Ag rro 'idl'd: S Urs 1 o 0.000 f.f 50.000 it. / / QUOR II 1,000 4 0.000 f.( 33.000 r.E. _L� EmPI.rn P -U -g PHASE 1 PHASE 11 � �,n��- VV � L'J Yr Z Z to 1 i landsoping Begh�sys PROPOSED BIKE PATH EXISTING BIKE PATH 1 1 1 1 ROSEMOUNT RETAIL CENTER •..lus. nafr•i•i.r r•.s n.« uroal afa .n tr Ic.f lo+.++.ei3..lo a, .r oa vol r a1CJf lla(O NMIICI atrda In i..•1 d ,•r 11.i1 p c o+� ..r. 89-53-0038 wn nw SITE PLAN ....,.... Icr.cno n i wx i,..a V I D,11 ♦V aDiq O•, 11 1 1 � 1 1 I — I.lyor Vrl1 .u..wa HRMA REEINEN MACRAE ASSOCIATES 22 October 1990 Mr. Michael A. Wozniak, AICP City Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, ; ZN 55068 RE: Rosemount Commercial/ Retail Development Dear Michael: We at HRMA are representatives of the development group for the Rosemount Commercial/Retail Project located on the southeast corner of County Road 42 and Diamond Path. We had previously submitted an application and presented before the Planning Commission a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment form Agriculture to PUD/C4 General Commercial District. The Planning Commission postponed their recommendation for further review of the Comprehensive Guide Plan and market and survey studies. The City staff has recommended to us that to pursue our request, we should present before the City Council. We are requesting to appear before the City Council on November 6, 1990 to set a public hearing date for November 22, 1990. The development group includes: Virgil Hammerstad, Herb Wensmann, Raymond Fisher, David Fisher, Curtis Fisher, Myron Stapf, Vernon Gunderson, and Gerald Hirschhorn. Thank you for your cooperation. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, HEISE REINEN MACRAE & ASSOCIATES Timothy M. Whitten, AIA Vice President TMW/cjz cc: Jim Smith (Kraus -Anderson) . Virgil Hammerstad HRMA, 123 North Third Street, Suite 808 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Telephone 612/339-2722 FAX 612/337-5468 PUBLIC NOTICE COUNTY HIGHWAY 421MAMOND PATH COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the City Council of the City of Rosemount will hold a Public Hearing to consider the item listed below on Tuesday, December 18, 1990, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2875145th Street West, beginning at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The Public Hearing listed below pertains to the following describ- ed property: The Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) except Wensmann First Addition, Wensmann Se- cond Addition, Wensmann Third Addition, Wensmann Fourth Addition and Wensmann Fifth Addition, subject to road easements, Section 31, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a proposed amendment to the City of Rose- mount Comprehensive Guide Plan. The pro- posed amendment would cause approximate- ly 46 acres of property situated south and east of the intersection of Dakota County Highway 42 and Diamond Path, to be redesignated from Agriculture to General Commercial land use designation. The Amendment would also cause the property to be included in the Municipal Urban Service Area. This Guide Plan Amendment is being proposed by a Development Group which is proposing future construction of more than 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail development which would include two strip style retail shopping centers with property available for additional development. Redesignation of the property in the City's long range land use plan would represent one of many actions required by the City before the proposed project could be con- structed. Other City actions required would at a minimum include rezoning of property, sub- division of land, and site plan review. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this item will be beard at this meeting. By Order of City Council. Dated this 21st day of November, 1990. Susan M. Johnson, City Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota 774 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS County of Dakota ) NANCY J. GUSTAFSON, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is on authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as Dakota County Tribune, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02,331 A.07 and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once sem; it was first published on Thursday, the me j1 day of `-e y�- , 19 90 , and was thereafter printed and published on every Thursday to and including Thursday, the day of ,19 and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: a bcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz BY: TITLE: Secretary to the,.Publisher•-' Subscribed and sworn to before on this' 4 1^ day of t v n VCi►` 97119 _92 Notary Public j l - ------------------- -,� CAROL J. HAVER AND j} NOTARY PUBLIC • mrsIgM DAKOTA COUNTY My Convnlssion Expires Dec. 3,1M o{ osernouni P.O BOX 510 2875 -145TH ST W ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA 55068 612-423-441 1 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILED AND POSTED HEARING NOTICE COUNTY HIGHWAY 42/DIAMOND PATH COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) SS CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ) Susan M. Johnson, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a United States citizen and the duly qualified Clerk of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. On December 6, 1990, acting on behalf of the said City, I posted at the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, and deposited in the United States Post Office, Rosemount, Minnesota, a copy of the attached notice of a public hearing for consideration of a proposed amendment to the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan, enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the persons listed on the attached listings at the addresses listed with their names. There is delivery service by United States Mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. S san M. Jo n n City Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota Subs ribed and sworn to before me this day of ,E:CEti- 1u1, , 1990. Notary Pulj,jjr,, ` 5 CNDY DORNIDE NOTARY PUBLIC—MINNESOTA DAKOTA COUNTY t' F,y Crm. E)Vres Aug 25, 1S95 J�/�/VWdVVWYY• z 1 PO BOX 510 1[y o 2675 -145TH ST W oseYYl oun i ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA ,55066 612-<23-441 1 Public Notice County Highway 42/Diamond Path Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the City Council of the City of Rosemount will hold a Public Hearing to consider the item listed below on Tuesday, December 18, 1990, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, beginning at 8:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. The Public Hearing listed below pertains to the following described property: The Northwest Quarter (NW 1/4) except Wensmann First Addition, Wensmann Second Addition, Wensmann Third Addition, Wensmann Fourth Addition and Wensmann Fifth Addition, subject to road easements, Section 31, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a proposed amendment to the City of Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan. The proposed amendment would cause approximately 46 acres of property situated south and east of the intersection of Dakota County Highway 42 and Diamond Path, to be redesignated from Agriculture to General Commercial land use designation. The Amendment would also cause the property to be included in the Municipal Urban Service Area. This Guide Plan Amendment is being proposed by a Development Group which is proposing future construction of more than 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial retail development which would include two strip style retail shopping centers with property available for additional development. Redesignation of the property in the City's long range land use plan would represent one of many actions required by the City before the proposed project could be constructed. Other City actions required would at a minimum include rezoning of property, subdivision of land, and site plan review. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this item will be heard at this meeting. By Order of City Council. Dated this 21st day of November, 1990. S an M. io�insn,City Clerk City of Rosemount Dakota County, Minnesota COUNTY HIGHWAY 42!DIAMOND PATH COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT MAILING LIST 1. Thang Duc & Lisa M Phan PID 34-15205-090-02 14970 Dallara Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 2. Richard M & Joy S Daley PID 34-15205-100-02 14990 Dallara Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 3. Ronald W & Cynthia Westlund PID 34-15205-110-02 4030 150th St. W Rosemount, Mn 55068 4. Richard W & Lee A Kroener PID 34-15205-120-02 4040 150th St. W Rosemount, Mn 55068 5. Billie L Lane PID 34-15205-130-02 4050 150th St. W Rosemount, Mn 55068 6. Richard J & Kristin Schneider PID 34-15206-010-00 4100 150th St. W Rosemount, Mn 55068 7. Eugene T & Lonnie L Baka PID 34-15206-010-03 4060 150th St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 8. Raymond F & Phyllis Pike PID 34-15206-010-04 4120 150th St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 9. Kenneth J & Karen K Loomis PID 34-15206-020-04 4140 150th St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 10. Steven B & Karen E Davis PID 34-15207-010-02 4280 150th St. W Rosemount, Mn 55068 11. Robert E & Janet B Dolan PID 34-15207-020-02 4260 150th St. W Rosemount, Mn 55068 12. Joseph Foreman PID 34-15207-030-02 4240 150th St. W Rosemount, Mn 55068 13. John R & Sandra J Wallace PID 34-15207-040-02 4220 Upper 150th St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 14. Michael R & Mark B Ince PID 34-15207-050-02 4200 Upper 150th St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 15. Carol Jean Motz PID 34-15207-060-02 4180 Upper 150th St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 16. Paul A & Mary K Schmidt PID 34-15207-070-02 4160 150th St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 17. Michael & Teresa Kerber PID 34-83601-010-01 15206 Danbury Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 18. Wayne L & Rhonda S Weigand PID 34-83601-020-01 15186 Danbury Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 19. Claire G & Katherine Erickson PID 34-83601-030-01 4112 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 20. James R & Diane M Hamilton PID 34-83601-040-01 4102 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 21. Mark D & Carolyn L Maiers PID 34-83601-050-01 4088 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 22. Jeffrey & Donna Hess PID 34-83601-060-01 4066 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 23. Randolph L Koeb PID 34-83601-070-01 4056 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 24. Richard & Linda Raschke PID 34-83601-080-01 4042 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 25. Bradley J & Angela M Ledel PID 34-83601-090-01 4026 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 26. Richard L & Colette Biesman PID 34-83601-010-02 4025 151St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 27. Wensmann Realty PID 34-83601-070-01 14340 Pilot Knob Rd 34-83604-010-02 Apple Valley, Mn 55124 34-83604-020-02 34-83604-030-02 34-83604-040-02 34-83604-060-02 34-83604-070-02 34-83604-090-02 34-83604-010-03 34-83604-020-03 34-83604-030-03 34-83604-040-03 34-83604-050-03 34-83604-010-04 34-83604-030-04 34-83604-040-04 34-83604-050-04 34-83604-060-04 34-83604-070-04 34-83604-080-04 34-83604-090-04 34-83604-100-04 34-83604-110-04 28. Oudone & Chanthanom Soumphonphakdy PID 34-83602-020-02 4041 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 29. John E & Sharon L Taylor PID 34-83602-030-02 4055 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 30. Donald & Victoria Nelson Jr. PID 34-83602-040-02 4065 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 31. Martin C & Betie J Ingemanson PID 34-83602-050-02 4085 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 32. Daniel & Julie Brown PID 34-83602-060-02 4101 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 33. Todd A & Mechelle Stephenson PID 34-83602-070-02 4111 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 34. Joseph G & Paulette Genske PID 34-83602-080-02 4125 151st St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 35. Brian Taft PID 34-83602-090-02 4137 151st ST W Rosemount, Mn 55068 36. Philip & Lori Lund PID 34-83602-100-02 15165 Danbury Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 37. Bryan D & Jeannie M Harp PID 34-83602-110-02 15175 Danbury Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 38. Patrick & Patsy Pepper PID 34-83602-120-02 15195 Danbury Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 39. David A & Jackie A Berg PID 34-83602-130-02 15213 Danbury Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 40. Denell J & Diann D Lanning PID 34-83602-140-02 15144 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 41. James F Pollock PID 34-83602-150-02 15164 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 42. Craig J & Kristin M McDonald PID 34-53602-160-02 15184 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 43. Bryan W & Kimberley Weatherford PID 34-83602-170-02 15198 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 44. Daniel M & Wendv L Smith PID 34-83602-180-02 15216 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 45. Douglas J & Doreen A Evans PID 34-83602-190-02 15224 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 46. Timothv & Kim Erickson PID 34-83602-010-03 15145 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 47. Patrick J & Vicki L Ruiz PID 34-83602-020-03 15163 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 48. Steven K & Bonnie Erickson PID 34-83602-030-03 15183 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 49. Raymond & Betty Jean Holtz PID 34-83602-040-03 15199 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 50. John A & Dianne M Gust PID 34-83602-050-03 15215 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 51. Adeline J Waples PID 34-83602-060-03 15223 Danville Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 52. Thomas A & Louise M Paget PID 34-83604-050-02 15320 Dewberry Ct Rosemount, Mn 55068 53. Rick A Thielen PID 34-83604-080-02 4370 152nd St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 54. Robert L & Luann J Dennis PID 34-83604-100-02 15365 Darjeeling Path Rosemount, Mn 55068 55. Rory S & Lona L Richards PID 34-83604-020-04 4365 152nd St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 56. Orlando Haripal PID 34-83600-010-03 4135 152nd Ct W Rosemount, Mn 55068 57. Michael & Sherri Burback PID 34-83600-020-03 4119 152nd Ct W Rosemount, Mn 55068 58. Frederick & Michelle Dyck PID 34-83600-030-03 4105 152nd Ct W Rosemount, Mn 55068 59. James Acker PID 34-83600-040-03 4091 152nd Ct W Rosemount, Mn 55068 60. Andrew & Patrica Traffie PID 34-83600-050-03 4075 152nd Ct W Rosemount, Mn 55068 61. David & Deborah Kangas PID 34-83600-060-03 4065 152nd Ct W Rosemount, Mn 55068 62. Duane J Jurgens PID 34-83600-070-03 4051 152nd Ct W Rosemount, Mn 55068 63. Charles & Terry Carter PID 34-83600-080-03 4041 152nd Ct W Rosemount, Mn 55068 64. Thomas O'Leary PID 34-16401-090-03 415 Annapolis Lane 34-16401-100-03 Plymouth, Mn 55441 65. Kevin J & MK Ervasti PID 34-03010-010-54 14950 Dodd Blvd Rosemount, Mn 55068 66. Merlen & Joann Teal PID 34-03010-001-55 1671 Brookshire Ave 34-03010-001-56 Tustin, Ca 92680 34-03010-002-56 67. Arnold L Teal PID 34-03010-002-55 14958 Dodd Blvd 34-03010-004-56 Rosemount, Mn 55068 68. David A Johnson PID 34-03010-003-55 14956 Dodd Blvd Rosemount, Mn 55068 69. Floyd & Teresa Teal PID 34-03010-004-55 4233 Ellenwood 104 St. Louis, Mo 63116 70. Troy A Teal PID 34-03010-003-56 14964 Dodd Blvd Rosemount, Mn 55068 71. Bruce Geckler PID 34-15210-050-03 14949 Delft Ave Rosemount, Mn 55068 72. Chippendale 42 Partnership PID 34-03110-010-01 14605 Johnny Cake Ridge Rd Apple Valley, Mn 55124 73. Raymond F Fischer PID 34-03110-013-25 721 4th St Farmington, Mn 55024 74. Gerard Hirschhorn PID 34-03110-017-25 1916 Walsh Lane Mendota Heights, Mn 55118 75. Lutheran Church of Our Savior PID 34-03010-060-52 14980 Diamond Path Rosemount, Mn 55068 76. City of Rosemount PID 34-03010-061-52 2875 145th St W Rosemount, Mn 55068 FROM: DATE: SUBJ: City of losernount P O BOX 510 2875 -145TH ST. W ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068 612-423-4411 MAYOR NAPPER, COUNCIL MEMBERS: KLASSEN, OXBOROUGH, WILLCOX & WIPPERMAN, & CITY ADMINISTRATOR JILK MICHAEL WOZNIAK, AICP, CITY PLANNER DECEMBER 18, 1990 ADDENDUM - COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT - ROSEMOUNT RETAIL CENTER Recommended Action: Motion to continue the Public Hearing to consider the Rosemount Retail Center (County Road 42/Diamond Path) Guide Plan Amendment until February 5, 1990 at 8:00 p.m. On Monday, December 17th, I was contacted by Timothy Whitten, Project Architect for the Rosemount Retail Center Project with the purpose of requesting that consideration of the proposed Guide Plan Amendment be deferred. Mr. Whitten indicated the reason for this request was that a last minute conflict had made key members of the Development Group proposing the project unavailable for the meeting. I informed Mr Whitten that a public hearing had been scheduled for tonight's meeting and that citizen's would be in attendance to listen to discussion of the item and to give testimony. I proceeded to discuss this matter with City Administrator, Steve Jilk. Steve indicated that an appropriate solution to this situation would be for City Council to extend the public hearing to the February 5th Council Meeting. Mr. Jilk further advised that Council announce that no presentation relating to the proposal or comments from the applicant or public shall be received until the February 5th meeting.