HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. Shannon Hills Preliminary Plat / Concept PUDFROM: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, CITY PLANNER
DATE: APRIL 27, 1988
SUBJ: REVIEW OF SHANNON HILLS PRELIMINARY PLAT/CONCEPT PUD PLAN
SHANNON HILLS PRELIMINARY PLAT/CONCEPT PUD PLAN
Scheduled for 6:30 p.m. at the Council Meeting is a Public
Hearing for the proposed Shannon Hills Preliminary Plat/Concept
Planned Unit Development Plan. This proposal is for a 190 lot
development of single family homes on 80 acres located north of
145th Street and east of Shannon Parkway (see location map).
Included with this review is a copy of the following package of
drawings: Site Location & Phasing Plan, Preliminary Plat,
Grading and Drainage Plan, and Planting Plan.
Before commenting on compliance with Zoning and Subdivision
ordinance requirements I would like to briefly provide some
backround information regarding the proposal which has been
submitted. The City was first approached by Mr. Steve Fitterman,
President of Ground Development Corporation, more than one year
ago. At that time Mr. Fitterman was interested in developing the
42 acre parcel which is now being developed as Carrollton II.
Obviously Mr. Fitterman's negotiations for that property fell
through, however given the development climate in Rosemount, his
interest in subdividing property remained. About two months ago
Mr. Fitterman once again approached the City and informed Staff
that he had negotiated an option to purchase the 80 acre parcel
abutting Carroll's Woods.
In the past two months Community Development, Parks and
Recreation and Engineering Staff have met several times with Mr.
Fitterman and/or his designer Wayne Tauer, President of Pioneer
Engineering. Mr. Fitterman has proven to be very professional in
his approach to development, and has also shown himself to be a
skilled negotiator in terms of doing his utmost to reach the most
profitable and marketable design solution which meets City
Ordinance requirements and is acceptable.
In working with Mr. Fitterman in developing a suitable proposal,
Community Development Staff has emphasized three main points:
1. Lot sizes and configuration should be sensitive to the
dramatic topographic relief offered on the site and also in
respect to the site's location bordering Carroll's Woods:
2. An access point and small parking area to serve Carroll's
Woods as well as a trail system to accommodate pedestrian
circulation should be an integral part of the design.
•
E
3. Lot widths bordering Carrollton Addition should be a minimum
of 85' to provide a visually coherant transition between the two
subdivisions
4. To maintain an average lot width of approximately 80', all
lots with less than 80' frontage shall be balanced by an equal or
greater number which exceed 80' frontage.
At the April 5th Planning Commission Meeting the developer
presented two options for sketch plan review: Option A; A
combination of single family and townhouses; and, Option B; All
single family. In submitting a Preliminary Plat/Concept PUD the
developer has opted to pursue only the single family option based
on the preference of the Planning Commission.
The proposal which has been submitted illustrates a 190 lot
subdivision on 80 acres to be developed with single family homes.
The design incorporates a network of pedestrian trails as
recommended by City Staff and a Park access point which will
accommodate a small parking area for 20-30 vehicles. Also the
proposed lot and street layout does show sensitivity to the
topography, especially on those lots abutting Carroll's Woods.
Included on sheet one of the submittal is a fact sheet which
provides a significant amount of information regarding lot sizes,
dimensions and areas. The proposal as submitted meets or exceeds
all current zoning and subdivision requirements with the
exception of the 85' minimum frontage requirement (Zoning
Ordinance - R-1 District). The City has established a precedent
over the last 3-4 years of allowing 75' minimum frontage (by
Planned Unit Development Agreement) but the recent sentiment of
the Planning Commission has been that we should establish a
minimum 80' frontage requirement in our proposed zoning
ordinance. Based upon this sentiment from the Planning
Commission, staff informed Mr. Fitterman early in his design
process that he should assume that the average lot width in his
proposed development should be no less than 80'. He was also
informed that based on past approvals an acceptable approach to
this project would be to agree to 75' minimum lot frontage in a
PUD Agreement provided any lots less than 80' wide are offset by
an equal or greater number of lots over 80' in width.
The proposal which has been submitted in general exceeds the lot
size and frontage standards which have been approved by the City
within the last several years. The design of ShaAnon Hills is a
step in support of adopting the new ordinance and using a strict
80' minimum. Community Development Staff has found Mr. Fitterman
to be cooperative and willing to adjust his plans to meet the
requirements of the City.
The Planning Commission has recommended that City Council approve
the Shannon Hills Preliminary Plat/Concept PUD subject to the
following conditions:
1. Rezoning;
f
2. Guide Plan Amendment;
3. Environmental Assessment Worksheet;
4. Engineering Recommendations;
5. Detailed Plans and Specifications;
6. Park Dedication Recommendation;
7. PUD Agreement/Subdivision Dev. Contract.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
RESOLUTION 1988-
A RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL TO
THE SHANNON HILLS ADDITION CONCEPT PUD AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SETTING OUT THE CONDITIONS FOR
FINAL APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount has received a PUD Concept Plan
and Preliminary Plat for the west half of the Northeast Quarter (W 1/2
of NE 1/4) of Section 30, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County,
Minnesota, subject to easements of record, known as Shannon Hills; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount has
reviewed said Concept PUD and preliminary plat and submitted its
recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the required public hearing and notifications have been
completed.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Rosemount approves the Shannon Hills PUD Concept Plan and
Preliminary Plat, subject to the following:
1. Rezoning;
2. Guide Plan Amendment;
3. Environmental Assessment Worksheet;
4. Engineering recommendations;
5. Detailed plans and specifications;
6. Park dedication recommendations;
7. PUD Agreement/Subdivision Development Contract;
Adopted this 3rd day of May, 1988.
Rollan Hoke, Mayor
ATTEST:
Stephan Jilk, Administrator/Clerk
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
CITY COUNCIL
MICHAEL WOZNIAK, CITY PLANNER
APRIL 28, 1988
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT #11
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT #11
In order to make public sanitary sewers available to the proposed
Shannon Hills subdivision (190 single family homes), the City of
Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan must be amended to include
that project within the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA).
Because sanitary sewer is being extended across the Hawkins Pond
Site to provide service to Shannon Hills, approximately nine
acres along 145th St. in addition to the 80 acre site of Shannon
Hills must be added to the MUSA.
Included with this memo is a copy of the Guide Plan Amendment
application which must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council
including a map which identifies the current MUSA Boundary and
illustrates the proposed acreage to be added to the MUSA. The
Shannon Hills site was formerly included within the MUSA but was
removed in 1983 along with numerous other properties when a "land
bank" of undesignated MUSA acreage was created. Guide Plan
Amendment #11 suggests a logical extension of the current MUSA
boundary given that the proposed extension is bordered on three
sides by property within the MUSA.
Approval of Guide Plan Amendment #11 would reduce the amount of
undesignated MUSA acreage to 340 acres. Community Development
Staff will further explain this proposed guide plan amendment at
the Public Hearing for Shannon Hills.
• s
INFORMATION SUBMISSION FOR
MINOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
This summary worksheet must be filled out and submitted to the Metropolitan
Council with a copy of each proposed minor comprehensive plan amendment. Minor
amendments include but are not limited to:
1. changes to the future land use plan where the affected area is
small or where the proposed future land use will result in minor
changes in metropolitan service demand,
2. changes (land trades or additions) in the urban service area involving
less than 40 acres.
3. minor changes to plan goals and policies that do not change the
overall thrust of the comprehensive plan.
Please be as specific as possible; attach additional explanatory materials if
necessary. If a staff report was prepared for the Plan Commission or City
Council, please attach it as well. Communities submitting regular plan
amendments may wish to enter this form or a reasonable facsimile into their
word processing menu for ease in preparation of the form.
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. Sponsoring governmental unit City of Rosemount
Name of local contact person Michael Wozniak, Assistant Planner
Address _ 2874 145th Street West - Rosemount, 11N 55068
Telephone (612) 423-4411
B. Name of amendment Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment No. 11
Description/Summary This plan amendment proposes to add 89 acres to the
_Urban Service Area which would be contiguous to the existing MUSA and
would be served by the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant This
amendment is subiect to approval of an EAW, prepared pursuant to
MCAR 4310.4300 Subp. 19A(2) and 4310 4300 Subp 28 D
C. Please attach the following:
1. a copy of the proposed amendment
2. a city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change
3• the current plan map(s), indicating area(s) 4ffected by
amendment (see sample attached)
4. the proposed plan map(s), indicating area(s) affected by
amendment (see sample attached)
D. What is the official local status of the proposed amendment? (Check
one or more as appropriate.)
X Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on
April 19, 1988
Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council
review, on
-2-
X Considered but not approved by governing body on May 3, 1988
Other .
E. Indicate what adjacent local governmental units and other
Jurisdictions (school districts, watershed districts, etc.) affected
by the change have been sent copies of the plan amendment, if any, and
the date(s) copies were sent to them.
Independent School District No 196 - May 4, 1988
II. LAND USE
A. Describe the following, as appropriate:
1. Size of affected area in acres 89
2. Existing land use(s) Agriculture
3. Proposed land use (s) _ Single Family Residential
4. Number of residential dwelling units involved 190
5. Proposed density __2.33 units/acre
6. Proposed square footage of commercial, industrial or public
buildings
III.METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
A. Population, Household and Employment Forecasts
Will the proposed amendment affect the city's population, household or
employment forecasts for 2000, or any additional local staging
contained in the original plan?
X No/Not Applicable
Yes. Describe effect.
B. Changes to Urban Service Area Boundary
Will the proposed amendment require a change to the boundary of the
community's urban service area?
No/Not Applicable. f
X Yes. Under I.C., a map should be attached to dhow the proposed
change.
C. Changes to Timing and Staging of Urban Service Area
Will the proposed amendment require a change to the timing and staging
of development within the urban service area?
No/Not Applicable.
X Yes. Under I.C., a map should be attached to show the proposed
change.
0
D. Sewer Flows
E.
F.
G.
A.
-3-
i
1. Will the proposed amendment result in a change in the projected
sewer flows for the community?
X No/Not Applicable.
Yes. Indicate the expected change.
Total Year 2000 flow for community based
on existing plan million
gallons/day
Total 2000 flow for community based on plan
amendment million
gallons/day
2. If your community discharges to more than one metropolitan
interceptor, indicate which interceptor will be affected by the
amendment.
Transportation
Will the proposed amendment result in an increase in the trip
generation rate(s) for the affected area?
No/Not Applicable.
_ X Yes. Describe effect. _The proposed development could generate
__DT. Vehicle trips will be well distributed to existing and
planned cp1lector streets and other arterial highways
Aviation
Will the proposed amendment affect the function of a metropolitan
airport or the compatibility of land uses with aircraft noise?
x_ No/Not Applicable.
Yes. Describe effect.
Housing
Will the proposed amendment affect the community's ability or intent
to achieve the long-term goals for low- and moderate -income and
modest -cost housing opportunities contained in the existing plan?
_ X No/Not Applicable.
Yes. Describe effect.
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Official Controls
Will the proposed amendment require a change to zoning, subdivision,
on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls9
No/Not Applicable.
`x Yes. Describe effect. Rezoning
LT012A
P„
FIG. 12
LEGEND u
1990 LAND USE PLAN
.
P/i„
199URBAN SERV. AREA RH
PUBLIC & INSTITUTIONAL RR
HIGH RES
R RALD RESIDENTIAIDENTIAL
POS
PRESERVATION OPEN AG
AGRICULTURAL
SPACE
MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL
G1
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
AREA
ROSEMOUNT
IP
INDUSTRIAL PARK
CC
COMMUNITY (CSD)
MAJOR STREETS
MINNESOTA
INNESOTA F
COMMERCIAL
HC
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
UNDESIGNATED: MEDIUM
MUSA BOUNDARY
GC
CNC
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MARCH 1, 1988 GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT #11 PROPOSED MUSA ADDITION 88
341 ACRES
UNDESIGNATED MUSA
ACREAGE
=ES E]
•
0
V