HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Deer Haven
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning Commission Meeting: August 27, 2019
Tentative City Council Meeting: September 17, 2019
AGENDA ITEM: 19-32-SMP, 19-33-V, 19-34-RZ Request
by Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes for a
Rezoning, Simple Plat, and Variance to
create a three-lot subdivision called Deer
Haven (Continued from Last Meeting)
AGENDA SECTION:
Old Business
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 5.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report 7/23/19, Site Location Map,
Resolution of Approval, Resolution of
Denial (Alternative), Proposed Plat,
Existing Conditions, Updated Site Plan
(proposed lots and building pads),
Wetland Buffering, Aerial Photograph,
City Engineer Review Memorandum,
Coffee Trail Map with Distances, New
Letter from John and Diane Sleizer,
Letter from Commissioner VanderWiel
APPROVED BY: KL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion by the Planning Commission (acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments) to
adopt a resolution approving a variance to allow the creation of two lots that share one
driveway and that do not meet the minimum lot width requirement for a RR – Rural
Residential Zoning District;
Motion to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the subject property
from AG Agricultural to RR Rural Residential;
Motion to recommend the City Council approve a Simple Plat for Deer Haven with the
following conditions:
1) Conservation easements in a form acceptable to the City shall be recorded with the
final plat and cover the wetland and wetland buffers as identified on the plat and
associated drawings.
2) All shared portions of the driveway serving Lots 1 and 3 shall be improved to a
minimum width of 16 feet with a one-foot clear zone on either side of the driveway.
3) All driveways shall be capable of supporting access by emergency vehicles and
equipment.
4) All driveways shall be removed from wetland buffer zones; the buffer area lost to
driveways shall be added elsewhere around the same wetland to achieve an
average buffer meeting the requirements of the specific wetland classification.
5) The plat shall be revised to include the dedication of 25 feet of right away along the
western property line and along the present alignment of Coffee Trail to the south.
2
6) The plat shall be updated to include all required drainage and utility easements
along property lines.
7) The applicant shall complete the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM)
for Wetland 1 and shall submit required evidence that the small wetland southeast of
the existing home is an incidental wetland. The wetland buffering plan and
easements shall be updated in accordance with the final results. The City will
require a custom grading plan prior to the construction of homes on Lots 1 and 2
along with a plan documenting any significant trees to be removed for said homes.
8) The removal of trees shall be minimized around each new building site.
9) The final plat and associated wetlands and wetland buffers shall be revised to
comply with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision for the
property.
10) A fee in lieu of park land dedication of $3,400 for Lots 1 and 2 shall be paid prior to
the issuance of a building permit for each lot.
11) The applicant shall pay the required storm water trunk area assessment of $3,772
per acre prior to recording the final plat. This assessment shall be based on a newly
developed area of 10.23 acres (with further exclusions for wetlands and ponding
areas per the City’s fee schedule). The remaining fee for the property shall be
collected if the southern 6.5 acres is ever further subdivided in the future.
12) The site plan shall be updated to include the proposed primary and alternate private
sewage treatment areas based upon appropriate soil and compaction testing prior to
final approval by the City Council. Each lot must accommodate a sewage treatment
system meeting all City requirements and designed by a licensed septic designer.
13) A shared driveway agreement acceptable to the City for Lots 1 and 3, Block 1 shall
be executed and recorded with the property.
14) Incorporation of recommendations from the City Engineer in a review memorandum
dated July 18, 2019 relative to drainage, grading, easements, utilities, storm water
management, and other subjects covered in the review.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request by Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes to
subdivide an existing 16.73 acre parcel at 3904 120th Street West into three lots within a new subdivision;
Deer Haven. As part of the subdivision request, the applicants are seeking to rezone the property from its
current designation of AG – Agriculture to RR – Rural Residential, and are also seeking approval of a
variance from the Commission (acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments) to allow the creation of
a lot that does not meet the 200 foot minimum lot width requirement of the RR – Rural Residential zoning
district. The subdivision will create two new lots in addition to a lot that will incorporate the existing
house on the property. Staff is recommending approval of all three components of the request with the
conditions listed above.
Property Owners: Don Stein, 3904 120th Street West
Applicant: Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes, 48545 Shanaska Creek Road, Kasota, MN
Location: 3904 120th Street West (PID 340181017020)
Site Area in Acres: 16.73 Acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation RR – Rural Residential
Current Zoning: AG-Agriculture
Proposed Zoning: RR – Rural Residential
3
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission/Board of Appeals and Adjustment tabled the applications described above at
its July 23, 2019 meeting after conducting a public hearing concerning the request. The detailed staff
report from the previous meeting is attached to this memorandum to provide further details concerning
the request and staff review. The review below focuses on the discussion, action, and follow-up from the
previous meeting.
Public Comments
John and Diane Sleizer, 4990 120th Street, submitted a letter prior to the meeting opposed to the granting
of the variance and subdivision requests. John Sleizer spoke at the meeting, and reviewed his concerns
about the proposal with the Commission. He stated his opposition to building on the hillside adjacent to
his lot. He also commented that the variance to allow lots smaller than five acres in size was not
consistent with the rural land uses in the area. He also pointed out that a shared driveway would not be
necessary because existing easements that provide access to Coffee Trail to the south.
William Meyer, 4000 120th Street, asked if the developer would be able to further subdivide the larger
parcel at some point in the future.
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission discussed the proposed variance, rezoning, and simple plat, and raised several
questions about the application and the subject property. These issues and questions generally focused on
the following:
• Driveway Proximity and Wetland Impacts. Commissioners questioned how much of an impact an
expanded driveway would have on the wetlands, especially if it were paved.
• Southern Access – Coffee Trail. Commissioner VanderWiel stated that she would like the applicant
to explore using the Coffee Trail cul-de-sac to provide access to the property.
• Future Subdivision. There were questions about the possibility to subdivide the larger 10-acre lot
at some point in the future.
• Southern Easement Area. The Commission noted that the survey depicts a 60-fot wide ingress
and egress easement along the southern properly line and also calls out a similar easement over the
northerly section of Coffee Trail. Commissioners asked for further information concerning these
easements.
Since the last Planning Commission meeting, Staff has been in discussions with the applicant to address
the questions this meeting and to further revise the wetland buffering plan for the property. In response,
the applicant submitted an updated plan depicting an average buffer around each wetland meeting the
City’s requirements. The applicant is also working directly with the City’s consultants (WSB) to complete a
Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) for Wetland 1. The MnRAM is being done to confirm
the classification for this wetland, which in turn will determine the amount of buffering required. There is
a chance that Wetland 1 could change from a “Preserve” wetland to a lower classification. In additional,
the applicant will be working with WSB to document that the small wetland area southeast of the existing
home is an incidental wetland and will therefore not require any additional easement or buffering.
Staff also received a letter from Commissioner VanderWiel (who will be absent from the meeting) with her
additional thoughts concerning the request. In her letter, Commissioner VanderWiel notes that she has
visited the site and reviewed information concerning the property, and that based on this additional
information she does support the granting of the zoning applications.
4
In response to the previous questions and new information provided by the applicant, Staff offers the
following comments:
Wetland Classification/MnRAM. Until WSB completes its work, the applicant is not going to know
the exact buffering requirement for Wetland 1. In order plan for the most extreme case, the applicant’s
updated plans depict a 75-foot buffer (with averaging) around Wetland 1. Should the classification change,
the plans could be updated to show a lesser buffer.
Buffering – Mitigation/Averaging. The revised wetland buffering plan shows the required buffer
around each wetland (based on the current City classifications) along with markings for the areas to be
excluded or added to the buffer in order to achieve an average buffer width meeting the City’s minimum
requirements. The potential impacts are limited to Wetlands 1 and 2, and all mitigation areas are now
connected to the wetland they are buffering.
Driveway Paving. Under the City’s rural residential zoning standards, the applicant is not required to
pave the driveway providing access to each lot. Staff is supportive of the applicant’s plan to keep the
driveway as a class-5 crushed rock surface. With the revised buffering plan, the applicant proposes to
remove the buffer from the driveway and land upslope from Wetland 1, while keeping a buffer from the
edge of the existing driveway downslope. This will allow the applicant to provide additional room for the
driveway while keeping any impacts to the opposite side from the wetland.
Future Subdivisions. The proposed subdivision will create three lots over 16.73 acres and cannot be
further subdivided under the RR – Rural Residential zoning requirements that limit densities to 1 house
per five acres in this district. The City’s Comprehensive Plan further guides this area for rural residential
development and does not plan for extensions of public services to this site.
Sothern (Coffee Trail) Access. Staff has visited the northernmost extension of Coffee Trail and prepared
the attached map depicting the total distance from the end of the cul-de-sac to the closest building on the
applicant’s site plan. Based on this analysis, Staff has found that there are a number of factors that make
accessing this street very problematic:
1) The northern segment of Coffee Trail is unimproved and is located directly between two existing
houses. It will not be possible to construct a private driveway through this area without substantial
impacts to the adjacent properties
2) The total distance from the end of the Coffee Trail cul-de-sac to the closest home on the site plan
is over 770 feet following a direct line. A new driveway through this area would require extensive
removal of trees and grading in order to build a driveway that meets City requirements. Using the
existing driveway to access 120th Street avoids all of these impacts.
3) There are two larger wetlands in the southern portions of the site, and those could be potentially
impacted by a driveway, or would result in a much longer driveway to avoid all wetland impacts.
4) The City’s public works department does not support the use of public right-of-way for private
access and private driveway improvements, especially when serving more than one property.
Southerly Easement Area. The applicant has submitted language for the easement areas along the
southern portions of the property for review by Staff. These easements grant the subject property and
those on either side of it the ability to use Coffee Trail for access. This arrangement was approved by the
City through a formal easement agreement. The 60 foot wide ingress and egress easement appears to
provide a potential access to the property to the east, and was executed in conjunction with a subdivision
request that never occurred on this land. For the reasons noted above, staff does not recommend using
these easements, even though it appears that these properties would have a legal right to use the Coffee
Trail right-of-way.
5
Alternate Resolution. Based on the split vote at the last meeting, Staff has drafted an alternate resolution
of denial for the Board and Appeals and Adjustments to consider along with the original resolution of
approval drafted to support the staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a Variance, Rezoning, and Simple Plat request for the Deer Haven plat with
conditions. This recommendation for approval is based on the information provided to the Planning
Commission and information provided subsequent to the July 23, 2019 meeting.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning Commission Meeting: July 23, 2019
Tentative City Council Meeting: August 20, 2019
AGENDA ITEM: 19-32-SMP, 19-33-V, 19-34-RZ Request
by Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes for a
Rezoning, Simple Plat, and Variance to
create a three-lot subdivision called Deer
Haven.
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 6.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map, Resolution, Proposed
Plat, Existing Conditions, Site Plan
(proposed lots and building pads),
Wetland Delineation Report (Excerpt)
Aerial Photograph, City Engineer Review
Memorandum, Letter from John and
Diane Sleizer
APPROVED BY: KL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion by the Planning Commission (acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments) to
adopt a resolution approving a variance to allow the creation of two lots that share one
driveway and that do not meet the minimum lot width requirement for a RR – Rural
Residential Zoning District;
Motion to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the subject property
from AG Agricultural to RR Rural Residential;
Motion to recommend the City Council approve a Simple Plat for Bacardi Ridge with the
following conditions:
1) Conservation easements in a form acceptable to the City shall be recorded with the
final plat and cover the wetland and wetland buffers as identified on the plat and
associated drawings.
2) All shared portions of the driveway serving Lots 1 and 3 shall be improved to a
minimum width of 16 feet with a one-foot clear zone on either side of the driveway.
3) All driveways shall be capable of supporting access by emergency vehicles and
equipment.
4) All driveways shall be removed from wetland buffer zones; the buffer area lost to
driveways shall be added elsewhere around the same wetland to achieve an
average buffer meeting the requirements of the specific wetland classification.
5) The plat shall be revised to include the dedication of 25 feet of right away along the
western property line and along the present alignment of Coffee Trail to the south.
6) The plat shall be updated to include all required drainage and utility easements
along property lines.
7) The applicant shall provide documentation concerning the existing 60-foot wide
2
ingress and egress easement along the southern property line.
8) The City will require a custom grading plan prior to the construction of homes on
Lots 1 and 2 along with a plan documenting any significant trees to be removed for
said homes. The removal of trees shall be minimized around each new building site.
9) The final plat and associated wetlands and wetland buffers shall be revised to
comply with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision for the
property.
10) A fee in lieu of park land dedication of $3,400 for Lots 1 and 2 shall be paid prior to
the issuance of a building permit for each lot.
11) The applicant shall pay the required storm water trunk area assessment of $3,772
per acre prior to recording the final plat. This assessment shall be based on a newly
developed area of 10.23 acres (with further exclusions for wetlands and ponding
areas per the City’s fee schedule). The remaining fee for the property shall be
collected if the southern 6.5 acres is ever further subdivided in the future.
12) The site plan shall be updated to include the proposed primary and alternate private
sewage treatment areas based upon appropriate soil and compaction testing prior to
final approval by the City Council. Each lot must accommodate a sewage treatment
system meeting all City requirements and designed by a licensed septic designer.
13) A shared driveway agreement acceptable to the City for Lots 1 and 3, Block 1 shall
be executed and recorded with the property.
14) Incorporation of recommendations from the City Engineer in a review memorandum
dated July 18, 2019 relative to drainage, grading, easements, utilities, storm water
management, and other subjects covered in the review.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request by Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes to
subdivide an existing 16.73 acre parcel at 3904 120th Street West into three lots within a new subdivision;
Deer Haven. As part of the subdivision request, the applicants are seeking to rezone the property from its
current designation of AG – Agriculture to RR – Rural Residential, and are also seeking approval of a
variance from the Commission (acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments) to allow the creation of
a lot that does not meet the 200 foot minimum lot width requirement of the RR – Rural Residential zoning
district. The subdivision will create two new lots in addition to a lot that will incorporate the existing
house on the property. Staff is recommending approval of all three components of the request with the
conditions listed above.
Property Owners: Don Stein, 3904 120th Street West
Applicant: Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes, 48545 Shanaska Creek Road, Kasota, MN
Location: 3904 120th Street West (PID 340181017020)
Site Area in Acres: 16.73 Acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation RR – Rural Residential
Current Zoning: AG-Agriculture
Proposed Zoning: RR – Rural Residential
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located in the extreme northwestern portion of Rosemount roughly 1.3 miles west
of South Robert Trail along 120th Street. Rosemount’s boundary with the City of Eagan follows 120th
Street, with Lebanon Hills Regional Park located directly to the north. All of the surrounding property is
rural residential in nature, with a mixture of lots ranging in size from one to 18 acres. The applicants’
parcel is located within a grouping of lots zoned AG – Agriculture on the City’s zoning map although
none meet the minimum density of one house per 40 acres required by ordinance. The entire area is
3
guided for Rural Residential development, which supports an overall density of one house per five acres
(and is consistent with the density of past developments in this part of the City).
The area to be subdivided includes one parcel that is 16.73 acres in size with just under 450 feet of
frontage along 120th Street. Prior to 2003, the site was part of a larger grouping of four parcels owned by
the estate of Elizabeth Stein. In 2003, the City approved a consolidation of parcels that resulted in the
creation of the subject property as well as the neighboring parcel to the east (in this case four smaller
parcels were combined to make two larger lots). The house currently located on the property was
constructed in 1992 and is situated roughly 450 feet south of 120th Street and is not visible from the road.
A 12-foot wide gravel driveway provides access to the house, and winds through a series of wetlands,
culverts, and wooded areas before arriving at the structure.
One of the more unique aspects of this particular part of Rosemount is an abundance of lakes, wetlands,
and other water features. The City’s Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan identifies five wetlands
on the property of varying types, one of which includes an open body of water that extends into the
neighboring parcel to the east. Because there are wetlands on the site, the applicant is required to submit a
wetland delineation report identifying individual wetlands, and any plat documents must include the
boundaries of all verified wetlands. This report has been submitted and is currently under review by the
local Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The public comment period for the wetland review is set to
expire on August 8th, with a final decision from the City’s consultant shortly thereafter. The included site
plan and plat have already been updated to reflect the initial comments from an on-site meeting; any
subsequent changes due to the panel’s findings will need to be reflected in the final plat documents.
The applicants have entered into a purchase agreement with the current owner with a contingency that
they be allowed to split the property into three lots. In order to accomplish this subdivision, they are first
requesting that the site be rezoned from AG Agricultural to RR Rural Residential. The proposed rezoning
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City’s future land use map which classifies this area as
Rural Residential with a maximum density of one residence per five acres. The second request necessary
to allow the splitting of the existing parcel into three lots is a variance in order to create lots that do not
meet the RR district standards for lot width and frontage on a public street. In this case, the current parcel
is slightly less than 450 feet in length, which does not provide enough length for three parcels with 200
feet of frontage on 120th Street. The location of wetlands on the property and present configuration of the
parcel further restrict the ability to provide access to the site in a manner that complies with the City’s
zoning requirements.
The proposed subdivision will create three lots from the larger 16.73 acre parcel, one of which will have
the required amount of frontage along a public street while the other two will not. The largest parcel of
10.77 acres would be designed as a “flag lot” with 130 feet of frontage along 120th Street, with the stem
portion of the flag containing most of the existing driveway. The second parcel of 3.11 acres would
include the existing house and would be a land-locked parcel that would share a driveway with Lot 1. The
remaining lot of 2.51 acres would have 318 feet of frontage along 120th Street and could be served by a
new driveway from the pubic road. All lots comply with the minimum dimensional standards of the RR
district with the exception of Lots 1 and 2 which do not comply with the minimum width and street
frontage requirements. Given the width of the existing lot and location of wetlands on the property, it
does not appear possible to create three lots from the 16+ acre site without a variance.
Plans submitted by the applicant depict the existing conditions on the site, the proposed lot lines and plat
boundaries, and a general location for building sites on the two vacant parcels. Prior to building on the
two new parcels, the applicant will need to secure a building permit, at which time the City would review
site grading and tree removal plans. No septic or soils data has been provided to the City, and the
applicant will also need to demonstrate compliance with the City’s well and septic system design
requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4
ISSUE ANALYIS
Rezoning
The applicant has requested a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of the property from AG –
Agricultural to RR – Rural Residential. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City’s future land use
map which guides the northwestern portion of Rosemount for rural residential land uses. Upon final
adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is presently under review by the Met Council, the City
will be updating the zoning map to bring it into conformance with the updated plan. As part of this
review, staff is proposing to take a look at existing parcels zoned AG that are under 20 acres in size to
determine if they should also be rezoned to rural residential to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Variance Request and Standards
The subject property presents many challenges for development of any additional lots beyond the existing
home due in part to the shape and configuration of the parcel and in part to the location of wetlands
across the site. All of these factors restrict where a driveway or road could be placed. The one serving the
exiting residence currently runs through a narrow area between four wetlands and an adjoining property.
In addition, the site is heavily wooded with many larger deciduous trees, and any new home sites should be
sited to avoid tree removal as much as possible.
The maximum density allowed within a RR zoning district is one house per five acres, and the site is
capable of supporting three total residential units without exceeding this requirement. The zoning
ordinance requires platted lots of 2.5 acres in size. Although it is a relatively large property (with a depth of
over 1,200 feet south of 120th Street), the frontage along 120th Street is limited to 450 feet, which would
not allow three lots meeting the 200 foot lot width requirement. The southern boundary of the property
does touch a portion of the Coffee Trail right-of-way, but is limited to only the eastern 25 feet of this road.
It would not be possible to extend Coffee Trail to serve lots on the subject property without acquiring
additional right-of-way from the neighboring property. In addition, the applicant does not believe that an
extension of Coffee Trail is feasible at this time because the improved portion of the road is over 200 feet
from the property boundary.
Given the restrictions for providing access to the proposed lots, the applicant is requesting variances from
two specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Section 11-2-7 Street Access Required. This section of code require that every building
hereafter erected shall be located on a lot having frontage on a public street.
Section 11-4-3 RR Min Lot Requirements and Setbacks. This section of code specifies that
the minimum lot width for platted land within a RR zoning district is 200 feet.
Looking at the proposed subdivision, the requested variances would allow the platting of Lot 3 without
any frontage on a public street (while meeting the width requirement) and platting of Lot 1 with a width of
130 feet, or 70 feet short of the 200 foot minimum. Access to Lot 3 (the existing home) would occur via
the existing driveway that would now be shared with and located on Lot 1.
According to Section 11-12-2.G, there are five criteria for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to
review when considering a variance request. The five criteria used to assess each request along with staff’s
findings for each are listed below. While weighing a variance request against these criteria, there are also
two key issues to consider. The first is whether there the owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The second is whether the project can be
redesigned to eliminate or reduce the need for a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals must approve or
deny each request based on findings related to each of the five standards.
5
1. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance.
Finding: Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance
because it allows for rural residential development at the densities permitted within a RR – Rural
Residential zoning district. The applicant is not requesting any exceptions to the lot area, setbacks,
or other dimensional standards, and is proposing wetland buffers that consistent with the City’s
wetland management plan.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Finding: The site is designated as Rural Residential. The variance will permit the platting of three
lots with a gross density of one house per 5.77 acres consistent with the land use designation and
zoning ordinance. Additionally, the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan as it relates
to wetlands.
3. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property.
Finding: There is sufficient room on the property for the applicant to extend a public road into
the property; however, doing so would result in significant impacts to the wetlands, trees, and
rolling topography of the site. The proposed driveway and lot width variance will allow the
residential density permitted under the zoning ordinance while utilizing the existing driveway to
provide reasonable access to two lots instead of one. This will reduce overall impacts on the site
while providing safe access to each residential structure.
4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner.
Finding: The site is covered by a series of wetlands that greatly reduce the amount of land
available for new residential structures and driveways, and the overall configuration of the lot was
established long before the City adopted its wetland management plan and ordinances. While
wetlands are not uncommon in the northwest portion of the City, the location of wetlands on the
applicants’ property greatly limits the ability to construct or expand a driveway to serve the site.
5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The City’s northwest rural area contains rural lots ranging in size from one to 18 or more
acres in size, and the RR zoning standards allow for lots with a minimum size of 2.5 acres
(provided the overall density does not exceed one unit per five acres). The applicant is not seeking
variances from any density standards, and the variance will allow the sharing of a driveway between
two otherwise conforming parcels with regards to lot area. The closest neighboring residential
structures are approximately 250 feet to the closet point of any new homes proposed. Staff finds
that the essential character of the locality will remain intact.
Simple Plat
The applicant is proposing a simple plat for the subdivision, which allows the City to waive some of the
normal subdivision application requirements and to combine the preliminary and final plat review into one
action. While the proposed plat does create two new buildable parcels, the resulting rural lots will not be
served by any new public improvements (roads or public sewer and water); therefore, many of the City’s
standard plat application materials are not necessary for this subdivision.
The proposed lots to be created will be 2.51, 3.11, and 10.77 acres in size, two of which will share an
existing driveway while the other will access directly to 120th Street. The applicant will need to draft and
execute a shared driveway easement and agreement to ensure its availability for use by both lots.
In the future, any site improvements and permits for home construction will need to comply with the
City’s zoning regulations.
6
Wetlands/Conservation Easements
As noted throughout this report, the most significant issue associated with the proposed plat is the
location of several wetlands on the property. Under City and State requirements for wetlands, the
applicant must complete a wetland delineation report for the property, and all identified wetlands must be
documented on the proposed subdivision. The applicant has hired Soil Investigation and Design, Inc. to
prepare this report (an excerpt of which is attached), which is in the process of being reviewed by the
City’s water resources consultant. The local technical evaluation panel (TEP) has recently met on site to
discuss the report, and the public comment period concerning the evaluation ends on August 8th. The City
is still waiting to receive some information from the applicant before a final decision is made, and the final
review will confirm the classification and boundaries for each of the wetlands. The City’s consultant will
be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting to summarize the wetland review process.
The attached existing conditions plan, simple plat, and site plan depict the wetlands as identified in the
wetland delineation report. Please note that one of the wetlands identified by the report (located
immediately southwest of the existing home) is considered an incidental wetland and therefore would not
be regulated under the City’s ordinances. Information verifying this classification needs to be submitted
and confirmed prior to recording of the plat. The applicant has also grouped two of the wetlands mapped
by the City into one wetland and will be tracked as such in this memorandum.
Under its wetland management plan, the City requires easements over each wetland in addition to buffer
areas around each wetland. Furthermore, each wetland is also classified for management and protection
based on the initial evaluation conducted by the City and verified prior to development. For the subject
property, the following classifications and associated buffers will apply based on the delineation report
(theses are also mapped on the submitted plat documents):
Wetland # Classification Buffer
1 Preserve 75 ft.
2 Manage 2 30 ft.
3 Incidental N/A
4 Manage 2 30 ft.
5 Manage 3 15 ft.
The City requires that all wetlands and buffer areas be covered by a drainage and utility easement on a plat,
and will also require a separate conservation easement over these areas as well. The attached plat and site
plans depict the boundaries of the wetlands as described in the delineation report along with drainage and
utility easements up to the required buffer line. The City does allow for buffer averaging around individual
wetlands in instances where is not possible or feasible to maintain a uniform buffer distance around the
entire wetland. Because the existing driveway extends through one of the required buffers, the applicant is
proposing to move this buffer elsewhere on the property to maintain an average around the affected
wetlands. The impacted and mitigated buffer areas are shown as the cross-hatched areas on the site plan.
After reviewing the wetland area and buffering plan, staff has the identified the following issues with the
plan as presented:
Certain portions of the driveway extend into the Wetland #2 buffer area. No portions of the
driveway should be located with a proposed buffer area.
The City’s wetland management regulations require a 30 foot setback for any structures from the
buffer to allow for usable yard space. There are two locations on the plan where this setback will
conflict with a deck on the existing house or the building pad for Lot 2.
7
Some of the mitigated buffer area is shown around Wetland 4, but there are no proposed
encroachments into the buffer around this wetland. The applicant will need to add this mitigation
area back to the buffer around the impacted wetlands (either Wetland 1 or 2). Staff is
recommending an expansion of Wetland 1 around the incidental wetland southeast of the existing
house to bring the buffer average of Wetland 1 back to 75 feet.
Conservation easements over the buffer areas will need to be signed by the applicant and recorded
with the final plat.
Upon completion of the City’s wetland review, any modifications or revisions to the boundaries of the
wetlands must be incorporated into the plat.
Access and Driveway Issues
The driveway currently serving the existing house on the site is a single-lane road with a crushed-rock
service that is roughly between 10 to 12 feet in width, although there is open area, non-graveled on both
sides of the drive. Although this width may be sufficient for serving a single home, staff is concerned that
the present configuration is not appropriate for use by more than one residence. In order to ensure that
there is sufficient room for multiple users to access two building sites and to accommodate access by
emergency and service vehicles, staff is recommending that the driveway be improved to a minimum width
of 16 feet with a clear zone (no trees, shrubs, or branches) of a least one foot on either side of the
driveway. In addition to access, the clear zone is also intended to help provide a minimal amount of space
for snow storage in the winter months. Please note that the final buffer zones around the wetlands must
be designed to accommodate a minimum of 18 feet around the driveway based on the staff
recommendation.
Public Right-of-Way Dedication
The proposed plat is adjacent to 120 Street and will therefore need to dedicate right-of-way for that
portion of the road located on the applicant’s property. The proposed 33-foot dedication will meet this
requirement. In addition, the subject property is located north of the furthest limits of the Coffee Trail
right-of-way. Although Coffee Trail is not improved all the way to the property, staff is recommending
that the applicant provide right-of-way dedication for that portion of Coffee Trail that could continue
north at some point in the future. The expected dedication for the applicants’ property is 25 feet along the
western property boundary. The City does not have any plans to construct the road in the near future, but
this dedication would help ensure that there will be options available in the future, especially as other
properties in the area are developed.
The plat indicates that there is an existing ingress and egress easement along the southern property
boundary. Staff has not been able to find any documentation concerning this easement in the City’s files,
and is asking that the applicant provide any records they may have concerning the easement for review by
the City.
Lot Standards
The site is proposed to be rezoned to the RR – Rural Residential zoning district, which allows lots with a
minimum size of 2.5 acres if platted, and maximum overall density of one house per five acres. All three
lots will meet this minimum lot size standard, and the overall proposed density of three houses on 16.73
acres (one house per 5.77 acres) will meet the density standard. Please note that the resulting lot sizes are
exclusive of the dedicated right-of-way, which also does not change the ultimate maximum number of
allowed units for this area. While a general concept plan for the location of new houses has been
provided, the City will be able to determine compliance with all other setback and dimensional standards at
the time a building permit is submitted for each lot. Staff will determine the front yard as the lot line
facing 120th Street. The noted building pad locations do not appear to conflict with any required setbacks.
8
Lot Standards
Lot Area Lot Width Maximum Density
RR – Rural Residential 2.5 Acres 200 feet 1 unit/5 Acres
Current Proposed
Lot Area Lot Width Lot Area Lot Width
Lot 1, Block 1
16.73 acres 449.25 ft.
10.77 acres 130.76
Lot 2, Block 1 2.51 acres 318.90
Lot 3, Block 1 3.11 acres 697.68
Although the site plan does include a general building area, the applicant has not indicated where the
proposed septic treatment systems would be located on each lot. The site plan should be updated to
include an area that meets the minimum standards for a primary and secondary treatment system,
including appropriate compaction and soils testing prior to City Council action.
Grading, Storm Water Management, and Tree Preservation
With only two new buildable, rural lots within the proposed subdivision, and no public road construction,
the City has not required an overall grading, erosion control, or storm water management plan for the
project. Instead, the building permit for each lot much be accompanied by a custom lot grading plan that
demonstrates compliance with the City’s grading and erosion control standards. Likewise, the City has not
required an overall tree protection and replacement plan, and will instead evaluate tree impacts with the
specific grading plans for each lot. The City does allow for tree removal of up to 25% of the trees on a
development site without a requirement for replacement, and given the large size of the property, the
applicant will not come close to exceeding this number. In order to preserve the rural character of the
area, removal of tress on the new building sites should be kept to the minimum necessary to construct the
house and driveway.
Drainage and Utility Easements
In addition to the easements over wetlands and buffer areas, the applicant will need to provide the
standard drainage and utility easements over the lot lines of all lots platted within the subdivision. These
easements are missing from the plat and will need to be added to the final version.
Development Fees
Although many of the City’s standard development fees will not apply to the proposed subdivision
because it will not be served by public water and sewer service, there are two development fees that will
apply as follows:
Fee in Lieu of Land Dedication - $3,400 per each new lot.
Surface Water Trunk Area Assessment for the Lebanon Hills Subwatershed Area - $3,772 per acre.
Please note that the City has applied the storm water fee to the developed portion of any subdivision and
excluded outlots and future development areas from the calculation. Although the applicants are
subdividing all of the subject property, there is a large area in the southern portion of the site that is not
directly connected to the rest of the property. Staff is recommending that only the northern portion of the
property be subject to the area assessment, with the understanding that if the southern area is ever
subdivided in the future the assessment could be applied to this property at this time. Staff is estimating
that approximately 6.5 acres of the site could be left off of the surface water trunk area and collected only
when and if this part of the property is developed.
9
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a Variance, Rezoning, and Simple Plat request for the Deer Haven plat with
conditions. This recommendation for approval is based on the information provided to the Planning
Commission.
Dakota County, MN
Property Information
Ju ly 11 , 2019
0 875 1,750437.5 ft
0 270 540135 m
1:9,600
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION BA2019-01
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF TWO
LOTS THAT SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY AND THAT DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM
LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR AN RR – RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes, 48545 Shanaska Creek Road, Kasota, MN (the
“Applicant”), has submitted an application to the City Rosemount (the “City”), for a variance to
allow the creation of two lots that share one driveway and that do not meet the minimum lot width
requirement for am RR – Rural Residential zoning district; and
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance, Section 11-12-2; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemount Board of Appeals and Adjustments held a public hearing and
considered said on said matter on July 23, 2019; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Rosemount
Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS
1.That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance, Section 11-12-2.
2.That all the submission requirements of said Section 11-12-2 have been met by the
Applicant.
3.That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows (the applicant’s
current lot prior to subdivision/recombination):
All that part of the W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 in Section 7 and of the W 1/2 of the NE
1/4 in Section 18 all in Township 115N, Range 19W, Dakota County, Minnesota described
as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 and running
thence West along the North line thereof a distance of 618.28 to the point of beginning of
the land to be described; thence continuing West along said North line a distance of 450.00
feet; thence South and parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 1 and said NE 1/4 a
1
distance of 296.48 feet; thence Westerly parallel with the North line of said W 1/2 of NE
1/4 a distance of 242.07 feet to the West line of said W 1/2 of said NE 1/4; thence
Southerly along said West line a distance of 433.28 feet; thence Easterly parallel with the
north line of said W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 a distance of 697.97
feet; thence Northerly a distance of 730.50 feet to the point of beginning.
and
All thot part of the West Half of Government Lot One (1) in Section Seven (7) and of the
West Half of the Northeast Quarter in Section Eighteen (18), all in Township One hundred
fifteen (115) North, Range Nineteen (19) West, Dakota County, Minnesota described as
follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said West Half of Government Lot One (1)
and running thence west along the north line thereof a distance of 618.28 feet to the point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing west along said north line 450.00
feet; thence south and parallel to the west line of said Government Lot 1 and said Northeast
Quarter a distance of 296.48 feet; thence westerly parallel with the north line of said West
Half of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 242.07 feet to the west line of said West Half of
said Northeast Quarter; thence southerly along said west line 830.60 feet; thence easterly
parallel with the north line of said West Half of the Northeast Quarter 388.70 feet; thence
southeasterly 321.43 feet along a line whose terminus is a point on the east line of said West
Half of the Northeast Quarter distant 1437.58 feet south of the northeast corner of said
West Half of
Government Lot 1; thence north 1228.47 feet to the point of beginning.
Subject to an easement for ingress and egress over the south 60 feet thereof. Said 60 feet
being measured at right angles to said south line.
EXCEPT:
All that part of the W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 in Section 7 and the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4
in Section 18 all in Township 115 N, Range 19 W, Dakota County, Minnesota described as
follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said W 1/2 of Government Lot 1and
running thence West along the North line thereof a distance of 618.28 feet to the point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing West along said north line a
distance of 450.00 feet; thence South and parallel to the west line of said government Lot 1
and said NE 1/4 a distance of 296.48 feet; thence Westerly parallel with the North line of
said W 1/2 of NE 1/4 a distance of 242 07 feet to the West line of said W 1/2 of said NE 1
/4; thence Southerly along said West line a distance of 433.28 feet; thence Easterly parallel
with the north line of said W 1/2 of Government' Lot 1a distance of 697.97 feet; thence
northerly a distance of 730.50 feet to the point of beginning.
4.The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Finding :
Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance
because it allows for rural residential development at the densities permitted within a RR-
Rural Residential district. The applicant is not requesting exception to the lot area, setbacks,
or other dimensional standards, and is proposing lots and wetland buffers that comply with
the City’s wetland management plan.
5.The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding : The site is designated as
Rural Residential. The variance will permit the platting of three lots with a gross density of
2
one house per 5.77 acres consistent with that land use designation. Additionally, the variance
is consistent with the comprehensive plan as it relates to wetlands.
6.Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property. Finding : There is sufficient
room on the property for the applicant to extend a public road into the property; however,
doing so would result in significant impacts to the wetlands, trees, and rolling topography of
the site. The proposed driveway and lot width variance will allow the residential density
permitted under the zoning ordinance while utilizing the existing driveway to provide access
to two lots instead of one. This will reduce overall impacts on the site while providing safe
access to each residential structure.
7.There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner.
Finding : The site is covered by a series of wetlands that greatly reduce the amount of land
available for new residential structures and driveways, and the overall configuration of the lot
was established long before the City adopted its wetland management plan and ordinances.
While wetlands are not uncommon in the northwest portion of the City, the location of
wetlands on the applicants’ property greatly limits the ability to construct or expand a
driveway to serve the site.
8.Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding : The
City’s northwest rural area contains rural lots ranging in size from one to 18 or more acres in
size, and the RR zoning standards allow for lots with a minimum size of 2.5 acres (provided
the overall density does not exceed one unit per five acres). The applicant is not seeking
variances from any density standards, and the variance will allow the sharing of a driveway
between two otherwise conforming parcels with regards to lot area. The closest neighboring
residential structures are approximately 250 feet to the closet point of any new homes
proposed. Staff finds that the essential character of the locality will remain intact.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted, subject to the
following condition:
1)Approval of a request to rezone the property from AG – Agricultural to RR – Rural
Residential and approval of the simple plat for Deer Haven.
Passed and duly adopted this 27th day of August 2019, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of
the City of Rosemount, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Melissa Kenninger, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary
3
ALTERNATE RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION BA2019-01
A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF TWO
LOTS THAT SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY AND THAT DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM
LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR AN RR – RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes, 48545 Shanaska Creek Road, Kasota, MN (the
“Applicant”), has submitted an application to the City Rosemount (the “City”), for a variance to
allow the creation of two lots that share one driveway and that do not meet the minimum lot width
requirement for am RR – Rural Residential zoning district; and
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance, Section 11-12-2; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemount Board of Appeals and Adjustments held a public hearing and
considered said on said matter on July 23, 2019; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Rosemount
Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS
1. That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance, Section 11-12-2.
2. That all the submission requirements of said Section 11-12-2 have been met by the
Applicant.
3. That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows (the applicant’s
current lot prior to subdivision/recombination):
All that part of the W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 in Section 7 and of the W 1/2 of the NE
1/4 in Section 18 all in Township 115N, Range 19W, Dakota County, Minnesota described
as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 and running
thence West along the North line thereof a distance of 618.28 to the point of beginning of
the land to be described; thence continuing West along said North line a distance of 450.00
feet; thence South and parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 1 and said NE 1/4 a
distance of 296.48 feet; thence Westerly parallel with the North line of said W 1/2 of NE
1
ALTERNATE RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
1/4 a distance of 242.07 feet to the West line of said W 1/2 of said NE 1/4; thence
Southerly along said West line a distance of 433.28 feet; thence Easterly parallel with the
north line of said W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 a distance of 697.97
feet; thence Northerly a distance of 730.50 feet to the point of beginning.
and
All thot part of the West Half of Government Lot One (1) in Section Seven (7) and of the
West Half of the Northeast Quarter in Section Eighteen (18), all in Township One hundred
fifteen (115) North, Range Nineteen (19) West, Dakota County, Minnesota described as
follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said West Half of Government Lot One (1)
and running thence west along the north line thereof a distance of 618.28 feet to the point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing west along said north line 450.00
feet; thence south and parallel to the west line of said Government Lot 1 and said Northeast
Quarter a distance of 296.48 feet; thence westerly parallel with the north line of said West
Half of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 242.07 feet to the west line of said West Half of
said Northeast Quarter; thence southerly along said west line 830.60 feet; thence easterly
parallel with the north line of said West Half of the Northeast Quarter 388.70 feet; thence
southeasterly 321.43 feet along a line whose terminus is a point on the east line of said West
Half of the Northeast Quarter distant 1437.58 feet south of the northeast corner of said
West Half of
Government Lot 1; thence north 1228.47 feet to the point of beginning.
Subject to an easement for ingress and egress over the south 60 feet thereof. Said 60 feet
being measured at right angles to said south line.
EXCEPT:
All that part of the W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 in Section 7 and the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4
in Section 18 all in Township 115 N, Range 19 W, Dakota County, Minnesota described as
follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said W 1/2 of Government Lot 1and
running thence West along the North line thereof a distance of 618.28 feet to the point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing West along said north line a
distance of 450.00 feet; thence South and parallel to the west line of said government Lot 1
and said NE 1/4 a distance of 296.48 feet; thence Westerly parallel with the North line of
said W 1/2 of NE 1/4 a distance of 242 07 feet to the West line of said W 1/2 of said NE 1
/4; thence Southerly along said West line a distance of 433.28 feet; thence Easterly parallel
with the north line of said W 1/2 of Government' Lot 1a distance of 697.97 feet; thence
northerly a distance of 730.50 feet to the point of beginning.
4. The variance request is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance.
Finding : The Board of Appeals and Adjustments finds that the request is not in harmony
with the purposes and intent of the ordinance because it allows for a lot that does not meet
the minimum frontage requirements in a RR-Rural Residential district.
5. The variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding : The site is designated
as Rural Residential and the granting of the variance will allow a lot with a reduced amount
of frontage compared to typical lots with this classification.
2
ALTERNATE RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
6. Granting of the variance does not allow reasonable use of the property. Finding :
Expanding the use of a driveway to serve two homes next to a wetland would negatively
impact the wetland.
7. There are no unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner.
Finding : The site is similar to many other properties in the immediate vicinity that are
zoned Rural Residential and that are covered with wetlands.
8. Granting of the variance does alter the essential character of the locality. Finding : The
creation of a narrow lot allows for a closer clustering of homes than otherwise would be
allowed under the RR – Rural Residential zoning requirements.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is denied.
Passed and duly adopted this 27th day of August 2019, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of
the City of Rosemount, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Melissa Kenninger, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary
3
Aerial Photograph—3904 120th Street
MEMORANDUM
To: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Brian Erickson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary
From: Stephanie Smith, Assistant City Engineer
Date: July 23, 2019
Subject: Deer Haven Preliminary and Final Plat – Engineering Review
SUBMITTAL:
The following review comments were generated from documents prepared by Lake and Land
Surveying:
▫ Preliminary Plat (dated 4/25/2019)
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. The applicant shall submit a plat signed by a professional engineer, licensed with the State of
Minnesota.
2. Stormwater trunk fees are due for this development within the Lebanon Hills Subwatershed
Area at $3,772 per acre.
RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS:
The proposed plat shows a 33-foot right-of-way dedication for 120th Street to match the prescriptive
right-of-way width.
3. The plat shall dedicate the western 25 feet of the site as right-of-way for an extension of
Coffee Trail to match half of the 50-foot dedication from the Oak Ridge Estates plat to the
south.
4. The plat shall dedicate perimeter D&U easements per City ordinance.
5. The applicant shall provide information on the 60-foot ingress and egress easement shown
on the southern property line. If this easement is in favor of a third party, it shall be
modified so as to prevent encumbering the Coffee Trail extension right-of-way.
6. Conservation easement shall be dedicated over the wetlands and wetland buffer areas.
7. An access easement and maintenance agreement is required between Lots 1 and 3, Block 1
over the shared driveway.
UTILITIES:
This area is outside the MUSA and does not contain City utilities.
8. The proposed new lots shall be served by private wells and septic systems. Proposed
locations of well, primary and secondary septic sites shall be shown for each lot.
DRIVEWAY:
The applicant proposes sharing the existing driveway between Lots 1 and 3, Block 1.
9. The Fire Marshal is requiring the shared portion of the driveway be a 16-foot minimum
width for emergency vehicle access.
10. All lots shall have a driveway turnaround for vehicles near the house.
GRADING & STORMWATER COMMENTS:
The applicant has not submitted proposed grading for the two new home sites that will be created
with this plat, so they will need to be evaluated with the building permit applications by the
Engineering Department.
11. New lots must meet City ordinance and requirements for grading and stormwater.
12. Grading in excess of 50 cubic yards will require a separate grading permit.
13. An erosion control and restoration plan is required for the work to widen the shared
driveway.
14. The applicant shall label the proposed lowest floor elevation and housing style (full
basement, walkout, sidewalkout, etc.). Note this may be adjusted with the Building Permit.
15. Man-made items, such as the existing driveway, are not allowed within the buffer area. Staff
recommends use of buffer averaging to achieve this.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at
651-322-2015.
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
City of
RosemountCof
fee
T
r
120TH ST W
700'0 100 20050Feet70'
Good morning, Kim: Received 8/5/2019
I’m emailing in regard to Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes’ request for a rezoning, simple plat, and variance, that came
before the Planning Commission on July 23, 2019. During that meeting, I voted against approval of the variance,
based on what I considered insufficient information on which to make a determination. Specifically, I was concerned
about whether access to the parcel from the cut de sac at the end of Coffee Trail had been considered fully.
Last Friday, I visited the site. I walked along the drive in question, and viewed the wetland adjacent to the drive. I
then went to the cul de sac at the end of Coffee Trail. I also looked at an aerial photograph of the site. My
observation is that it would be very difficult to access the site from the Coffee Trail cul de sac. The drive from the cul
de sac to the existing house would traverse over half of the parcel. There’s a significant number of trees, and what
appears to be some wetlands between the house and the cul de sac. Based on what I saw, it would be impracticable
to provide access from the cul de sac, because of the cost and large number of trees that would need to be
removed. In fact, it seemed likely to me that the impact of removing all the trees would be higher than making the
drive a shared drive, as proposed.
I’m still uncomfortable with the idea of granting the variance, because the existing drive encroaches so far into the
buffer of the high-quality wetland. However, given the impracticality of coming in from the cul de sac, I would support
granting the variance as long as the applicant is wiling to work closely with the city engineer or other engineering staff
to take measures to ensure that any improvements to the drive minimize the risk to the wetland as possible.
I also looked at the property of the neighbor who spoke against the application at the last meeting. Based on what I
saw, I thought it very unlikely that subdividing the property into three lots would inconvenience the neighbor,
substantially change the character of the neighborhood, or affect property values. The sites where the additional
houses are proposed are distant from the nearest neighbors, and screened by trees. Additionally, there is ample
space for the objecting neighbor to plant trees on his own property, should he desire additional screening.
I am sorry that I will not be at the next meeting, when the application is again considered. I have a family vacation
that has been scheduled for quite some time. I would appreciate it if you would share this email with the rest of the
Commission, to let them know that my concerns have been resolved, and that I would have voted to approve the
application were I able to attend.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Pam