HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Request by Ron Clark Construction for Planned Unit Development Master Development and Final Site and Building Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Meeting: February 4, 2020
AGENDA ITEM: Request by Ron Clark Construction for
Planned Unit Development Master
Development and Final Site and Building
Plan, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat
Approval to Construct a 124-unit
Apartment Building on the Rosemount
Plaza and Shenanigan’s Sites.
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 9.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolutions; Ordinance; Planned Unit
Development Agreement; Subdivision
Agreement; Excerpt From the January
14, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes; Public Comments; Site
Location; Site Plan; Existing Conditions;
Preliminary Plat; Final Plat; Grading and
Utility Plans; Landscaping Plan;
Architectural Site and Building Plans;
Shadow Study; Site Lighting Plan, Traffic
Analysis; Project Narrative; Fire
Marshal’s Memo dated January, 7, 2020;
City Engineer’s Memo dated January 14,
2020; Document Links
APPROVED BY: LJM
RECOMMENDED ACTION: There are Five Actions Necessary to Approve the Project:
1. Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Preliminary and Final Plat for The
Morrison, with conditions.
2. Motion to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance for The Morrison from DT to DT PUD-Downtown Planned Unit
Development.
3. Motion to adopt a Resolution Approving the Planned Unit Development Master
Development Plan for The Morrison with conditions.
4. Motion to Approve the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan
Agreement for The Morrison and Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to Enter into
the Agreement.
5. Motion to Approve the Subdivision Development Agreement for The Morrison and
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to Enter into this Agreement.
2
SUMMARY
The Rosemount City Council is being asked to review a request by Ron Clark Construction for Preliminary
and Final Plats, and a Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning to redevelop
the site containing Rosemount Plaza Shopping Center and Shenanigan’s with a 124-unit apartment
building and future commercial building. The preliminary and final plats will consolidate the many smaller
parcels encompassing the site into a single parcel. The applicant is requesting deviations from the Zoning
Ordinance standards related to maximum building height, minimum setback from South Robert Trail for
dwelling units located on the first floor, and exterior building materials. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommending approval of the request.
Surrounding Land Uses: North: Commercial
East: Commercial and Multi-family residential
South: Commercial
West: Single-family residential
Existing Zoning District: DT-Downtown (permits Commercial and Multi-family residential)
Proposed Zoning District: DT PUD: Downtown Planned Unit Development
Comprehensive Plan Desg. DT Downtown
Required Setbacks: N/A (The Downtown zoning district requires a 10’ buffer yard when a site
is adjacent to a residential district)
Proposed Setbacks: Front: 32.6 Feet (structure) 4.9’ (parking)
Side (North): 22 Feet (structure) 0’ (parking)
Side (South): 9.9 Feet
Rear: 20.2 Feet
Maximum Height: 45 Feet
Proposed Height: 48 Feet (46.5’ average height)
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission reviewed this request during a public hearing at its meeting on January 14,
2020. Following the staff presentation and prior to opening the public hearing, the Commission inquired
about the exterior materials on the residential building and the design of the commercial building that will
be constructed in the future. The use of stone and brick will be focused on the most visible areas of the
residential building façade, such as those facing public streets and also those portions of the building that
project out from the main façade. The design of the retail building has not been finalized, but the
developer is anticipating that the exterior will feature mainly brick as a finish. The building is shown
positioned perpendicular to Highway 3 in order to accommodate the greatest amount of parking stalls
while still maintaining access.
The Planning Commission received several comments during the public hearing. Many of the concerns
were similar to those heard at the neighborhood meeting related to impacts on the adjacent residential
properties immediately to the west of the site, the increase in traffic onto Highway 3, parking, as well as
concerns that the building would be too tall for downtown. A comment was received from a resident
seeking information regarding the closing date of Shenanigan’s. The southern property owner said the
issue of the access to parking along their building and the width of the curbcut were not resolved and
requested a continuance of the item. The Commission modified a condition to address the two stated
concerns. Revised conditions had been handed out at the meeting along with a letter from an adjoining
neighbor. Another comment received during the hearing related to the provision of accessible apartment
units for people with physical limitations.
3
After the public hearing was closed the Commission had further questions for staff and the applicant
regarding building height limits in the zoning ordinance and the vehicular access to the property south of
the site. The applicant indicated that they would amend their application with MnDOT for the reduction
in access width in order to ensure the delivery trucks would be able to easily access the hardware store. It
was noted that information about truck lengths was requested from Ace Hardware so the curbcut could be
appropriately sized. The applicant also stated that they couldn’t give a final closing date for Shenanigan’s
because the request is still being reviewed and final approvals will not be made until February. The
applicant also addressed a question about accessibility and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The applicant noted that accommodations such as grab bars can be provided in individual units as
needed.
Before taking action on a recommendation, each member of the Commission stated their opinions, any
concerns and the reasoning behind their vote. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the request, subject to the conditions that are contained in the attached
resolutions.
Since the Planning Commission meeting there have been continued discussions about the issues raised by
the southern property owner. There was a meeting on-site January 30, and there will be additional
investigation about the parking access and curbcut size. Any agreement for the curbcut width will need to
be approved by the State of MN, Department of Transportation so the recommended condition of
approval relating to this issue remains unchanged. Also, the applicant submitted an updated elevation that
meet the requirement for a minimum of 75% brick or stone on elevations facing public rights of way. That
condition has been removed from the approval since the elevation is in compliance.
BACKGROUND
Most of the project site was developed as a shopping center in 1962, which represented a major boost in
retail space for a growing community at the far fringes of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The concept
of multiple commercial tenants under one roof was a relatively new concept at the time, and the shopping
center proved to be a viable shopping venue serving primarily Rosemount residents over the next 20-25
years. As both the City of Rosemount and its neighboring communities experienced rapid growth through
the 1980’s and 1990’s, the retail landscape changed dramatically, rendering small, local shopping malls
obsolete in the face of competition from big-box retailers, megamalls, and lifestyle centers (many of which
were built within an easy commuting distance from Rosemount and along the Highway 42 corridor within
the City). Over the last couple of decades, there has been minimal economic investment in the shopping
center leaving the current building dilapidated and very difficult (and likely impossible) to bring up to
modern construction standards.
In 2004, The City of Rosemount adopted the Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount. The City
updated the Framework in 2017 taking into account redevelopment that took place since the Framework’s
2004 adoption. One of the main areas identified in the Framework for redevelopment is referred to as Core
Block West, which is bounded by 145th Street West to the north, South Robert Trail to the east, Lower
147th Street West to the south, and Cameo Avenue to the west. The redevelopment concept for Core
Block West contains a mix of high-density residential and commercial uses, with surface parking provided
to serve the site. The redevelopment concept for this block specifically identifies the Rosemount Plaza
shopping center and Shenanigans for redevelopment.
A number of key elements of the Framework’s redevelopment concept for Core Block West are shown in
the plans submitted by the applicant. These include coordinating access and shared parking, alignment of
the primary access point with 146th Street, providing a buffer between the residential uses west of the site
and commercial development along South Robert Trail, and finally enhancing the streetscape through
improved landscaping and pedestrian spaces.
4
At the time the Framework was updated, the City also solicited a market study to better understand the
housing needs that could be met by the redevelopment of parts of downtown. The market study
conducted by Maxfield Research projected that there would be demand for 139 market rate rental units
between 2016-2021, and that the strongest sources of demand for new rental housing will likely be young
singles and couples without children in their late-20s to mid-30s. Mid-age households who want to sell
their single-family homes and have more freedom for leisure pursuits could also account for a portion of
the demand for new rental housing.
In addition to a specific need for multi-family housing within the Downtown, the market study also
identified Downtown Rosemount as a viable location for locally-owned convenience- and neighborhood-
oriented retailers, restaurants, and specialty retail. The introduction of new residents into downtown will
help drive demand to induce development of commercial uses, such as those listed above.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ISSUES
The project development team held a community meeting on January 8, 2020, to introduce the project and
receive feedback from the public. The meeting consisted of two presentations and open house periods,
one for downtown businesses and residents and one for general public. Neighbors and businesses in the
Downtown had specific questions related to the development project, such as grading and site lighting,
while feedback received from the community at large focused mainly on the traffic impacts. Some
attendees in both meetings expressed concern that more commercial was not included in the project.
The developer is proposing a mixed-use development with the residential component and retail
component in separate buildings in order to construct the housing to attract the residents who will
ultimately be patrons of retail in the Downtown. Presently, the several of the retail buildings within
Downtown, especially the existing on-site mall, are charging rents significantly below market. This is not
an economically sustainable model for new construction. The introduction of additional residents into the
Downtown will continue to increase the demand for convenient commercial into the Downtown. On page
22 of the Downtown Market Study conducted by Maxfield Research & Consulting, it is stated:
“The expanding population and household base in and around Downtown Rosemount will
generate a growing need for commercial goods and services, stimulating demand for new
commercial space in the area. Conversely, an expanding base of retail and entertainment
establishments in the area supports the potential for additional residential development.”
The developer at the meeting indicated they would not place retail on the first floor of the building as it is
less economically viable for the project. They noted that the current rents at the Waterford Commons are
under the market rate which is also borne out in the Market Study which projects that “new construction
of retail space would rent for approximately $25.00/square foot, on average, in 2016, which is substantially
higher than the rents currently being quoted in Downtown Rosemount ($7.14 to $14.50/square foot at
Rosemount Plaza and $18.00/square foot at the Waterford Commons).” The applicant is more
comfortable that the inclusion of retail in the project as a separate building will permit reasonable rents
that do not require the residential portion of the project to “subsidize” the commercial.
The developer acknowledged that City, elected officials and staff, indicated that bringing more retail into
the Downtown was a high priority, but the developer would not have been interested in redeveloping
Rosemount Plaza and Shenanigan’s if the project was required to incorporate a retail component into the
apartment building. Rosemount Plaza has been on the market for over two years and there have been no
other proposals for the site. There were two inquiries about the project, both for residential development.
Other communities that have required retail space within residential buildings in their attempts to create an
5
urban core have seen mixed success at attracting the retailers versus other types of commercial uses. In
talking to a few neighboring communities, Lakeville and Burnsville, they indicated more service uses than
retailers. Additionally, both of those communities planned for a mix of residential and commercial into
their downtown. Although Burnsville has a significant amount of commercial square footage in the Heart
of the City project, they also have over 800 residential units that have been approved with several hundred
constructed. St Louis Park in their Excelsior on Grand redevelopment project also included high density
residential into the area rather than relying solely on commercial development. Traditional downtowns
have a mix of uses. The goal is to increase activity into the area, aiding existing commercial and enticing
more into the Downtown. The redevelopment being proposed delineates 4-5,000 square feet for
commercial. Given the size of the structure, it is anticipated that three or four tenants will occupy this
space when constructed.
The other significant concern expressed by attendees at the meeting is that the project would generate too
much traffic for Highway 3 to handle or that it was too difficult to get onto Highway 3, especially during
rush hour. The traffic study for the proposal illustrates that the current proposal will generate less traffic
than the existing uses on a daily basis and also has a reduced traffic generation in the PM Peak and is
comparable in the AM Peak. Introduction of an all commercial development on the site would further
increase the amount of traffic generated from the site.
MARKET STUDY
As part of the Downtown Framework update the City commissioned a market study conducted by
Maxfield Research & Consulting for the Downtown area. The study is voluminous and can be accessed
through the City’s website. However, there are several take-aways from the Study. Currently, 50% of the
land within the Downtown, 36.5 acres is used for some type of commercial use. Presently, prior to the
project, 20% of the Downtown land area is dedicated to apartment and condominium uses. After the
project 16.1 acres in the Downtown will be dedicated to commercial and 9.5 acres to apartment and
condominium uses.
The Study estimates that approximately 10% of specialty commercial and 20% of neighborhood
commercial demand for the entire market area (the market area being the City of Rosemount and the
eastern ½ of Apple Valley) may be capturable in the Downtown market. The Downtown market is
typically the area contained within the Downtown Framework but also references the commercial at
Highway 3 and County Road 42. The total square footage commercial square footage, as calculated above
would be 58,625 square feet. Eight percent of capturable demand would be contained in the existing
project. It is also anticipated that some of the existing Downtown single-family homes will redevelop into
commercial structures given the resulting lot sizes and location. There are commercial opportunities at the
northeast corner of Highway 3 and County Road 42. The Study also indicates that the Downtown has
market demand for approximately 255 units, including market rate rental, for sale multi-family and
additional senior housing. The market rate rental would provide more customers for the existing and
future business Downtown and along County Road 42.
ISSUE
Site Layout
The site of the proposed apartment building is located on the 2.7 acres that currently contain the
Rosemount Plaza shopping center and Shenanigans. In addition to the main, rectangular portion of the
site, additional access is provided from 145th Street West to the north. The apartment building will be
positioned toward the western side of the site, with the western side of the building articulated in a way
avoids a singular wall face abutting the homes located west of the site. Access to the underground garage
containing 127 parking stalls will be from the northern side of the building. Originally, the applicant
proposed placing the entrance to the garage at the southern portion of the building. By shifting the garage
entrance location, it is believed that most of the ingress and egress by residents will occur at 145th Street
West. This traffic pattern allows residents better access to a signalized intersection if accessing Hwy 3. In
6
addition to the access from 145th Street West, the site will also be accessed from South Robert Trail via a
one-way, entrance-only driveway at the northeast corner of the site and a two-way driveway south of that.
The southern access will be aligned with 146th Street, improving roadway safety and geometrics. The
number and total width of accesses onto South Robert Trail will be reduced following full redevelopment
of the site.
The apartment building will feature a number of amenities for residents including a swimming pool, a
rooftop deck, and an outdoor dog run. The swimming pool will be located at the southwest corner, while
the dog run will be located at the north end of the building near the entrance to the underground parking.
The rooftop deck will be located on the fourth floor, interior to the building overlooking the pool. No
portion of the roof deck will face the adjacent single family homes.
At the northeast corner of the site, near the location of the one-way entrance drive, will be a commercial
building of approximately 4,000-5,000 square feet. The applicant has provided two concepts, one showing
a possible drive-through configuration and another with an outdoor patio. The current commercial
building will remain until the existing tenants’ leases expire. The developer is required to obtain City final
site and building plan approval prior to installation of the new commercial building. It is anticipated that
the building will be constructed in 2022 or 2023.
While the building is positioned toward the western site boundary, the southernmost section of the
building extends eastward toward South Robert Trail. The Downtown zoning district has a setback
requirement for apartment buildings; the applicant is seeking a waiver through the PUD process. The
standard is that no residential units can be located on the first floor within one hundred fifty feet of South
Robert Trail. Because Rosemount is a third-ring suburb and visitors to the Downtown will most likely be
arriving by automobile, the City has had difficulty attracting developers to incorporate retail into the
residential building. In fact, the City has been working to redevelop this site for several years and has had
difficulty attracting interest from the development community. It is recognized that Waterford Commons
has approximately 9,200 square feet of commercial fronting South Robert Trail, with a total of 13,000
square feet of non-residential on the first floor. The Waterford has been successful, having low residential
vacancy rates, but there was greater difficulty in filling and maintaining tenants in the commercial
storefronts. There are presently three spaces vacant.
Staff is supportive of the site plan which divides the residential and commercial uses into two separate
buildings. The commercial building will be located along South Robert Trail, meeting the intent of the
ordinance to have buildings along the roadway. The southern section of the residential building is 33.5’
from the roadway and affords some landscaping along the Highway 3 sidewalk. Approximately 1/3 of the
lot width along Highway 3 will be structure rather than surface parking. The configuration of the lot, and
the location of the property makes moving the residential structure along Hwy 3 problematic. Dissimilar to
the Waterford project, there are residents to the west, meaning they either face a building or parking lot.
Given the location of access points, shifting the building east, would negate the ability to use 145th street
access meaning all traffic would use Highway 3 for ingress and egress. The developer has also indicated
they would not construct the building with internal first level commercial as it is economically infeasible
and would require the housing to subsidize the commercial rents, leading to higher costs for users and the
owner.
The only part of the building that will not meet the 150’ setback for residential units on the first floor is
the southern wing of the building. The main part of the structure, which comprises 75% of the building
facing South Robert Trail, is located at least 150’ feet from South Robert Trail. The southeastern most
7
portion of the apartment building will be set back 33.5’ from South Robert Trail. For reference, the
Cambrian Commons development located one block south of the site received approval for residential
units to be located within 18’ of South Robert Trail with no commercial component on the site.
Unit Mix
The applicant has provided information regarding the unit mix for the proposed market-rate rental
apartment building. The applicant is proposing 124 units within the four floors of the building. The
majority of the units will be one bedroom (42 units, or 34%). An additional ten units will be one-bedroom
plus a den. Thirty-three, or 27%, of the units will be studios. Thirty-six units will be comprised of two-
bedroom apartments, and the building will contain 3 three-bedroom units. The breakdown is shown in
the table below.
Unit Mix
Studio 33 27%
1 Bedroom & 1 Bedroom + Den 52 42%
2 Bedroom 36 29%
3 Bedroom 3 2%
Exterior Materials and Massing
The applicant provided architectural plans, including elevations, that indicate that the proposed building
meets many of the Downtown zoning district requirements, particularly as it relates to massing and variety
of materials. The elevations show that four different exterior materials will be used, consistent with the
code requirements. A combination of brick and stone are used to a varying degree on the different
facades, most predominantly the eastern façade facing South Robert Trail and also the portions of the
façade that project to the west. Additionally, cement fiber paneling and cement fiber lap siding are used on
all of the facades, with heavier use of that material on the west façade to provide a better transition to the
residential neighborhood adjacent to the site.
The new elevations provided by the applicant meet the requirement of four different materials and at least
75% stone or brick on elevations facing public rights of way. The north, south, and west elevations do not
meet the minimum requirement of 60% brick or stone. The east elevation is the only side of the building
facing a public right of way, and the plans show that elevation contains 69% brick and stone. The north
and south elevations feature 45% and 55% brick and stone, respectively. Those elevations do show those
materials used on the portions of the building that are more visible from public view. Finally, the western
elevation contains 24% brick and stone, but those materials are placed on the parts of the building that
project toward the west. The majority of the exterior surfaces visible from the residential neighborhood is
cement fiber lap siding in an effort to provide a more residential appearance.
Staff reviewed the exterior materials in other recent multi-family developments downtown, Waterford
Commons and Cambrian Commons, and found that while those buildings do feature at least 75% brick or
stone on the elevations that face South Robert Trail, the other sides of the buildings do not meet the 75%
minimum on other sides facing public rights of way. On sides not facing public right of way, the
percentage of stone and brick do not meet the 60% minimum. The buildings follow a hierarchy where
more visible areas have the higher quality materials and the amount of lap siding or cement board increases
as the sides are further removed from Highway 3. In the case of Cambrian Commons, the amount of lap
siding increases until much of the back side, west and south are primarily lap siding, which is more
consistent with the adjoining residential neighborhood. The Waterford has significantly more siding in the
interior elevations around their pool and along the east façade. The ordinance does not allow the flexibility
that has been occurring through the approval process for these residential structures. It may be
appropriate to discuss the exterior materials standards to consider the different materials available in the
market and the development pattern of the surrounding area. The exterior material standards are the same
for residential and commercial uses so all future development would benefit from the discussion.
8
Staff is supportive of the exterior materials as shown on the north, west, and south elevations since the
most visible portions of those walls feature predominantly brick or stone. The portions of the façades that
are recessed or face away from public view contain more of the cement fiber materials.
The building is designed with articulation and vertical elements that extend to the roofline to break up the
mass of the structure. The building features two wings that project to the west, and balconies are placed
within the courtyard and area overlooking the pool to avoid balconies directly facing the homes to the
west of the site. There are windows on the west side of the building but no balconies. No walls extend
greater than 100’ in length without featuring some degree of articulation, and the longer expanses still
contain vertical mixing of surface materials to visually break up the wall.
The proposed building will be taller than the one it is replacing. When the developer met with residents
directly west of the redevelopment site, the residents expressed concern over how the new building will
reduce the amount of sunlight reaching their property. The developer submitted a shadow study with the
application materials, which is included in the attachments. The study shows the shadow cast by the
proposed building at different times of day on the summer and winter solstices and the equinox. The
point at which the shadow will be longest is in the morning on the winter solstice. At that time, the
northern three properties directly west of the site will be shaded, and by noon only the rearmost portion of
the northern two properties will be within the building’s shadow. Because the site is to the east of the
homes, there will be no impact on sun exposure in the afternoon and evening.
The view seen by the adjacent residents is currently a solid brick wall with dilapidated ADA ramp and the
alley along the rear of the building. Following redevelopment of the site, the elevation facing the residents
will feature 4’ of rock-faced block below the stone and lap siding on the two wings of the building that
extend toward the west. A landscaped area featuring a trail and landscaping along the property boundary
comprised of a combination of shrubbery, coniferous trees, and ornamental trees to provide screening and
privacy will be in the buffer area between the building and the residences. The developer will also be
working with residents that have indicated they would like a fence installed along their property line to
provide further privacy from the adjacent property.
The applicant is requesting a deviation from the zoning ordinance standard for maximum building height,
which is 45’. The City Code defines building height as the distance from finished grade to the top of the
highest roof beams. The height of the building when measured from the first floor is 42.5’. Because of
the topography of the site, the grade is on average 4’ below level one. This results in an average building
height of 46.5’ from grade, 1.5’ higher than the maximum. Because the height is measured to the top of
the highest roof beam, the structure will appear slightly taller when taking into account the parapets and
other architectural elements required by the Code to break up the roofline. The maximum building height
where the grade is more than 4’ below level one is 48’. At the lowest point of the entrance to the garage,
which is below grade, the height is 53’. Staff would not typically use this measurement for building height
since the underground garage must be accessed.
It would be possible to reduce the building height by raising the ground level, so less of the basement level
is showing. Due to the location of the site, property grades are set by the surrounding sites. Raising the site
would have negative impacts on the adjacent parcels, particularly the residents to the west, who receive site
drainage in the current condition. Staff is supportive of the height deviation because the finished grade is
highest on the side facing South Robert Trail, and the building generally falls within the requirements of
the Code where it faces public view. Modifying site grades to reduce the calculated building height,
bringing the site into compliance, would negatively impact surrounding property owners and is
undesirable.
The proposed building height is generally consistent with other multi-family buildings approved since
9
2000. For example, Bard’s Crossing features a building height of 48’, the height of Waterford Commons is
45’ along Burma Avenue and Lower 147th Street, and the three-story Wachter Lake Condo on Chippendale
Avenue is 41’ tall from the finished grade.
Landscaping
The applicant provided landscape plans that show the proposed development will meet the requirements
of the City Code related to landscaping. Unique to the Downtown zoning district, the City Code does not
require a specific number of trees be planted based on the overall site size. The landscaping requirement
for the site is comprised of two aspects: screening the site from adjacent residential uses and landscaping
requirements specific to parking lots. The landscaping plan shows that the proposed redevelopment
project will meet those two standards. The applicant has provided additional landscaping in the form of
four trees and 15 shrubs in the small green space located in the southeast corner of the site, adjacent to the
Hwy 3 sidewalk. This is one of the few open spaces that will exist adjacent to the Highway 3 sidewalk.
Presently the sidewalk is not very inviting due to the hardscape surrounding the sidewalk and the amount
of traffic on Highway 3. It will be interesting to assess whether the increase of green space will make the
sidewalk more inviting and increase foot traffic. That is one of the goals of the Downtown Framework. The
existing site contains approximately 1% green space, or pervious surface. Following completion of the
project, 15% of the site will feature green space, which is a substantial improvement over the current
conditions and the upgraded landscaping along South Robert Trail will help frame the street.
One of the lot requirements within the DT-Downtown zoning district is that sites adjacent to residential
districts provide a 10’ buffer yard that shall be landscaped, or otherwise screened, to a level of 50% opacity
at least three feet in height. The landscape plan shows a combination of ornamental trees and shrubs
within the buffer yard along the western site boundary that meets the requirements of the zoning
ordinance. The developer has also indicated they would place a fence on the rear lot line if desired by the
neighbors. Several of the neighbors have a fence and they can keep theirs if desired. The developer will
work with individual owners to address their interests.
The City Code also requires a certain level of landscaping for parking lots. Specifically, at least 10% of a
parking lot must be landscaped, one landscaped island is required per 6,000 square feet of parking area,
and the parking lot shall be screened to at least 50% opacity. The total parking area is 30,816 square feet,
which means a total of 3,081.6 square feet must be landscaped and 5.1 landscaped islands must be
included in the parking lot. A parking island must be 8.5 feet wide and as long as an adjacent parking stall
or 153 square feet (8.5’ x 18’). Based on this calculation, a total of 780.3 square feet of islands or
peninsulas are required. The plan also shows a total of 13 trees, which exceeds the code requirement of
12.32 trees (1 tree per 250sf of required landscaped area). Screening of the parking lot is provided by a
combination of deciduous trees and shrubs.
Standard Requirement Provided
10% of parking lot must be landscaped 3,081.6 square feet 4,278 square feet
One island/6,000 square feet of vehicle use
area
5.1 islands or 780.3 square feet 1,181sf of
islands
1 tree per 250sf of required landscaped area 3,081.6sf/250sf or 12.32 trees 13 trees
Finally, while fences are not normally reviewed as a part of the landscaping plan, the developer has
provided information regarding the fence that will be constructed around the pool area. In an effort to
maintain privacy and minimize impacts to the adjacent residents, the lower four feet of the 5’ fence will be
a privacy fence with the top foot comprised of a decorative finish.
Access and Parking
The site will contain three access points. One from 145th Street West to the north and two from South
Robert Trail along the eastern site boundary. Currently, there are three access points along South Robert
10
Trail, with the third being shared with Pellicci Ace Hardware along the southern site boundary. That
driveway will be reduced in width and will only serve the hardware store when the project is completed.
The applicant continues to work with the owners of that property to determine the necessary width for
their access point to accommodate delivery vehicles. The two other access points along South Robert
Trail will be reduced in width from a total of 82.7 feet to fifty (50) feet. This reduction is accomplished by
having the north entrance designated as one-way only.
Almost every project in Rosemount raises the concern over traffic impacts on Highway 3 attributable to
the development. To aid in assessing the traffic generation of the proposed project, a traffic study was
completed and submitted with the application. The developer used the Institute of Traffic Engineers
(ITE) estimate for traffic generation, which is the industry standard. The existing uses on the site of retail,
auto repair, and bar/restaurant are estimated to generate 2,734 weekday trips. The proposed apartment
building and future retail use are anticipated to generate 841 weekday trips, which is less than one third the
number of trips generated by the existing uses. The actual reduction in trips generated by the site is likely
less dramatic since the businesses located on the site have irregular hours and from a commercial-use
standpoint are not seeing their full potential. That being said, the redevelopment should result in a
reduction in traffic to and from the site. The developer at the neighborhood meeting also indicated they
anticipate that some of the renters will use the bus for work, work from home, or have irregular hours
which would also reduce the amount of traffic generated during peak hours.
In an effort to encourage a pedestrian-friendly, walkable downtown, a feature of the DT-Downtown
zoning district is that there is no minimum off-street parking requirement except for apartment buildings,
which must provide one stall of underground or structured parking per dwelling unit. The underground
parking garage will contain 127 parking stalls, thus meeting the parking requirement for apartments within
the DT-Downtown zoning district. The applicant is proposing 202 total parking stalls for the 124-unit
development, or a ratio of 1.63 stalls per unit. Over two-thirds of the units in the building will be studios,
one-bedrooms, and one-bedroom plus dens, and therefore require fewer parking stalls than the remaining
31% of the units.
However, the surface parking will be shared with a future commercial building along South Robert Trail at
the northeast corner of the site. As mentioned, the zoning ordinance does not contain a minimum parking
standard for commercial uses. Taking into account a parking ratio of 4.5 cars per 1,000 sf of retail, which
is typical for a downtown location, the overall stall per dwelling unit ratio would be 1.5 stalls per unit. A
parking ratio of 1.5 stalls per unit is more than one parking space per bed when taking into account the
unit mix. Staff has had several discussions with the applicant about their actual level of parking usage
(1.25-1.3 vehicles per unit) in which the developer has indicated that they have been seeing a steady decline
in overall parking demand for apartments that the own or the management company manages. Taking all
of this information into account, staff is comfortable with the amount of parking stalls provided in the
plans. Below are examples of the parking provided by different developments in and around downtown.
Rosewood Crossing
Unit Mix
1 Bedroom 140 63%
2 Bedroom 84 37%
Garage 113 Spaces
Surface 337 Spaces
Total 450 Spaces
11
Parking Ratio for Apartment Complex 2 Spaces/Unit and 1.46 Spaces/Bed
Cambrian Commons
Unit Mix
1 Bedroom 33 55%
2 Bedroom 27 45%
Underground 58 Spaces
Surface 24 Spaces
Total 82 Spaces
Parking Ratio for Apartment Building 1.36 Spaces/Unit and .94 Spaces/Bed
Waterford Commons
Unit Mix
1 Bedroom 51 47.2%
2 Bedroom 43 39.8%
3 Bedroom 14 13.0%
Underground 124 Spaces
146th Street Lot 28 Spaces
Burma Ave Lot 42 Spaces
Total 194 Spaces
Estimated Office/Retail Need @ 1 stall/200sf -65 Spaces
Parking available for apartments 129 Spaces
Parking Ratio for Apartment building 1.19 Spaces/Unit and .72
Spaces/Bed
*The 12 spaces in the Upper 147th Street West parking lot are reserved for the potential redevelopment of the
three businesses on South Robert Trail per the purchase agreement with the property owner of those three
businesses
The City Code does not include standards for how snow removal operations take place, but because of the
site’s downtown location and the fact that parking minimums are relaxed in the DT-Downtown zoning
district, staff has discussed the issue of snow removal and storage with the developer. The developer
intends to store a small amount of snow within the green space at the southeast corner of the site. To
maintain as many parking spaces as possible, most of the snow will be removed and hauled off site.
Pedestrian Circulation
The developer will be installing new sidewalks along South Robert Trail in the locations of the existing
vehicular access points that will be removed with the project. Currently, pedestrians walking along South
Robert Trail traverse between a heavily travelled roadway and a surface parking lot. The pedestrian
experience along South Robert Trail will be enhanced by the installation of new landscaping along the
eastern site boundary. Sidewalks surrounding both the apartment building and future commercial building
are also shown on the plans. The plans depict a 5’ sidewalk to the front of the apartment building from
both 145th Street West and South Robert Trail. The sidewalk along South Robert Trail will remain 10’ in
width, and a 6’ wide bituminous trail will provide pedestrian access around the entire building. Pavement
markings will delineate pedestrian crossings within the parking lot across the driveway into the
12
underground parking garage and between the building and the future commercial building. The developer
will install and maintain the trail but is dedicating a public access easement over the entire trail so adjoining
residents can traverse through the site to the Downtown area. The trail, along with a $100,000 payment is
required in lieu of park dedication
The segment of the trail that runs along the southern property boundary is shown at grade to the Pellicci
Ace Hardware parking lot. This condition is not consistent with the City Code requirement that
pedestrian walkways feature a 6” curb to separate them from vehicular traffic. Staff is supportive of the
design for this segment of walkway as it will allow vehicles parking along the north side of the hardware
store to achieve the necessary turning radii to utilize the existing parking stalls located in that portion of
the hardware store site.
Mechanical Equipment and Trash Enclosure
Each unit will have its own HVAC system, minimizing the need for roof mounted mechanical equipment.
Staff has included a condition stating that any mechanical equipment located on the roof must be placed in
such a way as to minimize the impacts of noise on the residential neighborhood to the west and shall be
placed in such a way that they are screened by the parapet walls.
Trash enclosures will be located within the underground garage in two different areas. The dumpsters will
be wheeled out to be emptied by garbage trucks at the entrance to the underground garage.
Signs
No freestanding signs have been proposed with this application. Signs will be reviewed and approved
administratively per the zoning ordinance and Downtown design guidelines. All signage will need to be
identical in style and will need to be approved administratively before the first sign permit is approved.
Site Lighting
The proposal shows lighting provided by pole-mounted LED units that are no greater than 20’ in height as
specified in the zoning ordinance. A wall mounted united is depicted on the plans above the entrance to
the underground parking garage. Recessed lights are used beneath the awning at the main entrance.
Additional site lighting is provided for the pool area, which will be turned off outside regular pool hours.
Bollards 3’ in height will provide lighting along the bituminous trail along the rear of the building. The
applicant has provided a photometric plan that indicates the level of lighting on the site will meet the
requirements of the zoning ordinance of no more than .5 lumens at residential property lines. The
photometric plan appears to indicate that the lighting at the northern extension of the site will exceed the
maximum of 1.0 lumen at nonresidential property lines. A condition of approval is included in the
resolution that the applicant shall work with staff to adjust the lighting plan to bring that portion of the
site into compliance.
Utilities and Stormwater Management
The site is served by the existing sanitary trunk line located in 145th Street West. Water is provided by the
existing trunk located in South Robert Trail. No modifications to the existing trunk lines are proposed
with the redevelopment project. Existing sewer lines internal to the site will be maintained and lined or
replaced if needed.
Currently, much of the stormwater from the western portion of the site is not collected in the storm sewer,
and it is instead allowed to collect on the residential properties west of the site. With the proposed
redevelopment, all building stormwater will be collected from the roof and surface lots and moved to
trunk storm sewers at the north and southeast of the site, thereby decreasing the impacts of stormwater
runoff onto adjacent properties. Stormwater from the 20’ west buffer will continue to sheet drain as in the
13
current condition. However, this would result in a significant reduction in surface run-off as compared to
the existing condition. No on-site storage is proposed with this redevelopment project. A memo by the
City’s engineering staff dated January 14, 2020, is included in the attachments.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the information provided by the applicant and reviewed in this report, and taking into account
the public comments received during the public hearing, the Planning Commission and staff are
recommending approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and the Planned Unit Development Master
Development Plan and Final Site and Building Plan to allow Ron Clark Construction to build a 124-unit
apartment building called The Morrison on the Rosemount Plaza and Shenanigan’s sites, subject to the
conditions listed above.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-16
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
FOR THE MORRISON
WHEREAS, Ron Clark Construction (Applicant) has submitted applications to the City of Rosemount for
Preliminary and Final Plats concerning property legally described as follows:
Lots 34, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53 and the North 70 feet of Lot 61, all in Auditor's Plat No. 1, to the
Village of Rosemount, less excepting therefrom the West 20 feet of said Lots 47 and 48, and the
West 20 feet of the Northerly 70 feet of said Lot 61, Dakota County, Minnesota
AND
Lot 50, Auditor's Subdivision No. 1, Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota
AND
Lot Fifty-five (55), EXCEPT the South 52.5 feet thereof; all of Lot Fifty-four (54), and the South
123.5 feet of the North 193.5 feet of Lot Sixty-one (61), Auditor's Subdivision No. 1, Rosemount,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, on January 14th, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Preliminary and Final Plats for The Morrison; and
WHEREAS, on January 14th, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary
and Final Plats for The Morrison, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on February 4th, 2020, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission’s recommendations and the Preliminary and Final Plats for The Morrison.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary and Final Plats for The Morrison, subject to the following conditions:
1.Approval and execution of a subdivision agreement.
2.A public access easement shall be dedicated over the trail along the rear of the property.
3.The trail along the rear property line will be owned and maintained by the developer.
4.Ten (10) foot wide perimeter drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated around the entire
site except where the building foundation is located.
5. Payment of $100,000 for fee-in-lieu of park dedication.
6.Applicant shall provide a landscaping surety in the amount of $11,550.
2
ADOPTED this 4th day of February 2020, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-15
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL
FOR THE MORRISON
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received a
request for a Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan with Rezoning from Ron Clark
Construction concerning property legally described as:
Lots 34, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53 and the North 70 feet of Lot 61, all in Auditor's Plat No. 1, to
the Village of Rosemount, less excepting therefrom the West 20 feet of said Lots 47 and 48,
and the West 20 feet of the Northerly 70 feet of said Lot 61, Dakota County, Minnesota
AND
Lot 50, Auditor's Subdivision No. 1, Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota
AND
Lot Fifty-five (55), EXCEPT the South 52.5 feet thereof; all of Lot Fifty-four (54), and the
South 123.5 feet of the North 193.5 feet of Lot Sixty-one (61), Auditor's Subdivision No. 1,
Rosemount, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2020 the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public
hearing and reviewed the PUD Master Development Plan with Site and Building Plan Review for
The Morrison; and
WHEREAS, on January 14, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD
Master Development Plan with Site and Building Plan Review for The Morrison, subject to
conditions; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2020, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Planning Commission’s recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan of Wexford Place and
the Rezoning from AG – Agricultural to R4 PUD – High Density Residential Planned Unit
Development, subject to:
1.Execution of a PUD Agreement.
2.Approval of a rezoning of the site from DT-Downtown to DT PUD-Downtown Planned
Unit Development.
3.Approval of The Morrison Preliminary and Final Plats.
4.The following deviations from the City Code:
a.A deviation from Section 11-4-11F. DT Minimum Lot Requirements and Standards
increasing the maximum building height from 45 feet to 48 feet.
b. A deviation from Section 11-4-11B DT Permitted Uses reducing the required setback
2
from South Robert Trail for first-floor residential units from 150 feet to 33.5 feet.
c.A deviation from 11-4-11G.3. DT Permitted Materials allowing less than 60% stone or
brick on the north, west, and south elevations.
5.Compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated January 14,
2020.
6.Compliance with the requirements within the Fire Marshall’s memorandum dated January 7,
2020.
7.Applicant shall work with staff to ensure full compliance with Code requirements related to
site lighting within the northern portion of the site.
8.Execution of an encroachment agreement for the retaining wall located near the northern
portion of the site located within the proposed drainage and utility easement.
9.A public access easement shall be dedicated over the trail along the rear and sides of the
property.
10.The trail along the rear and side property lines will be installed and maintained by the
property owner.
11.The apartment pool will be closed at 10:00 pm until 7:00am.
12.The applicant will work with the five single family residential property owners to the west
regarding installation of fencing, landscape locations, and undergrounding of overhead
power lines.
13.The applicant shall submit a demolition and construction plan for City review and approval
prior to demolition work commencing.
14.The applicant shall submit exterior materials samples and colors for final city review and
approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
15.The applicant shall receive final site and building plan approval for the proposed commercial
building prior to issuance of any building permits.
16.The applicant shall receive a building permit for the commercial building by 12/30/2024.
17.The applicant will work with the property owner to the south to address the curb cut access
width prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
ADOPTED this 4th day of February, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
City of Rosemount
Ordinance No. B-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE
The Morrison
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled “City of Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance,” is hereby amended to rezone property from DT – Downtown to DT PUD – Downtown
Planned Unit Development that is located West of South Robert Trail and 150 fifty feet south of 145th
Street West within the City of Rosemount legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, The Morrison, Dakota County, Minnesota
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described in said
Ordinance No. B as that certain map entitled “Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount,” shall not be
republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning
map on file in the Clerk’s office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for
in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby
incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication
according to law.
ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 4th day of February, 2020.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
City of Rosemount
Ordinance No. B-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE
The Morrison
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT,
MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance B, adopted September 19,
1989, entitled “City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance,” is hereby
amended to rezone property from DT – Downtown to DT PUD –
Downtown Planned Unit Development that is located West of South
Robert Trail and 150 fifty feet south of 145th Street West within the
City of Rosemount legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, The Morrison, Dakota County, Minnesota
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of
Rosemount, referred to and described in said Ordinance No. B as that
certain map entitled “Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount,” shall not
be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall
appropriately mark the said zoning map on file in the Clerk’s office for
the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this
Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown
thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this
Ordinance.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage
and publication according to law.
ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 4th day
of February, 2020.
/s/William H. Droste, Mayor
Attested: Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
City of Rosemount
Dakota County, Minnesota
3054448.v1 1
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
AND RESTRICTIONS
THE MORRISON MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DECLARATION made this _____ day of ___________, 2020, by THE MORRISON
PARTNERS, LLC (hereinafter referred to as the “Declarant”);
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment One,
attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Subject
Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is subject to certain zoning and land use restrictions
imposed by the City of Rosemount (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) in connection with the
approval of an application for a master development plan planned unit development for a residential
development on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, the City has approved such development on the basis of the determination by
the City Council of the City that such development is acceptable only by reason of the details of the
development proposed and the unique land use characteristics of the proposed use of the Subject
Property; and that but for the details of the development proposed and the unique land use
characteristics of such proposed use, the master development plan planned unit development would
not have been approved; and
3054448.v1 2
WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the master development plan planned unit
development, the City has required the execution and filing of this Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions (hereinafter the “Declaration”); and
WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approval of such planned unit
development, Declarant desires to subject the Subject Property to the terms hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant declares that the Subject Property is, and shall be, held,
transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions,
hereinafter set forth.
1. The use and development of the Subject Property shall conform to the following
documents, plans and drawings:
a. City Resolution No. 2020-XX, Attachment Two
b. Site Plan (Sheet C2.0 and C2.1), Attachments Three and Four
d. Grading Plan, (Sheet C3.0), Attachment Five
e. Utility Plan (Sheets C4.0), Attachment Six
f. Landscape Plan (Sheet L1.0), Attachment Seven
g. Building Elevations, Attachment Eight
h. Building and Unit Plans Attachments Nine through Thirteen
All of which attachments are copies of original documents on file with the City and are made a part
hereof.
2. Development and maintenance of structures and uses on the Subject Property shall
conform to the following standards and requirements:
a. Maintenance of the stormwater infrastructure necessary for the long term
operation and function will be performed by the City. All other maintenance including but
3054448.v1 3
not limited to garbage collection, or landscape replacement or the like shall be the
responsibility of the Declarant. All maintenance of the stormwater infrastructure shall be
the responsibility of the City after the basins have been established.
b. Maintenance and replacement of trees and landscaping shall be the
responsibility of the Declarant.
3. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with Paragraphs
1 and 2 of this Declaration unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council of an
amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zoning classification that permits
such other development and use.
4. In connection with the approval of development of the Subject Property, the following
deviations from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved:
a. Section 11-4-11 F: Increase the maximum building height from forty-five
(45) feet to forty-eight (48) feet.
b. Section 11-4-22 B: Reduce the required setback from South Robert Trail for
first-floor residential units from 150 feet to 33.5 feet.
c. Section 11-4-11 G: Reduce the minimum amount of brick and/or stone on the
north, west, and south facades from 60% to 45%, 24%, and 55%, respectively.
5. This section is omitted.
6. The obligations and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject
Property and shall be enforceable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the City acting
through its City Council. This Declaration may be amended from time to time by a written
amendment executed by the City and the Declarant, its successors and assigns.
3054448.v1 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned as duly authorized agents, officers or representatives of
Declarant have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written.
DECLARANT
The Morrison Partners, LLC.
By
Its____________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF __________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of _________, 2020,
by _____________________, the _________________, for and on behalf of
_________________________, a ____________________, by and on behalf of said
_______________________.
_______________________________
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
2875 145TH STREET WEST
ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068
651-423-4411
The Morrison
February / 2020
G:\ENGPROJ\2020-14 The Morrison\Subdivisionagreement 2020-14.docx
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
The Morrison
AGREEMENT dated this ________ day of ________________________, 2020, by and between the
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the "City"), and THE MORRISON PARTNERS,
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability corporation (the "Developer").
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve the subdivision of land
and a plat of land to be known as The Morrison, which land is legally described on ATTACHMENT
ONE, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject
Property”).
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City has approved the subdivision and the plat on the following
conditions:
a. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer concerning design and installation of
public infrastructure and including grading, erosion control, streets and utilities.
b. Execution of a Subdivision or Development Agreement to secure the public and private
improvements.
c. Payment of all applicable fees including Park Dedication and other fees identified in the current
fee schedule.
d. Incorporation of any easements necessary to accommodate drainage, ponding, trails,
underpasses, conservation areas, streets and utilities.
3. Phased Development. The City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent additions of the
plat if the Developer has breached this Agreement and the breach has not been remedied.
Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Subdivision Agreements for such phases
are approved by the City.
4. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current
urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size,
lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in
writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the
contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, official controls, platting or dedication
requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement.
The Morrison
February / 2020
G:\ENGPROJ\2020-14 The Morrison\Subdivisionagreement 2020-14.docx
5. Development Plans. The Subject Property shall be developed in accordance with the following
plans, specifications and contract documents, original copies of which are on file with the City
Engineer. The plans and contract documents may be prepared, subject to City approval, after
entering this Agreement, but before commencement of any work on the Subject Property. If the
plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. The plans are:
Plan A - Plat
Plan B - Soil Erosion Control Plan and Schedule
Plan C - Drainage and Storm Water Runoff Plan
Plan D - Plans and Specifications for Public and Private Improvements
Plan E - Grading Plan and House Pad Elevations
Plan F - Street Lights
Plan G - Landscape Improvements
All Improvements, including Developer Improvements and City-Installed Public Infrastructure
Improvements (if any) that lie within the public right-of-way or easements and are improvements
listed in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.021 (hereinafter Public Improvements) will be designed by
the Developer and must be approved by the City Engineer. The Developer will prepare plans and
specifications for Public Improvements which shall be approved by the City Engineer. Such
approvals shall not be unreasonably withheld and the City shall approve or provide Developer with
necessary revision comments within 30 calendar days of Developer submittal of Public Improvement
plans and specifications. The City will perform all construction inspection for the Public
Improvements, at the Developer’s expense. Construction inspection includes but is not limited to
inspection, documentation, and monitoring.
6. Installation by Developer. The Developer shall install or cause to be installed and pay for the
following, hereinafter referred to as the “Developer Improvements”:
A. Surveying and staking
B. Surface improvements (driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, trails, etc.)
C. Water main improvements
D. Sanitary sewer improvements
E. Storm sewer improvements
F. Setting of lot and block monuments
G. Gas, electric, telephone, and cable lines
H. Site grading
I. Landscaping
J. Streetlights
K. Other items as necessary to complete the development as stipulated herein or in other
agreements
The Morrison
February / 2020
G:\ENGPROJ\2020-14 The Morrison\Subdivisionagreement 2020-14.docx
7. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements, excepting the wear
course of pavement, enumerated in Paragraph 6 that will serve the Subject Property by December 31,
2020, subject to delays due to inclement weather, casualty, labor strikes, material shortages, or other
force majeure not within the Developer’s reasonable control. The pavement wear course shall be
completed by December 31, 2021. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from
the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the
Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date.
8. City-Installed Public Infrastructure. The following improvements, hereinafter referred to as “City-
Installed Public Infrastructure Improvements” (known as City Project 2020-14), shall be designed,
inspected, surveyed and administered by the City, and installed in the Subject Property at Developer
expense by a Contractor selected by the City through the public bidding process:
A. None
9. [This Section Intentionally Left Blank]
10. Security for Developer Improvements. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement,
payment of the costs of all Developer Improvements, and construction of all Developer
Improvements (as noted in Paragraph 6), as well as grading, erosion control, and erosion control
removal, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash deposit or irrevocable letter of credit from a
local bank (“security”) in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000).
The bank and form of the letter of credit or other security shall be subject to the approval of the City
Administrator. The letter of credit shall be automatically renewable until the City releases the
Developer from responsibility. The letter of credit shall secure compliance with all terms of this
Agreement and all obligations of the Developer under it. The City may draw down on the letter of
credit without notice if the obligations of the Developer have not been completed as required by this
Agreement. In the event of a default under this Subdivision Agreement by the Developer, the City
shall furnish the Developer with written notice by certified mail of Developer’s default(s) under the
terms of this Subdivision Agreement. If the Developer does not remove said default(s) within two (2)
weeks of receiving notice, the City may draw on the letter of credit and take such steps as it deems
necessary to remedy the default. With City approval, the letter of credit may be reduced from time to
time as financial obligations are paid and Developer Improvements and other Developer obligations
are completed to the City’s requirements.
11. Grading Plan/Site Grading. Site grading shall be completed by the Developer at its cost and
approved by the City Engineer. The completion of grading activities will need to be coordinated by
the City in conjunction with the installation of utilities. Developer shall furnish the City Engineer
satisfactory proof of payment for the site grading work and shall submit a certificate of survey of the
development to the City as the site grading is completed by phase, with street and lot grades. If the
installation of utilities by the City is occurring simultaneously with the grading, the utility contractor
shall have preference over the grading activities. No substantial grading activities can be completed
over installed utilities unless otherwise protected. All improvements to the lots and the final grading
shall comply with the grading plan as submitted and shall be the responsibility of the Developer.
12. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a
license to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the
City. Such license shall terminate as to all lots within the Subject Property upon acceptance by the
City of the public infrastructure improvements.
The Morrison
February / 2020
G:\ENGPROJ\2020-14 The Morrison\Subdivisionagreement 2020-14.docx
13. Erosion Control. Prior to site grading, and before any utility construction is commenced or building
permits are issued, the erosion control plan shall be implemented, inspected and approved by the City.
All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded within 72 hours after
the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan,
seed shall be rye grass or other fast-growing seed suitable to the existing soil to provide a temporary
ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched and disc-anchored as necessary
for seed retention.
All basement and/or foundation excavation spoil piles shall be kept completely off City right-of-way
and shall be completely surrounded with an approved erosion control silt fence. Approved erosion
control shall be installed around the perimeter of each lot or at City-approved locations at the time of
building permit issuance and remain in place until the lot is seeded or sodded. A 20-foot opening will
be allowed on each lot for construction deliveries.
The parties recognize that time is critical in controlling erosion. If development does not comply with
the erosion control plan and schedule, or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City
may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion. This right also applies to the required
erosion control for basement and/or foundation excavation spoil piles. The City will attempt to
notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect
the Developer’s or City’s rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the
City for any cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the
letter of credit to pay any costs. No development will be allowed, and no building permits will be
issued unless the Subject Property is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements.
14. Planting and Seeding. Landscaping shall be in accordance with Landscape Plans approved by the
City Planner.
15. Clean up. The Developer shall clean streets of dirt and debris that has resulted from construction
work by the Developer, its agents or assignees. The City will inspect the site on a weekly basis and
determine whether it is necessary to take additional measures to clean dirt and debris from the streets.
After a 24-hour verbal notice to the Developer, the City will complete or contract to complete the
clean-up at the Developer’s expense in accordance with the procedures specified in Paragraph 13. The
Developer shall inspect and, if necessary, clean all catch basins, sumps, and ponding areas of
erosion/siltation and restore to the original condition at the end of construction within this
development. All silt fence and other erosion control should be removed following the establishment
of turf. These items are to be secured through the letter of credit as is noted in Paragraph 10.
16. Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and City acceptance of the work and construction
required by this Agreement, the Public Improvements lying within public rights-of-way and easements
shall become City property without further notice or action unless the improvements are specifically
identified herein as private infrastructure. Sanitary sewer and water main are Public Improvements.
All other improvements are Private Improvements.
17. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it against poor material and
faulty workmanship for a period of two (2) years after its completion and acceptance by the City or
such longer period as is specified in plans and specifications for Public Improvements.
All trees, grass and sod shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality and disease free for twenty-four
(24) months after planting.
Vegetation surrounding ponds and/or wetlands shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality and
weed free for three (3) years after planting.
The Morrison
February / 2020
G:\ENGPROJ\2020-14 The Morrison\Subdivisionagreement 2020-14.docx
For each pond/wetland in the development, the Developer shall provide to the City Engineer an
inspection report by July 31 each year which includes the following:
A. Date of inspection
B. Name of person responsible for inspection
C. Photos of the pond/wetland area confirming the vegetation is established as intended
D. Maintenance plan describing the required maintenance activities and tentative schedule.
18. Responsibility for Costs.
A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City
in conjunction with the development of the Subject Property including, but not limited to, Soil
and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses
incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the subdivision and the plat, the
preparation of this Agreement and any amendments hereto, and all costs and expenses incurred
by the City in monitoring and inspecting the development of the Subject Property.
B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the preparation and enforcement of
this Agreement, including engineering and attorney’s fees. Upon request, the City shall provide
invoices, in reasonable detail, as to any such fees.
C. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under
this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City
may halt development work and construction including, but not limited to, the issuance of
building permits for lots that the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in
full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of nine percent (9%)
per year.
19. Indemnification. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers, agents and employees harmless
from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from
plat or subdivision approval and development of the Subject Property, except for any costs or
expenses arising from the intentional acts or gross negligence of the City, it’s agents, employees or
contractors. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers, agents and employees for all
costs, damages or expenses that the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including
attorney’s fees.
20. Insurance. The Developer agrees to take out and maintain or cause to be taken out and maintained
until six months after the City has accepted the Subdivision Improvements, public liability and
property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage
which may arise out of Developer’s work or the work of its contractors or subcontractors. Liability
limits shall not be less than $500,000 when the claim is one for death by wrongful act or omission or
for any other claim and $2,000,000 for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence, and
twice said limits when the claim arises out of the release or threatened release of a hazardous
substance. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy. The certificate of insurance
shall provide that the City must be given the same advance written notice of the cancellation of the
insurance as is afforded to the Developer.
21. Park Dedication Fees. The Developer agrees to pay fees, charges and assessments set forth in this
Paragraph prior to, or at the time of execution of any plat by the City:
A. Park dedication fees in the amount of $100,000
Or other amounts for such fees as in effect at the time of plat approval.
The Morrison
February / 2020
G:\ENGPROJ\2020-14 The Morrison\Subdivisionagreement 2020-14.docx
22. Service Charges. The Developer understands that builders will be required to pay for the Subject
Property fees, charges and assessments in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. The rates
for each of these items will be set according to the current rate structure at the time the building
permit is received. The fees, charges, and assessments in effect as of the date of this agreement are:
A. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Availability Charges per SAC unit; SAC rate
determined by Metropolitan Council (current rate is $2,485)
B. Storm Sewer Connection Charges per single family unit and per multiple family unit (single
family currently at $770; multi-family currently at $290 per housing unit).
C. Sanitary Sewer Availability Charges per SAC unit (currently at $1,200/SAC unit)
23. Building Permits. No occupancy permits shall be issued until:
A. The site grading is completed and approved by the City.
B. All utilities are tested, approved by the City Engineer, and in service.
C. All curbing is installed and backfilled.
D. The first lift of bituminous is in place and approved by the City.
E. All building permit fees are paid in full.
F. No early building permits will be issued without prior authorization from the City Building
Official.
The Developer, in executing this Agreement, assumes all liability and costs for damage or delays
incurred by the City in the construction of the Improvements caused by the Developer, its employees,
contractors, subcontractors, material men or agents. No occupancy permits shall be issued until the
streets and utilities referred to in Paragraph 6 are installed and approved by the City (excluding the
final wear course of bituminous), unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City Engineer.
24. Record Drawings. At project completion, Developer shall submit record drawings of all public and
private infrastructure improvements in accordance with the City’s Engineering Guidelines. No
securities will be fully released until all record drawings have been submitted and accepted by the City
Engineer.
25. Developer’s Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be
performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall
promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first
given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for
the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter
the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, draw on
the letter of credit or other security described in Paragraph 10, or levy the cost in whole or in part as a
special assessment against the Subject Property. Developer waives its rights to notice of hearing and
hearing on such assessments and its right to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.081.
26. Miscellaneous.
A. The Developer represents to the City that the development of the Subject Property, the
subdivision and the plat comply with all city, county, metropolitan, state and federal laws and
regulations including, but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and
The Morrison
February / 2020
G:\ENGPROJ\2020-14 The Morrison\Subdivisionagreement 2020-14.docx
environmental regulations. If the City determines that the subdivision, or the plat, or the
development of the Subject Property does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to
allow construction or development work on the Subject Property until the Developer does
comply. Upon the City’s demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance.
B. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement.
C. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building
permits, including lots sold to third parties.
D. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phase of this Agreement is for
any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of
this Agreement.
E. If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of the Public
Improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting from delays in
completion of the Public Improvements and damage to the Public Improvements caused by
the City, the Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, material men, employees, agents or
third parties.
F. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions
of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the
parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City’s failure to promptly
take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release.
G. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the Subject
Property. The Developer shall take such steps, including execution of amendments to this
Agreement, as are necessary to effect the recording hereof. After the Developer has completed
the work required of it under this Agreement, at the Developer’s request, the City will execute
and deliver to the Developer a recordable release of the Subject Property from this Agreement.
H. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to
every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the
City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and
remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and
in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to
exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
I The Developer may not assign this Agreement without the written permission of the City
Council.
J. The Developer acknowledges that the City may issue additional requirements outside of the
2015 General Specifications and Standard Detail Plates for Street and Utility Construction or the
2008 Engineering Guidelines as the City is in the process of updating these documents. The
review process may require additional time and expense due to this process, which shall be the
Developer’s responsibility. The Developer shall not be billed for the time required for the City
to update and approve their revisions to the 2015 General Specifications and Standard Details
Plates for Street and Utility Construction or the 2008 Engineering Guidelines.
The Morrison
February / 2020
G:\ENGPROJ\2020-14 The Morrison\Subdivisionagreement 2020-14.docx
27. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to
the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following
address:
The Morrison Partners, LLC
7500 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
mwaldo@ronclark.com
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Administrator, or
mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address:
City Administrator
Rosemount City Hall
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, Minnesota 55068
The Morrison
February / 2020
G:\ENGPROJ\2020-14 The Morrison\Subdivisionagreement 2020-14.docx
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above
written.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
BY:
William H. Droste, Mayor
BY:
Erin Fasbender, City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _____________________, 2020,
by William H. Droste, Mayor, and Erin Fasbender, City Clerk, of the City of Rosemount, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City
Council.
Notary Public
THE MORRISON PARTNERS, LLC
BY:
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF _____________)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of _______________________,
2020 by _____________________________________, the _________________________________ of
The Morrison Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
Drafted By:
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
The Morrison
February / 2020
G:\ENGPROJ\2020-14 The Morrison\Subdivisionagreement 2020-14.docx
ATTACHMENT ONE
The Morrison
Final Plat
S89°24'30"W 299.48S00°38'51"W 358.50 N89°24'30"E 137.50S00°38'51"W 150.00 N89°24'30"E55.00N00°38'51"E 150.00N89°24'30"E 106.95N00°39'11"E 358.50 West Line of Lots 47, 48,and 61, AUDITOR'SSUBDIVISION NO. 1(As Monumented)North Line of Lot 61, AUDITOR'SSUBDIVISION NO. 1North Line of South 52.5 feet of Lot 54,AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1South Line of the North 193.5 feet ofLot 61, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1East Line of the SW 1/4
Sec. 29, Twp. 115, Rng. 19 North Line of the SW 1/4Sec. 29, Twp. 115, Rng. 19North Lineof Lot 54Found 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeFound 1/2 InchIron Pipe w/CapNo. 8625(Plat=110.00)(Plat=300.00)East Line of AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION NO. 1 LOT 1BLOCK 1THE MORRISONKNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That The Morrison Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Dakota,State of Minnesota, to wit:Lots 34, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, that part of Lot 55 lying north of the south 52.5 feet thereof, and the north 193.5 feet of Lot 61, all in AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1.ANDLot 50, AUDTIOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1, Rosemount.(Torrens Property)Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as THE MORRISON and does hereby dedicate to the public, for public use, the public way and the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat..In witness whereof said The Morrison Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officerthis day of , 20.THE MORRISON PARTNERS, LLCBy: ItsSTATE OF , COUNTY OF The forgoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20,By:, of The Morrison Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of said limited liability company. My Commission Expires:Notary Public, Signature Notary Printed NameNotary Public County,SURVEYORS CERTIFICATEI Rory L. Sysntelien, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correctrepresentation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within oneyear; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of the surveyor's certification are shown and labeled on this plat; and all publicways are shown and labeled on this plat.Dated this day of , 20.Rory L. Synstelien, Land SurveyorMinnesota License No. 44565STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20, by Rory L. Synstelien, a Licensed Land Surveyor. My Commission Expires:Notary Public, Signature Notary Printed NameNotary Public County,CITY COUNCIL OF ROSEMOUNT, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTAThis plat was approved by the City Council of Rosemount, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20,and hereby certifies compliance with all the requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.By:, Mayor By: , City ClerkCOUNTY SURVEYOR, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTAI hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approvedthis day of , 20.By Todd B. Tollefson, Dakota County SurveyorDEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND RECORDS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTAPursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subdivision 9, taxes payable in the year on real estate hereinbefore described, have been paid.Also pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfers entered on this day of , 20 .By Amy A. Koethe, DirectorCOUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTAI hereby certify that this plat of THE MORRISON was filed in the office of the County Recorder for public record on this day of , 20 ,at o'clockM. and was duly filed in Bookof Plats, Page, asDocument Number .By Amy A. Koethe, County RecorderREGISTRAR OF TITLES, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTAI hereby certify that this plat of THE MORRISON was filed in the office of the Registrar of Titles for public record on this day of , 20 ,at o'clockM. and was duly filed in Bookof Plats, Page, asDocument Number .By Amy A. Koethe, Registrar of TitlesNBearings are based on the east line ofAUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1having an assumed bearing of S 00°38'51" W.Denotes a Found Iron Monument (Type as shown on plat)Denotes a 1/2 inch by 14 inch Rebar Marked "RLS 44565"Denotes A Record Dimension per AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1 (Plat =)60153001530SCALE IN FEETBeing 5 feet in width when adjoining lot lines, unless otherwiseindicated, and 5 feet in width when adjoining right of way linesunless otherwise indicated, as shown on the plat.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:NOT TO SCALE5
555
4.a. Request by Ron Clark Construction for Planned Unit Development Master Development and Final Site and
Building Plan, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Approval to Construct a 124-unit Apartment Building on Rosemount
Plaza and Shenanigan’s Sites. (20-01-PUD, 20-02-FDP, 20-03-PP, 20-04-FP)
Community Development Director Lindquist gave a brief history of the Downtown Redevelopment goals.
Planner Nemcek gave a brief summary of the staff report for the Planning Commission.
Mike Waldo, Ron Clark Construction and Design, 7500 78th Street West, Edina, stated that the mix of the project is the
same as the buildings going up in neighboring cities. The building location on the site is important to the flow of the
access. You will be able to go south and north more safely in and out of the site because access is on both Highway 3
and 145th Street. Conversations have been had with the neighboring western residents about fencing to have additional
screening and the Xcel utility wires will be buried if the residents would like and if not, then they will not be.
Reed inquired about the exterior of the building and more specifically what will be siding and what stone and what it
would look like. Mr. Waldo stated that there will be lap siding in the middle of the building and a mixture of brick and
stone along the sides and back of the building.
Rivera inquired if the apartments would be market rate or would it include rent or income restrictions. Mr. Waldo stated
that the building would be all market rate apartments.
Reed inquired how the design for the new retail building will fit in with the historic buildings that are currently located in
downtown. Mr. Waldo stated that the new retail building will not be built until the current business’s leases are up, which
will be a few years out. The exterior of the new retail building will have a more timeless look using bricks and mortar.
The final approval needs to come back before the City.
Freeman inquired about the location of the retail building on the site, wondering if the longer side could be adjacent to
Hwy 3. Mr. Waldo stated that they were trying to maintain the most parking spaces on the site.
Public Hearing opened at 7:19 pm.
Public Comments:
Peter Terry, 13125 Idell Ave, Hastings, representing the property owners to the south, stated that their concerns include
the south property line along their property and store. According to the proposed plan it looks like the access into their
property will be shrunk next to Hwy 3 and the parking spaces will be less accessible next to the building. Mr. Terry
stated that he would like to request a continuation tonight so that they would have time to come to an agreement.
Maureen Bouchard, 3130 145th Street West, stated that her family dates to 1855. She would like to keep Rosemount as a
nice quaint small town. Rosemount does not want to be like Apple Valley. The design of the building is good, except it
would be nicer to have the building only three stories tall instead of four. She also thanked the applicant for working
with the surrounding residents.
Jim Spadafore, 14580 Cameo Ave, stated that he is located directly behind the building. He agrees that the new building
would be better than the current building but that three stories would be better than four stories. He agrees that to bring
more successful businesses into Rosemount we need more people in Rosemount.
Erin Delaney, 12572 Danbury Way, stated that she would like to see residents be able to age in place. Smart growth is
important. It would be nice to see green space on the roof of the building. An apartment that is accessibility friendly for
people with disabilities needs to be added.
Emily Schmuck, 14605 South Robert Trail, partial owner of Shenanigan’s, needs to get a closing date set so that the
business can make plans to move forward.
Scott French, 14560 Cameo Ave, stated that they are adjacent to the proposal. A four story building is a bit much and
the property line is too close to the residential sites. Mr. French stated that he is not sure how the building is going to
impact how they use their yards and the foot traffic that it will generate around his property.
Karleen Sieben, 14540 Cameo Ave, questioned if the City is prepared for a sewer/utility overload that may result from
adding more people into downtown. She is concerned about the potential traffic problems and the added people in the
area. Ms. Sieben requested that the construction not to start until 8:00 am.
Savannah Bray, 13732 Apollo Way, stated that Rosemount shouldn’t change and that it should stay the same. The small
town feel will go away if this building goes up.
MOTION by Freeman to close the public hearing.
Second by Schmisek.
Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
The public hearing was closed at 7:42 pm.
Additional Comments:
VanderWiel inquired if we have an ordinance that would restrict the four story building. Lindquist stated that the
ordinance restricts the height and that this building is currently three feet over the ordinance’s height restrictions.
VanderWiel stated that it’s not over the heights on the entire building it is just over the height on certain areas and
depending on the current grading. VanderWiel inquired about the property line along Terry’s property. Mr. Waldo stated
that he has met with the property owners. They plan on amending their application with MNDOT to make the curbcut
wider.
VanderWiel inquired about the closing date will be for the Shenanigan’s Pub site. Mr. Waldo stated that he has been in
contact with the other part owner of Shenanigan’s Pub, Brandon. Mr. Waldo stated that he cannot give a date because it
is dependent on the Planning and Council approvals. He didn’t want to give a date and then not meet that expectation.
Rivera inquired if there are any ADA units included. Mr. Waldo stated that the building code requires three units and
reasonable accommodations can be made for specific renters.
Reed questioned what the construction hours will be. Mr. Waldo stated that they will be working within the City
ordinance guidelines. Lindquist stated that it would be 7:00 am. If the residents have issues during the construction of
the building, they can contact the City. Mr. Waldo stated that the neighbors will also have the job superintendents phone
number and can contact them directly if they need to do so.
VanderWiel stated that she is really excited about this specific project. The streetscape will be improved. The addition of
trees instead of hard surfaces and parking lots along Hwy 3 is welcome. She noted that higher density residential is
usually in downtowns.
Reed stated that he had a lot of concerns about the project and had conversations with the Mayor and Ms. Lindquist. He
stated that this will be a huge improvement to what is currently in this location. The amount of parking is concerning
and if people could park on site and walk around downtown that would be great.
Rivera stated that she would like to spend her money in Rosemount and understands that if the higher density building
comes first it will help attract more businesses to the area, which is great.
Freeman stated that the concept and design of the plan is good. Adding residential in this area will eventually attract
more restaurants and retail in the future.
Lundquist stated that the building looks great and the amount of research that the developers have done is great. She
would like to see the developer work with Terry’s Hardware site to come into an agreement.
Schmisek stated that this building will hopefully add the needed residents to make the commercial and restaurants grow
in the downtown area. He explained his experience in Grand Forks.
MOTION by Reed to recommend the City Council Approve the Request by Ron Clark Construction for
Planned Unit Development Master Development and Final Site and Building Plan, subject to the following
conditions:
1. A deviation from Section 11-4-11F. DT Minimum Lot Requirements and Standards increasing the
maximum building height from 45 feet to 48 feet.
2. A deviation from Section 11-4-11B DT Permitted Uses reducing the required setback from South
Robert Trail for first-floor residential units from 150 feet to 33.5 feet.
3. A deviation from 11-4-11G.3. DT Permitted Materials allowing less than 60% stone or brick on the
north, west, and south elevations.
4. The applicant shall update the east elevation to include at least 75% brick or stone.
5. Compliance with the requirements of the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated January 14, 2020.
6. Compliance with the requirements within the Fire Marshall’s memorandum dated January 7, 2020.
7. Applicant shall work with staff to ensure full compliance with Code requirements related to site
lighting within the northern portion of the site.
8. Execution of an encroachment agreement for the retaining wall located near the northern portion of
the site located within the proposed drainage and utility easement.
9. A public access easement shall be dedicated over the trail along the rear and sides of the property.
10. The trail along the rear and side property lines will be installed and maintained by the property owner.
11. The apartment pool will be closed at 10:00 pm until 7:00am.
12. The applicant will work with the five single family residential property owners to the west regarding
installation of fencing, landscape locations, and undergrounding of overhead power lines.
13. The applicant shall submit a demolition and construction plan for City review and approval prior to
demolition work commencing.
14. The applicant shall submit exterior materials samples and colors for final city review and approval
prior to issuance of a building permit.
15. The applicant shall receive final site and building plan approval for the proposed commercial building
prior to issuance of any building permits.
16. The applicant shall receive a building permit for the commercial building by 12/30/2024.
17. The applicant will work with the property owner to the south to the address the curb cut access width
and parking clearance between properties prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Second by Freeman.
Ayes: 6. Nays: 0. Motion Passes
Planning Commission
2875 145th St.
Rosemount, MN 55068
To Whom It May Concern:
The biggest problem with this development is the power lines. The developer has decided that it is an
eyesore for their residents to look at the power lines and is replacing the alley with a path that would no
longer meet the standards for access for Xcel. This eliminates above and below ground options.
There are four homes that need power who have electrical meters in the rear of their homes for this
service. The developer is looking for solutions that require electrical service from the front for which
there are no poles across the street at present that can accommodate these homes. The developer is
looking at options to providing underground electrical to the homes which would require the residents
to have 3’x 4’ transformer boxes placed in front of the homes on the City’s 2’ easement.
I am perfectly satisfied with the placement of my electrical line in the rear of my property on the pole.
While cities and power companies do not address the concerns of EMF radiation, I do. I want my line in
the air where it is beyond the 3’ of unacceptable radiation and I don’t want it buried in the ground either
in front of my property or in the rear. My quality of life is just as important as the residents who will be
in the apartments.
The unwillingness of the developer to provide sufficient access to the power lines in the rear is a
problem that the City should resolve with the developer without residents losing their property rights to
accommodate a development that offers no benefit to them.
It is unfortunate that the City feels that these local residents are so insignificant that they do not deserve
the same attention to property rights.
Renee Stevenson
1
Nemcek, Anthony
From:Cox, Alan
Sent:Wednesday, January 15, 2020 2:14 PM
To:Lindquist, Kim
Cc:Martin, Logan; Foster, Emmy
Subject:FW: Rosemount improvement
‐‐Alan Cox, Communications Coordinator, City of Rosemount
From: Diana Wagner <didiwags@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 8:43 AM
To: Comment <Comment@ci.rosemount.mn.us>
Subject: Rosemount improvement
Please stop ruining the downtown of Rosemount. There are many people who do not want the apartments to be going
up in downtown Rosemount but yet the city continues to ignore what the people of Rosemount want. Look on Facebook
there are many people who are against the building of apartments and taking down the old buildings that represent
Rosemount. No one wants to look like Apple Valley or Eagan or any of these other cities that have stupid apartments
with supposed businesses on the bottom level. It is tacky and it is not a small town feel that Rosemount represents. Stop
this ridiculousness!
Diana Wagner, 38, Long time resident of Rosemount who has lived here since 1986.
1
Nemcek, Anthony
From:Cox, Alan
Sent:Wednesday, January 15, 2020 2:13 PM
To:Lindquist, Kim
Cc:Martin, Logan; Foster, Emmy
Subject:FW: No apartment building!!
‐‐Alan Cox, Communications Coordinator, City of Rosemount
From: Lindsay Gibson <ljmorgan159@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 9:00 AM
To: Comment <Comment@ci.rosemount.mn.us>
Subject: No apartment building!!
As many people within the community of rosemount have said and voiced their opinion about the production of the
apartment building, PLEASE do not build it in downtown! If you want to put another apartment complex in the town, do
it closer to dakota county technical college. It would benefit students more if it was closer to the college, and by the
looks of it, theres plenty of open land around the college that can be used instead! No one wants this building in
downtown. Everyone is against it. Home owners behind the building will lose value in their homes and will eventually
want to move. If the council really cared about the people/community of rosemount, they would decide against building
this.
S89°24'30"W 299.48
S00°38'51"W 358.50N89°24'30"E 137.50
S00°38'51"W 150.00N89°24'30"E
55.00 N00°38'51"E 150.00N89°24'30"E 86.95 N00°39'11"E 235.0020.00N89°24'30"E N00°39'11"E 123.50ST-1ST-4ST-7ST-5ST-6ST-8ST-3ST-21,185 ft²Unit C2784 ft²Unit A1784 ft²Unit A1576 ft²Unit S11,171 ft²Unit C31,171 ft²Unit C3576 ft²Unit S11,171 ft²Unit C3575 ft²Unit S11,171 ft²Unit C3752 ft²Unit A2441 ft²Storage127 ft²Rest.111 ft²Mech.99 ft²Janitor127 ft²Trash963 ft²Fitness284 ft²Group Fitness1,193 ft²Unit C11,047 ft²Com Room226 ft²Core784 ft²Unit A1784 ft²Unit A1576 ft²Unit S227'-0"576 ft²Unit S1784 ft²Unit A1784 ft²Unit A1784 ft²Unit A11,003 ft²Unit C4784 ft²Unit A11,185 ft²Unit C21,185 ft²Unit C2659 ft²Unit S3697 ft²Unit S2659 ft²Unit S3965 ft²Unit B1112 ft²Trash780 ft²Lobby780 ft²Offices549 ft²Unit S1659 ft²Unit S3BUILDING CONCEPTSIZE: 55'x70'9951321755.0'71.4'9Project Number:Issue Date:Revision Number:Revision Date:4931 W. 35TH ST., #200ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416952.250.2003 / 763.213.394www.CivilSiteGroup.com01" = 40'-0"40'-0"20'-0"N14605 S. ROBERT TRAIL, ROSEMOUNT, MN 5506855'x70' DRIVE THRU BUILDING CONCEPTEX2.01933612/19/2019..
36" RCP10" PVC12" DIP8" RCP8" PVC6" PVC8" PVC
8" PVC
15" RCP
15" RCP110.1232.4
110.0232.6
59.9129.860.1
130.0One Story Block/Brick BuildingAddress: 14555 S Robert TrailFoundation Area: 7,790 Sq. Ft.One Story Brick BuildingAddress: 14605 S Robert TrailFoundation Area: 5,297 Sq. Ft.8" DIP
8" DIP 50.021.044.347.4
45.03.8
49.164.1 1610115131313[B] Wood Ramp[B] WoodPlatformWoodFence [B] WoodPlatformChain LinkFenceRetaining WallChain LinkFenceConcreteRetaining WallMetalFenceWoodFenceWood Fence27" RCPOne Story Block/Brick BuildingAddress: 14555 S Robert TrailFoundation Area: 25,581 Sq. Ft.One Story Block BuildingOne Story Brick BuildingOne Story Stucco BuildingOne Story Brick BuildingGarageGarage
[A] Building Corner 0.7' +/-East of Property Line[A] Building Corner 0.9' +/-East of Property LineBuilding Cornerat Property LineBuilding Corner 0.1' E& 0.1 S of Property CornerBuilding Corner 0.2' E& 2.4' N of Property Corner[16] San. Sewer Easementper Book 64 of M.R., Page 297(W 75' of the N 4' Lot 49)[19] Parking EasementPer Book 284 of Deeds, Page 191[19] Ingress/Egress EasementPer Book 284 of Deeds, Page 191[12] Ingress/Egress Easement perBook 160 of Deeds, Page 554[20] Driveway Easement
Per Book 160 of Deeds, Page 554
[13] Pedestrian Walkway/Parking Easement perDoc. No. 305950[14] Util. EasementPer Doc. No. 738332[14] Util. EasementPer Doc. No. 738332[15] Ingress/Egress Easement forDelivery and Maintenance Vehicles perBook 284 of Deeds, Page 194PID: 340370033010Address: 2990 145th St WOwner: SMAPP LLCPID: 340370035010Address: 3020 145th St WOwner: Dakota CentralRealty LTDPID: 340370039020Address: 3050 145th St WOwner: Ehlen LTD PTNSHPPID: 340380004010Address: 14540 Cameo AveOwner: Richard N & Karleen O SiebenPID: 340380003010Address: 14560 Cameo AveOwner: Scott A & Laura J FrenchPID: 340380002010Address: 14580 Cameo AveOwner: James A &Peggy M SpadaforePID: 340380002021Address: 14590 Cameo AveOwner: Jill GilliesPID: 340380001011Address: 14600 Cameo AveOwner: Renee C Stevenson
PID: 340370061051Address: 14635 Robert Trail SOwner: Terry InvestmentsPID: 340370032010Address: 2978 145th St WOwner: Rosemount Cornerstone Inc.PID: 340370032020Address: 14525 Robert Trail SOwner: DA & E Aquisition LLCS89°24'30"W 299.48S00°38'51"W 358.50 N89°24'30"E 137.50S00°38'51"W 150.00 N89°24'30"E55.00N00°38'51"E 150.00N89°24'30"E 106.95N00°39'11"E 358.50 West Line of Lots 47, 48,and 61, AUDITOR'SSUBDIVISION NO. 1(As Monumented)North Line of Lot 61, AUDITOR'SSUBDIVISION NO. 1North Line of South 52.5 feet of Lot 54,AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1South Line of the North 193.5 feet ofLot 61, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1East Line of the SW 1/4
Sec. 29, Twp. 115, Rng. 19 North Line of the SW 1/4Sec. 29, Twp. 115, Rng. 19North Lineof Lot 54Found 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeFound 1/2 InchIron Pipe w/CapNo. 8625(Plat=110.00)(Plat=300.00)East Line of AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION NO. 1 LOT 1BLOCK 1VICINITY MAPPROJECTPROJECT NO.19336COPYRIGHT 2019 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cREVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONV1.1PRELIMINARY PLAT............N44565RORY L. SYNSTELIENLICENSE NO.DATEI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.12-12-2019CLIENT Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture4931 W. 35th Street, Suite 200St. Louis Park, MN 55416civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060QA/QCFIELD CREWDRAWN BYREVIEWED BYUPDATED BYS. WeisdorfC. JohnsonR. Synstelien.PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTESLEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lots 34, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, that part of Lot 55 lying north of the south 52.5 feet thereof, and the north193.5 feet of Lot 61, all in AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1.ANDLot 50, AUDTIOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1, Rosemount.(Torrens Property)DATE OF PREPARATION:12-12-2019APPLICANT:Ron Clark ConstructionMike Roebuck952-947-30227500 West 78th StreetEdina, MN 55439BENCHMARKS:Elevations are based on the NGVD 29 Datum. Site Benchmark is the top of nut of fire hydrant located in front of14605 S Robert Trail. Elevation=972.53PROPOSED ZONING:P.U.D. (Planned Unit DevelopmentAREAS:Lot 1, Block 1 = 115,582 +/- square feet or 2.653 +/- acres.FLOOD ZONE:This property is contained in Zone X (area determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance RateMap, Community Panel No. 27037C0210E, effective date of December 2, 2011.________________________________________________________Rory L. Synstelien Minnesota License No. 44565rory@civilsitegroup.comPRELIMINARY PLAT: THE MORRISONN60153001530SCALE IN FEETOVERHEAD UTILITIESFIBER OPTIC SANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERTELEPHONE LINECABLE LINE WATERMAINELECTRIC LINEGASMAINCHAINLINK FENCELINESIGNSANITARY MANHOLESTORM MANHOLECABLE TV BOXTELEPHONE MANHOLEELECTRIC TRANSFORMERTELEPHONE BOXTRAFFIC SIGNALGAS METERELECTRICAL METERWATER MANHOLEWATER VALVEAIR CONDITIONERBOLLARDCATCH BASINELECTRIC MANHOLEGAS VALVEFLAG POLEHANDICAP SYMBOLFOUND IRON MONUMENTHYDRANTFOUND JUDICIAL LANDMARKSET IRON MONUMENTFLARED END SECTIONLinetype & Symbol Legend POWER POLEUTILITY MANHOLECONCRETE SURFACEPAVER SURFACEBITUMINOUS SURFACEGRAVEL/LANDSCAPE GUY WIRECONIFEROUS TREEDECIDUOUS TREESURFACEWOODEN FENCELINEGUARDRAILROOF DRAINRosemount Mixed-Use
14555-14605 Robert Trail S, Rosemount, Dakota County, MN 55068
7500 W 78th St, Edina, MN 55439
Ron Clark Construction
S89°24'30"W 299.48S00°38'51"W 358.50 N89°24'30"E 137.50S00°38'51"W 150.00 N89°24'30"E55.00N00°38'51"E 150.00N89°24'30"E 106.95N00°39'11"E 358.50 West Line of Lots 47, 48,and 61, AUDITOR'SSUBDIVISION NO. 1(As Monumented)North Line of Lot 61, AUDITOR'SSUBDIVISION NO. 1North Line of South 52.5 feet of Lot 54,AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1South Line of the North 193.5 feet ofLot 61, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1East Line of the SW 1/4
Sec. 29, Twp. 115, Rng. 19 North Line of the SW 1/4Sec. 29, Twp. 115, Rng. 19North Lineof Lot 54Found 1/2 InchOpen Iron PipeFound 1/2 InchIron Pipe w/CapNo. 8625(Plat=110.00)(Plat=300.00)East Line of AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION NO. 1 LOT 1BLOCK 1THE MORRISONKNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That The Morrison Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Dakota,State of Minnesota, to wit:Lots 34, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, that part of Lot 55 lying north of the south 52.5 feet thereof, and the north 193.5 feet of Lot 61, all in AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1.ANDLot 50, AUDTIOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1, Rosemount.(Torrens Property)Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as THE MORRISON and does hereby dedicate to the public, for public use, the public way and the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat..In witness whereof said The Morrison Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officerthis day of , 20.THE MORRISON PARTNERS, LLCBy: ItsSTATE OF , COUNTY OF The forgoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20,By:, of The Morrison Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of said limited liability company. My Commission Expires:Notary Public, Signature Notary Printed NameNotary Public County,SURVEYORS CERTIFICATEI Rory L. Sysntelien, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correctrepresentation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within oneyear; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of the surveyor's certification are shown and labeled on this plat; and all publicways are shown and labeled on this plat.Dated this day of , 20.Rory L. Synstelien, Land SurveyorMinnesota License No. 44565STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20, by Rory L. Synstelien, a Licensed Land Surveyor. My Commission Expires:Notary Public, Signature Notary Printed NameNotary Public County,CITY COUNCIL OF ROSEMOUNT, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTAThis plat was approved by the City Council of Rosemount, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20,and hereby certifies compliance with all the requirements as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.By:, Mayor By: , City ClerkCOUNTY SURVEYOR, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTAI hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approvedthis day of , 20.By Todd B. Tollefson, Dakota County SurveyorDEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND RECORDS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTAPursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subdivision 9, taxes payable in the year on real estate hereinbefore described, have been paid.Also pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and transfers entered on this day of , 20 .By Amy A. Koethe, DirectorCOUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTAI hereby certify that this plat of THE MORRISON was filed in the office of the County Recorder for public record on this day of , 20 ,at o'clockM. and was duly filed in Bookof Plats, Page, asDocument Number .By Amy A. Koethe, County RecorderREGISTRAR OF TITLES, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTAI hereby certify that this plat of THE MORRISON was filed in the office of the Registrar of Titles for public record on this day of , 20 ,at o'clockM. and was duly filed in Bookof Plats, Page, asDocument Number .By Amy A. Koethe, Registrar of TitlesNBearings are based on the east line ofAUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1having an assumed bearing of S 00°38'51" W.Denotes a Found Iron Monument (Type as shown on plat)Denotes a 1/2 inch by 14 inch Rebar Marked "RLS 44565"Denotes A Record Dimension per AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1 (Plat =)60153001530SCALE IN FEETBeing 5 feet in width when adjoining lot lines, unless otherwiseindicated, and 5 feet in width when adjoining right of way linesunless otherwise indicated, as shown on the plat.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:NOT TO SCALE5
555
kaas wilson architects
The Morrison - Rosemount MNArchitectural Site Plan
SD_100 12/16/19 19064
1/32" = 1'-0"1 Architectural Site Plan
Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
110'-7 7/8"
Level -1
88'-8"
Level 3
121'-3 3/4"
Level 4
131'-11 5/8"
Truss Brg.
141'-0 3/4"
CEMENT FIBER PANEL
BRICK
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
CEMENT FIBER
LAP SIDING
ROCKFACE CMU
ALUMINUM
BALCONY
43'-4 3/4"Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
110'-7 7/8"
Level 3
121'-3 3/4"
Level 4
131'-11 5/8"
Truss Brg.
141'-0 3/4"
CEMENT FIBER LAP SIDING
CEMENT FIBER
PANEL SIDING
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
ALUMINUM BALCONY
BRICK
ROCKFACE CMU
Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
110'-7 7/8"
Level 3
121'-3 3/4"
Level 4
131'-11 5/8"
Truss Brg.
141'-0 3/4"
CEMENT FIBER LAP SIDING
CEMENT FIBER
PANEL SIDING
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
BRICK
ROCKFACE CMU
Level 1
100'-0"
Level 2
110'-7 7/8"
Level -1
88'-8"
Level 3
121'-3 3/4"
Level 4
131'-11 5/8"
Truss Brg.
141'-0 3/4"
MANUFACTURED
STONE VENEER
CEMENT FIBER LAP SIDING
CEMENT FIBER
PANEL SIDING
BRICK
ROCKFACE CMU
kaas wilson architects
The Morrison - Rosemount MNExterior Elevations
SD_500 12/16/19 19064
1/16" = 1'-0"1 East Elevation
1/16" = 1'-0"2 South Elevation
1/16" = 1'-0"3 West Elevation
1/16" = 1'-0"5 North Elevation
EAST ELEVATION MATERIALS %
BRICK/STONE: 75% *includes bay
returns
CFB: 25%
WEST ELEVATION MATERIALS %
BRICK/STONE/GLASS: 46%
CFB: 54%
SOUTH ELEVATION MATERIALS %
BRICK/STONE/GLASS: 69%
CFB: 31%
NORTH ELEVATION MATERIALS %
BRICK/STONE/GLASS: 64%
CFB: 36%
41,754 ft²
Garage
Garage Entrance
238 ft²
MechEXHAUST Person door
POOL ABOVE
EXHAUSTPLAZA
122 ft²
Pool Equipment
105 ft²
Pool Chemical
209 ft²
Stair
287 ft²
Trash
SD_500
1
SD_500 2
SD_500
3
SD_5005
222 ft²
Trash
209 ft²
Stair
329 ft²
Bike Storage
CHARGING
STATION
CHARGING
STATION
CHARGING
STATION
CHARGING
STATION
124 ft²
Dog Wash
327 ft²
Maintenance
CHARGING
STATION
LINE OF EXTERIOR
WALL ABOVE
58 Storage Units
54 Wall-Mounted Bike Racks
51
50
49 29
48
3047
46
45
44
43
42
41
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 10 9
109 110 111 114 115 116 117 118 119 124 125
99 98 97 96 95 94 86
64 65 67 68
123
90
59
60
122
91
121
92
120
93
113112
100101102103
108107
6
2
3
4
5
1
31
32
33
66 82818079787776757473
11
126
8 7
35
36
37
40
38
127
878988 85 84
39
636261
28
34
69 70 71 72 83
104105106
kaas wilson architects
SCALE - 1/16" = 1'-0"
The Morrison - Rosemount MNGarage
SD_300 12/16/19 19064
1/16" = 1'-0"1 Level -1
Parking Schedule
Type Count
Level -1
127
Level 1
77
204
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
RETAIL
POOL
18'X40'
784 ft²
Unit A1 PLNTR.PLNTR.PLNTR.PLNTR.784 ft²
Unit A1
Stair
576 ft²
Unit S1
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
576 ft²
Unit S1
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
576 ft²
Unit S1
Stair
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
752 ft²
Unit A2
441 ft²
Storage
127 ft²
Rest.
111 ft²
Mech.
99 ft²
Janitor
127 ft²
Trash
963 ft²
Fitness
284 ft²
Group Fitness
SD_500
1
1,193 ft²
Unit C1
SD_500 2
SD_500
3
SD_5005
Guardrail @ 40"
Retaining Wall
Corridor1,047 ft²
Community
Room
226 ft²
Core
Outdoor
Fitness
Dog Run
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
576 ft²
Unit S2
576 ft²
Unit S1
Stair
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
1,003 ft²
Unit C4 784 ft²
Unit A1
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
Corridor
659 ft²
Unit S3
709 ft²
Unit S4
659 ft²
Unit S3
965 ft²
Unit B1
112 ft²
Trash
780 ft²
Lobby
780 ft²
Offices
659 ft²
Unit S3
564 ft²
Unit S5
Bag
Toss
kaas wilson architects
SCALE - 1/16" = 1'-0"
The Morrison - Rosemount MNLevel 1
SD_310 12/16/19 19064
1/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 1
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
795 ft²
Mech/Elec
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
Stair
Stair
576 ft²
Unit S1
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
576 ft²
Unit S1
Schema 1 Legend
1 BR
1+Den
2 BR
3BR/2BA
Cirrculation
Common
Studio
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
576 ft²
Unit S1
1,171 ft²
Unit C3Stair
752 ft²
Unit A2
99 ft²
Janitor 112 ft²
Trash
441 ft²
Storage
127 ft²
Core
111 ft²
Mech.
226 ft²
Core
127 ft²
Trash
SD_500
1
1,193 ft²
Unit C1
SD_500 2
SD_500
3
SD_5005
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
576 ft²
Unit S2
1,435 ft²
Unit D1
965 ft²
Unit B1
659 ft²
Unit S3
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
1,003 ft²
Unit C4
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
876 ft²
Unit B2
659 ft²
Unit S3
965 ft²
Unit B1
659 ft²
Unit S3
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
564 ft²
Unit S5
kaas wilson architects
SCALE - 1/16" = 1'-0"
The Morrison - Rosemount MNLevel 2
SD_320 12/16/19 19064
1/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 2
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
795 ft²
Core
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
Stair
576 ft²
Unit S1
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
576 ft²
Unit S1
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
576 ft²
Unit S1
1,171 ft²
Unit C3Stair
752 ft²
Unit A2
441 ft²
Storage
127 ft²
Core
111 ft²
Mech.
99 ft²
Janitor 112 ft²
Trash
226 ft²
Core
127 ft²
Trash
SD_500
1
1,193 ft²
Unit C1
SD_500 2
SD_500
3
SD_5005
Schema 1 Legend
1 BR
1+Den
2 BR
3BR/2BA
Cirrculation
Common
Studio
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
576 ft²
Unit S2
1,435 ft²
Unit D1
965 ft²
Unit B1
Stair
659 ft²
Unit S3
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
1,003 ft²
Unit C4
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
876 ft²
Unit B2
659 ft²
Unit S3
965 ft²
Unit B1
659 ft²
Unit S3
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
564 ft²
Unit S5
kaas wilson architects
SCALE - 1/16" = 1'-0"
The Morrison - Rosemount MNLevel 3
SD_330 12/16/19 19064
1/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 3
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
Stair
576 ft²
Unit S1
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
576 ft²
Unit S1
1,171 ft²
Unit C3Stair
752 ft²
Unit A2
Schema 1 Legend
1 BR
1+Den
2 BR
3BR/2BA
Cirrculation
Common
Studio
441 ft²
Storage
127 ft²
Rest.
111 ft²
Mech.
99 ft²
Janitor 112 ft²
Trash
226 ft²
Core
127 ft²
Trash
SD_500
1
1,193 ft²
Unit C1
724 ft²
Sky Bar
540 ft²
Roof Deck
SD_500 2
SD_500
3
SD_5005
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
576 ft²
Unit S2
965 ft²
Unit B1
1,171 ft²
Unit C3
1,435 ft²
Unit D1
Stair
659 ft²
Unit S3
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
1,003 ft²
Unit C4
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
1,185 ft²
Unit C2
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
876 ft²
Unit B2
659 ft²
Unit S3
965 ft²
Unit B1
659 ft²
Unit S3
784 ft²
Unit A1
784 ft²
Unit A1
564 ft²
Unit S5
1/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 4
kaas wilson architects
SCALE - 1/16" = 1'-0"
The Morrison - Rosemount MNLevel 4
SD_340 12/16/19 19064
kaas wilson architects
The Morrison - Rosemount MNShadow Study
SD_700 12/16/19 19064
1/64" = 1'-0"1 Winter Solstice - 9 AM
1/64" = 1'-0"2 Winter Solstice - Noon
1/64" = 1'-0"3 Winter Solstice - 5 PM
1/64" = 1'-0"6 Equinox - 5 PM
1/64" = 1'-0"5 Equinox - Noon
1/64" = 1'-0"4 Equinox - 9 AM
1/64" = 1'-0"9 Summer Solstice - 5 PM
1/64" = 1'-0"8 Summer Solstice - Noon
1/64" = 1'-0"7 Summer Solstice - 9 AM
Technical
Memo
Wenck | Colorado | Georgia | Minnesota | North Dakota | Wyoming
Toll Free 800-472-2232 Web wenck.com
-
To: Michael Roebuck, Ron Clark Construction
From: Ed Terhaar, P.E.
Date: December 19, 2019
Subject: Traffic Forecast Information for Proposed Apartment and Retail Development in
Rosemount, MN
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed
Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
__________________________________ DATE: December 19, 2019
Edward F. Terhaar
License No. 24441
Purpose and Background
This memorandum presents traffic forecast information for the proposed apartment and
retail development located in the southwest quadrant of the S. Robert Trail (TH 3)/W. 145th
Street W. intersection in Rosemount. Trip generation information for the proposed project
and existing uses are presented in this memo.
Existing Conditions
The project site currently contains a 7,790 square foot auto repair building, a 37,581 square
foot retail building, and a 10,594 square foot bar/restaurant. All of these uses will be
removed as part of the project. Under existing conditions the site has two access points on
S. Robert Trail and one access on W. 145th Street.
Proposed Development Characteristics
The proposed project consists of constructing a new apartment building and a separate
retail building in the southwest quadrant of the S. Robert Trail (TH 3)/W. 145th Street W.
intersection. For purpose of this study, the apartment building has 124 dwelling units and
the retail building has 4,400 square feet of space. The site includes 198 parking spaces.
Under future conditions the site will have two access points on S. Robert Trail and one
access on W. 145th Street. The northern most access on S. Robert Trail will operate as one-
way westbound only. The other two access points will accommodate two -way traffic.
Michael Roebuck
Ron Clark Construction
December 19, 2019
2
Trip Generation
Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour trip generation for the existing uses and the proposed
development were calculated based on data presented in the tenth edition of Trip
Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The resultant trip
generation estimates are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Trip Generation for Existing Uses and Proposed Project
Land Use
(ITE Land Use
Code)
Size
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Weekday
Daily
In Out Total In Out Total Total
Existing Uses
Auto Repair (943) 7,790 SF 11 4 15 7 11 18 127
Retail (820) 37,581 SF 22 13 35 69 74 143 1419
Bar/Restaurant (932) 10,594 SF 0 0 0 64 39 103 1188
Totals 33 17 50 140 124 264 2734
Proposed Uses
Apartments (221) 124 DU 12 33 45 33 22 55 675
Retail (820) 4,400 SF 2 2 4 8 9 17 166
Totals 14 35 49 41 31 72 841
Notes: The existing bar/restaurant opens at 10 a.m. and is assumed to generate minimal
trips during the a.m. peak hour. SF=square feet, DU=dwelling unit
As shown, the number of trips generated during the a.m. peak hour by the proposed project
is similar to the existing uses and less than one third of the existing uses during the p.m.
peak hour and on a daily basis.
Conclusions
The proposed project generates less than one third the number of trips generated by the
existing uses during the p.m. peak hour and on a daily basis and a similar number during
the a.m. peak hour. Replacing the existing uses with the proposed project will reduce the
traffic impact on the surrounding street system.
MEMORANDUM
Tel: 612.879.6000 1301 American Blvd E. Suite 100, Bloomington, MN 55425 www.kaaswilson.com
Page 1 of 2
Date: December 16, 2019
Attention: Kim Lindquist - Community Development Director
Kyle Klatt – Senior Planner
Re: The Morrison Mixed-Use Development The Morrison Mixed-Use Development is a Plan Unit Development proposal that includes a 124-Unit
apartment building located at the intersection of South Robert Trail and 146th Street West, where the Rosemount Plaza and Shenanigans Pub currently sit. In addition to the apartment building, the multi-
phased project will incorporate a future retail development to replace the exiting retail space currently occupied by Medi-Car and Chill Salon. The proposed apartment building is 4 stories with an underground parking garage, and includes amenities such as a large Club Room, Fitness, Sky lounge, Outdoor Pool and Recreation Areas, Rooftop Deck, and on-site property management offices. Building materials include a mix of brick and stone integrated with cement fiberboard siding. The mix of materials on the proposed apartment building is intended to maintain consistency with the brick and stone prevalent in the downtown district, while allowing a transition to a more residential aesthetic on the facades facing the single-family homes. Dark windows and dark aluminum decks provide accent to the naturally toned color palette. The proposed project is a planned unit development (PUD) located in the downtown development district. The purpose of the district is to encourage a viable downtown area and includes the proposed uses which are retail sales and multifamily housing. The proposed apartment building would support the districts intent of encouraging a viable downtown area by providing housing opportunities in the downtown area
and thereby, increasing the number of people and overall in the downtown. The retail component would
also support the goals of the downtown with a new storefront for commercial activity.
The project is being applied for as a Planned Unit Development, however it aims to meet the downtown
district standards with the following notes:
• The building shall have dwelling units on level one (1) within 150 feet of the Trunk Highway 3.
However, the large majority of the building is set back 150, and the future retail component of the
development supports the intent of keeping the street level activated with commercial uses.
• The Average building height from level 1 is 43’-10” which is less than the 45’-0” maximum. The
main entry bump-out is the only area on the building that exceeds 45’-0” in height measured from
level 1.
• The main building façade facing the right of way has 75% class A materials which includes face brick, cultured stone, and glazing. In order to create a more residential aesthetic on the facades facing the single-family neighborhood, the exterior materials transition to a higher percentage of cement fiberboard lap siding and the use of stone is more prevalent. Refer to exterior elevations for material percentages.
Tel: 612.879.6000 1301 American Blvd E, Bloomington, MN 55425 www.kaaswilson.com
Page 2 of 2
• The proposed project is an assemblage of 13 properties with a combined Gross Area of 115,582 sf or 2.66 acres.
• Zoning District Statistics:
o The current zoning of the property is Downtown District (DT), the proposed zoning is Downtown District (DT)/Planned Unit Development (PUD).
o The current use of the property is a combination of retail, office and service-related businesses. The proposed use is Multi-Family Housing.
o The 124-unit building has 127 underground (structured) parking stalls which is meeting the
district standards. Surface Parking has an additional 77 stalls for a total of 204 stalls for the
project.
o Between the retail and the apartment, the building lot coverage is approximately 34%
which meets the 90% Requirement
o We have a 20’-0” buffer between the Apartment building and the property line which
exceeds the 10’-0” Requirement. This area will contain a walking path and landscaping.
The project schedule aims to complete the design phase within the first few months of the year, with the
hope of breaking ground in the summer of 2020. The 14-16 month long construction timeline leads to a
projected opening in the Fall of 2021.
MEMORANDUM
To: Anthony Nemcek, Planner
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
From: Rick Chase, Building Official/Fire Marshal
Date: January 7, 2020
Subject: The Morrison PUD 2001
The following comments are provided based on the 2015 Minnesota State Fire
Code and civil plans dated 12-16-2019.
• Additional fire hydrants will be required in accordance with 507.5.1 &
507.5.1.1. it appears two additional hydrants are required.
• Aerial fire apparatus access minimum of 26’ in width front elevation.
• Fire apparatus access in accordance with the Minnesota State Fire Code
minimum width 20’ south side of structure.
• No parking fire lane signage will be required main entrance area.
• Premise identification is required in plain view of the right of way.
• Installation of a knox box is required.
• Add turn radius for ladder truck to site plan.
Sincerely,
Rick Chase
Building Official/Fire Marshal
MEMORANDUM
To: Anthony Nemcek, Planner
CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary
Brian Erickson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
From: Stephanie Smith, Assistant City Engineer
Date: January 14, 2020
Subject: The Morrison Preliminary and Final Plat - Engineering Review
SUBMITTAL:
The following review comments were generated from the following The Morrison submittal
documents prepared by Civil Site Group, Braun Intertec and Wenck:
Final Plat
Civil plans (dated 12/16/2019) comprised of the following:
▫ Existing Conditions Survey
▫ Removal Plan
▫ Site Plan
▫ Grading Plan
▫ Utility Plan
▫ SWPPP
Stormwater Management Report (dated 12/16/2019)
Geotechnical Report (dated 11/20/2019)
Traffic Memo (dated 12/19/2019)
EASEMENTS:
1. The final plat shows a 5-foot perimeter drainage and utility easement around the property.
This shall be revised to have a 10-foot drainage and utility easement along the front and rear
lot lines.
2. Trail access easement is required over the bituminous walkway on the west and south sides
of the apartment building.
DRIVEWAY AND PARKING LOTS:
The applicant is proposing to reduce the number of accesses on Trunk Highway 3. The proposed
accesses to the site are an entrance onto Trunk Highway 3 aligned with 146th Street West, an in-only
access on Trunk Highway 3 north of the proposed commercial building, and an access onto 145th
Street West.
The applicant submitted a traffic memo that used the ITE Trip Generation Manual to compare
traffic generation of the existing site uses to the proposed site uses. This comparison resulted in a
net reduction of traffic by more than two thirds. Staff will note that this conclusion is not based on
traffic counts, and the existing usages on the site are likely under the assumed trip generation. The
two thirds reduction from the memo is what would be expected in a highest use of the existing
buildings.
3. The applicant shall obtain a MnDOT permit for their work within the Trunk Highway 3
right-of-way.
4. The maximum driveway grade is 10%. The driveway to the underground parking shall be
revised to meet this requirement.
5. Applicant shall provide a turning movement for a single-unit truck entering the underground
parking.
6. Staff recommends the loading zone shall meet parallel parking standard of an 8-foot wide
stall rather than the 6-foot wide aisle shown in the plans.
7. Civil plans do not show a landscaped island at the main entrance, while the architectural
plans and rendering do show an island. Applicant shall revise plans to be consistent.
8. The 45-degree parking north of the commercial building is longer than required. Applicant
may reduce this.
9. Street lights on Trunk Highway 3 that are impacted by the construction shall be removed
and replaced in coordination with the electrical utility.
SIDEWALKS:
10. Sidewalk and bituminous walkway internal to the site shall be owned and maintained by the
property owner.
11. The sidewalk along Trunk Highway 3 shall be owned by the City, but it shall be maintained
for snow by the property owner.
12. Applicant shall install pedestrian ramps as required by ADA and per the MnDOT standard
detail plates.
13. Applicant shall provide more details on pavement markings and how the parking and
pedestrian movements will function on the southeast corner of the apartment building
where the bituminous walkway is level with the parking surface of Ace Hardware.
WATER & SANITARY UTILITIES:
The applicant proposes to connect to City water existing under Trunk Highway 3 and sanitary sewer
that runs north-south at the center of the site. The applicant is removing the portion of the sanitary
line that will no longer be needed. The existing sanitary pipe is vitrified clay pipe and is over 60 years
old. The pipe will be replaced or lined dependent on further investigation of the pipe condition.
14. Water utilities internal to the site shall be privately owned and maintained.
15. Applicant shall abandon unused water services on their site.
16. Abandoned water services shall be removed to the main.
17. Existing hydrant near the Shenanigans building shall be removed and replaced with a new
hydrant, rather than salvaging the existing.
18. The watermain shall be located within the roadway to minimize future impacts to boulevard
trees in the proposed landscaping plan.
19. Sanitary sewer shall be publicly owned and maintained.
20. Applicant has noted use of PVC-SDR 26 for sanitary sewer lines. As the depth of the lines is
less than 18 feet, applicant may use PVC-SDR 35.
21. Watermain and Sanitary Sewer will be revised during final design. Typical revisions will
include number and placement of hydrants, gate valves and manholes.
RETAINING WALLS:
The proposed plan calls for two retaining walls. The wall along the northern-most parking area is
approximately 170 feet long and a height of 1.5 feet. The wall along the underground parking
driveway is approximately 100 feet long and a height of 6 feet.
22. The grading plan shall be revised to show the top and bottom wall elevations for the wall
along the underground parking driveway.
23. The plans shall specify the retaining wall material.
24. The retaining wall along the northern-most parking area is located within the perimeter
drainage and utility easement. An encroachment agreement is required for the wall to be
built in this location.
25. Retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height shall require a plan prepared by a licensed
structural engineer submitted for review and approval by the Building Official for a wall
permit.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
26. The developer is required to obtain a grading permit from the City prior to construction
grading activity.
27. The survey shall be revised to show first floor elevations for nearby structures.
28. Flow arrows shall be added to the grading plan.
29. Emergency Overflow (EOF) routes shall be shown for all low points. High points shall be
shown along EOF routes with directional flow arrows.
30. 2% minimum slope is required for stormwater flow. Applicant shall revise grades along the
gutter line north of the proposed commercial building.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
WSB Engineering reviewed The Morrison stormwater and SWPPP submittal on behalf of the City.
The full memorandum, dated January 8, 2020, is included as an attachment. Their comments are
summarized below:
31. Application will be required to show proof of NPDES permit coverage prior to start of
construction.
32. No detail for the retaining wall by the entrance into the apartment building is provided. See
Engineering Guidelines for further details on retaining wall requirements.
33. Construction entrance may be needed off 145th street or signed no construction traffic.
34. Add inlet protection for CB 32.
35. Label emergency overflow routes/points on grading plan.
36. There is a 0.61 foot separation between the low point and the garage door. Please show
percent slope of driveway and entrance to garage.
37. Casting types were not called out in the plans.
38. Please provide utility crossing for where the storm crosses the sanitary sewer and watermain.
39. MnDOT drainage permit may be required for connection from CBMH 11 into EX. CB in
TH 3. Existing Gas and electric in vicinity of the EX. CB in TH 3 should be assessed for
conflict.
40. Narrative “Volume Reduction and Water Quality (City of Rosemount)” is incorrect. The
City’s Volume control and Water Quality Requirement is to retain and infiltration the 100-
year 24hr storm event. Redevelopment shall meet this requirement to the maximum extent
practical (CSWMP 5.3.8). Volume Control and Water Quality Requirements are being met in
the existing City regional stormwater pond (EP-578).
41. The difference in impervious between existing and proposed conflicts with each other.
HydroCAD reports 16,596 sf difference, while the plans callout 14,778 sf. Please update
HydroCAD to match the plan sheet.
42. Delineation map is incorrect. PR1A should not include drainage area DA 3, and DA 3A.
43. Rate increases will need to be assessed after updates are made to the stormwater
management plan.
44. Clearly delineate offsite discharge points in the narrative and on Ex and Proposed drainage
area maps.
45. Existing conditions map appears to show flow east into the MnDOT ROW. Any increases
in discharge rate into the MnDOT ROW may require a MnDOT drainage permit.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at
651-322-2015.
Development Framework for Downtown Rosemount
https://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/2862/DOWNTOWN-DEVELOPMENT-
FRAMEWORK?bidId=
Downtown Market Study
https://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/17/Downtown-Rosemount-marketing-analysis---
2016?bidId=
From:baysetr .
To:city council members
Subject:Proposed Four Story Apt.
Date:Tuesday, February 4, 2020 10:27:58 AM
Dear Rosemount City Council,
Please do not approve the
proposed four story Apt complex.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Thomas Bayse
3789 Crossridge Way
Rosemount MN
From:Brian Schneider
To:city council members
Subject:Objection to Apartment Complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 9:40:37 PM
Greetings,
I've been following the developments with the proposed apartment complex in downtown. I
understand the desire to create more housing space, but this goes against the needs of the
community. This proposed complex would look completely out of place in the downtown
area, take away from what makes Rosemount such a great place to live, create a significant
traffic issue, and ultimately do little to enrich the community. There's better ways to develop
this space, perhaps with the thought of welcoming in young families looking to build their
future as opposed to trying to cater to a niche group. It annoys me that I have to speak out
against this building, but it's created too much of a concern for me that the real reason this vote
is getting pushed through is so a select few can fatten their pockets instead of acting in the best
interest of the community.
Respectfully Yours,
Brian Schneider
From:gmail
To:city council members
Cc:dar.schmidt@gmail.com
Subject:Proposed Downtown apartments
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 8:29:02 PM
Please reconsider the plans for the apartments slated to be built after the mall, Shenanigans and
Medicar are razed. Redevelopment is certainly needed but the proposed plan is a monstrosity. We
need retail space that is affordable for businesses. The current businesses are viable and add value
to downtown Rosemount.
A big reason we moved to Rosemount 15 years ago is that I liked the feel of a small-town downtown
like we grew up with in rural MN and WI. What little downtown “feel” we have left will be gone if
you approve the current plan of four stories with no retail on the street level. Please reconsider.
There have been complaints about the HWY 3 traffic, but a better use of our taxpayer money might
be to consider another traffic light between 145th and Cty 42 to make walkability more feasible.
Thank you.
Darlene Schmidt and Mike Eaton
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From:DeAnn Green
To:city council members
Subject:Apartment Complex Proposal
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 8:28:45 PM
Good Evening Rosemount City Council-
We are 18+ year residents of Rosemount. We care very deeply about this community and have wanted to see
positive growth since our family moved to Rosemount in the fall of 2001. Growth has come very slowly and often
times we wonder who is driving the growth, the people of this community or those who hold a position on the
planning commission or city council.
We have seen some positive growth over the years however would like to see more retail growth. We are in favor
of revitalizing the downtown area and were excited to hear there was movement on the property in and around the
mostly vacant mall/building, Shenanigan’s Pub and building that holds MediCar and Chill Salon. We were looking
forward to seeing what new business growth the city was bringing in. However we were disappointed to see, yet
again, an emphasis on more apartment growth by proposing a large stand alone apartment complex and completely
separate retail space. We would rather see a structure built that houses both retail on the main floor and apartments
above, similar to the Waterford Commons building across the street. We feel this style of building is a better fit for
our small quaint downtown feel verses fitting a large apartment building and separate retail building in that area.
Regardless of the economic benefits to the developer to have a separate apartment complex and retail complex! As
a city, are we redeveloping to better our community as a whole or redeveloping in the best interest of the developer?
It is our hope that the city council rejects the currently proposed structure and works with the developer to alter its
plans to build a structure that houses retail on the main level and apartments on the top and includes eco- friendly
green-space on the property.
We also hope that our city is working closely with the businesses that are currently in those buildings and being
displaced due to the redevelopment of this property. It would be very unfortunate to lose good longstanding
businesses in this community as it seems to be a rarity to gain new ones. We are all for growth in this city but not at
the cost of current business. If we are adding more housing options we must also make it a priority to keep current
businesses and add additional business for the residents who live here and to attract residents from surrounding
cities to visit our city. We are tired of going to other communities to shop, eat, etc. A majority of Rosemount
residents have been providing very similar feedback to you for the 18+ years that we’ve lived here and we’ve seen
little growth in new businesses during that time.
Thank you for considering our opinions of growth in our community.
Brian and DeAnn Green
From:Amy Fischer
To:city council members
Subject:New Apartments
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 6:30:57 PM
A no vote here. This town needs more commerce than more housing.
Thank you for your consideration.
From:Guy Schlak
To:city council members
Subject:Down town
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 6:14:45 PM
I know our downtown needs an update but I don’t think downtown can handle the traffic it will produce
It will take away what little parking there is now and there is a lot of new housing being built in Rosemount and to
the south witch will be using hwy 3 through town
Do you have a plan to handle the future traffic problems this is shure to cause?
Thanks
Guy
Sent from my iPhone
From:trygve.skaar@yahoo.com
To:city council members
Subject:Against new apartments in downtown
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 5:29:53 PM
Greetings, I am very concerned about how the new proposed apartments would negatively
affect the traffic flow. Also it would aesthetically be an eye sore in my opinion. The
downtown and that specific area should be revitalized with businesses. Thank you for
reading.
Sincerely, Trygve Skaar. Rosemount resident.
From:Debbie Jacobson
To:city council members
Subject:City Housing
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 4:48:59 PM
Please consider locating the apartment building somewhere else in Rosemount and not in downtown. Downtown
needs a change but it’s not housing we need there. Please vote no.
Thank you
Debbie Jacobson
Sent from my iPhone
From:PJ Evenson
To:city council members
Subject:4 story apt complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 3:58:15 PM
Hello,
I
Have lived in Rosemount off and on since 1972
I would hate to see the area change
Markedly due to this new complex as well as the traffic nightmare it will bring to downtown.
The traffic that comes from a few blocks away by Rudy’s isn’t good (the backups at 42 & 3)
and the intersections that run a mile north or south of that area have spawned many many
accidents.
Please consider a “NO” for this project.
It’s more important to keep the people we have here and the nice businesses versus the
nightmare this building could cause in this area. Put it elsewhere please.
Penny & Dennis Osterberg
From:Curtis Sievwright
To:city council members
Subject:New Housing Project
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 3:25:33 PM
Please do not build these units on this piece of real estate. I do understand redevelopment,
but this is the wrong choice.
Thank you for your consideration.
Curt Sievwright
From:Kim Hanson Ashland
To:city council members
Subject:Apartments
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 2:58:16 PM
Good Afternoon,
I am well aware there is a group on nextdoor that are adamantly against the apartments.
I am NOT one of those people. I am for tearing down the old, tired building and put in some
much needed housing. These apartments will bring in more people and more $ into the city.
Rosemount NEEDS to continue to move forward which means creating places for people to
live which will then create new businesses.
Thank you for taking my thoughts into consideration.
Kim Hanson Ashland
15556 Cherry Path
Rosemount
From:Tonya Mouw
To:city council members
Subject:New Housing Proposal
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 2:58:11 PM
My name is Tonya Mouw and I am a Rosemount resident
Please re-think voting yes to putting a large housing unit in downtown Rosemount. This will only bring more traffic
and parking headaches. Plus, it will ruin the quaint, small town look that people like about Rosemount.
Have you not seen how busy Hwy 3 is getting to be? It took me ten minutes to turn onto Hwy 3 after stopping at
Aldi the other day. Plus, parking already fills up at the Rosemount transit station every morning.
How about just adding a decent restaurant and some retail space that isn’t a dentist office or a sandwich shop. No
one drives to Rosemount to shop or eat.
Unlike Eagan or Apple Valley, Rosemount is lucky to actually have a Main Street. You should be developing it as a
Main Street and not as a highway with apartments.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Michelle Meeks
To:city council members
Cc:mlwmeeks@charter.net
Subject:4 story apartments on Hwy 3
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 2:33:33 PM
I am writing to encourage you to vote against the current plan to put a 4 story apartment
building in downtown Rosemount as it is currently proposed.
There are several concerns that I do not see being addressed.
1. The plan does not meet current requirements for height, etc, so why are we making an
exception for this project?
- how many more non-conforming projects will be allowed?
- what vision of downtown Rosemount will this rental property be fulfilling?
2. How many parking spaces will be lost for shoppers in the area? And how will that affect
current businesses? Any idea why I don't go to events in Central Park? Because there is
nowhere safe to park....meaning you have to cross HWY 3. And now even less parking across
HWY 3 as well.
3. Our family chooses non-Rosemount shopping and eating 90% of the time. Boutiques are
nice to shop at now and then, but are expensive. I understand bigger retailers need a higher
density population, but shouldn't we first bring in the EMPLOYERS who will create jobs for
our residents? This project is pushing OUT retail/employers.
Eating out in Rosemount is painful. We have fast food, bar food and 1 larger sit down
restaurant that is always crowded on a weekend evening because there is nowhere else to go.
Maybe a couple of nicer restaurants would be in order???? Not Pizza hut, please.
4. The developer said fewer people need to drive to work because they work from
home....have any of you experienced LESS traffic into the city over the last decade??? If you
believe this project will not add to traffic issues, you need to be OFF the council.
5 So much land east of downtown. Why not put a larger development of high density housing
with shops or parking underneath like what is near the outlet mall in Eagan that direction? Add
a bus stop to make it super convenient to get transportation into the cities or Apple
Valley/Burnsville from there. But do it AFTER Rosemount has something to OFFER residents
in the evenings and on weekends.
6. Bring in companies. Give huge incentives to build East of Hwy 3. Bring employment and a
tax base. Bring a reason for Mass transportation investments.
Packing in people who have nowhere to spend their money is not a good plan. Please abide by
the regulations that were meant to keep Rosemount a hometown. Don't be conned by the
wealthy developer who does NOT care one bit about our town.
There is a place/need for condos and rentals at some point, but let's provide for our current
residents first.
Thanks for your consideration
Michelle Meeks
14214 Atwood Circle
Rosemount
651-332-2314
From:mikegmcgraw@gmail.com
To:city council members
Subject:New Apts downtown.
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 2:25:40 PM
I am for the new Apts downtown. BUT have developer be a little creative and have first floor retail with an Enclosed
sidewalk so like a mini-mall inside.
Mike McGraw. Harmony. Village
Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android device
From:Keith Reynolds
To:city council members
Subject:City Council Vote
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 2:10:48 PM
Please vote no on proposed apartment complex. This will ruin downtown Rosemount! Please
vote for business development by voting no for the eyesore.
Keith Reynolds
612-282-8654
From:Paul Larson
To:city council members
Subject:Downtown apartment complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 1:54:18 PM
Dear Council Members and Mayor,
I am IN FAVOR of the 4 story apartment complex downtown. Please vote YES
Thank you,
Resident
Paul Larson
From:Amarachi J.
To:city council members; Comment; Rosemount Mayor
Subject:New Apartment Complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 1:48:17 PM
Hello,
Many neighbors have been talking about plans for a new apartment complex to be
built downtown Rosemount. Please vote no tomorrow. This does not sound like a
good idea. I have heard that the planning commission accepted this plan unanimously
even though the building is larger and taller than what the city allows. This sounds like it is
too large for the space, will not be an appealing look to the area and could cause an
unwanted increase in traffic. I feel like there are better ways to create a more
successful and revitalized downtown.
Thank you,
Amarachi Joseph
From:paige.spring
To:city council members
Subject:Apartment complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 1:38:35 PM
Hello,
Just writing to say I am absolutley against the large apartment complex being built in
downtown Rosemount. It is way too big for that area. Not only will it be an eye sore,
but traffic alone will be horrendous. I'm not against more apartments but there are
better places to locate it in Rosemount than downtown. Please reconsider, or at the
very least, don't allow the appartment complex to be 4 stories. 2 stories maximum
please.
Thank you,
Paige Spring
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From:Nick Johnson
To:city council members
Subject:Expressing Support for the Mall Redevelopment Plan
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 1:38:29 PM
Hello—
My name is Nick Johnson and I am a resident of Rosemount. I live at 15260 Danville Ave W. I would like to
express my support for the redevelopment of the mall in downtown Rosemount. As we continue to grow as a
community, we should look to improving all aspects of it. I am excited to see what is being proposed come to
fruition.
Thank you,
Nick Johnson
From:Rebecca Determan
To:city council members
Subject:Apartment Complex Vote
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 1:37:44 PM
Hello,
I am emailing you about the proposed apartment building along hwy 3 and the upcoming vote
about it.
I understand the need to add affordable housing in Rosemount, but I do not believe that along
highway 3 is the right choice. The amount of traffic along highway 3 has become a big issue
in the last couple of years, and this would absolutely not help this problem. I routinely go to
Snap Fitness, and Aldi during the week, and occasionally visit the other establishments in that
strip area.
Coming out of that parking lot, especially turning left has become a nightmare. The stoplight
at hwy3 and 140th routinely backs up past the entrance of this strip mall, and usually takes 3
minutes to get out during normal traffic hours. During rush hours, it can routinely take 5
minutes to get an opportunity to slam on your gas pedal and try to turn left. There have been a
number of times where I have been close to hitting another vehicle. I am a pretty confident
driver, but if you take for example a young driver, or someone who is very hesitant about
exiting this area this would be an even bigger amount of time. Building a big apartment
complex along a road that has these issues will not help this situation in any way.
Such a small downtown like Rosemount has is not a good place to build housing in. I have
seen small towns have apartment complexes, but they are not along the main road, and the
buildings in this area are very spread out with lots of space in between buildings. Rosemount
is not like these small downtowns. Rosemount has only two main stoplights in its downtown,
and a vast majority of buisnesses enter and exit along the main road. Adding the burden of an
apartment complex's traffic to such a small downtown would only worsen the situation.
When I was younger, I was able to walk across hwy 3 with friends to visit the shops along that
road without fear. I would not even think of attempting that today.
Please, I implore you to find another space for Rosemount to put this apartment complex.
There are so many acres of land that are waiting to be developed upon in Rosemount, that
could bloom into a wonderful new community to live in.
For example, there are many acres of land near DCTC that have just started to be developed
on. Instead of one building built into a cramped part of town, why not build multiple in an area
where there is room to expand and grow. You could put so many more amenities to the new
residents of Rosemount that would come, instead of putting them where it would be a burden
on the community.
Encourage smaller businesses to come into Rosemount's main center and revitalize it, instead
of a big complex. There have been multiple businesses come and go through the years along
that road, but none of them left due to lack of community support. Welcome a diner like
Suzie's kitchen, that would be open past 4pm. Encourage a bookstore to come into the area,
and start up a local book club. Put a crafting shop there, for people to have a fun night in our
downtown and learn as a group to build a bird house, or how to knit, or so many other things.
Instead of more housing to build our downtown, why not more businesses to grow our
downtown.
Thank you
Sincerely,
Rebecca Determan
From:Marilyn Anderson
To:city council members
Subject:Proposed apartments on Hwy 3
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 1:11:20 PM
Hello-
I would like to express my concerns over building an apartment building on highway 3 in the heart of downtown. I
would love to see a new tap room, restaurant, or other retail go in along that stretch of road. More apartments will
add to the already congested Hwy 3. If housing is necessary, condos with first floor retail and restaurants would be a
alternate solution to consider.
Thanks for your consideration
Marilyn
From:Carrie O"Donnell
To:city council members
Subject:Reconsider another Apartment
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 1:10:33 PM
Please reconsider putting another apartment building in the city of Rosemount. We
already have a few and the congestion and parking space is not adequate. Rosemount has a
vast amount of land I don't think it would need to be right in town.
I thought the idea of asking us what we would like to see for the city was going to be taken
into consideration. We said we wanted Rosemount to keep the small town feel and having
multiple apartment buildings line our main street is not conducive to that.
Thank you for your time.
Carrie O'Donnell
2376 Beech St W
Rosemount, MN
From:Marcus Benjamin
To:city council members
Subject:STOP Proposed 4 Story Apartment Complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 1:06:54 PM
I am very much against this project.
This complex is way too large for that space and it will be a forever eyesore and traffic
nightmare. The building is larger and taller then what the city allows, but the City Planning
Commission passed it anyway. The city council does not have to pass this.
Marcus in Rosemount
iPhone: 612.209.4323
Sent from my iPhone Xs Max
HAM Technician Class Licensee
From:Carrie O"Donnell
To:city council members
Subject:Proposed apartment building
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 1:05:39 PM
Please reconsider another apartment building in Rosemount! We have a few already.
From:Brian Marx
To:city council members
Subject:VOTE No on the Apartments!
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 1:00:38 PM
We agree downtown Rosemount requires revitalization. This however will be a dagger to future generations. Say
good bye to Leprachaun days , say good bye to local meeting spots supporting youth , say good bye to any options
for future retail. But you can say hello to the New Apple Valley/ Burnsville. Please consider voting down this
project.
Best,
Brian
Sent from my iPhone
From:Nicole Rotegard
To:city council members
Subject:4 Story Apartment Complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:58:02 PM
Hello,
I'm emailing in regards to the proposed 4 story apartment complex that is being voted on
tomorrow. I am against building this complex. The city council should be looking to bring
more businesses to the area to enrich the city of Rosemount. Another apartment complex in
the center of downtown Rosemount is not plausible due to the obstruction of view and traffic it
will cause. This is a high traffic area as of right now.
What is going to help this city? I believe it's more up to date and local businesses.
The city council should aim to be a little more creative here and not jump to more housing the
second they get.
Please consider not passing this.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Nicole Rotegard
From:Marsha Ellison
To:city council members
Subject:Apartment complex not needed or wanted
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:48:54 PM
Hi,
I would like to send in my opposition to having an apartment complex built. That area has 3
schools that are very close by and we do not need anymore traffic added to that area. As a
parent it is stressful enough now with the amount of traffic we deal with but also concerned
with adding more for our young high school drivers to have to deal with. If business is the
concern then that should be the soul focus not apartments. Rosemount has enough apartments
already. This city is not lacking for people so bringing more places to live will not change the
business side of it. Work with the businesses directly to see how they can improve their
business, spruce up their buildings and add ones that will be helpful. We will all shop here if
we have stores that we need instead of having to go to Apple Valley or Eagan.
Thank you,
Marsha Ellison
From:Curtis Henry
To:city council members
Subject:New development on Hwy 3
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:47:54 PM
To Council Members and Mayor Droste
I am writing to inform you that I’m not in favor of the new proposed development for the
Rosemount Mall and surrounding businesses.
I believe that more high density housing in that area will not benefit what some refer to as
downtown Rosemount. I would like to see Rosemount mirror the downtowns of Lakeville and
Farmington and not Apple Valley. We need more businesses to come into the city. I don’t
believe that this high density dwelling will add to the quality of life in Rosemount.
In addition, I do not believe that this area as the infrastructure to support additional high
density living. Highway 3 has been a very dangerous road to travel in the morning and
evening. Unless you are able to get to 145th and the stoplight, it’s impossible to turn safely
onto Hwy 3. From what I have seen and heard, the traffic issue isn’t addressed. Can you
imagine another 100-200 cars attempting to head north or south during rush hour?
Why not consider more high density housing off 42 near the technical school? Let downtown
be an area for commerce and not residential
From:Mike Noonkesser
To:city council members
Subject:Downtown Apartment complex concerns
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:46:02 PM
All-
I am unable to attend the meetings, but would like to offer my opinion.
The land use proposed for a high density housing structure would diminish the small town appeal of
Rosemount. It could potentially cause more congestion on Hwy 3 and side streets.
It removes small businesses from their longstanding locations and the familiar landscape of small
town Rosemount’ past.
There are changes needed to the landscape downtown but adding that level of housing in that area
will not satisfy the cries for more and different businesses in downtown, if the site were to be more
like “The Commons” on the East side of 3 with first floor businesses and housing above ( limited
numbers for sale) and an anchor building( restaurant, multiple stores) in the lot where Shenanigans
is that would maybe satisfy the residents of Rosemount.
Fears in the community are that the rent will be subsidized at some point and bring the value of
downtown to a lower standard and diminish the feel of being an outlying small community.
Increased traffic in downtown and no benefit from that space to current tenants and businesses.
We need retail and dining options not more people, the building of multi and single family homes is
likely feeding the tax base and no end in sight as the neighborhoods push East of town.
Thanks
Mike Noonkesser
From:Jo ann Benson
To:city council members
Subject:Apartment complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:43:22 PM
We are opposed , please do not take away our small town flavor.
Sanford and Jo Ann Benson
Sent from my iPad
From:Anne Pepple
To:city council members
Subject:proposed apartment bldg
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:35:56 PM
I want to express my concerns over the placement of a proposed apartment building in downtown Rosemount. I do
not think that it should be built in that location but rather on the outskirts of the city, such as by the college. There is
lots of room for improvement there especially if other new housing and commercial are built up as expected.
I am not opposed to the apartment building, merely it’s proposed location.
It would also be nice if more single, affordable level senior options could be built within the City. With the aging
population, especially those with physical handicaps, this type of accommodation is essential. We live in this type
of housing off of Biscayne Avenue and love it. As soon as a unit goes on the market, it is sold within days.
Thank you for listening to my concerns and please take them into consideration when making your decision. Thank
you
Anne & Gerald Pepple
14891 Bittersweet Ct
Rosemount MN
952-200-2561
blue9nine@aol.com
Sent from my iPhone
From:Roxanne Erhardt
To:city council members
Subject:Downtown apartments complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:33:50 PM
I think it’s a very bad idea to put another apartment complex downtown. We have so many
uptown now. The small town vibe it going to go away and all you will have is the business on
highway 42. It’s sad that you would have even thought of this. Put a nice restaurant or
a Brewery. Something to keep downtown.
Thanks Roxanne.
From:Cristy Miller
To:city council members
Subject:New Apartment Complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:32:46 PM
I am fairly new to Rosemount and one of the things that I love about your fine city is the small town feel.
When I heard about the apartment complex that was being proposed I was saddened with the thought of
another "high rise" going in. This isn't downtown Minneapolis!
I feel that something like this would be much better suited somewhere on the outskirts of the city rather
than right downtown. What about putting a more modern strip mall in the place of the old one letting the
tenants come back to new store space rather than displacing them all together? Also by adding new
store space for other businesses.
I vote NO for the new apartment complex.
Thank you!
Cristy Miller
14943 Covington Avenue
Rosemount, MN
From:wekreiden@aol.com
To:city council members
Subject:Proposed Appartment buildings along HWY 3 near 145th St.
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:28:41 PM
Hello City Council,
I would like you vote NO on the resolution to allow the apartment complex to be built on Hwy 3 near 145th
Street. I believe that it will detract from any revitalization effort for our downtown.
As businesses are replaced by high density housing, fewer and fewer people will visit our downtown, it's
only obvious because there will be fewer and fewer commercial spaces there.
I already avoid going to the Culvers and the Aldi Strip Mall because the traffic is so bad. I can't get out
into traffic without waiting many minutes. ( I live north of 145th.) I would urge you to do something about
the traffic first.
Lastly, our town is seeing wonderful growth east of Hwy 3 and north of Cty 42. But, our planners do not
seem to be addressing projects that would provide commercial destinations to our downtown that would
be appealing to our local population. I believe growth that is envisioned in the greenspace alone would
still only attract a very small percentage of our Rosemount population, like a couple times a year when a
city-wide celebration is scheduled.
Thank you for listening and consideration
Wayne Eiden
3539 Upper 143rd Street West
From:lohrrr
To:city council members
Subject:Vote no please on downtown building. Where are the people going to shop and eat. Think about retail not
housing downtown. Rosemount is big enough to put the residential building somewhere else. Thanks. Reggie
Hicks
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:24:48 PM
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From:Melissa Schneider
To:city council members
Subject:Large Apartment Complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:18:32 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am here to voice my concern regarding the extremely large apartment complex that is being
proposed in downtown Rosemount. Although I would agree that the old run down mall is an
eye sore a high apartment complex with no retail I dont feel is the answer. Traffic is already a
nightmare in that area. We moved to Rosemount years ago for the small downtown feel....it
really no longer feels that way with all the fields disappearing along with the quaint
downtown. Please, if nothing else get different bids. And please work to keep the little guys
around. I.e. Shenanigans, chill etc.
Thanks for listening,
Melissa Schneider
651-398-2163
From:Michael Pekarik
To:city council members
Subject:Downtown development
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 12:06:20 PM
I am against any new residential development in downtown. That is not what we want in
OUR city. That will end up turning into a slum after a few years when all you can get in there
are section 8 residents.
Michael Pekarik
From:Megan Wright
To:city council members
Subject:New development on Hwy 3
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 11:32:40 AM
I am very concerned about the added traffic on Hwy 3 that this development will create. The
traffic on 3 is already impossible. Four stories is too many stories. Also, the city needs to
consider adequate public parking. For example, the parking at the Steeple Center is extremely
inadequate and also the parking for the shops at Waterford Commons is inadequate. I am
definitely NOT in favor of this development as it is now configured and I ask the members of
City Council to vote no.
Megan Wright
3496 Upper 143rd St.
Rosemount
From:Joanne Thomas
To:city council members
Subject:Please vote no on 4-story apartment complex
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 10:26:39 AM
I really believe Rosemount can do better than this plan. Understand the old mall needs to go,
but can we regroup to re-evaluate the best plan to support the city, commerce and the people?
Please vote no, this is not what downtown needs.
Thank you,
Joanne Thomas
Rosemount resident since 2008