No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacketAENDA ROSEMOUNT City Council Regular Meeting October 2, 2007 CITY COUNCIL 7;30p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall 1. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance 2. Additions or Corrections to Agenda 3. Public Comment 4. Response to Public Comment 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS/BUSINESS 6. CONSENT AGENDA a. Minutes of the September 4, 2007 City Council Proceedings b. Bills Listing c. Budget Amendments d. Receive Donation — Parks & Recreation Dept. e. Tax Forfeited Property — Shannon Pond South Outlot D f. 1" Reading Right -of -Way Ordinance g. Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Report — 2008 Street Improvements Project, City Project #418 h. 2008-2012 Dakota County C.I.P. L Payment #14 & Final — Bacardi Tower, City Project #355 j. Declare Surplus Property k. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Board 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Assessment Hearing — Old County Road 38/132ntl Court West Street and Utility Improvements, City Project #387 8. OLD BUSINESS a. Accept Bids and Award Sale — G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A b. Accept Bids and Award Sale— G.O. Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness, Series 2007B 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Prestwick Place (Arcon Development) Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS 11. ADJOURNMENT ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: October 2, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Tax -Forfeited Property — Shannon Pond AGENDA SECTION: South Outlot D Consent PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. Vle- ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Site Map, Letter from the APPROVED BY: Dakota County Treasurer -Auditor RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the Resolution Authorizing the akota County Treasurer -Auditor to Auction Tax -Forfeited Parcel # 34-67700-040-00 to the Adjoining Property Owner(s). ISSUE The Dakota County Treasurer -Auditor has informed the City of Rosemount that the Parcel with PID# 34-67700-040-00 within the City of Rosemount has been forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non- payment of property taxes. As provided in Minnesota Statute 282.01, the City has the authority to approve the transfer of tax -forfeited property by one of three means: the auction of this property to the public, the auction of the property to the adjoining owner(s), or the conveyance to the City for public use. BACKGROUND The City has been notified that the State of Minnesota has acquired a parcel on the north side of Upper 156`h Street West and directly south and adjoining 15728 Crystal Path. The parcel information regarding this property is as follows: PID #: 34-67700-040-00 Property Owner: State of Minnesota Location: Directly North of the Upper 1561h Street West; Directly South of 15728 Crystal Path Legal Description: Shannon Pond South Outlot D Area: 1,074 Square Feet Lot Depth: 10 Feet Comp. Guide Plan Desig: Urban Residential Current Zoning: R-1, Low Density Residential The property to the north (15728 Crystal Path) of the tax forfeited parcel was created with the Shannon Pond subdivision in 1993. The tax forfeited parcel (Outlot D) was created with the Shannon Pond South subdivision in 1999. It appears that Outot D was created to serve as a buffer between 15728 Crystal Path and Upper 156`h Street West. The tealtor who had owned Outot D has failed to make tax payments and therefore, the property has been forfeited to the State of Minnesota. Staff discourages the public auction of this property. The property is described as an Outlot, and is considered unbuildable. State Statute allows Rosemount to ask the County Auditor to sell tax forfeited properties to adjoining property owners if the tax forfeited property is non -conforming. Oudot D is zoned R1 - Low Density Residential, which requires 10,000 square feet and 125 feet of depth. Outot D is non -conforming because it is only 1,074 feet in size and 10 feet in depth. Staff does not see a public use for this property, so staff also discourages the conveyance of this property to the City. Its limited size does not provide any recreational uses and the right-of-way surrounding this property is sufficient for all the public infrastructure needs of the neighborhood. City ownership would also prevent any future tax income from this property. Staff believes the best option for this property would be the auction of this property to the adjoining owner(s). SUMMARY Staff recommends approval of the resolution. 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2007 - A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE DAKOTA COUNTY TREASURER -AUDITOR TO AUCTION TAX FORFEITED PARCEL # 34-67700-040-00 TO THE ADJIONING OWNER(S) WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has acquired the parcel with PID # 34-67700-040-00 through tax -forfeiture; and WHEREAS, the Dakota County Treasurer -Auditor has requested the City to determine the means of transfer in a letter dated August 21, 2007; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 282.01 Subdivision 7a. states that the City may request that the County Auditor restrict the sale of tax -forfeit property to adjoining property owners if the parcel is noncompliant with local ordinance due to area or shape; and WHEREAS, the parcel is zoned Rl - Low Density Residential which requires lot area of 10,000 square feet and a minimum lot depth of 125 feet; and WHEREAS, the parcel in nonconforming because its size is only 1,074 square feet and its depth is only 10 feet; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that best use of the property would be by the adjacent property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby authorizes the Dakota County Treasurer -Auditor to auction tax forfeited parcel # 34-67700-040-00 to the adjoining owner(s) only: ADOPTED this 2"d day of October, 2007 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: 5l%E MAP Parcel34-67700-040-00 r cR r. r. d z r t- ..34vif�'V A 6 Parcel ID 346770004000 Year Built 0 Owner Name State Of Mn - F Ta X Dwelling Type Joint Owner Home Style OwnerAddress 1590 Hwy 55 Square Footage 0 OwnerAddress 2 Land Value $1,100 City/State/Zip Hastings Mn 55033-2343 Building Value $0 Common Name Total Value $1,100 Property House Number Tax Capacity $13 Property Street Name Special Assessments $0 Property Street Type Total Tax $15 Property City ROSEMOUNT Date of Sale Use Residential Sale Value $0 Homestead N Acres 0.02 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not Map Scale guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search, 1 inch = 100 feet appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. I August 21, 2007 City of Rosemount Treasurer -Auditor Rosemount City Hall 2875 145`h Street West Dakota County Rosemount, MN 55068 Administration Center 1590 Highway 55 Hasdngs, MN 55033 City Council: 651,438.4576 Fax 651.438.4399 Treas-Aud Fax 651.438.8329 Cash Mgmt Fax 651.438.4391 Elecvons Enclosed is a classification listing on non -conservation land located in your city. The parcels described in the listing forfeited to the State of Minnesota for non - payment of property taxes. www.dakotacounty.us As required under M.S. 282.01, we request that you approve the parcel for public auction or auction to adjacent owners or request a conveyance to your city for public use. We require a certified copy of the City Council Resolution authorizing any action taken. If you request that a parcel be conveyed to your city, you must also complete a Form 962, Application by a Governmental Subdivision for Conveyance of Tax -Forfeited Land and mail the form to this office. Special assessments that were levied before the forfeiture do not need to be certified to this office. They were canceled at forfeiture and will be paid from the sale price. Special assessments that are levied after the forfeiture should be certified to this office. They will be added to the appraised value and paid from the sale price. Please be advised that if the City Council fails to respond within sixty (60) days of the date of this letter, the classification and sale will be deemed to be approved. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at Dakota County, 651- 438-4362. Sincerely, ✓Mary Kennedy Treasurer/Auditor Manager Dakota County 1590 Hwy 55 Hastings, MN 55033 i� Pnmetl on rc aled paper 2p 3O%PosYmne— wane. Nu EQV OP AO NTY E:t OVER 4ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting: October2, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 1st Reading Right -of -Way Ordinance AGENDA SECTION: Consent PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, PE, City Engineer W AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance; Resolution APPROVED BY: iV RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to have as First Reading and Set October, , 2007 for Second Reading and Adoption. BACKGROUND: As part of City Code, Title 4, Chapter 2 addresses the installation of underground utilities by private utility companies, this section of the City Code defines the process and requirements for the permitted installation of private underground utilities within public right-of-way and easements. In an effort to further clarify the expectations and requirements for the pertitted installation of private utilities within public right-of-way and easements, the attached draft ordinance has been prepared by City staff and the City Attorney. Comments received by Council have been incorporated into the final draft ordinance. The draft ordinance includes a number of new requirements as follows: • Registration of utility company with the City. • Insurance requirements for private utility companies. • Annual reporting of planned infrastructure improvements. • Permit requirements and payment of permit fees. • Right-of-way patching and restoration standards. • Installation requirements. • Digital mapping and "as -built" drawings. In addition to the draft ordinance, new right-of-way permit fees and charges are proposed to be implemented. These proposed fees have been developed consistent with several metro area communities and are intended to cover the City cost associated with the administration and oversight necessary to permit and observe the installation of private underground utilities. Should these fees be implemented as part of the City's fee resolution, the fees will be reviewed on an annual basis with the City's fee study update. A letter was sent to private utility companies along with a copy of the draft ordinance. Staff has given them until October 9, 2007 to send their comments back in writing. SUMMARY: Staff is recommending a motion having this as the first reading with the second reading and adoption anticipated at the October 16, 2007 regular meeting. G:\Utilities\ROW OrdinanceCC10-2-07.doc CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO MANAGING AND ADMINISTRATING USE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE AND REGULATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITS; REPLACING CITY CODE SECTION 4-2-1 THROUGH 4-2-5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS that the City Code of Ordinances is amended by replacing Chapter 2 to Title 4: SECTION 1: Title 4 of the Rosemount City Code is amended by replacing Chapter 2 to read as follows: CHAPTER 2 SECTION: 4-2-1: Findings, Purpose, and Intent 4-2-2: Election to Manage the Public Rights -of -Way 4-2-3: Definitions 4-2-4: Administration 4-2-5: Registration and Right -of -Way Occupancy 4-2-6. Registration Information 4-2-7: Reporting Obligations 4-2-8: Permit Requirement 4-2-9: Permit Applications 4-2-10: Issuance of Permit; Conditions 4-2-11: Permit Fees 4-2-12: Right -of -Way Patching and Restoration 1 4-2-13: Joint Applications 4-2-14: Supplementary Applications 4-2-15: Other Obligations 4-2-16: Denial of Permit 4-2-17: Installation Requirements 4-2-18:Inspection 4-2-19: Work Done Without a Permit 4-2-20: Supplementary Notification 4-2-21: Revocation of Permits 4-2-22: Mapping Data 4-2-23: Location and Relocation of Facilities 4-2-24: Pre -excavation Facilities Location GAUntties\2007 ROW Oidmance.doc 4-2-25: Damage to Other Facilities 4-2-26: Right -of -Way Vacation 4-2-27: Indemnification and Liability 4-2-28: Abandoned and Unused Facilities 4-2-29: Appeal 4-2-30: Severability 4-2-31: Waiver Right -of -Way Management 4-2-1: Findings, Purpose, and Intent To provide for the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and to ensure the integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights -of -way, the city strives to keep its rights -of -way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Accordingly, the city hereby enacts this new chapter of this code relating to right-of-way permits and administration. This chapter imposes reasonable regulation on the placement and maintenance of facilities and equipment currently within its rights -of -way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this chapter, persons excavating and obstructing the rights -of -way will bear financial responsibility for their work. Finally, this chapter provides for recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using the public rights -of -way. This chapter shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Session Laws, Chapter 123, substantially codified in Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the "Act") and the other laws governing applicable rights of the city and users of the right-of-way. This chapter shall also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050 — 7819.9950 where possible. To the extent any provision of this chapter cannot be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. This chapter shall not be interpreted to limit the regulatory and police powers of the city to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. 4-2-2: Election to Manage the Public Rights -of -Way Pursuant to the authority granted to the city under state and federal statutory, administrative and common law, the city hereby elects, pursuant Minn. Star. 237.163 Subd. 2(b), to manage rights -of - way within its jurisdiction. 4-2-3: Definitions The following definitions apply in this chapter of this code. References hereafter to "sections" are, unless otherwise specified, references to sections in this chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms, whether or not capitalized. "Abandoned Facility" means a facility no longer in service or physically disconnected from a portion of the operating facility, or from any other facility, that is in use or still carries service. A facility is not abandoned unless declared so by the right-of-way user. 2 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordina mdoc "Applicant" means any person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way. "City" means the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. For purposes of section4-6-27, "city" means its elected officials, officers, employees and agents. "Commission" means the State Public Utilities Commission. "Congested Right -of -Way" means a crowded condition in the subsurface of the public right- of-way that occurs when the maximum lateral spacing between existing underground facilities does not allow for construction of new underground facilities without using hand digging to expose the existing lateral facilities in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, section 216D.O4. Subdivision 3, over a continuous length in excess of 500 feet. "Construction Performance Bond" means any of the following forms of security provided at permittee's option: A. Individual project bond; B. Cash deposit; C. Security of a form listed or approved under Minn. Star. Sec. 15.73, subd. 3; D. Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the city; E. Self -bond, in a form acceptable to the city; F. A blanket bond for projects within the city, or other form of construction bond for a timesl2ecified and in a form acceptable to the City. G. A permittee may submit a single bond covering all projects done by that company. "Degradation" means a decrease in the useful life of the right-of-way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the right-of-way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such right-of-way earlier than would be required if the excavation or disturbance did not occur. "Degradation Cost" subject to Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 means the cost to achieve a level of restoration, as determined by the city at the time the permit is issued, not to exceed the maximum restoration shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in Minnesota Rules parts 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. "Degradation Fee" means the estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the city to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the right-of-way caused by the excavation, and which equals the degradation cost. "Department" means the department of public works of the city. "Department Inspector" means any person authorized by the city to carry out inspections related to the provisions of this chapter. "Delay Penalty" is the penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right-of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration as established by permit. G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc "Emergency" means a condition that (1) poses a danger to life or health or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement of facilities in order to restore service to a customer. "Equipment" means any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain facilities in any right of -way. "Excavate" means to dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of aright -of -way. "Excavation permit" means the permit that, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may excavate in a right-of-way. An Excavation permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit. "Excavation permit fee" means money paid to the city by an applicant to cover the costs as provided in Section 4-6-11. "Facility" or "Facilities" means any tangible asset in the right-of-way required to provide Utility Service. "Five-year project plan" shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next five years. "High Density Corridor" means a designated portion of the public right-of-way within which telecommunications right-of-way users having multiple and competing facilities may be required to build and install facilities in a common conduit system or other common structure. "Hole" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length less than the width of the pavement. "Local Representative" means a local person or persons, or designee of such person or persons, authorized by a registrant to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this chapter. "Management Costs" means the actual costs the city incurs in managing its rights -of -way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right-of-way permit applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving user facilities during right-of-way work; determining the adequacy of right-of-way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and revoking right- of-way permits. Management costs do not include payment by a telecommunications right-of- way user for the use of the right-of-way, the fees and cost of litigation relating to the interpretation of Minnesota Session Laws 1997, Chapter 123; Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162 or 237.163; or any ordinance enacted under those sections, or the city fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to Section 4-6-29 of this chapter. G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinance.do "Obstruct" means to place any tangible object in a right-of-way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the right-of-way. "Obstruction Permit" means the permit that, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may obstruct a right-of-way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that right-of-way, for the duration specified therein. "Obstruction Permit Fee" means money paid to the city by a permittee to cover the costs as provided in Section 4-2-11. "Patch" or "Patching" means a method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A patch consists of (1) the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A patch is considered full restoration only when the pavement is included in the city's five-year project plan. "Pavement" means any type of improved surface that is within the public right-of-way and that is paved or otherwise constructed with bituminous, concrete, aggregate, or gravel. "Permit" has the meaning given "right-of-way permit" in Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162. "Permittee" means any person to whom a permit to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way has been granted by the city under this chapter. "Person" means an individual or entity subject to the laws and rules of this state, however organized, whether public or private, whether domestic or foreign, whether for profit or nonprofit, and whether natural, corporate, or political. "Probation" means the status of a person who has not complied with the conditions of this chapter. "Probationary Period" means one year from the date that a person has been notified in writing that they have been put on probation. "Registrant" means any person who (1) has or seeks to have its equipment or facilities located in any right-of-way, or (2) in any way occupy or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of- way or place its facilities or equipment in the right-of-way. "Restore" or "Restoration" means the process by which an excavated right-of-way and surrounding area, including pavement and foundation, is returned to the same condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. "Restoration Cost" means the amount of money paid to the city by a pernrittee to achieve the level of restoration according to plates 1 to 13 of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission rules. G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ord=ce.do "Public Right -of -Way" means the area on, below, or above a public roadway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane or public sidewalk in which the city has an interest, including other dedicated rights -of -way for travel purposes and utility easements of the city. A right-of-way does not include the airwaves above a right-of-way with regard to cellular or other non -wire telecommunications or broadcast service. "Right -of -Way Pexnrit" means either the excavation permit or the obstruction permit, or both, depending on the context, required by this chapter. "Right -of -Way User" means (1) a telecommunications right-of-way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 237.162, Subd. 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right-of-way. "Service" or "Utility Service" includes (1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Star. 216B.02, Subds. 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right-of-way user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications systems as defined in Minn. Star. Chapter. 238; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by the city; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Star., Chapter 3O8A; and (6) water, and sewer, including service laterals, steam, cooling or heating services. "Service Lateral" means an underground facility that is used to transmit, distribute, or furnish gas, electricity, communications, or water from a common source to an end -use customer. A service lateral is also an underground facility that is used in the removal of wastewater from a customer's premises. "Supplementary Application" means an application made to excavate or obstruct more of the right-of-way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued. "Temporary Surface" means the compaction of subbase and aggregate base and replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement only to the edges of the excavation. It is temporary in nature except when the replacement is of pavement included in the city's two-year plan, in which case it is considered full restoration. "Trench" means an excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length equal to or greater than the width of the pavement. "Telecommunication right-of-way user" means a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way, or seeking to own or control a Facility in the right-of-way, that is used or is intended to be used for transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this chapter, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minn. Stat. Chap. 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services whether provided by a public utility as defined in Minn. Stat. Sec. 216B.02, a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minn. Star. Chaps. 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minn. Stat. Chap. 3O8A, G:\Udhties\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc are not telecommunications right-of-way users for purposes of this chapter. "Two Year project Plan" shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next two years. 4-2-4: Administration The City Engineer is the principal city official responsible for the administration of the rights -of -way, right-of-way permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The City Engineer may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. 4-2-5: Registration and Right -of -Way Occupancy Subd. 1. Registration. Each person who occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of- way or place any equipment or facilities in or on the right-of-way, including persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the city. Registration will consist of providing application information and paying a registration fee. Subd. 2. Registration Prior to Work. No person may construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any facilities or any part thereof, in any right-of-way without first being registered with the city. Subd. 3. Exceptions. Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a city ordinance permitting persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in the area of the right-of-way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the right-of-way, and shall not be required to obtain any permits or satisfy any other requirements for planting or maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens under this chapter. However, nothing herein relieves a person from complying with the provisions of the Minn. Star. Chap. 216D, Gopher One Call Law or other provisions of City Code. 4-2-6: Registration Information Subd. 1. Information Required The information provided to the city at the time of registration shall include, but not be limited to: (a) Each registrant's name, Gopher One -Call registration certificate number, address and e-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers. (b) The name, address and e-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a local representative. The local representative or designee shall be available at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the local representative in an emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. (c) A certificate of insurance or self-insurance: (1) Verifying that an insurance policy has been issued to the registrant by an insurance 7 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordina ce.do company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, or a form of self-insurance acceptable to the city; (2) Verifying that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the right-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and pemvttees, and (i) placement and use of facilities and equipment in the right-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and perrnittees, including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground facilities and collapse of property; (3) Naming the city as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverages; (4) Requiring that the city be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; and (5) Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers compensation and umbrella coverage established by the city in amounts sufficient to protect the city and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this chapter. (d) The city may require a copy of the actual insurance policies. (e) If the person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate is required to be filed under Minn. Stat. 300.06 as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State. (f) A copy of the person's order granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other applicable state or federal agency, where the person is lawfully required to have such certificate from said commission or other state or federal agency. Subd. 2. Notice of Changes. The registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current at all times by providing to the city information as to changes within fifteen (15) days following the date on which the registrant has knowledge of any change. 4-2-7: Reporting Obligations Subd. 1. Operations. Each registrant shall, at the time of registration and by March 1 of each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground facilities with the city. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the city and shall contain the information determined by the city to be necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of excavations and obstructions of rights -of -way. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: (a) The locations and the estimated beginning and ending dates of all projects to be 8 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Oxdin ce.doc commenced during the next calendar year (in this section, a "next -year project'; and (b) To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated beginning and ending dates for all projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year (in this section, a "five-year project"). The term "project" in this section shall include both next -year projects and five-year projects By March 1 of each year, the city will have available for inspection in the city's office a composite list of all projects of which the city has been informed of the annual plans. All registrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the current status of this list. Thereafter, by March 1, each registrant may change any project in its list of next -year projects, and must notify the city and all other registrants of all such changes in said list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a registrant may at any time join in a next -year project of another registrant listed by the other registrant. Subd. 2. Additional Next -Year Projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city will not deny an application for a right-of-way permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the city if the registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. 4-2-8: Permit Requirement Subd. 1. Permit Required Except as otherwise provided in this code, no person may obstruct or excavate any right-of-way without first having obtained the appropriate right-of-way permit from the city to do so. (a) Excavation Permit. An excavation permit is required by a registrant to excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the right-of-way by placing facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. (b) Obstruction Permit. An obstruction permit is required by a registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of right-of-way by placing equipment described therein on the right- of-way, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An obstruction permit is not required if a person already possesses a valid excavation permit for the same project. Subd. 2. Permit Extensions. No person may excavate or obstruct the right-of-way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless (i) such person makes a supplementary application for another right-of- way permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. Subd. 3. Delay Penalty In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819,1000 subd. 3 and notwithstanding subd. 2 of this Section, the city shall establish and impose a delay penalty for unreasonable delays in right- of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration. The delay penalty shall be established from time to time by city council resolution. Subd. 4. Permit Display. Permits issued under this chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or 9 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the city. 4-2-9: Permit Applications Application for a permit is made to the city. The City requires a digital image file (pdf, jpg.etc.) and three hard copies of the plan for the permit. Right-of-way permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with, the requirements of the following provisions: (a) Registration with the city pursuant to this chapter; (b) Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and proposed facilities. (c) Payment of money due the city for: (1) permit fees, estimated restoration costs and other management costs; (2) prior obstructions or excavations; (3) any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the city because of applicant's prior excavations or obstructions of the rights -of -way or any emergency actions taken by the city; (4) franchise fees or other charges, if applicable. (d) Payment of disputed amounts due the city by posting security or depositing in an escrow account an amount equal to at least 110% of the amount owing. (e) Posting an additional or larger construction performance bond for additional facilities when applicant requests an excavation permit to install additional facilities and the city deems the existing construction performance bond inadequate under applicable standards. 4-2-10: Issuance of Permit; Conditions Subd. 1. Permit Issuance. If the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this chapter, the city shall issue a permit. Subd. 2. Conditions. The city may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and the performance of the applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety and welfare or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use. 4-2-11: Permit Fees Subd. 1. Excavation Permit Pee. The city shall establish an Excavation permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: (a) the city management costs; 10 G:\Udlides\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc (b) degradation costs, if applicable. Subd. 2. Obstruction Permit Fee. The city shall establish the obstruction permit fee and shall be in an amount sufficient to recover the city management costs. Subd. 3. Payment of Permit Fees. No excavation permit or obstruction permit shall be issued without payment of excavation or obstruction permit fees. The city may allow applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. Subd. 4. Non Refundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the city has revoked for a breach as stated in Section 4-6-21 are not refundable. Subd. 5. Application to Franchises. Unless otherwise agreed to in a franchise, management costs may be charged separately from and in addition to the franchise fees imposed on a right-of-way user in the franchise. Subd. 6. Fee Resolution. Fees will be set from time to time by resolution by City Council 4-2-12: Right -of -Way Patching and Restoration Subd. 1. Timing. The work to be done under the excavation permit, and the patching and restoration of the right-of-way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 4-6-15. Subd. 2. Patch and Restoration. Pennittee shall patch its own work. The city may choose either to have the permittee restore the right-of-way or to restore the right-of-way itself. (a) City Restoration. If the city restores the right-of-way, permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, following such restoration, the pavement settles due to permittee's improper backfilling, the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with correcting the defective work. (b) Permittee Restoration. If the permittee restores the right-of-way itself, it shall at the time of application for an excavation permit post a construction performance bond in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.3000. (c) Degradation Fee in Lieu ofRestoration. In lieu of right-of-way restoration, a right-of-way user may elect to pay a degradation fee. However, the right-of-way user shall remain responsible for patching and the degradation fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. Subd. 3. Standards. The permittee shall perform excavation, backfilhng; patching and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the city and shall comply with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100. Subd. 4. Duty to Correct Defects. The permittee shall correct defects in patching or restoration 11 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinmce.doc performed by permittee or its agents. The permittee upon notification from the city, shall correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the city. Said work shall be completed within five (5) working days of the receipt of the notice from the city, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonable or unreasonable under Section 4-6-15. Subd. 5. Failure to Restore. If the permttee fails to restore the right-of-way in the manner and to the condition required by the city, or falls to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the city, the city at its option may do such work. In that event the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the right-of-way. If permittee fails to pay as required, the city may exercise its rights under the construction performance bond. 4-2-13: Joint Applications Subd. 1. joint application. Registrants may jointly apply for permits to excavate or obstruct the right-of- way at the same place and time. Subd. 2. Shared fees. Registrants who apply for pernuts for the same obstruction or excavation, which the city does not perform, may share in the payment of the obstruction or excavation permit fee. In order to obtain a joint permit, registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and indicate the same on their applications. Subd. 3. With cityprojects. Registrants who join in a scheduled obstruction or excavation performed by the city, whether it is a joint application by two or more registrants or a single application, are not required to pay the excavation or obstruction and degradation portions of the permit fee, but a permit is still required. 4-2-14: Supplementary Applications Subd. 1. Limitation on Area. A right-of-way permit is valid only for the area of the right-of-way specified in the permit. No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any permittee that determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be obstructed or excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, and (ii) be granted a new pemut or permit extension. Subd. 2. Limitation on Dates. A right-of-way permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit No permittee may begin its work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This supplementary application must be submitted before the permit end date. 4-2-15: Other Obligations Subd. 1. Compliance With Other Laws. Obtaining a right-of-way permit does not relieve permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the city 12 G:\U6li6es\2007 ROW Oidin ce.doc or other applicable rule, law or regulation. A permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state and federal laws, including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Section 216D.01-.09 (Gopher One Call Excavation Notice System) and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560. A permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the right-of-way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. Subd. 2. Prohibited Work.. Except in an emergency, and with the approval of the city, no right-of-way obstruction or excavation may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. Subd. 3. Interference with Right -of -Way. A permittee shall not so obstruct a right-of-way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the right-of-way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with city parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. Subd. 4. Trenchless Excavation. As a condition of all applicable permits, permittees employing trenchless excavation methods, including but not limited to Horizontal Directional Drilling, shall follow all requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 216D and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560, and shall require potholing or open cutting over existing underground utilities before excavating, as determined by the director. 4-2-16: Denial of Permit The city may deny a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this chapter or if the city determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use. 4-2-17: Installation Requirements The excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration, and all other work performed in the right-of-way shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 and 7819.5000 and other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.162 and 237.163. Installation of service laterals shall be performed in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560 and City Code. Service lateral installation is further subject to those requirements and conditions set forth by the city in the applicable permits and/or agreements referenced in Section 4-6-22 subd. 2. Utility companies must install dual mains in all new projects. All traffic control will comply with the latest Mn/DOT Field Traffic Control Manual. 4-2-18: Inspection Subd. 1. Notice of Completion. When the work under any permit hereunder is completed, the permittee shall furnish a completion certificate in accordance Minnesota Rule 7819.1300. Subd. 2. Site Inspection. Permittee shall make the work -site available to the city and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of 13 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinmce.doc the work. Subd 3. Authority ofDirector. (a) At the time of inspection, the director may order the immediate cessation of any work that poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety or well-being of the public. (b) The director may issue an order to the permittee for any work that does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the pemvttee shall present proof to the director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the director may revoke the permit pursuant to Sec. 4-6-21. 4-2-19: Work Done Without a Permit Subd. 1. Emergency Situations. Each registrant shall immediately notify the director of any event regarding its facilities that it considers to be an emergency. The registrant must take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the emergency. Excavators' notification to Gopher State One Callregarding an emergency situation does not fulfill this requirement, Within two (2) business days after the occurrence of the emergency, the registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith, and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this chapter for the actions it took in response to the emergency. The permittee requirements shall not apply if the repair is caused by another permittee's work in the right-of-way. If the city becomes aware of an emergency regarding a registrant's facilities, the city will attempt to contact the local representative of each registrant affected, or potentially affected, by the emergency. In any event, the city may take whatever action it deems necessary to respond to the emergency, the cost of which shall be bome by the registrant whose facilities occasioned the emergency. Subd. 2. Non -Emergency Situations. Except in an emergency, any person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, obstructs or excavates a right-of-way must subsequently obtain a permit and, as a penalty, tiav double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required by the city code, deposit with the city the fees necessary to correct any damage to the right-of-way, and comply with all of the requirements of this chapter. 4-2-20: Supplementary Notification If the obstruction or excavation of the right-of-way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, permittee shall notify the city of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. 4-2-21: Revocation of Permits Subd. 1. Substantial Breach. The city reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any right-of-way permit without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by petmittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: 14 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordina e.doc (a) The violation of any material provision of the right-of-way permit; (b) An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right-of-way permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the city or its citizens; (c) Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a right-of-way permit; (d) The failure to complete the work in a timely manner, unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the permittee's control; or (e) The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to Sec. 4-6-18. Subd. 2. Written Notice of Breach. If the city determines that the permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or any condition of the permit, the city shall make a written demand upon the permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the city, at its discretion, to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and remedy the breach. Subd. 3. Response to Notice of Breach. Within 5 working days of receiving notification of the breach, permittee shall provide the city with a plan, acceptable to the city, that will cure the breach. Pemrittee's failure to so contact the city, or permittee's failure to timely submit an acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. Further, permittee's failure to so contact the city, or permittee's failure to submit an acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall automatically place the pernittee on probation for one (1) full year. Subd. 4. Reimbursement of city costs. If a permit is revoked, the permittee shall also reimburse the city for the city's reasonable costs, including restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable Attorneys' fees and other consultant fees incurred in connection with such revocation. 4-2-22: Mapping Data Subd. 1. Information Required. Each registrant and permittee shall provide mapping information required by the city in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. Within ninety (90) days following completion of any work pursuant to a permit, the permittee shall provide the director accurate maps and drawings certifying the "as -built" location of all equipment installed, owned and maintained by the permittee in both digital and hard copy. As -built drawings shall be submitted in the following three forms: (1) Digital: CAD or GIS (dwg or shp) (2) Digital: Image File (pdf, jpg, etc.) (3) Hard copy Such maps and drawings shall include the horizontal and vertical location of all facilities and equipment and shall be provided consistent with the city's electronic mapping system, when practical or as a condition 15 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinace.doc imposed by the director, Failure to provide maps and drawings pursuant to this subdivision shall be grounds for revoking the permit holder's registration. Subd. 2. Service Laterals. All permits issued for the installation or repair of service laterals, other than minor repairs as defined in Minnesota Rules 7560.0150 subpart 2, shall require the permittee's use of appropriate means of establishing the horizontal locations of installed service laterals, and the service lateral vertical locations in those cases where the director reasonably requires it. Permittees or their subcontractors shall submit to the director evidence satisfactory to the director of the installed service lateral locations. Compliance with this subdivision 2 and with applicable Gopher State One Call law and Minnesota Rules governing service laterals installed after December 31, 2005, shall be a condition of any city approval necessary for 1) payments to contractors working on a public improvement project including those under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and 2) city approval of performance under development agreements, or other subdivision or site plan approval under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. The director shall reasonably determine the appropriate method of providing such information to the city. Failure to provide prompt and accurate information on the service laterals installed may result in the revocation of the permit issued for the work or for future permits to the offending permittee or its subcontractors. Subd.3. As-Builts As-builts will be required in hard copy and electronically if the project permitted deviates two (2� feet or more from the original plans submitted to the City. Failure to submit an as -built will be a certification by the perrnittee that the project as constructed does not deviate two (2') feet or more from the original plan submitted. 4-2-23: Location and Relocation of Facilities Subd. 1. Placement, location, and relocation of facilities must comply with the Act, with other applicable law, and with Minnesota Rules 7819.3100, 7819.5000 and 7819.5100, to the extent the rules do not limit authority otherwise available to cities. Subd. 2. Corridors. The city may assign a specific area within the right-of-way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of facilities that is or, pursuant to current technology, the city expects will someday be located within the right-of-way. All excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by the city involving the installation or replacement of facilities shall designate the proper corridor for the facilities at issue. Any registrant who has facilities in the right-of-way in a position at variance with the corridors established by the city shall, no later than at the time of the next reconstruction or excavation of the area where the facilities are located, move the facilities to the assigned position within the right-of-way, unless this requirement is waived in writing by the city for good cause shown, upon consideration of such factors as the remaining economic life of the facilities, public safety, customer service needs and hardship to the registrant. Subd. 3. Nuisance. One year after the passage of this chapter, any facilities found in a right-of-way that have not been registered shall be deemed to be a nuisance. The city may exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, abating the nuisance or taking possession of the 16 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinence.doc facilities and restoring the right-of-way to a useable condition Subd. 4. Limitation of Space. To protect health, safety, and welfare, or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use, the city shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional facilities within the right-of-way. In making such decisions, the city shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the right-of-way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public's needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the right-of-way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing facilities in the right-of-way, and future city plans for public improvements and development projects that have been determined to be in the public interest. 4-2-24: Pre -excavation Facilities Location In addition to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. 216D.01-.09 ("One Call Excavation Notice System") before the start date of any right-of-way excavation, each registrant who has facilities or equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and vertical placement of all said facilities. Any registrant whose facilities are less than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its facilities and the best procedure for excavation. 4-2-25: Damage to Other Facilities The provisions of Minn. Star. 216D shall apply to all situations involving damages to facilities during excavation operations. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing or the value of damage to any facilities in the right-of-way that it or its facilities damages. This provision includes costs for damages to boulevard amenities, such as trees, landscaping, irrigation systems and invisible fences, placed by property owners. It is the registrant's responsibility to provide immediate notice of such damages to the affected property owners. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the facilities of another registrant caused during the City's response to an emergency occasioned by that registrant's facilities. 4-2-26: Right -of -Way Vacation Reservation ofright. If the city vacates a right-of-way that contains the facilities of a registrant, the registrant's rights in the vacated right-of-way are governed by Minnesota Rules 7819.3200. 4-2-27: Indemnification and Liability By registering with the city, or by accepting a permit under this chapter, a registrant or permittee agrees to defend and indemnify the city in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250. 4-2-28: Abandoned and Unusable Facilities Subd.l. Discontinued Operations. A registrant who has determined to discontinue all or a portion of its operations in the city must provide information satisfactory to the city that the registrant's obligations for its facilities in the right-of-way under this chapter have been lawfully assumed by another registrant. 17 G:\Utilities\2007 ROW Ordinance.doc Subd. 2. Removal. Any registrant who has abandoned facilities in any right-of-way shall remove it from that right-of-way if required in conjunction with other right-of-way repair, excavation, or construction, unless this requirement is waived by the city. 4-2-29: Appeal A right-of-way user that: (1) has been denied registration; (2) has been denied a permit; (3) has had a permit revoked; (4) believes that the fees imposed are not in conformity with Minn. Star. § 237.163, Subd. 6; or (5) disputes a determination of the director regarding Section 4-6-22 subd. 2 of this ordinance may have the denial, revocation, fee imposition, or decision reviewed, upon written request, by the city council. The city council shall act on a timely written request within 45 days of receipt, provided the right-of-way user has submitted its appeal with sufficient time to include the appeal as a regular agenda item. A decision by the city council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. 4-2-30: Severability If any portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof Nothing in this chapter precludes the city from requiring a franchise agreement with the applicant, as allowed by law, in addition to requirements set forth herein. 4-2-31: Waiver The City may waive any or all requirements of Section 4-2-5, 4-2-6, 4-2-7, 4-2-8, 4-2-9, 4-2-10, 4-2-11 and 4-2-22 if compliance is not deemed reasonably necessary in the direction of the City Administrator or the Administrator's designee, to serve the purposes of this Chapter. The decision of the Administrator not to waive any such requirements is not subject to appeal to the City Council. Waiver of the provisions of Sections 4-2-5, 4-2-6, 4-2-7 and 4-2-22 may be rescinded by the City Administrator at anytime upon written notice to the person subject to the requirement. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective the 1st day of December, 2007. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, the 16ffi day of October, 2007. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Published this day of 2007 in the Rosemount Town Pages. 18 G:\U6hties\2007 ROW Ordinmce.doc ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting: October 2, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Assessment Hearing — Old County Road AGENDA SECTION: 38/132nd Court West Street and Utility Improvements, CityProject #387 Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, PE, City Engineer AGENDA NO. 1• �1• ATTACHMENTS: Updated Project Cost and Funding APPROVED BY: Summary; Resolution; Ma RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Asses ent Roll for the Old County Road 38/132nd Court West Street and Utility Improvements, ity Project #387. BACKGROUND: At the September 4, 2007 meeting the City Council declared costs and called for the Public Hearing to consider the assessments for the Old County Road 38/132nd Court West Street and Utility Improvements, City Project #387. The total project cost is $10,771,983.53. Attached is an updated project cost and funding summary of the total amount. $2,185,290 is proposed to be assessed to adjacent properties as shown on the attached assessment roll. The project will be assessed over a 10-year period at an interest rate of 5.9659%. If required, Staff will provide a brief overview of the project and answer any questions that you or the public may have regarding this item. SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the assessment roll as presented. G:\ENGPROJ\387\AdoptAssessmentCC10-2-07.cloc O O U m Q ti H 07 Q rn tl d O "+ U Y Q U �^cl� r M N {T O V O 01 }' 4? FA V3 69 V3 fA Vi h U C oe u a V ��3 GKaacGS � rn�n3m o � .O UN C 9 /� 0 0 q � i N q U O O V O h OO M ^ of O OO Q+ 7 O Ci O N W h C� O vs 3 a, r N �O .-.• V5 .-. V1 69 " H3 b9 6n 69 6GO)69 N 69 l� Ge a 0 ;J a c C y 0 0 3 F z ¢ K O w 7 L L N o o M CIO ro R Uuo Z o v U Z E o o cc cn3¢ 0C1 O -� A � M CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR OLD COUNTY ROAD 38/132"d COURT WEST STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT #387 WHEREAS, pursuant to notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met, heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for Old County Road 38/132nd Court West Street and Utility Improvements, City Project #387and has amended such proposed assessment as it deems just. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota, as follows: (1) Such proposed assessment, in the amount of $2,185,290, a copy of which is in Clerk's File dated 10-02- 07 is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement. (2) Such assessments shall be as follows: a. The assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first of said installments to be payable with general taxes for the year 2007, collectible with such taxes during the year 2008. b. To the first installment shall be added interest at the rate of 5.9659% per annum on the entire principal amount of the assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31 of the year in which such installment is payable. To each subsequent installment, when due there shall be added interest for one year at said rate on the unpaid principal amount of the assessment. c. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment or the first installment thereof to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the principal amount of the assessment on such property with interest accrued to the date of payment to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the date hereof; and such property owner may at any time prior to November 15 of any year pay to the County Auditor the entire principal amount of the assessment remaining due with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which said payment is made. (3) The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate copy of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be extended on the tax list of the County. ADOPTED this 2nd day of October, 2007. ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Resolution 2007 - William H. Droste, Mayor CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of Rosemount at a duly authorized meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of October, 2007, as disclosed by the records of said City in my possession. (SEAL) Amy Domeier, City Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Voted in favor: Voted against: � ( b k 2 Ix b ( e } § (L § j § � §L/ §/ ) LU§§ ==w §LULU jjj nnU) k22 ) z LL z _ ] _ ee �§ 3 in \j \ ) / § � 0 \ } 2 JI § \ \ \ \ \ 2 \\ LU� CM en .3:7!}:2§ 2 ; \[}\()\/i4 ° }z=y233zJ:2/ \ \ \ \ \ \ CL \ \ \ \ ) \ i F z O E W O w LL O F J z Z zi Q J J O K F z 111 U) LU W Q O N o J E N d a 0 CL y 0 E U T �7 W N O L O 0 W y y O 0 j LL y � a O 0 U .. 0 U c N M W M v r o O 0 O N N T c C4 d _ 00 U v o yO O W u M O y z F W a z F U W O a W W O Q (� LL W z W } CO W W M W m 2 0 F D Z Z Z z W W W U N N U W fn (n fn 0 W W W OV)rnU) aaaa C OM C7 C oc N a T 3 N N N N 0 O Q' 0 0 0 0 co Y F is � Ki as O O O O O M K cc 3 0 0 0 0 m 0 O) T � 3 N y X > W L 0 d V Im O 00 LL LL 0 = A . W ^ iV YJ b V V V' ^ C z o G G z °C' 'Z� z G) Q G G C o L�] cC aC xq� oC oC 0x wNoN � � O NO Nro7 z z YoC Nn OC M NCo 9 V1 L? M O M M M M M O N M 7 N 16 00 Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O d O O O N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O 7 4 4 4 4 7 4 7 M M M M M M M M F z O m W h O w LL O r F U F m J O z J a J J O w F Z W N LU w N N a cw G a Z H U w 0 a w W Cm C Z N U w O w a W W in 0OQ LL w z_wLU m W D W 0 www cn y rn W W W N !in m aaa Y O O LL Y C O LL N a w O i` C d x •� o O Vi Sri vi r" y) » f va r<s se N Q ON w R 3 � o R � a O c 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y O O O O O O O M M M M M M M 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 O O) T C f0 X .>_ W 3 0 M 0 N V O N LL O LL o a x 0 r7� 06 E E u T E 3 0_ O O O M M O O O O O O O O O O Z LL O O O 00 00 N N N OI M M O O O O O dam' F- z D 0 2 LLl U) O w LL O 9 T r J 0 z J a J J O w H z LL1 2 N cn W y U) Q cW G Q Z U LLJ O w a r O O N 0 N � N y d o o d co V O y m O z F LL1 O 0 g O LLl z W } m LL1 Wuj 7 W m 2 ❑ H z Lu Lu CW F C G G Utn0)tq I U) 0) U) W W LLJ 0 en fn U) a Q Q 0 J L O) a N 0 O O LL Y 0 O L LL L CL a 0 O C 0) N vri o vri .A, f" `d-j N to 39 tss iS 4is to a4 N a 3 w T o Y 0 O T N 3 a l0 0 0) >, C 03 N d O O O O o O O O L LLlcl am CA C co OO LL LL y c _ N I o f o 4 0 3 f o - n C N vl i N N y _ Z ] 7. Z O ? N O ^r N ^J r_ � N .S' E u o� E N J V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O z O O O O O O O O O O O O a O O O O O O O O O O O O M M m M M M M M a F- [i1 x X w F Z D O 2 w y O w LL O T F y J z Z J_ Q J J O w H z w 2 cn y w y N a N Y O � J d E `w a � O y c O E U T �Yy W Y O O � LL Y ai C O N L y LL � y r a 7 Y O C U U r- C N Cl) r W M w n O CD O O O T N c m E o U o d U w V O y O M O Z F cw G a z F- L) w O w a w w O Q (� LL w Z w m Q Q w w w w m x h ` r F- z ww cw cw C C C U y fN (n w fn 0 w w w LU w Omtqu> a a a C N r r r r o c N F N N a O w T m r r r ,n In O a ma Y O O O T !C o � 10 � O O7 T C i6 N d o c o C W N _ C 6 M O YO U. O LL N 0 N 'Q ✓l 1 ul a n z z 7 z r z 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M M M 'n M M M M M ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2005 Motion by Droste. Second by Sterner. MOTION to close the public hearing for the Assessment Heating 2005 Pavement Management Project, City Project 392. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Ms. Shoe -Corrigan sympathized with residents who had problems with the street project. Ms. Shoe - Corrigan wants the residents to understand how to interact with government so they can advocate for themselves. She expressed the need to make government a little more friendly in Rosemount. Ms. Shoe -Corrigan reminded residents that if they cannot attend a meeting they could receive information from the city web page, www.ci.rosemount.mn.us. Mr. Brotzler stated he also wants to improve communication and appreciates all feedback from residents and property owners. It is important to know if there are any issues that can perhaps be improved at that time. Mr. Baxter requested a follow up report be done to see where the communication broke down and how it can be improved. Staff acknowledged the directive. Mr. DeBettignies inquired why Cameo Place did not receive an assessment. Mr. Brotzler noted the assessment policy states if a property does not have a driveway unto the improved street they do not receive any benefit and can not be assessed. Motion by Shoe -Corrigan. Second by Baxter. MOTION to adopt A Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for the 2005 Pavement Management Project, City Project 392. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion carried. Ms. Shoe -Corrigan requested that staff follow up with Mr. and Mrs. Gilmour on directing their appeal. City Administrator Verbrugge acknowledged the directive. Mayor Droste thanked the residents for coming forward and making comments. PUBLIC HEARING Old County Road 38 Phase II Project, City Project 387 Mayor Droste reviewed the public hearing process for the public. The Affidavits of Posted and Published Notice were on file with the City Clerk. City Engineer Brotzlet described the second phase of improvements to Old County Road 38 (CR 38), City Project 387 located between the Harmony development and Akron Avenue. A 42 ft. wide urban road is proposed with two through lanes and a center turn lane. The walking trails will be ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2005 included east to Bacardi Avenue and then continue easterly as new development occurs. Right-of- way and temporary easements and ponding easements will need to be acquired. Utility easements must be established for a number of gas pipelines that crisscross under CR 38. A lateral sanitary sewer line will provide service to three properties north of CR 38. The storm sewer system is consistent with city standards. Mr. Brotzler reported that Mare Pond is a preserved wetland which will require a retaining wall built on pilings. The roadway over Mare Pond will be an expensive component and will impact about one acre of wetland. Preserved wetlands mitigation has a 3 to 1 ratio replacement which is included in the proposed project. The soils in the wetland are such that additional soil will need to be added to the road base to compact it. Mr. Brotzler noted the railroad crossing will be upgraded with gates and lights and the costs for right-of-way acquisition there are not known at this time. Road assessments are proposed to be assessed at $110 per front foot and the sanitary sewer assessment will be $1,250 per acre. It was noted that the proposed assessments do not include costs associated with right-of-way acquisition. All costs including tight -of -way acquisition will be assessed to respective properties in addition to the proposed assessments. Mr. Brotzler reviewed the funding for the project which included $2,240,000 from the turn -back agreement with Dakota County. This is a Municipal State Aid road which is subject to state aid approval. The proposed schedule would award bids in May, and begin the project in June with an assessment hearing in November 2006. Council called for clarification on locations of certain ponds and the lateral sanitary sewer. Mr. Sterner inquired who would pay for the trails that would be completed as development occurs. Mr. Brotzler responded that the developer would bear that cost. Mayor Droste opened the Public Hearing for City Project 387 for public comment. No comments were made. Motion by Droste. Second by Baxter. MOTION to close the Public Hearing for Old County Road 38 Phase II Project, City Project 387. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0: Motion carried. Ms. Shoe -Corrigan requested information about the temporary pond on Mr. Minea's property. Mr. Brotzler reported he had met with Mt. Minea on this topic and the language for the pond easement may be revised to clarify that the City will absolve the need for the pond when adequate pending is provided by new development. Motion by Shoe -Corrigan. Second by Sterner. MOTION to adopt A Resolution Ordering the Project and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Old County Road 38 Phase II Project, City Project 387. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion carried. ;! E \ § \ CD k U) J |D G■OQ I _ � ^ • �\ ° \ � ^ \ � - — � ---- §\§, <=2r — _ /y2: ; © t :_ b::/ :z })\ w- ®:" n ■ ,. 2a [ . -G. . | \ ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: October 2, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Case 07-26-PP; 07-27-ZA; 07-28-PUD Prestwick Place (Arcon Development) AGENDA SECTION: Preliminary Plat, Rezoning, and Planned New Business Unit Development Master Development Plan PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber; Senior Planner AGENDA NO. ATTACHMENTS: Site Plan, Proposed Ordinance and Resolutions, Excerpts from the July 24, August 28 and September 11 Planning APPROVED BY: Commission Meetings, Narrative, Existing Conditions, Development Plan, Ownership Map, Rezoning Sketch, Preliminary Plat, Grading Plan, Landscape Plan, Parking Plan, Open Space Analysis, Lennar Townhouse Elevations, Draft Master Development Plan Planned Unit Development Agreement, Prestwick Place Commercial Area Guidelines, City Engineer's Memorandum dated September 27, Parks and Recreation Director's Memorandum dated September 26, Fire Marshall's Memorandums dated August 1, E-mail dated 9/14/2007 from Dakota County approving the % Access to the Commercial Area. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Preliminary Plat for Prestwick Place. Motion to adopt a Resolution approving the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Development Plan with Rezoning for Prestwick Place. Motion to adopt an Ordinance B-191, an Ordinance amending Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance for Prestwick Place. Motion to adopt a Resolution authorizing the Summary Publication of Ordinance B-191, an Ordinance amending Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance for Prestwick Place. ISSUE Arcon Development has submitted applications for approval of a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan for approximately 285 acres north of County Road 42, 205 of which are west of Akron Avenue and 80 of which are east of Akron Avenue. The development will include approximately 235 acres of residential development and 50 acres of commercial development. JULY 24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING At their July 24 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed some larger issues relating to Prestwick Place, including the size of the single family lots next to Bloomfield, the use of metal roofing, the private amenities provided within the multiple family areas and the level of architecture for the townhouses that are visible from the major public streets. The revised preliminary plat addresses these issues, while to varying degrees of success. The lots adjacent to Bloomfield are 80 feet wide. The metal roofing request has been removed by the developer. A trail has been added through the western Lennar townhouse development and additional detail has been provided regarding the gazebo and picnic area in the eastern Lennar development. Lennar has provided additional photos of the appearance of the ends of the townhouse units, but have not proposed any changes to the architecture. Lennar has attempted to address architecture concerns by installing berming or landscaping. Staff believes this may be an appropriate remedy, but recommends that additional landscaping be provided beyond the amount the applicant proposes. The preliminary plat request has changed since the July 24 Planning Commission meeting. The most significant change is that Centex has withdrawn from the application. As a result, the property north of Connemara Trail and west of Akron Avenue will be platted as an outlot for future development. The residential development south of Connemara Trail has also been modified. There are now two instead of three street connections with Connemara Trail, the ponding has been increased and separated from the City park, and the former Centex single family housing will now be developed by Arcon. AUGUST 28 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING At their August 28 meeting, the Planning Commission focused on discussions regarding the expectation of the commercial areas within Prestwick Place. Arcon development has not submitted a proposed layout for the commercial area because there is no eminent commercial user and had requested rezoning to simply C4- General Commercial zoning. Staff was unwilling to simply rezone to standard zoning because this is part of a larger Planned Unit Development (PUD) and there are expectations about how the commercial area would be developed. Short of submitting a proposed commercial layout which would most likely be revised in the future to meet the needs of any actual commercial enterprise, staff, the Planning Commission and Arcon worked on a set of guidelines under which the commercial area would develop. The commercial guidelines (which are attached to this executive summary) state that it is expected that each commercial area on each side of Akron Avenue would have an anchor tenant. Required on one side of Akron is a big box retailer at least 60,000 square feet. Required on the other side of Akron is an anchor that could be met through a variety of users, such as medical clinic, a large bank or financial institution, a medium size box retailer, or a series of smaller box retailers. In addition to the anchor provision, the guidelines also address the uses permitted, provisions to limit single tenant buildings or auto -orientated business, and the requirement of common architecture themes. SEPTEMBER 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING At their September 11 meeting, the Planning Commission focused on a number of unsatisfactory addressed issues, such as landscaping; private recreation and open spaces within the townhouse areas; off street guest parking within the townhouse developments; and the additions to the sidewalk and trail network. The Planning Commission recommended a number of additions to the landscaping, particularly along County 2 Road 42, Street 14 and Connemara Trail. The Planning Commission recommended the addition of a playground and picnic area within the western Lennar townhouse development. The Planning Commission recommended that no more than 10% of the off street parking is constructed without the ability to turn around directly when backing up. Finally, the Planning Commission recommended five additions to the sidewalk and trail network to provide missing connections and additional pedestrian opportunities within the townhouse areas. The revised Preliminary Plat attached to this executive summary provides all the changes that were recommended by the Planning Commission. SUMMARY Arcon Development has proposed a 290 acre mixed use development on the northwest and northeast corners of County Road 42 and Akron Avenue. The property northwest of the intersection is bounded by the Union Pacific rail line to the north, the Bloomfield neighborhood to the west, County Road 42 to the south, and Akron Avenue (County Road 73) to the east. There are five exception properties within the northwest area, one farmstead property along County Road 42 and four single family homes along Akron Avenue. The property northeast of the intersection is an 80 acre parcel bounded by agricultural property to the north and east, Akron Avenue to the west, and County Road 42 to the south. Surrounding Land Uses North - Union Pacific rail line and agriculture West - Single family housing South - UMORE property and the Dakota County Technical College East - Agriculture The proposed land uses include approximately 50 acres of commercial, 90 acres of residential, and about 130 acres will be platted simply as oudots for future residential development. The residential development includes about 40 acres developed by Lennar, 20 acres developed by the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA), 23 acres developed by Arcon Development and 7 acres as parkland. The Lennar portion of the development will consist of 277 townhouses, mostly eight-plex and ten-plex buildings. The CDA portion of the development will consist of 200 apartments in five buildings and 42 townhouse units similar to those approved in the Rosemount Family Housing development. The 23 acres that Arcon will develop will consist of 64 single family houses. A seven acre park is located centrally within the development west of Akron Avenue, but a portion of that area will either be encumbered by stormwater management or Metropolitan (Met) Council sanitary sewer easement. Three additional areas will be platted as outlots for future development. A 115 acre oudot on the northwest portion of the plat was formerly planned for a Centex mixed residential neighborhood. Centex has since backed out of the plat and Arcon is marketing the property to other residential developers. A 7 acre outlot in the northeast corner of the plat is saved by Arcon to develop when the properties to the north or east develop. A 6 acre outlot located in the southeast corner of the plat is created by the alignment of street 20 around a City pressure relief value and would expect to be combined with the potential development of the property to the east. These outlots are a part of the preliminary plat, but will not be rezoned nor are a part of the planned unit development master development plan. Background Owner: Residential Developers: Total Acres: Arcon Development; Rick Packer, Project Manager Lennar, Arcon and Dakota County CDA 295.63 Acres Comprehensive Plan Designations: Low Density Residential (about 85 acres) Medium Density Residential (about 110 acres) High Density Residential (about 40 acres) Commercial (about 55 acres) Proposed Land Uses: Single Family Housing (18.13 acres) Townhouses (41.96 acres) Apartments (11.38 acres) Commercial (48.07 acres) Parks (7.13 acres) Local Streets and Ponding (22.40 acres) Arterial and Major Collector Right -of -Way (21.61 acres) Residential Density AUAR Scenario One Proposed Development Units du Acres (ac) Density Units (du) Acres ac Density Low Density' 213 85 2.5 du/ac 64 18.13 3.54 du/ac Medium Density' 770 110 7.0 du/ac 319 41.96 7.60 du/ac High Density' 480 40 12.0 du/ac 200 11.38 17.57 du/ac Local Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A 22.40 N/A Overall 1463 235 6.22 du/ac 583 93.87 6.21 du/ac 1- Single Family Homes; 2- Townhomes; 3- Apartments The residential density of the proposed development is 6.21 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), nearly identical to scenario one of the CSAH 42/Akron Alternative Urban Axeawide Review (AUAR). Scenario one was the lowest density of the three AUAR scenarios reviewed. The overall density of the development is currently unknown due to the 130 acres of land platted simply as outlots. Previously, staff had discussed with the City Council the idea of a decreased density in the area as it related to the land use designations found in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council indicated they would be flexible although was interested in having a more compact development scenario in this location and would want to see a mix of high, medium and low density development. Arcon Single Family Housing Arcon is proposing a 64 lot single family housing project located south of Connemara Trail, west of the City park, north of Lennar's townhomes and east of the existing Bloomfield neighborhood. The development proposes 72-foot wide lots with 5-foot garage side setbacks and 10-foot house side setbacks intended for two story, three car garage houses, while the lots directly adjacent to Bloomfield will be 80 feet wide with both side yards having 10-foot setbacks. C! R-1 Low Density Residential Zoning Applicants Proposal; 72-foot Wide Lots Minimum Lot Width 80 Feet 72 Feet' Minimum Lot Size 10,000 Square Feet 9,500 Square Feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 Feet 25 Feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 Feet 5 Feet on Garage Side 10 Feet on House Side Maximum Lot Coverage 30% 30% ' Lots adjacent to Bloomfield will be a minimum of 80 feet wide. b Lots adjacent to Bloomfield will have 10 foot setbacks on both side yards. Arcon proposes housing requirements that include a minimurn of a two car garage, a minimum of 1,700 square feet for a single story home or 2,200 finished square feet for a two story home. Additional architectural requirements include a minimum of a 7:12 pitch roof, front exteriors sided with at least 50% brick, stone, stucco or wood. Maintenance -free siding would be installed on all the other elevations. Arcon does not intend to construct the homes themselves, but would market the development to homebuilders. Lennar Townhouses Lennar is proposing two townhouse neighborhoods, one on each side of Akron Avenue, consisting of a total of 277 units. The neighborhood east of Akron consists of 171 units, 61 units in 16 single loaded townhouse buildings and 110 units in 12 eight-plex, ten-plex or twelve-plex back-to-back buildings. The neighborhood west of Akron consists of 106 units, 34 units in seven (7) single loaded townhouse buildings and 72 units in seven (7) eight-plex, ten -plea or twelve-plex back-to-back buildings. All individual units are accessed by joint private driveways. Deviations from the City Code requested by the townhomes are to reduce the parking setback to 20 feet from the required 30 feet and to construct buildings with as many as 12 units. Staff is supportive of the requested deviation to 11-4-8 FA.c. requiring a 30 foot front yard parking setback because 20 feet still allows for landscaping and other buffering and allows one car to queue at the end of the private drives without blocking any parking spaces. The City Code Section 11-2-18 A. only permits a maximum of 6 units per townhome building, but the City has previously approved PUDs in excess of the 6 unit per townhome ordinance standard. Additionally, the larger buildings allow the project to increase the density on the site which is more consistent with the comprehensive plan designation and the City's intent for the property. At the July 24 meeting, the Planning Commission had significant conversation regarding the level of architecture enhancement for the townhouse buildings and the private amenities provided to the developments. The applicant has provided revisions to the plans addressing these issues. Lennar has provided photos of the proposed townhouse buildings, including illustrations of the ends of the buildings that will be facing the public streets. Lennar has not proposed any changes to the architecture from their initial proposal, but have instead revised landscaping and grading plans to add landscaping along parts of the Street 14 frontage and a landscaped berm along the County Road 42 and Connemara Trail frontages. 5 Lennar has provided private recreational facilities within both townhouse developments through an interior trail corridor and a playground and picnic area. An exhibit has also been provided to demonstrate that the 20% open space requirement has been fulfilled for the townhouse development. The exhibit shows that an aggregate of 20% open space has been provided, with the east side having slightly less than 20% and the west side having slightly more than 20%. City ordinance requires a minimum of half of an off street parking stall per townhouse unit. Lennar has provided a parking plan that shows how this parking will be provided with over 90% of the guest parking stalls having the ability to turn around while backing up. The western Lennar neighborhood provides an access to the southwestern exception parcel via Street 19. This access, with the access provided at the southern end of Street 4, allows the exception parcel to develop without a curb cut onto County Road 42. The fire code limits multiple family residential developments to no more than 200 units without a second full access. All 348 multiple family units on the east side of Akron Avenue will use the access of street 17 from Connemara Trail until a second access is created with the development of the properties to the north or east. The development of the residential neighborhood east of Akron Avenue shall be limited to 200 units until a second full access is constructed. CDA Townhouses and Apartments The Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) is acquiring 18.53 acres on the east side of Akron Avenue and the north side of Connemara Trail for the development of work force housing. The northern 7.17 acres is proposed for a 42 unit townhouse complex and the southern 11.36 acres is proposed for 200 apartment units within five (5) apartment buildings. The 42 unit townhouse complex is intended to be similar to the Rosemount Family Housing 32 unit townhouse development recently approved for the CDA on the northwest corner of South Robert Trail and Connemara Trail. The intent is to have the complex be owned and maintained by the CDA and rented to working families that would currently have an average income of $30,000. The CDA has a proposed central playground area as a private recreational amenity for the complex. The only deviations from the City Code -are to allow for a one car garage per unit and the 20 foot parking setback, the same as the other townhouse development within the Prestwick Place development. The 200 unit apartment complex would consist of five (5) buildings each three (3) stories in height with underground parking. The CDA will sell the site to a private developer contingent on providing 20% of the units affordable to people making less than 50% of the area median income. The proposal includes a central clubhouse for the private recreation of the apartment complex and is designed for two parking stalls per apartment. It is not anticipated that any deviation to the City Code would be needed for this development. The CDA parcels contain sufficient detail to receive rezoning and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan, but additional information such as landscaping, internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation, ingress and egress, and stormwater management will need to be clarified during Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval. As stated more fully in the Lennar townhouse section above, the development of the residential neighborhood east of Akron Avenue shall be limited to 200 units until a second full access is constructed. 0 City Park The preliminary plat proposes a 7.13 acre park located in the center of the plat, west of Akron Avenue. The 7.13 acre park is encumbered by 0.75 acres of Metropolitan (Met) Council sanitary sewer easement, leaving 6.38 acres unencumbered. The Parks Director believes that the park is adequately sized and is in an appropriate location, but has some concerns about the park design with a Met Council sewer manhole located within the park. The applicant has received permission from the Met Council to lower the manhole and added a water tight seal to allow it to be buried about three feet under the ball field, allowing the maximum use of the park with a major piece of infrastructure running through it. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended approval of the park layout at their September 24 meeting. It is anticipated that the proposed park will not fulfill the full parkland dedication required by ordinance for this development. Deficient parkland dedication is anticipated to be fulfilled through fee -in -lieu of park dedication. The proposed preliminary plat is deficient 16.94 acres of parkland for the residential development and 4.8 acres of parkland for the commercial development. Using the 2007 fees, that would require a fee in lieu of dedication in the amount of $1,871,900 ($1,439,900 for the residential and $432,000 for the commercial). The actual amounts will be determined at the time of final plat and construction. Commercial The development proposes 48.07 acres for commercial development in two parcels, one on each side of Akron Avenue. Outlot G, located on the west side of Akron Avenue, is 19.61 acres and will be accessed by an access centered on the Akron Avenue frontage and the possibility of multiple accesses from Street 14. Outlet J, located on the east side of Akron Avenue, is 28.46 acres and will be accessed by an access centered on the Akron Avenue frontage , one possible access from Connemara Trail and the possibility of multiple accesses from eastern most street (Street 20). Outlet G and Outlot J combined will likely support approximately 260,000 square feet of retail commercial space. Arcon had received some interest from a big box user to construct a store on the eastern parcel, but there is no firm commitment at this time. Without an identified user, development of this parcel is not likely before 2010. Without a concept plan showing the potential layout of the commercial area, staff has been reluctant to recommend rezoning of the commercial property. The applicant is reluctant to propose a concept plan for the commercial area because every commercial user has different site plan requirements and expectations for their commercial area. In an attempt to find middle ground, staff has prepared a set of guidelines that the commercial area is anticipated to follow. These guidelines list the types of uses that would be allowed, the expectation for anchor facilities within each outlet and limits the amount of auto -orientated businesses within the development. These guidelines are attached to this executive summary. The County has approved a 3/4access (left turn in, right turn in and right turn out; no left turn out permitted) from Akron Avenue to the commercial development. The County approval will require a written agreement between the County and the City stating that the County may close this '/a access in the future if the future traffic characteristics warrant. The County has this authority without signing an agreement. Staff has yet to receive a draft agreement from the County. The commercial parcels (Outlots G and J) contain no information regarding their potential layout. Additional information such as landscaping, internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation, ingress and egress, and stormwater management will need to be clarified during Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan approval. 7 Rezoning The 72-foot wide single family lots are requested to be rezoned RI PUD - Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development. The Lennar and CDA townhouses are requested to be rezoned to R3 PUD - Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development. The CDA apartments are requested to be rezoned to R4 PUD - High Density Residential Planned Unit Development. The commercial areas (Outlots G andn are requested to be rezoned to C4 PUD - General Commercial Planned Unit Development and are subject to the conditions stated within the Prestwick Place Commercial Area Guidelines dated September 7, 2007. The outlots (Outlots A, I and K) that will be retained for potential future development will not be rezoned. Street System The street system for development is focused around the County Road 42, Akron Avenue (County Road 73) and the future extension of Connemara Trail. County Road 42 is a principal arterial that is the main east to west transportation corridor in Dakota County from Hastings to Burnsville. County Road 42 provides local connections to major north -south routes such as US Hwy 61, US Hwy 52, Mn Hwy 3, Mn Hwy 77, Interstate 35E and Interstate 35W. In Rosemount, the intersection of Akron Avenue and County Road 42 will be the second signalized intersection west of future County Road 42 and US Hwy 52 interchange, therefore providing the potential for commercial development at this intersection. Two additional accesses are proposed onto County Road 42 from this development, one west of Akron Avenue and one east of Akron Avenue. The west access is approximately'/4 of a mile west of Akron Avenue and is proposed to be a'/4 access, meaning vehicles can take a left from County Road 42 into the development, but vehicles cannot take a left from the development onto County Road 42. The east access is approximately 'A mile east of Akron Avenue and is proposed as a'/4 access. Akron Avenue (County Road 73) is currently a gravel road that will be reconstructed as a two lane divided road with turn lanes at the major intersections. The City and County are working on the plans for reconstruction. Akron is a County Road and therefore spacing and access is dictated by their standards. The City has had conversation with the County regarding access to this project and the need to balance access and traffic management. One full intersection is expected onto Akron Avenue from this development, at Connemara Trail (located about 'A mile north of County Road 42), and a'/4 access is requested to serve the commercial area between County Road 42 and Connemara Trail (located about 1/8 mile north of County Road 42). The Connemara Trail and Akron Avenue intersection may be signalized in the future if traffic counts warrant. A third intersection, providing full access, in anticipated to serve a future minor collector street north of Connemara Trail and south of the railroad tracks (located about'/2 mile north of County Road 42). The Dakota County Plat Commission has reviewed the Preliminary Plat and has given its approval. The City Engineer has reviewed the remaining street network of the neighborhood and is generally pleased with its layout. A number of technical changes will need to be made to the street networks and accesses onto it. These changes are described in the City Engineer's memorandum attached to this report. One feature to note is a request deviation to the City Code requirement of the 100 feet of right-of-way (ROW) for Connemara Trail (a major collector) west of Akron Avenue. Connemara Trail ROW through Bloomfield is only 85 feet wide and the applicant is requesting to continue the 85 foot width through the west portion of the development to Street 14. Staff is supportive of this request provided the building, structural, and fencing setback is the same as a 100 foot right-of-way and because the Connemara Trail right- of-way in Bloomfield is only 85 feet wide. Trails and Sidewalks A trail and sidewalk network has been provided through the development. Generally, there are sidewalks provided on one side of the single family neighborhoods and both sides of the multiple family neighborhoods. Trails have been provided on the south side of Connemara Trail, through the City park from Connemara Trail to Street 14, on Street 14 from Connemara Trail and County Road 42, and on Street 17 from Connemara Trail north to Street 16. Wetlands There are no wetlands located on this site. Tree Preservation The majority of the site is currently being used as agriculture and is devoid of trees. There is only one area of significant tree growth that will be affected by this preliminary plat, a windrow located approximately in line with the Met Council sanitary sewer easement. The applicant has provided a tree tally that indicates there are no heritage trees located on the site and no significant trees of a desirable species. It is anticipated all the existing trees will be removed from the site and the developer has prepared a tree replacement plan that meets the ordinance requirement. Storm wa ter Management The stormwater management is proposed by a series of stormwater ponds and infiltration basins. This concept is generally acceptable to the City Engineer, but some changes will be required within the final construction plans to meet City standards. The revised plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer before the City Council can approve final plats providing buildable lots. Additional Public Works Comments The City Engineer has prepared a memorandum of comments regarding the preliminary plat and is an attachment to this executive summary. Most of the topics within the memo have been discussed in the previous sections of this executive summary, but the memo provides greater detail of the City's requirement for the developer and the developer's engineer. Phasing Arcon has submitted a final plat that would divide the property into outlots for the ownership of the individual builders or organization. This outlot final plat would not create any buildable lot and would not require subdivision agreement, but would allow the recording of the master development plan planned unit development agreement. It is anticipated that the outlot final plat will be before the City Council during their November 23 meeting. The first phase of development is expected to be from Lennar townhouse development on the west side of Akron Avenue. The initial phase may be as little as 50 units which may begin construction in 2008, but to date Lennar and Acton have been unwilling to submit a deposit for a feasibility study. One major issue of discussion is what roads would need to be constructed with the first phase of development. Arcon and Lennar are proposing that only Street 14 be constructed to provide an access to County Road 42. Staff is unwilling to agree to this proposal because the intersection of Street 14 and County Road 42 is only a'/4 access which prevents left turns from Street 14 to east bound County Road 42. Staff proposes that the initial development would require the construction of Street 14 and Connemara Trail from Street 14 to Akron Avenue. Staff would recommend that Akron Avenue would not be reconstructed as a part of the initial development, but since Akron Avenue is a county road, Dakota County would need to agree to not reconstruct Akron Avenue at this time. This arrangement would be limited to the development of the Lennar townhouse buildings that front onto Street 9, Street 10 or Street 19. Any other development on the east side of Akron Avenue would require the complete construction of Connemara Trail from its current end in Bloomfield to Akron Avenue and the reconstruction of Akron Avenue. Any development on the west side of Akron Avenue would require the construction of Connemara Trail from Akron Avenue to the western edge of the plat and the reconstruction of Akron Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning, planned unit development master development plan, and preliminary plat for Prestwick Place. 10 'FE MAP P(2E5"rWiCK PteAcC b) AP.C-()f-s 68\(E(.CP AECIS i 4E: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot ayrighl 20D7, Dakota Courtly - s drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not Intended to be used as one. s drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, and le offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for inference purposes Y. Dakola County is not responsible far any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are nd, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department. I 8 l c Date: March 29, 2007 Parcels Updated: 3/22/2DD7 Aenal Photography CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRESTWICK PLACE WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received a request for Preliminary Plat approval from Arcon Development concerning property legally described as: The South Half of the Northwest Quarter except the West 600 feet of the South 400 feet thereof, and the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. And That part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, lying southerly of the southerly right of way line of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, Dakota County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Cert #135831. The North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, excepting therefrom the following: Commencing at the northeast corner of said North Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence South along the quarter section line, a distance of 627.87 feet to the actual point of beginning of the property to be described; thence West 208.71 feet; thence South 417.42 feet; thence East 208.71 feet to the said quarter section line; thence North, along the quarter section line, a distance of 417.42 feet to the point of beginning and except the South 208.71 feet of the East 417.42 feet thereof. Torrens Property Cert #135831. That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, lying southerly of the southerly right of way line of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. WHEREAS, on July 24, 2007, August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the Preliminary Plat for Prestwick Place; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2007, 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 Preliminary Plat for Prestwick Place, subject to the following conditions: 1. Recording of a Master Development Plan Planned Unit Development Agreement at the time of Final Plat recording. 2. Installation of "No Parking— Fire Lane" or "No Parking by Order of the Fire Marshall" signs on both sides of all of the private drives. RESOLUTION 2007- 3. The development of the residential land east of Akron Avenue is limited to 200 units until a second full access to the area is constructed. 4. The developer shall receive 6.38 of acres of parks dedication credit for the land being dedicated as a public park. It is recommended that the developer not receive parkland dedication credit for the pipeline easement located in the park, which is consistent with past developments. 5. The developer will pay cash in -lieu of land for the remaining 16.94 acres of residential park dedication and for the 4.8 acres of commercial land dedication based on the City's Fees and Fee Policy at the time of final plat. 6. The developer is to follow the requirements for park dedication as stated in the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 7. The developer will bury the Metropolitan Council manhole located in the park, at no cost to the City, so that it will not interfere with the use of the turf grass areas of the park. The developer will also provide written documentation from the Metropolitan Council as to their approval of the proposed park plan, use of their easement and the burying of the manhole. 8. Dedication of the appropriate Akron Avenue right-of-way width during Final Plat to accommodate reconstruction. 9. Conservation easements will be required over all pond and infiltration areas, shall encompass all naturally vegetated areas, and shall be delineated with appropriate sign -age indicating that the area is to be left undisturbed. 10. Limited information was provided regarding proposed streets and utilities within the Dakota County CDA multi -family areas. The submittal of the Final Development Plan and Site Plan approval for the CDA areas will necessitate further review and will likely generate additional comments and requests for revisions. 11. Residential development east of Akron Avenue is limited to 200 units before the proposed east -west roadway on the Chadwick property will need to be constructed to provide a second access route for the Dakota County CDA/Lennar area. Construction of this access will necessitate Chadwick cooperation. 12. Street 20 would need to be constructed to provide alternative access for the commercial area in the southeast of the development. As currently depicted in the plans, the construction of Street 20 would necessitate the cooperation of the property owners to the east, or realignment of Street 20 to the west. 13. Street 17 widths shall be approved conditional upon review of projected traffic volumes and the need for additional roadway and right-of-way widths to accommodate turn lanes at Connemara Trail and Street 16. 14. The storm sewer trunk line alignment through Block 6 shall be relocated to an alternate alignment via Street 19 and Street 9 to provide adequate easement width on both sides of the pipe. 15. Items such as parking lots, private drives, shown as encroaching within private easements (gas pipeline, MCES) will need approval by the easement holder. RESOLUTION 2007- 16. To eliminate conflict with lots in Block 10, the 70-foot utility easement for watermain may be modified to a lesser width appropriate to the depth of the existing watermain, as determined by the applicant's engineer and submitted for City review and approval. The applicant shall be required to apply to vacate the existing easement, and a new permanent utility easement of revised width shall be recorded at the time of final plat to encompass the existing watermain. 17. Landscaping plans comprised of appropriate vegetation and native plantings within ponds and infiltration areas shall be developed. 18. Estimated development fees (based on 2007 Fee Resolution) due with the final plat and subdivision agreement are as follows: • GIS Fee = $60/unit • Trunk Sewer Area Charge = $1,075/acre • Trunk Water Area Charge = $4,860/acre • Trunk Stormwater Area Charge = $6,665/acre 19. The final platting of any of the Lots 34 through 61 of Block 6 or any lots in Block 7 or 8 will require the construction of Street 14 and Connemara Trail from Street 14 to Akron Avenue. Any final platting of addition lots on east side of Akron Avenue would require the complete construction of Connemara Trail from its current end in Bloomfield to Akron Avenue and the reconstruction of Akron Avenue. Any final platting on the west side of Akron Avenue would require the construction of Connemara Trail from Akron Avenue to the western edge of the plat and the reconstruction of Akron Avenue. The delay of the reconstruction of Akron Avenue will for Lots 34 through 61 of Block 6 or any lots in Block 7 or 8 will require a Dakota County agreement. 20. Final Plat and Final Construction Plans submittals for Prestwick Place shall be in compliance with the comments and conditions within the City Engineer's memorandum dated September 27, 2007 and the Fire Marshall's memorandums dated August 1, 2007. ADOPTED this 2nd day of October, 2007, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk RESOLUTION 2007- Motion by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member by: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REZONING FOR PRESTWICK PLACE WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Arcon Development requesting a planned unit development (PUD) master development plan with rezoning concerning property legally described as: The South Half of the Northwest Quarter except the West 600 feet of the South 400 feet thereof, and the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. And That part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, lying southerly of the southerly right of way line of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, Dakota County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Cert #135831. The North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, excepting therefrom the following: Commencing at the northeast corner of said North Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence South along the quarter section line, a distance of 627.87 feet to the actual point of beginning of the property to be described; thence West 208.71 feet; thence South 417.42 feet; thence East 208.71 feet to the said quarter section line; thence North, along the quarter section line, a distance of 417.42 feet to the point of beginning and except the South 208.71 feet of the East 417.42 feet thereof. Torrens Property Cert #135831. That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 115 North, Range 19 West, lying southerly of the southerly right of way line of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, Dakota County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. WHEREAS, on July 24, 2007, August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the requested application; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested applications, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2007, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. RESOLUTION 2007 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the planned unit development (PUD) master development plan of Prestwick Place and the Rezoning of the Arcon single family residential from AG — Agricultural to R1 PUD — Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development; the Lennar and Dakota County Community Development Agency townhouses from AG — Agricultural to R3 PUD — Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development; the Dakota County Community Development Agency apartments from AG — Agricultural to R4 PUD — High Density Residential Planned Unit Development; and the Arcon commercial area from AG — Agricultural to C4 PUD — General Commercial Planned Unit Development, subject to: 1. Rl PUD lots have a minimum lot width of 72 feet, a front yard setback of 25 feet, a 5 foot garage side yard setback, a house side yard setback of 10 feet, a rear yard setback of 30 feet, and minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet, except that the lots of Block 1 and 2 are required to have a minimum lot width of 80 feet and both side yard setbacks are 10 feet. 2. R3 PUD neighborhoods have a setback from the public street of 25 feet, a setback from property lines of 30 feet, a minimum building separation of 20 feet, and a minimum parking setback of 20 feet. 3. The Dakota County Community Development Agency townhomes are permitted to have a single car garage. 4. R3 PUD buildings have a maximum of 12 units per building. 5. Garages on single family houses on corner lots shall be located on the opposite side of the house from the public street. 6. Setbacks from the Connemara Trail section that has only 85 feet of right-of-way will be measured as if the right-of-way is 100 feet wide. Fences or other residential accessory structures will not be allowed in this setback area. 7. Final landscape plans will need to be submitted with the final plat and construction plans. Modifications to the final landscaping plans may be required by the City Planner or City Engineer if any landscaping would interfere with street signage, infrastructure or other design issues. 8. The applicant shall apply for and receive final site plan and final development plan approval for the Dakota County Community Development Agency portion of the plat. Additional information regarding landscaping, stormwater management, pedestrian access and architecture and other ordinance requirements must be submitted for City review and approval. The unit counts for the proposed Dakota County CDA development assumes that there is sufficient space to install the needed infrastructure while meeting all ordinance requirement not expressly waived within this approval. Failure to meet ordinance requirements may result in a reduction in the total number of units permitted to be constructed. 9. The applicant shall apply for and receive final site plan and final development plan approval for the Arcon commercial area (outlots G and J). Additional information regarding landscaping, stormwater management, pedestrian access and architecture and other ordinance requirements must be submitted for City review and approval. The development of the commercial areas is subject to conditions stated within Prestwick Place Commercial Area Guidelines dated September 7, 2007. RESOLUTION 2007 - 10. The final construction plans for the Lennar townhouse playgrounds and picnic areas need to be reviewed and approved by City staff to ensure that the structures and equipment installed meet industry standards and is adequately sized for the amount of residents in the neighborhood. ADOPTED this 2nd day of October, 2007 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in Voted against: Member absent: William H. Droste, Mayor Second City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B-191 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE Prestwick Place 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 AG — Agricultural to R-1 PUD — Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development that is located north of County Road 42 and west of Akron Avenue within the City of Rosemount legally described as follows: That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 29 seconds East, assumed bearing along the west line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 400.00 feet to the north line of the South 400.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter and the actual point of beginning; thence South 89 degrees 42 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 181.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 29 seconds East, a distance of 204.71 feet; thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes 31 seconds East, a distance of 247.73 feet; thence easterly along a tangential curve concave to the north having a central angle of 38 degrees 24 minutes 45 seconds and a radius of 251.00 feet for an arc distance of 168.28 feet; thence North 52 degrees 03 minutes 45 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 649.11 feet; thence South 39 degrees 42 minutes 31 seconds East, a distance of 173.88 feet; thence North 53 degrees 30 minutes 51 seconds East, a distance of 651.59 feet; thence northwesterly along a non -tangential curve, concave to the northeast having a central angle of 25 degrees 42 minutes 19 seconds and a radius of 670.00 feet, for an arc distance of 300.59 feet, the chord of said curve bears North 56 degrees 50 minutes 27 seconds West; thence North 43 degrees 59 minutes 18 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 375.48 feet; thence westerly along a tangential curve concave to the south having a central angle of 53 degrees 12 minutes 57 seconds and a radius of 702.50 feet for an arc distance of 652.47 feet; thence South 82 degrees 47 minutes 46 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 386.23 feet; thence westerly along a tangential curve concave to the north having a central angle of 07 degrees 40 minutes 44 seconds and a radius of 1,297.50 feet for an arc distance of 173.89 feet; thence North 89 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 60.88 feet to said west line of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 28 minutes 29 seconds West, along said west line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1,491.68 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 1,634,794.74 square feet or 37.5297 acres, more or less. Section 2. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone property from AG — Agricultural to R-3 PUD — Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development that is located north of County Road 42 and west of Akron Avenue within the City of Rosemount legally described as follows: That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 27, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 29 seconds East, assumed bearing along the west line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 400.00 feet to the north line of the South 400.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 42 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 181.00 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 29 seconds East, a distance of 204.71 feet; thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes 31 seconds East, a distance of 247.73 feet; thence easterly along a tangential curve concave to the north having a central angle of 38 degrees 24 minutes 45 seconds and a radius of 251.00 feet for an arc distance of 168.28 feet; thence North 52 degrees 03 minutes 45 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 649.11 feet; thence South 39 degrees 42 minutes 31 seconds East, a distance of 173.88 feet; thence North 53 degrees 30 minutes 51 seconds East, a distance of 651.59 feet; thence easterly along a non -tangential curve, concave to the north having a central angle of 19 degrees 48 minutes 39 seconds and a radius of 670.00 feet, for an arc distance of 231.66 feet, the chord of said curve bears South 79 degrees 35 minutes 56 seconds East; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 15 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 108.79 feet; thence South 00 degrees 29 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 378.94 feet; thence southwesterly along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a central angle of 54 degrees 54 minutes 28 seconds and a radius of 300.00 feet for an arc distance of 287.50 feet; thence South 55 degrees 24 minutes 13 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 456.38 feet; thence southwesterly along a tangential curve concave to the southeast having a central angle of 55 degrees 06 minutes 32 seconds and a radius of 300.00 feet for an arc distance of 288.55 feet; thence South 00 degrees 17 minutes 41 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 144.49 feet to the south line of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 42 minutes 19 seconds West, along said south line, a distance of 833.55 feet to the east line of the West 600.00 feet of said Northwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 29 seconds East, along said east line, a distance of 400.00 feet to said north line of the South 400.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 42 minutes 19 seconds West, along said north line of the South 400.00 feet, a distance of 419.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 1,314,671.09 square feet or 30.1807 acres, more or less. Section 3. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone property from AG - Agricultural to R-3 PUD - Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development that is located north of County Road 42 and east of Akron Avenue within the City of Rosemount legally described as follows: That part of the West One-half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said West One-half of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 45 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the west line of said West One-half, a distance of 521.55 feet; thence on a bearing of East, a distance of 816.18 feet; thence South 24 degrees 50 minutes 17 seconds West, a distance of 134.06 feet; thence southerly along a tangential curve concave to the east having a central angle of 30 degrees 22 minutes 15 seconds and a radius of 651.00 feet for an arc distance of 345.08 feet; thence South 05 degrees 31 minutes 58 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 158.98 feet; thence southerly along a tangential curve concave to the west having a central angle of 31 degrees 10 minutes 42 seconds and a radius of 349.00 feet for an are distance of 189.91 feet; thence South 25 degrees 38 minutes 44 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 163.82 feet; thence South 64 degrees 21 minutes 16 seconds East, a distance of 523.78 feet; thence easterly along a tangential curve concave to the north having a central angle of 20 degrees 24 minutes 51 seconds and a radius of 670.00 feet for an arc distance of 238.72 feet to the east line of said West One-half, thence North 00 degrees 24 minutes 42 seconds East, along said east line, a distance of 1,235.01 feet; thence North 89 degrees 35 minutes 18 seconds West, a distance of 280.29 feet; thence northwesterly along a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a central angle of 91 degrees 34 minutes 45 seconds and a radius of 499.00 feet for an arc distance of 797.58 feet to the north line of said West One- half; thence North 89 degrees 18 minutes 12 seconds West, along said north line of the West One-half, a distance of 544.72 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 1,026,655.17 square feet or 23.5688 acres, more or less. Section 4. Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone property from AG — Agricultural to R-4 PUD — High Density Residential Planned Unit Development that is located north of County Road 42 and east of Akron Avenue within the City of Rosemount legally described as follows: That part of the West One-half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said West One-half, thence South 00 degrees 27 minutes 45 seconds West, assumed bearing along the west line of said West One-half, a distance of 521.55 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence on a bearing of East, a distance of 816.18 feet; thence South 24 degrees 50 minutes 17 seconds West, a distance of 134.06 feet; thence southerly along a tangential curve concave to the east having a central angle of 30 degrees 22 minutes 15 seconds and a radius of 651.00 feet for an arc distance of 345.08 feet; thence South 05 degrees 31 minutes 58 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 158.98 feet; thence southerly along a tangential curve concave to the west having a central angle of 31 degrees 10 minutes 42 seconds and a radius of 349.00 feet for an arc distance of 189.91 feet; thence South 25 degrees 38 minutes 44 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 163.82 feet; thence North 64 degrees 21 minutes 16 seconds West, a distance of 24.91 feet; thence westerly along a tangential curve concave to the south having a central angle of 25 degrees 08 minutes 59 seconds and a radius of 850.00 feet for an arc distance of 373.10 feet; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 15 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 238.25 feet to said west line of the West One-half; thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes 45 seconds East, along said west line, a distance of 851.99 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 632,816.92 square feet or 14.5275 acres, more or less. Section 5 Ordinance B, adopted September 19, 1989, entitled "City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended to rezone property from AG — Agricultural to C-4 PUD — General Commercial Planned Unit Development that is located north of County Road 42 and east of Akron Avenue within the City of Rosemount legally described as follows: That part of the Northwest Quarter and that part of the West One-half of the Northeast Quarter, both in Section 27, Township 115, Range 19, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 42 minutes 19 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Northwest Quarter, a distance of 1433.55 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 00 degrees 17 minutes 41 seconds East, a distance of 144.49 feet; thence northeasterly along a tangential curve concave to the southeast having a central angle of 55 degrees 06 minutes 32 seconds and a radius of 300.00 feet for an are distance of 288.55 feet; thence North 55 degrees 24 minutes 13 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 456.38 feet; thence northeasterly along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a central angle of 54 degrees 54 minutes 28 seconds and a radius of 300.00 feet for an arc distance of 287.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes 45 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 378.94 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 15 seconds East, a distance of 824.20 feet; thence easterly along a tangential curve concave to the south having a central angle of 25 degrees 08 minutes 59 seconds and a radius of 850.00 feet for an arc distance of 373.10 feet; thence South 64 degrees 21 minutes 16 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 548.69 feet; thence easterly along a tangential curve concave to the north having a central angle of 20 degrees 24 minutes 51 seconds and a radius of 670.00 feet for an arc distance of 238.72 feet to the east line of said West One-half; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 41 seconds West, not tangent to said curve and along said east line of the West -half, a distance of 349.40 feet; thence southerly along a tangential curve concave to the west having a central angle of 29 degrees 17 minutes 57 seconds and a radius of 300.00 feet for an arc distance of 153.41 feet; thence South 29 degrees 42 minutes 38 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 108.81 feet; thence southerly along a tangential curve concave to the east having a central angle of 29 degrees 17 minutes 57 seconds and a radius of 300.00 feet for an arc distance of 153.41 feet; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 42 seconds West, tangent to said curve, a distance of 156.25 feet to the south line of said West One-half, thence North 89 degrees 42 minutes 19 seconds West, along said south line of the West One-half and said south line of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 2,410.85 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 2,526,336.54 square feet or 57.9967 acres, more or less. Section 6. 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 7. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 2nd day of October, 2007. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2007. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. B-191, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PRESTWICK PLACE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount recommended City Council approval of rezoning property in Prestwick Place after holding a public hearing on July 24, 2007, August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount adopted Ordinance No. B-191, an ordinance amending Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance for Prestwick Place on October 2, 2007; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, Subd. 4 allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Rosemount that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. B-191 to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice During their October 2, 2007, meeting, the City Council of the City of Rosemount adopted Ordinance No. B-191. The ordinance amends Ordinance B City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance for Prestwick Place. In summary, the new ordinance property located north of County Road 42 and east and west of Akron Avenue from AG — Agricultural to R1 PUD — Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development; AG — Agricultural to R3 PUD — Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development; AG — Agricultural to R4 PUD — High Density Residential Planned Unit Development; and AG — Agricultural to C4 PUD — General Commercial Planned Unit Development. The ordinance sets foxth the legal descriptions of each individual parcel being rezoned. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of Ordinance No. B-191 shall be kept in the City Clerk's office at City Hall for public inspection and a full copy of the ordinance be posted in the lobby of City Hall for 30 days after adoption. Resolution 2007- ADOPTED this 2"d day of October, 2007, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk Motion Voted in Voted against: Member absent: William H. Droste, Mayor Second EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 2007 5.c. 07-26-PP, 07-27-ZA, 07-28-PUD Prestwick Place Preliminary Plat. Atcon Development, Inc. has submitted applications for approval of a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan for approximately 285 acres north of County Road 42, 205 of which are west of Akron Ave and 80 of which are east of Akron Ave. The development will include approximately 235 acres of residential development and 50 acres of commercial development. Senior Planner Zweber explained that the purpose of this public hearing is to provide a general overview of the project to the Planning Commissioners and the public, but staff is recommending continuance of the applications until additional details can be addressed by the applicant. The plans that the developer has submitted to the City need revisions before a formal recommendation can occur, but staff has elected to bring this draft proposal before the Planning Commission and the public to discuss a number of big picture issues so that appropriate plan changes can be made to reflect the Commission's direction. Based on the Planning Commission discussion, the developer will need to revise the plans before the August 28 meeting in anticipation of a formal recomrendation of the Planning Commission. Prestwick Place will only be put on the August 28 meeting if they have satisfactorily addressed the issues raised at tonight's meeting and within staff memorandums. Mr. Zweber reviewed the recommended revisions that the developer should make before the August 28 meeting. Mr. Zweber reviewed the site plan, the proposed zoning, and the proposed housing styles. He presented five questions that need to be answered: 1. Should the size of the single family lots next to Bloomfield be expanded to 80 foot wide lots? 2. Should the City allow the use of sheet metal roofing for residential uses? 3. Is the park too small for the amenities included? 4. Should additional private amenities be included comparable to other Planned Unit Developments such as Everrnoor, Harmony and the CDA site? 5. Should higher levels of architecture be expected from houses and townhouses visible from major public streets such as Connemara Trail and Akron Avenue? Applicant, Rick Packer, Arcon Development, approached the Commission. Also present wereKari Gill from Dakota County CDA, Jay Liberacki from Lennar, and Steve Ach from Centex Homes. Mr. Packer stated that Arcon Development's only outstanding issue is the rezoning of the commercial area. He stated they are currently working on the parks with the Parks Commission. Steve Ach, Centex Homes, approached the Commission. He stated Centex Homes has about six issues they would like to discuss. First issue is the lot sizes and setbacks along the Bloomfield development. The largest houseprint is 56 feet wide. They would need a 5 foot setback in order to allow the homes they would like. Mr. Ach stated they tried to provide some mitigation of having landscaping along the rear yards to compliment the residents along the west side. He stated with 72 foot size lots, they are not going to build less of a home and they can still build 3 car garages. Chairperson Messner asked if the 56 foot wide houseprint includes a 3 car garage. Mr. Ach stated that it does. Chairperson Messner then asked how the elevation of the new lots compared with the existing lots in the Bloomfield development. Mr. Ach replied that he believed the new lots were a little higher in elevation and that Centex Homes plans on trying to match the grade and possibly place a berm between the lots. Mr. Ach stated their second issue was the use of metal for roofing. He passed out an additional elevation for the Commission to view and stated that Centex can provide more information on the metal roofing if requested. Mr. Ach stated their third item to point out to the Commission was with respect to the area planned for the 55+ age group. Centex Homes changed the plan from an attached 3 unit building to small lots with detached homes. Mr. Ach stated they have explored the market and found a stronger preference for detached homes. The building change will be brought to the August meeting, together with a more detailed plan on the amenities provided in that area consisting of a social gathering area with a trail, fireplace and grilling facilities. The fourth item Mr. Ach wanted to see discussed was the pedestrian systems throughout the development to Connemara and out to Akron. The fifth issue was the setback requirement of 7.5 feet in the development with 56 and 51 foot wide lots. Mr. Ach stated that the homes in those areas will not have any opportunity for expansion. The 7.5 setback will ensure 15 feet between buildings as opposed to the 5-10 setbacks. The final issue Mr. Ach spoke of pertains to the rezoning in the active adult area. With the change from the attached 3 unit buildings to the single detached buildings, the zoning designation should be R-2 rather than R-3 as originally planned. Jay Liberacki, representing Lennar approached the Commission. He stated Lennar has two issues they would like to discuss: amenities and architecture. Mr. Liberacki stated when they build amenities with developments, they have two primary needs: tot areas and dog exercise areas. He stated they did have a trail planned within the greenbelt in the west side development which was taken out due to stormwater issues. Those issues have been resolved. Several of the asphalt areas will be replaced with green space. Mr. Liberacki pointed out some architectural details on some elevations. Mr. Zweber shared his concern with the ends of the back-to-back buildings facing the public streets. Rick Packer of Arcon Development spoke again and stated his appreciation to the Commission for allowing this item to be presented in pieces while some of the details are worked out. Chairperson Messner opened the public hearing at 8:31p.m. Dave Durig2n,14160 Atwood Court, owns property on the eastern edge of the Bloomfield development. He stated his concerns about the proposed 72 foot lots and whether or not the elevation difference between the lots will cause drainage into his lot. He stated he would like to see the same association standards as in the Bloomfield development so there is a smooth transition between neighborhoods. Jeff Geske-Peer, 14148 Atwood Court, approached the Commission. He encourages 80 foot lots because otherwise the plan looks crowded. He would like to see a neighborhood out his backyard that is similar to his, keeping in mind the future marketability of his home. Mr. Geske- Peer stated he is aware of elevation differences and he is concerned there will be drainage into his yard. He suggested a berm between the developments. Mr. Geske-Peer also mentioned the grove of trees on the eastern side of the development and that he's heard those trees will not be kept. He would like those trees to remain if possible because they block the lights of the refinery. There were no further public comments. MOTION by Schultz to continue the Public Hearing to the August 28, 2007, meeting. Second by Howell. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was continued. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Zweber where the grove of trees were located the resident was referring to. Mr. Zweber pointed out where the trees are located and stated that none of the trees are specified as heritage trees and actually are types of trees that do not last long. Chairperson Messner then began discussions on each issue that needed to be addressed before the next meeting on August 28, 2007. With respect to whether or not the size of the single family lots next to Bloomfield be expanded to 80 foot wide lots, Commissioner Schultz asked if there has been similar requests from other neighborhoods. Mr. Zweber replied that there has been a couple but with unique circumstances such as the amount of trees on the lots. Mr. Zweber clarified that it is not the entire area of 72 foot lots to consider making 80 foot lots, but only the homes next to the Bloomfield development. Commissioner Howell stated she would like to see the 80 foot lots on the western line. Chairperson Messner agreed that 80 foot lots would provide a smoother transition between the developments. Mr. Ach provided that 72 foot lots with 10 foot setback would not allow 2 car garages, but 80 foot lots can retain 10 foot setbacks. On the matter of metal roofing, Chairperson Messner reiterated from previous meetings on the subject of metal roofing that the Commission had preferred that metal only be used for accents. Commissioner Howell stated her main concern with large amounts of flat surface that were metal would cause insurance rates to rise if there was damage from a hail storm. Chairperson Messner stated he was open to the idea but the Commission would need to see more information before amending the City code on allowed roofing materials. Chairperson Messner stated his agreement in allowing setbacks of 7.5 feet on each side in the 56 and 51 foot lots. The other Commissioners agreed. With respect to parks and other amenities, Chairperson Messner stated he would like to see more detail on the reserved Outlot. He is pleased with the trails, dog areas and tot areas. He stated he would like to see a central park area on the western side. Regarding the architectural areas that are open to public view, Chairperson Messner stated he would like see the end elevations of those buildings at the next meeting. With respect to the zoning designation of the commercial area, Rick Packer of Arcon Development stated that they are not requesting the PUD part of the zoning of the commercial area. They are requesting the C-4 zoning so they can give the prospective commercial entities an idea of what will be allowed there. Mr. Zweber stated that in order to grant zoning, the City needs to see a proposed concept. Ms. Lindquist further clarified that the whole project came in as a PUD, so staff expected the commercial area to be presented as a PUD. Mr. Packer again stated he would like just the C-4 zoning first and then come back with a PUD when there is a plan. There was no further discussion on the issues. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28, 2007 5.a. 07-26-PP, 07-27-ZA, 07-28-PUD Prestwick Place Preliminary Plat. Arcon Development has submitted applications for approval of a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan for approximately 285 acres north of County Road 42. The Planning Commission discussed with Arcon a number of issues that would need to be revised within the plan. Arcon was not able to make these revisions in time for staff to review the plans before tonight's Planning Commission meeting. Staff has recently received the revisions and will be prepared to discuss the plan visions at the September 11 Planning Commission meeting. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue public hearing on the Prestwick Place development until the September 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION by Howell to continue the Public Hearing to the September 11, 2007, meeting. Second by Schultz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was continued. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28, 2007 5.a. 07-26-PP, 07-27-ZA, 07-28-PUD Prestwick Place Commercial Area Zoning. Senior Planner Zweber presented this item. Atcon Development has submitted applications for approval of a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan for approximately 285 acres north of County Road 42. At their July 24 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed with Arcon a number of issues that would need to be revised within the plan including the additional information needed to approve a rezoning of the commercial area. Staff requests direction fiom the Planning Commission regarding the potential commercial area regulations for Prestwick Place. Mr. Zweber further explained what commercial businesses the City would allow in that area and what uses could go on either outlot within the commercial area. Mr. Zweber stated a couple of changes Arcon has requested. Commissioner Schwartz asked how much square footage a Super Target has and Mr. Zweber replied about 90,000 square feet and could be accomodated on the east side commercial area. Chairperson Messner inquired how much square footage in a Kohls department store and Mr. Zweber stated the Kohls store in Apple Valley is approximately 48,000 square feet. Chairperson Messner stated he approves the reduction of the east side minimum square footage requirement to 60,000 square feet and also approves the request to be able to switch the standards from one side of the area to the other. The other Commission members were in agreement With respect to the outside storage area, Chairperson Messner stated that most materials involved with stores like Home Depot and Lowes are contained inside the building. He stated his preference, given the residential density of the area, is to leave the limitation to 20,000 square feet as initially proposed. Chairperson Messner stated he would need to see the proposed project before allowing more than 20,000 square feet. The other Commission members were in agreement. The Applicant, Rick Packer of Arcon Development, approached the Commission. Mr. Packer stated he would like to have as much flexibility with the 45,000 square feet as possible. He would like to look at uses that are oriented to the neighborhood or surrounding development. He stated he does not see commercial development occurring on this site for quite some time. Mr. Packer pointed out that the most important thing that a big box business will be dependent on is at least a three-quarter access on Akron and the County has yet to agree to it. If the access is not approved, development may be further delayed. However, Mr. Packer stated that going forward with the commercial rezoning will help in marketing the property. Chairperson Messner stated he would like to see some flexibility within the 45,000 square feet requirement but agrees there should be some type of major anchor within that area. He stated that whatever the combination of square footage, there needs to be a minimum threshold to have an anchor in that space. Chairperson Messner suggested a hotel could be added to the acceptable uses. EXCERPT FROM MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 5.a. 07-26-PP, 07-27-ZA, 07-28-PUD Prestwick Place Preliminary Plat. Arcon Development has submitted applications for approval of a Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan for approximately 285 acres north of County Road 42. The Planning Commission discussed with Arcon a number of issues that would need to be revised within the plan. Arcon was not able to make these revisions in time for staff to review the plans before tonight's Planning Commission meeting. This is a continuation of the public hearing opened at the meeting on July 24, 2007, and further continued on August 28, 2007. Mr. Zweber highlighted the changes to the plan since the meeting on July 24, 2007. One item to discuss is the requested rezoning of the various areas. Mr. Zweber went through each area and details that need to be discussed. The areas include the Dakota County CDA townhomes and apartments, the Arcon commercial property, Arcon single family residential, and Lennar townhouses. Commissioner Howell asked if there was any type of buffering between the single family and multi -family housing. Mr. Zweber replied the applicant does provide additional landscaping beyond the trees on the street, but the majority of the buffering is provided through the landscaping around the actual units. He also stated that not a lot of focus was put on the landscaping in that area since it is assumed that people who buy the single family homes there should realize there are multi -family homes across the street. Commissioner Schwartz asked whether or not the townhouses have two car garages. Mr. Zweber replied yes, with the exception of the Dakota County CDA townhomes. Applicant, Rick Packer, Arcon Development, approached the Commission and stated his appreciation of the extra time allowed to present their item. With respect to the architectural control of the single family homes, Mr. Packer stated Arcon did not think of the architectural guidelines that he submitted as the City Code. He further stated that Arcon would agree with using half brick on the front of homes and a 7:12 roof pitch, with the exception of houses with porches. In that event, Arcon would install brick on the front of the garage rather than placing half brick behind a porch where it would not be seen. Mr. Packer wanted to clarify what was meant by Arcon being required to maintain the stormwater basins. If the City was requiring Arcon to maintain the landscaping, that would be acceptable. But Arcon would resist maintaining the actual stormwater infrastructure once the landscaping is established. Chairperon Messner also asked for clarification on the stormwater maintenance. Project Engineer Dawley responded that within the subdivision agreement, the City's role would be set forth in maintaining the stormwater structures. However, the City should not have to replace each tree that may die or pick up garbage every spring. Mr. Dawley stated it will be set forth in the subdivision agreement that the City will be responsible for maintaining the stormwater infrastructure, but any other aesthetics of the property will be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. Jay Liberacki, with Lennar Corporation, approached the Commission to discuss three issues pointed out by staff The first issue was with Condition #7 regarding additional landscaping. Mr. Liberacki agreed with the adding more landscaping along County Road 42 where homes abut the highway. However, he stated he does not agree with more landscaping in the outlet away from the units where the focus should be on foundation plantings rather than trees in the outlot. With respect to additional landscaping between the townhomes and parks, Mr. Liberacki stated that Lennar is contributing significantly to upgrade those parks so those areas will be attractive viewing areas. He stated he does not agree with additional screening to prevent residents to be able to view those areas. Mr. Liberacki added that the last area, Outlet F, will have attractive architecture that should not be screened from public view. The second issue was with respect to Condition #9, the treatment of guest parking at the end of the private driveways. Mr. Liberacki stated that this practice has been successful in other communities. Mr. Liberacki stated Lennar had previously connected the driveways with guess parking but redesigned that feature while working with the fire department. It would be possible to go back to that design if the City so required. With respect to the tot lot requirement in Condition # 12, Lennar would agree with including a tot lot on the west side in the outlet with a connecting trail but would then expect a tot lot in the park Lennar is contributing to with park dedication fees. Mr. Liberacki stated that gazebos are not very often used although they are attractive structures. Lennar would prefer to use a larger play area than a gazebo. With respect to the trail system request on the east side, Mr. Liberacki stated that Lennar did not intend that trail to be an integral part of the city's trail system, but rather an inner private trail for residents. Mr. Liberacki stated there should be a sidewalk on the side of Street 17 to satisfy the City's need to connect the trailways. Mr. Liberacki further stated that with respect to Condition #13 requiring Lennax to submit a playground structure plan to staff is acceptable to Lennar, but the part that states the City would review and approve the structure for age appropriateness does not seem fair. Mr. Liberacki stated that Lennar works with a vendor who specializes in playground structures and are the best judge of age appropriate structures. Mr. Liberacki stated that he does not feel it appropriate for staff to have the power to veto the designed submitted by Lennar's vendor without understanding the buyer's profile as the vendor does. In closing, Mr. Liberacki stated that Lennar looks forward to building in the neighborhood and believes they will become an asset to the City of Rosemount. Chairperson Messner asked to view the end unit profile of the single townhomes. A discussion took place as to the architectural details on the end of the units and the discrepancies between the photographs and the watercolors. Chairperson Messner stated he would prefer to see some architectural features that break up a plain wall on the end of the unit. Chairperson Messner stated he agrees to some level that there doesn't necessarily need to be full screening at the end of the units from the parks, just mainly along the roadways. Chairperson Messner asked Mr. Liberacki about the type of parking where 65% cannot back up and whether or not this type has been successful in other communities. Mr. Liberack replied yes, and that guests should be able to back into and out of the residents' driveway. Chairperson Messner asked whether or not residents would be able to back out of their driveways if guests are parked at the end. Mr. Liberacki replied yes and that the only complaints Lennar has received on this issue is when residents park their own cars at the end for long period of times. He further stated that the driveways could be designed a couple of feet wider to allow for back up space or the spaces could be placed off to the side rather than at the end which would make it a higher percentage. He stated this has worked in other communities. Mr. Zweber informed the Commission it would not be acceptable if additional parking reduced the amount of open space. Chairperson Messner agreed that Lennat would need to meet the 20% open space requirement. Chairperson Messner stated that he does not have a problem with some of the parking as designed by Lennar but would prefer to see a greater percentage of it, not necessarily just at the end but more allowance for residents to back out of the driveways if there are cars parked at the end. Commissioner Schwartz asked Mr. Liberacki what demographics Lennar is looking for stating her concern with the high number of inside units. Mr. Liberacki replied that the demographics is changing where typically these homes 3-4 years ago were purchased by first time home buyers with small children. Now, he stated, that with the cost of new housing and current foreclosure rates, residents are beginning to stay longer and now single parents are included in the buyers. Commissioner Schwartz stated that if buyers are evolving to an older family entity with older children, there should also be basketball courts and additional parking for teenagers with cars. Mr. Liberacki replied he did not feel basketball courts would be a welcome amenity adjacent to the home units, but rather in a park further away where older kids can ride bikes to or walk to without accompaniment of an adult. Commissioner Schwartz then asked if the center units are equally as popular as the end units. Mr. Liberacki replied that no, the center units are not as popular and they will be priced accordingly. With the continuation of the public hearing, Chairperson Messner invited the public to come forward with comments. There were no public comments. MOTION by Palda to close the public hearing. Second by Schwartz. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 7:40p.m. With respect to Condition #12 and the private amenities on the west side, Mr. Zweber stated that the common lot may be a more appropriate option for additional amenities although there is a gas line and retaining wall in the area. Also, the trail could occur in a wider arc than suggested by the applicant. Mr. Zweber stated both issues are legitimate to explore further. With respect to the Condition #9 off street requirement, Mr. Zweber stated that if there is parking at the end, it should be sufficiently far enough away from the residents' driveways and in some instances, there is a back-up area provided. Mr. Zweber further stated he would be reluctant to let the percentage go lower than 25%. Chairperson Messner stated he is uncomfortable with the wording of Condition #9 and wondered if it required the elimination of stalls that do not allow vehicles to backup. Mr. Zwebet replied that yes, that was the intent of the condition. Commissioner Schwartz stated she was concerned about the precedent set and wondered where else in Rosemount this type of parking is used. Mr. Zweber replied that it used on a very limited basis in Harmony, possibly 12 stalls for the 300 townhouse units. Commissioner Schwartz stated her concern with the quality of life for residents to live there with it being such a crowded and congested area. She recommended staying with the low numbers as in the Harmony area. Commissioner Howell agreed that it would be very difficult to back out in the crowded areas as proposed. Commissioner Schwartz recommended the 10% usage equal to Harmony and Chairperson Messner agreed to modify Condition #9 to allow for no more than 10%. Chairperson Messner stated Condition #13 should be modified to delete the words "age appropriate" with respect to the City review and approval of playground structures. Chairperson Messner then addressed Condition #7 with respect to additional landscaping. He stated he agreed with requirement for additional landscaping on top of the berm all along County Road 42 to where it meets Street 14. Along Street 14 to Street 9, Chairperson Messner agreed to with additional landscaping to Street 9. Chairperson Messner agreed to strike the requirement along the common lot 29 boundary with the City Park. With respect to the south side of the berm on common lot 107 along the Connemara Trail frontage, Mr. Zweber suggested 2-4 feet of additional landscaping to fill in the gap along Connemara. The Commission was m agreement. Before the motion was made by the Commission, Mr. Zweber pointed out that if written approval of the'/< access on Akron is not received, the C4 rezoning of the commercial area will be withdrawn. MOTION by Howell to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan of Prestwick Place and the Rezoning of the Arcon single family residential from AG — Agricultural to Rl PUD — Low Density Residential Planned Unit Development; the Lennar and Dakota County Community Development Agency townhouses from AG — Agricultural to R3 PUD — Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development; the Dakota County Community Development Agency apartments from AG — Agricultural to R4 PUD — High Density Residential Planned Unit Development; and the Arcon commercial area from AG — Agricultural to C4 PUD — General Commercial Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: 1. Rl PUD lots have a minimum lot width of 72 feet, a front yard setback of 25 feet, a 5 foot garage side yard setback, a house side yard setback of 10 feet, a rear yard setback of 30 feet, and minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet, except that the lots of Block 1 and 2 are required to have a minimum lot width of 80 feet and both side yard setbacks are 10 feet. 2. R3 PUD neighborhoods have a setback from the public street of 25 feet, a setback from property lines of 30 feet, a minimum building separation of 20 feet, and a minimum parking setback of 20 feet. 3. The Dakota County Community Development Agency townhomes are permitted to have a single car garage. 4. R3 PUD buildings have a maximum of 12 units per building. 5. Garages on single family houses on corner lots shall be located on the opposite side of the house from the public street. 6. Setbacks from the Connemara trail section that has only 85 feet of right-of-way will be measured as if the right-of-way is 100 feet wide. Fences or other residential accessory structures will not be allowed in this setback area. 7. Additional landscaping is provided on the south side of common lot 53 along County Road 42 and Street 14 frontages, alang the eannneft lot 29 bettiidaq with the Gity Par4, and on the south side of the berm on common lot 107 along the Connemara Trail frontage. 8. Final landscape plans will need to be submitted with the final plat and construction plans. Modifications to the final landscaping plans may be required by the City Planner or City Engineer if any landscaping would interfere with street signage, infrastructure or other design issues. 9. The required'/z stall per unit off-street parking requirement for the townhomes needs to be fulfilled with parking stalls that allow the vehicle to tam around when backing out of the stall not to exceed more than 10%. 10. The applicant receive final site plan and master development plan approval for the Dakota County Community Development Agency portion of the plat. Additional information regarding landscaping, stormwater management, pedestrian access and architecture and other ordinance requirements must be submitted for City review and approval. The unit counts for the proposed Dakota County CDA development assumes that there is sufficient space to install the needed infrastructure while meeting all ordinance requirement not expressly waived within this approval. Failure to meet ordinance requirements may result in a reduction in the total number of units permitted to be constructed. 11. The applicant receive final site plan and master development plan approval for the Arcon commercial area (outlots G and J). Additional information regarding landscaping, stormwater management, pedestrian access and architecture and other ordinance requirements must be submitted for City review and approval. The development of the commercial areas is subject to conditions stated within Prestwick Place Commercial Area Guidelines dated September 7, 2007. 12. A private amenity feature, such as a tot lot or gazebo/picnic area, needs to be added to the western Lennar townhouse neighborhood. 13. The final construction plans for the eastern Lennar townhouse playground and picnic area need to be reviewed and approved by City staff to ensure that the structures and equipment installed meet industry standards, and is adequately sized for the amount of residents in the neighborhood. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Chairperson Messner asked what the proposal is for trails on the east side. Mr. Zweber pointed out the public right of way line along the street, the proposed trail, sidewalk on the north side and west of development. Staff is requesting the trail through the development be connected to the other city trails. Chairperson Messner stated he sees the trail within the development as an internal sidewalk and that a connection to the trail should be along the street not through the development. Commissioner Palda agreed with that statement. Chairperson Messner further stated he preferred to see the trail along one side of the street and leave the trail through the development as a private trail. Therefore, Change #3 as part of Condition #3 to approval of the preliminary plat needs to read "trail needs to be added to the west side of street 17 from Connemara Trail to street 16" instead of a "sidewalk". Condition #3 needs to read "five" changes instead of "six" changes deleting Change #5. Motion by Schwartz to approve the Preliminary Plat of Prestwick Place, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the City Engineer's memorandum dated September 7, 2007, the Parks and Recreation Director's memorandum dated September 5, 2007, and the Fire Marshal's memorandums dated August 1, 2007. 2. Recording Planned Unit Development Agreement at the time of Final Plat recording. 3. Provide the five sim changes to the trail and sidewalk network identified within this executive summary. 4. Installation of "No Parking — Fire lane" signs on both sides of all of the private drives. 5. The development of the residential land east of Akron Avenue is limited to 200 units until a second full access to the area is constructed. 6. Private Drive 42 needs to be revised to address and accommodate the Fire Marshal's limit of 200 feet in length. Second by Palda. Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. As follow-up for this item, Mr. Zweber stated this item will go before the City Council on October 2, 2007. This will allow the applicant three weeks to revise their plans and staff to provide new recommendations to the Council. ARCON -- rye F -.,0`'t' o DEVELOPMENT, INC. '7ESO 625 METRO BLUD. • SUITE 350 • EDINA, MIN t.com 55439 E-mail: xtcm,@arwndevelopment.com • www.awndevelopmen.com September 18, 2007 Mr. Eric Zweber City of Rosemount 2875 - 145th St. W Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Preliminary Plat Narrative Arcon Development, Inc. Akron Ave. and County Road 42 • PHONE 952/835-4981 • FAX 952/835-0069 Itl SEP 1, 9 Z007 Dear Eric: The purpose of this narrative is to describe to you Arcon Development's portion of the Master Development Plan submission, those portions being the 37 single family lots located in the SW comer of the site, the R-3 area in the far NE comer of the site and the o commercial area. Single Family Lots Pursuant to the Planning Commission recommendation, Arcon intends to have the lots adjacent the Bloomfield Addition a minimum of 80' wide. The homes would have a minimum 10, setback on each side. Front setbacks would be 25'. As mentioned, we intend to market these t individual ld builders. Arcon. heh o e desig inwould be governed by architectural "guidelines- would be as follows: WE DO MORE L7IANDEVELOP LAND.... WE CREATE NEIGHBORHOODS DEVELOPERS -PLANNERS -CONTRACTORS Mr. Eric Zweber September 18, 2007 Page 2 Home Size Requirements • Minimum two (2) car attached garage required • Single Floor or Rambler Style Home — Must have a minimum of 1,700 square feet of living area on the main floor. • Two -Story Home - Must have a minimum of 2,200 square feet of finished living area above grade. Decks are specifically excluded from total square footage. • Modified Two -Story- Must have a main floor footprint minimum at or above 1,400 square feet and a total of 2,200 square feet above grade. • Other Style Homes - Must receive specific case -by -case written approval. Exterior Materials • Front Exterior -All homes shall have a minimum 1/2 brick, stone, stucco or wood on the entire street facade. 6" trim boards and columns, detailed window and door trim and creative roof designs are all suggested as home. Exceptions will be made, the iscretion of Ar Development only, ltontarcase e by case basis hif the architectural style ct clearly is inconflact with the abo en materials. • Side and Rear Exterior - May be maintenance -free siding materials Roofinq Requirements • All homes must have laminated shingles. Light shades of asphalt shingles such as off-white or silver are prohibited. • The roof lines for all homes must have a minimum 7112 pitch (excluding porch areas). Townhouse Area At present, we do not have concept or builder chosen for this area. The area is Award in shape, and may be best suited for design/development in conjunction with the properties to the north and east. It would be our intent to have a design density somewhere around 5-6 units per acre. The development of this property would be at least 3-4 years from present. Mr. Eric Zweber September 18, 2007 Page 3 Commercial Area It is Arcon's present intent to market the property pursuant to the Commercial Guidelines included as part of the Prestwick PUD. Because it will be some time before this area develops and commercial trends may change, Arcon reserves the right to approach the City with suggested changes to these guidelines. Please do not hesitate'to contact me if you have questions or need additional information. We look forward to having the opportunity to present our proposal to the Planning Commission in February. Sincerely, , W, Rick Packer, Project Manager Arcon Development, Inc , J o� T 115, R. i _ � rt Q gw= em®®0®Baed�4 37 p ce OO®O®C%vm®9�® „o Q1 AAA 3 o � 8 A .d8 v sg o I 7-rFTTI ITT TTTTT FB EvF � n f ,E s� Fxc�noy ?� [� C=DI¢t�w SCR. Q1'u L'J 6fe \\ I " J F i - Ir r •a a a NOJR9 2" PT6563 a r�;r, j � CJ��L J�'IL` J'�L J��L JIiL` JAIL` � �' J��L' JAIL` J � °� ail '• d � `p ' I JIiL` � gI� [t y.JL_ JL JL JLv�� JLv JLvJi_ _ JI R t' `61 INOO]8'TH •E 4CO.W °�11 , I I r �;; r � I tL� �J I I I � I \ \ I I �\C p • I ¢I �. i mj R m I � t I a..i I ♦ q 1`.S1yn 1�.1q 1 m i. m I I o v i ze 7r - C n y ¢$8 $ $ �u a a9k 1 Jul � J 7+ 'I 11'I [1jf 1 *a��W 111111111 �A1�1►1 1� Iq��� 1'� �l � I 1e�. — �n�lj�ll1111/1/��1 r \illl��l f h �Ilj=n .17 IV IIIII � • �� Ii11Cl� �I.. �� 1 Iy61A1 __ 41I. M b o _a a e is gse :i¢s - aCH E n a s" � BYmy 0 0 rI i IWN, i : m, Nam$ pp ��jj ((ApAp '''' '; Mid �� \� � £� � ;� ! .� \r/� y � /���� \� � } » � { � � 2 _>: ,� � 6\� a/� \ ».: � _ a— , w > � � � » a' � � + � � 4� w2: DECLARATION OF COVENANTS" AND RESTRICTIONS PRESTWICK PLACE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DECLARATION made this day of. November, 2007, ` by the Arcon Development, Inc., a Minnesota corporation and Arcon/Pentom Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership, (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Declarant"); WIIEREAS, Declarant Arcon Development, Inc. is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof, and Declarant Arcon/Pemtom Partnership is the owner of the real property as described on Attachment Two, 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, Minnesota ('City") in connection with the approval of an application for a master development plan planned unit development for a mixed residential and commercial 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 WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the master development plan planned unit development, the City has required the execution and filing of thi j Dbclaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (hereinafter the "Declaration"); and WHEREAS, to secure the benefits and advantages of approvalof 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. 2007-xxx Attachment Three b. Prestwick Place Final Plat, Attachment Four Master Development Plan (Revised 10/xx/2007), Attachment Five Development ::Plan/Overall Preliminary Plat (Revised 09/19/2007), Attachment Six e. Prestwick Place Preliminary Plat (Sheets 3, 4 and 5; Revised 09/19/2007), Attachment Seven f. Grading Plans, 50 Scale (Sheets 1 through 9; Revised 09/19/2007), Attachment Eight g. Utility Plans (Sheets 14, 15 and 16; Revised 09/19/2007), Attachment Nine VA h. Centerline Profiles and Details (Sheets 21, 21, 22 and 23; Revised 09/19/2007), Attachment Ten i. Landscape Plans, 50 Scale (Sheets 1 through 8; Revised 09/19/2007), Attachment Eleven j. Parking Plans (Sheets 24 and 25; Revised 09/19/2007), Attachment Twelve k. Open Space Analysis (Revised 09/19/2007), Attachment Thirteen 1. Lennar Back-to-back Townhouse Photos, Attachment Fourteen M. Lennar Through Unit Townhouse Photos, Attachment Fifteen n. Prestwick Place Commercial ' Area Guidelines (Revised 09/07/2007), Attachment Sixteen all of which attachments are copies of originaldocuments 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; s Parking stalls shall be located no less than 20 feet from any public street nght-of--way. b. Maintenance and replacement of trees within the City right-of-way shall be the responsibility of the adjoining homeowner's association. C. M &enance of the stormwater basins, infiltration basins and associated stormwater infrastructure necessary for the long term operation and function will be performed by the City. All other maintenance including but not limited to garbage collection, or landscape replacement or the like shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association or adjacent private property owners. d. Setbacks from the Connemara trail section that has only 85 feet of right- of-way will be measured as if the right-of-way is 100 feet wide. Fences or other residential accessory structures will not be allowed in this setback area. e. Garages on single family houses on corner lots shall be located on the opposite side of the house from the public street. 3. The Subject Property may only be developed and used in accordance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of these Declarations unless the owner first secures approval by the City Council of an amendment to the planned unit development plan or a rezoning to a zomng,Oassification that permits such other development and use. ` 4. In connection with the approval of developers of the Subject Property, the following deviations from City Zoning or Subdivision Code provisions were approved: a. Section 11-2-8 A. Single Family Attached Dwellings and Townhome Requirements and Standards: Townhouse buildings within the R3 PUD are permitted a maximum of 12 units per building. b. Section 11-2-18 G. Single Family Attached Dwelling Parking Requirements: The Dakota County Community Development Agency townhomes are permitted to have a single stall: garage provided that there is total off street parking provided for an average of 2.5 stalls per unit.. C. Section 11-4-5 F. R-1 Minimum Lot Requirements and Standards: Rl PUD lots have a minimum lot width of 72 feet, a front yard setback of 25 feet, a 5 foot garage side yard setback, a house side yard setback of 10 feet, a rear yard setback of 30 feet, and minimum lot size of 9,500 square feet, except that the lots of Block 1 and 2 are required to have a minimum lot width of 80 feet and both side yard setbacks are 10 feet. d. Section 11-4-8 F. R-3 Minimum Lot Requirements and Standards: R3 PUD neighborhoods have a setback from the public street of 25 feet, a setback from property lines of 30 feet, a minimum building separation of 20 feet, and a minimum parking setback of 20 feet. e. Section 11-4-14 C-4 General Commercial District Requirements and Standards: The development C-4 PUD zoned Arcon Commercial property is subject to conditions stated within Prestwick Place Commercial Area Guidelines_ revised September 7, 2007 (Attachment Sixteen). In all other respects the use and development �of the, Subject Property shall conform to the requirements of the City Code of Ordinances. 5. This Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions provides only the Subject Property only master development plan planned unit development approval.' Prior to the improvement or development of the Subject Property, beyond the improvement necessary for the City Park or the construction of Connemara Trail and/or Akron Avenue and associated infrastructure, a final development plan planned unit development approval pursuant to Zoning Code Section 11-10-6 C. 5. of thi Subject Property is required and an addendum filed with County Recorder to this Declaratid,MCovenants and Restrictions. 6. ift-obligations..and restrictions of this Declaration run with the land of the Subject Property and shall be'Weable against the Declarant, its successors and assigns, by the City of Rosemount acting through its City Council. This Declaration may be amended from time to time by a written amendment executed by the City and the owner or owners of the lot or lots to be affected by said amendment. IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was ac by , the _ the for and STATE OF MINI?ESOTA ;e) ss. COUNTY OF DECLARANT Arcon/Pemtom Partnership By Daniel J.Ierbst Its Preideit vledged before me this and behalf of iy and on behalf of said Notary Public day of , 2007, Dean Scott Johnson Its President 22 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2007, by , the and , the for and on behalf of a by and on behalf of said Notary Public 10 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT 2875 145TH STREET WEST ROSEMOUNT, MN 55068 651-423-4411 Prestwick Place Commercial Area Guidelines (Revised 09/07/2007) The City anticipates a commercial development of up to 260,000 square feet of retail or office space within the approximately 50 acres of land of the planned unit development (PUD) named Prestwick Place (Oudots G and J). To provide direction upon how the City desires this commercial area to develop, the following guidelines have been prepared. Commercial Businesses Allowed The following commercial uses are allowed within the Prestwick Place subject to a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan and the specific area conditions listed below. 1. Child and Adult Daycare. 2. Communication Businesses. 3. Eating and Drinking Establishments; including coffee shops, bakeries, sandwich shops, fast food or the like. Restaurants with drive thm facilities are subject the C4 Condition Use Permit standards. 4. Essential Service Facilities. 5. Financial Institutions. 6. Hotels and Motels. 7. Personal Services; including barber and beauty shops, fitness centers, copying, postal service, tanning, shoe repair, photography, video rental or the like. 8. Professional services and offices; including architects and attorney offices, dental and medical clinics, financial services, insurance providers, real estate businesses and the like. 9. Public or governmental services. 10. Retail sales; including new automobile parts, general merchandise, books and stationery, clothing, drug, gifts and novelties, groceries, furniture and hardware, hobby, video sales, jewelry, and sporting good stores or the like. Automobile sales, new and used, are prohibited. 11. Automotive Repair, including tire and oil change establishments, subject to the C3 Conditional Use Standards and a limit of no more than four (4) inoperable vehicles awaiting repair or repaired vehicles waiting for pick up may be stored outdoors. 12. Nonservice Station Retail Facilities having gasoline pumps, subject to the C3 Conditional Use Permit standards. West Commercial Area (Oudot G) D Minimum of one anchor facility which may consist of one of the following: 1. A single retail tenant with a minimum of 40,000 square feet. 2. A multiple tenant retail building with at least three businesses greater than 15,000 square feet each. 3. A bank or financial institution with a minimum of 30,000 square feet. 4. A medical clinic with a minimum of 30,000 square feet. 5. Multiple tenant retail establishments totaling a minimum of 50,000 square feet with a single anchor retail tenant having a minimum 18,000 square feet. 6. A hotel in which all individual rooms are accessed via interior hallways. No more than 3 lots smaller than 1.5 acres that are used by a single tenant. Lots or condominiums that are smaller than 1.5 acres but are within a single building with three or more tenants would not be counted towards this threshold. A maximum of one auto orientated businesses (gas stations, oil change, tire shops or auto repair). New auto part sales businesses without repair or outdoor storage would not be counted towards this threshold. East Commercial Area (Outlot f) • Minimum of one big box retailer with a minimum of 60,000 square feet, provided the following is meet: 1. A general merchandise retailer is preferred, while a home improvement retailer or discount merchandise club retailer would be acceptable. 2. Other big box retailers would be considered provided that the retailer mentioned above is already constructed within Outlot G or Outlot J. 3. The total outdoor storage area for a big box retailer shall not exceed 20,000 square feet. The outdoor storage area will be located to provide the least visual impact and presence from the County Road 42 and Akron Avenue frontages. Outdoor storage areas shall provide a minimum seventy-five percent (75%) opacity screen to a height of six feet or the height of the material being stored outdoors, whichever is greater. • No more than 4 lots smaller than 1.5 acres that are used by a single tenant. Lots or condominiums that are smaller than 1.5 acres but are within a single building with three or more tenants would not be counted towards this threshold. • A maximum of two auto orientated businesses (gas stations, oil change, tire shops or auto repair), limited to only one service auto orientated business (oil change, tire shop or auto repair). New auto part sales businesses without repair or outdoor storage would not be counted towards this threshold. Interchange ofAnchorFacilityRequirements The anchor facility requirements may be exchanged between the east and west commercial areas. If a 60,000 square foot big box retailer is provided on the west commercial area, then the anchor facility requirement from the west commercial area would then apply to the east commercial area. The limit of 1.5 acre or smaller lots and auto orientated businesses are no interchangeable between the two commercial areas. Common Architectural Themes Each of the two commercial areas will adopt a common architectural theme throughout the development of each side. The east commercial area and west commercial area may have different architectural themes from each other. It is anticipated that the architectural theme will be established by the anchor facility on each side of the development. An exception to the common architectural theme would be considered for the limited number of lots under 1.5 acres for a single tenant that has an adopted corporate architecture. 4 ROSEMOUNT PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: September 27, 2007 TO: Eric Zweber, Senior City Planner CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Andrew Brotzler, City Engineer Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Kathie Hanson, Planning Department Secretary FROM: Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer RE: Arcon Development Preliminary Plat Review SUBMITTAL: Prepared by Westwood Engineering, the Prestwick Place Preliminary Plans for preliminary plat review, dated September 19, 2007, were received September 19, 2007. The following review comments were generated from the following documents included in the submittal: 1. Preliminary Plans, dated June 27, 2007, revised September 19, 2007, comprised of Existing Conditions, Development Plan/Preliminary Plat, Site Plan, Grading Plan, Utility Plan, Landscape Plan, Centerline Profiles and Details. 2. Preliminary Grading Plan 50-Scale Supplemental Set, dated June 27, 2007, revised September 19, 2007. 3. Preliminary Storm Water Runoff Calculations, dated September 19, 2007. 4. Proposed Drainage Area Maps —North and South, dated June 20, 2007, revised September 19, 2007; Existing and Proposed Drainage Area Maps -Southwest Corner, dated June 20, 2007. In a response memo dated September 19, 2007, the applicant's engineer has responded to all comments previously made by the Engineering Department in the September 6, 2007 Engineering Memo. Outstanding items identified to be addressed during future submittals for final plat approval, final design, or with the developer's agreement, have been retained in this memo for future reference, even if acknowledged in the applicant's response memo. Items specifically addressed have been removed from the comments below. GENERAL COMMENTS The storm water management plan for the ponds water quantity and quality shall require additional analysis to meet the City requirements for the Prestwick Place development. The storm water management plan will require the CSAH 42 drainage areas to be included in the analysis. The plan will also require some modifications with respect to interim pond locations and providing proposed pond outlets from all the basins on site to the storm sewer trunkline. Staff will continue to work with the applicant's engineer to resolve these issues prior to future final plat approvals and final grading plan approval. 2. Drainage and utility easements shall be incorporated into the final plat as deemed necessary upon review of the final grading plan at the discretion of the City Engineer. As currently submitted, all drainage and utility easements necessary to encompass the storm sewer systems and emergency overland overflow routes have not been depicted. Specific locations have been forwarded to the applicant's engineer. 3. The final grading plan shall require modifications to incorporate access routes to the ponds and outlet control structures, address the use of slopes in excess of 4:1, and ensure minimum freeboard requirements to roadway catch basins. Specific locations have been forwarded to the applicant's engineer. 4. All naturally vegetated areas within pond and infiltration areas are to be privately owned and maintained. The parameters of this arrangement will be stated in the developer's agreement, approved in conjunction at the time of final plat approval. Appropriate plantings and native vegetation within pond and infiltration areas shall be identified on the landscape plans. Letter of credit or other appropriate form of security for landscaping will be necessary throughout the maintenance period. 5. Conservation easements will be required over all pond and infiltration areas, shall encompass all naturally vegetated areas, and shall be delineated with appropriate signage indicating that the area is to be left undisturbed. 6. Limited information regarding proposed streets and utilities within the Dakota County CDA multi -family areas was provided. Future, more detailed submittals will necessitate further review and will generate additional comments and requests for revisions at the time of Final Development Plan and Site Plan approval for specific areas. Comments contained herein specific to the Dakota County CDA site should be considered as conditional for final plat approval for the CDA site and not a requirement for the initial consideration for Prestwick Place final plat approval as submitted. 7. A street lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of final plat approval. STREET LAYOUT AND ACCESS COMMENTS: 1. Residential development east of Akron Avenue is limited to 200 units before the proposed east -west roadway on the Chadwick property will need to be constructed to provide a second access route for the Dakota County CDA/Lennar area. Construction of this access will necessitate Chadwick cooperation. 2. Street 20 would need to be constructed to provide alternative access for the commercial area in the southeast of the development. As currently depicted in the plans, construction of this public road would necessitate cooperation of the property owners to the east, or realignment to the west. 3. Street 17 widths shall be approved conditional upon review of projected traffic volumes and the need for additional roadway and right-of-way widths to accommodate turn lanes at Connemara Trail and Street 16. 4. Outlots adjacent to Connemara Trail right-of-way will be maintained at a width of 10 feet to preclude the installation of fences at the edge of roadway right-of-way in areas where the right-of-way width is 85 feet. 5. Future submittals for the CDA area will address the fact that the northern street access of the CDA high density multi -family area to Street 17 shall intersect at a more perpendicular angle, as well as line up to oppose Private Drive 40 or 41. Other streets within the CDA area need to meet these same criteria. STREET DESIGN: 1. All 24' F-F private drives shall be signed "No Parking —Fire Lane" or "No Parking by Order of the Fire Marshall" on both sides of the roadway. 2. As recommended in the developer's soil boring report prepared by Braun Intertec, all clay material or other unsuitable material will be removed within the street sections during roadway grading. This shall be specifically noted on the final grading plan. 3. During the feasibility design phase for roadways, additional boring information will be necessary within street rights -of -way. 4. Temporary cul-de-sacs will be installed as required by the City Engineer at phase limits. 5. Gas pipelines will need to be potholed, surveyed, and elevations depicted in construction plan roadway plans and profiles. TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS: 1. The trail in Block 6 appears to have a profile grade of 10 percent or greater. The trail in the park west of Infiltration P18 to Connemara Trail crosses a 4:1 slope. Trail grades included the final grading plan shall be modified to meet accessibility standards. 2. All trails shall be constructed with a 2% cross -slope to promote adequate drainage across the trail. STORM WATER: General Comments 1. The storm water management plan will require modification to meet the City requirements. Staff will continue to work with the applicant's engineer to identify and revise specific design issues prior to final plat approval. A summary of major issues follows: a. The storm water calculations for pond P22 and Infiltration P22 simulate infiltration and are therefore inaccurate. The design calculations should be modified and resubmitted without infiltration. It appears that the pond and infiltration area will require expansion to store the runoff from the 100-year 24-hour event below the overflow to the north and the street 16 road profile. (CDA) b. The highwater elevation for Pond 20 and Inf P20 provides less than 1 foot of freeboard to the Akron Avenue low point catch basin rim elevations. The pond design will require additional storage below the Akron Avenue low point to ensure adequate freeboard. c. The Pond P5 highwater elevation provides less than 1 foot of freeboard to the Connemara Trail low point catch basin rim elevations. The pond design will require additional storage below the Connemara Trail low point to ensure adequate freeboard. d. The south drainage area map indicates that the drainage from CSAH 42 will be directed on -site. The applicant's engineer has indicated that further study of the CSAH 42 stormwater system and areas south is needed to include these areas. e. The south drainage map does not show how the CSAH 42 runoff west of the street 14 connection will be addressed in the design. The existing drainage pattern of the CSAH 42 ditch is from west to east and should be accommodated in the design. Although mentioned in the response memo, a culvert necessary under Street 14 is not shown and will need to be included in the design. 2. The CDA site tributary to Pond P22A does not include an infiltration area. The CDA site design should include an infiltration area adjacent to Pond P22 A. The pond or infiltration area should include a hydraulic connection to the trunkline in Connemara Trail. Stormwater management design revisions for the CDA site shall be conditions for final plat approval of the CDA site and not considered conditions for approval of the initial Prestwick Place final plat. 3. The storm sewer system layout willrequire modification during feasibility/final design to incorporate hydraulic connection to the storm sewer trunkline in Connemara Trail from Pond Pl, Pond P22 or Inf P22, Pond P22A, and Pond P23 or Inf P23. The preliminary Ponds will require hydraulic connections with overflows to the storm sewer trunkluie. The plans should indicate how the proposed overflows from all of the ponds on site will be conveyed to the storm sewer tnmkline. The applicant's engineer has stated that future submittals will incorporate these required connections. The drawdown structure for the Outlot I pond and infiltration system (Pond P23, In£ P23) been added to the plan to allow for drawdown to the area north of the ouflot, is reliant upon future development to the north, is not consistent on the existing sheet flow drainage patterns, and is not acceptable. A temporary solution may be feasible, however hydraulic connections to the storm trunk line for all ponds is ultimately required and alternatives will be studied in the feasibility report. 4. Final design and construction plans for Street 20 and Connemara Trail will address either extension of the storm sewer trunkline stub to the east or termination of street construction to the west to reduce the amount of street removal at time of future extension to the east. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS 1. Slopes throughout the plan exceed the maximum grading slope of 1:4. Slopes in these areas shall be flattened to a maximum 1:4 slope. Specific locations noted as missing information have been forwarded to the applicant's engineer. 2. All emergency overflow (EOF) elevations and routes shall be shown. Specific locations noted as missing information have been forwarded to the applicant's engineer. 3. The Lot 16, Block 4 building pad is 3' below the emergency overflow elevation between Lot 14-15. The ponding of water against the structure prior to overflow is not be allowed and the grading plan in this area shall be revised. 4. All pond grading shall include a maintenance/access road per the Engineering Guidelines. Access route to the maintenance bench for Pond P5 shall be included in pond grading. The bench between P5 and Inf P5 should be 10 feet in width. The access route from P5 to Connemara Trail should be modified to meet an 8% maximum grade. 5. Pond P18 grading shall include an access road to the maintenance bench from Street 14. 6. The grading plan should include an access route to the storm sewer trunkline outlet control structure from Pond 1864 of the Bloomfield development. The proposed structure rim elevation is preliminarily proposed at 920.0, and the structure should be shown on the storm sewer plan. 7. The Pond P18 grading plan should include an emergency overflow section to the infiltration area P18D. 8. The location of Pond P20 and Inf P20 should not conflict with the Oudot J entrance from Akron Avenue. 9. The retaining wall shown southeast of Block 7 adjacent to the gas pipeline appears to be greater than 4 feet in height based on the contours. Construction plans signed by a registered engineer shall be submitted to the City for review and approval on all proposed retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height and a fence. Top of wall elevation and bottom of wall elevations at maximum height shall be indicated on the final grading plan for all retaining walls. 10. To be addressed with future submittals for the CDA area, the design appears to include a retaining wall that will be located with the drainage and utility easement adjacent to Pond P22. The construction of retaining walls in a drainage and utility easement are not allowed as outlined in the Engineering Guidelines. This wall also appears to be greater than 4 feet in height (see previous comment). 11. Show gas line elevations, especially in vicinity of proposed utility and roadway crossings on final plans. 12. Add notes staring recommendations of the soil boring report for grading within roadways (i.e. removal of all clays and other unsuitable materials). 13. The existing CSAH 42 storm sewer should be shown on the plans with size, pipe type, and inverts. 14. The Connemara Trail storm sewer does not appear to be adequate based on design criteria for spread and run by. It is anticipated that additional catch basins will be required to meet the design requirements during final design. 15. An easement of appropriate width should be shown for the western end of the trunk storm sewer line through the exception parcel in the southwest comer of the development area. The trunk line alignment should be shifted north and easement provided within the development if easements can not be acquired from the exception property owner. Final plat approval for this area will be conditional upon the acquisition of this easement by the developer. WATERMAIN: 1. Waternain sizing and stub extensions for future development will be examined during preparation of the feasibility report and will correspond with water system planning efforts in the CSAH 42/Akron Avenue AUAR and the Comprehensive Water Plan, as well as to ensure fire flow adequacy per current ISO Fire Flow Ratings. Hydrant locations will be per the Fire Marshall's review and approval. SANITARY SEWER: 1. Sanitary sewer design will be finalized during preparation of the feasibility report. 2. In the CSAH 42/Akron Avenue AUAR, areas east of Akron are shown as served by the 24" trunk line west of Akron, which may necessitate sewer crossings of Akron Avenue not currently shown. PRELIMINARY PLAT: 1. The storm sewer trunkline crossing Block 6 is anticipated to be approximately 30'-35' in depth which requires an easement 60'-70' wide. The total width between lots is between 38' to 58'to the trunkline. The distance from the lots along the trunkline corridor does not meet the 1' of width on either side of the pipe for each foot of depth of the storm sewer criteria for easement widths. The applicant's engineering response memo requested a variance from the easement width requirements, however this variance request is denied on the basis that excavation necessary to perform future maintenance would be too close to proposed structures in Blocks 6 and 7. An alternate alignment exists via Streets 19 and Street 9, and should be used for the storm tr uildine if an easement 60'-70' wide cannot be provided between lots in the current alignment. 2. The drainage and utility easements accommodating storm sewer exceeding Win depth shall be provided or widened to an adequate width consistent with City Engineering Guidelines. Specific locations have been forwarded to the applicant's engineer. 3. The drainage and utility easements should encompass all emergency overflow routes and areas that will be inundated to a depth of 0.5' above the overflow elevation through out the plat. Specific locations have been forwarded to the applicant's engineer. 4. The MCES easement width appears to be less than twice the depth. In areas in close proximity to structures (i.e. Block 34), verify that MCES has declined the opportunity to increase easement width. The applicant's engineering response memo states that the applicant has not yet discussed the project with MCES. Prior to final plat it must be demonstrated that the project and associated impacts have adequately been communicated to MCES. S. An easement of appropriate width should be shown for the western end of the trunk storm sewer line through the exception parcel in the southwest. The trunk line alignment shall be shifted north and easement provided within the development if easements can not be acquired from the exception property owner. 6. Items such as parking lots, private drives, shown as encroaching within private easements (gas pipeline, MCES) will need approval by the easement holder. 7. See Existing Conditions below for discussion of existing watermain easement at east tract line. EXISTING CONDITIONS/SURVEY: 1. Provide more information within gas line easements (number of lines, sizes, pipe elevations). 2. The 70' wide utility easement for watermain on east tract line appears to be in conflict with Lots 51, 56, and 90 in Block 10. This conflict should be shown on the preliminary plat and a submittal should be made for City review illustrating an easement of appropriate width (15'- 20') to remain to encompass the existing watermain. Based on the review and approval of this submittal information, either a portion of the existing easement can be vacated to eliminate conflict with the lots referenced above, or the entire existing easement can be vacated and a new easement recorded with the final plat. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Ownership and maintenance of boulevard trees will be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. 2. Landscaping plans comprised of appropriate vegetation and native plantings within ponds and infiltration areas shall be developed. 3. Additional tree removals or relocations may be determined and necessary for intersection or sign sight distance prior to final plat approval. 4. The landscape plan should not have trees located with emergency overflow routes or over storm sewers or other public utilities. The tree and shrub locations shall be relocated if they are in emergency overflow routes or over utilities. DEVELOPMENT FEES: 1. Estimated development fees (based on 2007 Fee Resolution) due with the final plat and subdivision agreement are as follows: • GIS Fee = $60/unit • Trunk Sewer Area Charge = $1,075/acre • Trunk Water Area Charge = $4,860/acre • Trunk Stormwater Area Charge = $6,665/acre Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at 651-322-2022. 4 ROSEMOUNT PARKS AND RECREATION M E M O R A N D U M To: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Eric Zweber, Senior Planner Jason Lindahl, Planner Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator Andy Brotzler, City Engineer Morgan Dawley, Project Engineer From: Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director Date: September 26, 2007 Subject: Prestwick Place - Arcon Development Inc. PUD/Preliminary Plat On Monday, September 24, 2007, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Prestwick Place - Ascon Development Inc. PUD/Preliminary Plat and made the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. The developer receives 6.38 of acres of parks dedication credit for the land being dedicated as a public park. It is recommended that the developer not receive parkland dedication credit for the pipeline easement located in the park, which is consistent with past developments. 2. The developer will pay cash in -lieu of land for the remaining 16.94 acres of residential park dedication and for the 4.8 acres of commercial land dedication based on the City's Fees and Fee Policy at the time of final plat. 3. The developer is to follow the requirements for park dedication as stated in the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 4. The developer will bury the Metropolitan Council manhole located in the park, at no cost to the City, so that it will not interfere with the use of the turf grass areas of the park. They will also provide written documentation from the Metropolitan Council as to their approval of the proposed park plan, use of their easement and the burying of the manhole. Please let me know if you have questions regarding this memo. Memorandum To: Erick Zweber, Rosemount Senior Planner Scott Aker, Fire Chief From: George A Lundy, Fire Marshal Date: August 1, 2007 Subject: Fire Marshals review of Prestwick Place Erick / Scott, The above mentioned development has been reviewed to the minimum requirements of the 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code. The following items must be addressed before approval can be given: Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.1.1 States: approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. Exception: The code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet where: The building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3. Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.5 States: Dead ends fire apparatus roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved area for turning around fire apparatus. All turning areas shall meet the minimum requirements of Appendix D of the State Fire Code. Exception: The Rosemount Fire Prevention Bureau will allow this access road to be a maximum 200 feet without a turn around, if the building is protected by an approved automatic fire protection system. Access to sprinkler control valves: An accessory outside structure shall be provided for all fire sprinkler valves. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be provided at the entrance to all buildings. This list is not all inclusive; field inspections may require further code requirements. Memorandum To: Eric Zweber, Rosemount Senior Planner Scott Aker, Fire Chief From: George A Lundy, Fire Marshal Date: August 1, 2007 Subject: Fire Marshals review of Prestwick Place Eric/Scott, After our meeting today I went back to the office and reviewed the 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC) reference fire department access. As you stated to me this morning, Arcon Development Inc. would like to build a multifamily development with only one access point at this time. The 2002 MSFC states in section D106: D106.1 Projects having more than 100 dwelling units: Multiple -family residential projects having more than 100 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two (2) separate and approved fire apparatus roads. Exception: Projects having up to 200 dwelling units may have a single approved fire apparatus road when all buildings, including nonresidential occupancies, are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems installed in accordance with section 903.3.3.3 or 903.3.1.2 of the MSFC D106.2 Projects having more than 200 dwelling units: Multiple —family residential projects having more than 200 dwelling units shall be provided with 2 separate and approved fire apparatus access roads regardless of whether they are equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system. Given this information, Arcon would be allowed to build up to 100 units in this development with only one access road and up to 200 units with an approved automatic fire suppression system. If you would have any further questions please feel free to contact me. From: Danen, Suzanne[mailto:Suzanne.Danen@CO.DAKOTA.MN.US] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:46 AM To: Andy Brotzler @ Rosemount Cc: Chuck Rickart; Sebastian, Kristi; Krebsbach, Mark; Sorenson, Brian; McConnell, Gordon Subject: CSAH 42 & CR 73 - Arcon Development Traffic Analysis Andy, In the traffic impact analysis for 2030, it was shown that a partial access (3/4) on County Road 73 approximately 1/8th mile north of CSAH 42 will not operate. The County has reviewed the information provided by the City intending to show an interim measure could be implemented and operate sufficiently with the Arcon development full build out and 20% of the AUAR development area generated traffic trips in 2015. Based on the projected traffic in this study, the County will agree to an interim partial access (3/4) on County Road 73 approximately 1/8th mile north of CSAH 42, with the understanding by the City that this access is not long term and will be closed at a point in the future when deemed necessary from a safety and/or operations standpoint by the County. The traffic analysis submitted on August 30, 2007 and subsequent email correspondences completes the information necessary for this determination. The County highly recommends that the area should be planned and developed in such a way that the future intersection of County Road 73 and Connemara Trail is the primary intersection to be utilized in the roadway network within the Arcon development for the commercial properties access in preparation for the 1/8th mile partial access's future closure. A written agreement between the County and City will be needed to define the terms for the implementation of the interim access and the future actions/changes to the access. The County appreciates your efforts during this process. --------------------------------------- Suzanne Danen, PE - Assistant Traffic Engineer Dakota County Transportation Department 14955 Galaxie Avenue, 3rd Floor - Apple Valley, MN 55124 Phone (952) 891.7177 Fax (952) 891.7127 suzanne.danen@co.dakota.mn.us C V V Oo w 3 3 A 3 a s v 3 4= v3 3 o O /r m � � Q N Y NN 01 T V O� Ut V O� O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 s r-4on n� oxinoxi0 o--xn nnxv V v s c 32 m a 3 s c m e v of M ET m e n Q. s= m 3 ,2 n o l 0. 3' n m a m 3 m= 2' n 0 — o a W a 3 sus O1 00 c n mo moo a c m � n n n, d O W N Y Y F W a 3 O .N. T m L � a O — v H rAVOW �C T m�a � Nowm N V w InOrA N N m Y b F+ N Ul m uNvi 3 tlaw 1 g WH>V �K N N V � J IV oNm1ON T a VOW Vl N N N N Y Y N V � O O W O O xnv �c C � n 3 nrt cr N Ol l0 N �%1 m w w o w o 0 0 0 0 0 IV 3 3 3 O S Q m w a 3 3 d F n a Q ^., O N N N O 6 c o � ry n, n, W FN+ � V O 3 O ^ � n m � � c m w W v �p 00 n m m�nN 3 F � N e Nan r y � p¢j YVOW N o CTtO VI avo 3 to Wr�+A 1 rt O��ON �2 ry Ol `y NNo ww � V V C � orAV