Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a 05-50-CP, 05-51-RZ, 05-52-PUD & 0-53-PP, Dakota County COm. Dev. Agency Comp Guide Plan Amend, Rezoning, PUD master Pland & Preliminary Plat for Rosemount Family HousingAGENDA ITEM: Planning Cases 05- 50 -CP, 05- 51 -RZ, 05- 52 PUD and 05 -53 PP, Dakota County Community Development Agency Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, PUD Master Plan and Preliminary Plat for Rosemount Family Housing AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director AG r TYr ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolutions, Draft Ordinance, Location Map, Site Demolition and Erosion Control Plan, Site Layout and Dimension Plan, Site Grading Plan, Site Utility Plan, Landscape Plan, Site Tree Replacement Plan, Preliminary Plat, CDA Supplemental Information, Partnership Program Information, Public Comments, Draft 01/24/2006 PC Minutes, 01/24/2006 PC Packet, Draft 01/10/2006 PC Minutes, 01/10/2006 PC Packet APPROVED BY: git) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation for the site from Transition Residential to Urban Residential subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council and rezoning of the site from Rural Residential to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD Motion to adopt an ordinance rezoning the site from Rural Residential to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD Motion to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary plat, subject to conditions. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development Concept, subject to conditions. 4 ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ISSUE The Dakota County Community Development Agency "CDA has submitted applications to construct a 30 -unit townhouse development on a 4 8 acre site located on the northwest corner of Connemara Trail and STH 3, South Robert Trail The townhouses will be owned and maintained by Dakota County CDA. A number of issues need to be resolved prior to the project being ready for PUD Master Plan that would commit the project to all of the design details of the project Therefore, staff is reviewing the development as a concept to provide a basis for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. In addition, the plat will be comparatively simple, allowing for conditional approval of the prelumnary plat. The site is currently vacant, and although it has frontage along Highway 3 it rs restricted from having direct access. Access has been the primary focus of the review and three alternatives were explored before the Planning Commission at their meeting on January 24, 2006. The City's Traffic Engineer has determined that two alternatives are feasible and practical to serve the project and the surrounding area. These will be explained further m the memo. BACKGROUND Apphcant: Location: Property Owner: Current Comp Plan design. Proposed Comp Plan Current Zoning Requested Zoning: Current use: Preliminary Plat data: Number of Units Density: Surrounding uses: Side Dakota County Community Development Agency Northwest corner of Connemara Trail STH 3, South Robert Trail. Christopher Kathleen Ostertag Transition Residential Urban Residential Rural Residential R -2, Moderate Density Residential Vacant Existing Parcel 5.65 acres Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 4.8 acres Outlot A (South of Connemara Trail) 0.18 acres Right -of -way for Connemara Trail 0.67 acres 30 units 6.25 dwelling units /acre (Lot 1, Block 1) Current use Zoning Comp Plan West Evermoor developing residential R -1 (PUD) Transition Residential East Harmony developing residential R -2 R -3 (PUD) Urban and High density residential South Cemetery S. of Connemara Tr. Public /Inst Parks Open space North Rural Residential Rural Res., Transition Residential PLANNING COMMISSION OF JANUARY 24, 2006 At the meeting on January 24, 2006 several members of the public spoke regarding the project. There were concerns expressed about the access to the site, the impact of the project on the surrounding area and the home values of the adjoining neighborhoods, the amount of density of the project and a concern about the number of exceptions to the R -2 ordinance standards. In some cases residents had interpreted that some aspects of the project were variances when they are typical of how the ordinance is implemented. In other cases there are exceptions to the ordinance standards, such as having single -car garages versus two car garages The Planning Commission discussed the three access alternatives and based upon the traffic engineers information were comfortable that either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 provide reasonable and acceptable access to the site and result in expected traffic counts and conditions for the adjoining neighborhood. The majority of the Comnussion also supported medium density development on the site. They felt that the site's location m the community, situated between single family to the west and Highway 3 to the east, with Connemara Trail to the south, made this a good transition piece to the western neighborhoods. The majority also recognized that the provision of workforce housing supported a goal and a need in the community and that the PUD was an appropriate vehicle to design the project and ensure that the site plan is successfully carried out Ultimately, the Commission recommended approval of all apphcanons on a 4 -1 vote. The dissenting vote was due to the concern about too much density in the area and the potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. The recommended conditions of approval before the City Council are those recommended for approval by the Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION OF JANUARY 10, 2006 At the meeting of January 10, 2006 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the CDA proposal. Nine people spoke during the public hearing, all m opposition to the project Additionally, there were 28 2 emails received also opposing the project. The opposition was primarily related to the rental nature of the project and the income levels of future residents. There was also some concern expressed over the density of the development and the amount of medium density development within the area. The Commission discussed several site plan issues but focused most on the access to the site. The Commission continued the item to allow additional review of the access issue. SITE ACCESS There are three alternatives available to provide access to the site. WSB Associates has reviewed the three alternatives and provided traffic information about each option Their study and the concept drawings of all three alternatives are attached. Alternative 1 The first alternative is to provide access as initially anticipated through the Glendalough neighborhood. A public road would be extended through dedicated right -of -way and then turned north to allow for a future through street; generally paralleling Dodd Road This is the access provided in the first submittal. The WSB study finds that this is an acceptable access option for development of the site. The CDA site is projected to generate 175 vehicle trips per day based upon the ITE manual This combined with the estimated trips on the Glendalough cul -de -sac would be approximately 350 vehicle tnps per day. The number of trips is consistent with the type of traffic expected on a local street, which are 500 -1000 daily trips. Because all of the proposals would include access to the north from the CDA site, additional trips may go through the Glendalough neighborhood when the five lots to the north develop. However, it is expected that many of the traps would go north. Assuming a 50/50 split, the traffic generation, upon full development, would still be within the acceptable daily trip range for a local street. Alternative 2 The second alternative would extend the proposed cul -de -sac, Tara Commons Court, to Connemara Trail. One of the reasons this idea was initially discarded was that existing pipelines would need to be lowered to make the grade connection between the cul -de -sac and Connemara. To avoid this cost the road was planned to stop short of Connemara and the connection from the cul -de -sac to the CDA site planned. During the hearing there was some concern expressed about adding another access point to Connemara Trail as it is a designated collector street, prompting certain access and spacing guidelines. If the Commission would recommend this option, staff would recommend the through connection at Couchtown Avenue and Connemara Trail be disconnected Local traffic would all be funneled through Tara Commons or Glendalough Trail, which is already available. These two roads have received preliminary plat approval but have not received final plat approval and therefore the changes could be made with minor lot adjustments. There was also concern expressed that this connection may be too close to the Highway 3 /Connemara Trail intersection While it is closer than desired because it is on the north side of the street, queuing for a right -hand turn should not occur that would cause a back -up into the intersection In other words, if the new road was on the south side, the left -hand turn movement may cause a back -up that could negatively impact the Highway 3 /Connemara Trail intersection. Because there is very little wait if any for the driver when turning right, a back -up should not occur and therefore the stacking distance can be reduced Alternative 3 The final alternative is to provide a separate access to the CDA site near Tara Commons. This alternative, similar to Alternative 2 would require lowering the pipeline Additionally, it would impact at least two lots within the Glendalough plat, perhaps rendering them unbuildable. While this alternative seemed to have 3 some favor, it is actually more difficult to attain the appropriate road geometrics required for a public road. Additionally, this option provides an additional access unto Connemara Trail which is undesirable since the Glendalough neighborhood would maintain two other access points further to the west Staff recommends approval of either Alternative 2 or Alternative 1 for access to the CDA site and the Glendalough neighborhood. Alternative 2 has the benefit of allowing the two neighborhoods to directly access Connemara Trail but does not bring an adjoining neighborhoods traffic through a different residential neighborhood. However, this alternative requires cooperation between two different developers and adds costs to the project because an existing pipeline will need to be lowered. Cost sharing, revision of a prelmmnary plat, and regrading of a portion of the Glendalough neighborhood would all need to be accomplished. If the two developers cannot come to an acceptable arrangement, staff and the Planning Commission were equally comfortable with Alternative 1 Alternative 1 is also acceptable from a traffic engineering standpoint as the local roads proposed are designed to carry traffic volumes like that proposed, even under a full build scenario. Because requiring only one alternative may make the developer negotiations difficult, for the time being staff contmues to have recommended conditions that recognize either of the two alternatives. When the item is again before the Council for final master development plan approval, the access issue will be fully resolved. Site Density The entire site is 5.65 acres including right -of -way for Connemara Trail Without the right -of -way, which the city has obtained, the site is 4.98 acres However, a portion of the site is located on the south side of Connemara bringing the buildable area down to 4.8 acres. The CDA will not be retaining ownership of the southern outlot, as proposed in the plat The net density calculation for the property is then 6.25 units per acre For companson the GlenRose project recently approved (and rezoned to PUD R -2) was 7 units per acre. The Brockway project m total was approximately 5 units per acre, although the calculation includes the dedicated park and private open spaces Round Stone within the Evermoor neighborhood is approximately 8 units per acre. During the most recent Comprehensive Plan update, for the 42/52 area, the Commission recommended and the Council concurred adding a medium density residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan The proposal is as follows. Urban Residential 1 -4 units per acre Medium Density Residential 4 -8 units per acre High Density Residential 8 -20 units per acre The CDA project falls within the Medium Density Residential designation and the density is consistent with what would be expected in a townhouse project. Site Landscaping Another item discussed by the Planning Commission was the landscaping on the site, particularly along the western edge of the development It appears that much of the natural vegetation will be removed due to site development and extension of the public road. Staff is recommendmg that additional buffering to the west, as well as along the eastern property line, be installed The initial condition required additional shrubbery to supplement die deciduous trees proposed Staff is recommending that the landscaping plan be revised m the future, during the master development plan approval phase to include both coniferous and deciduous trees as well as additional shrubbery. Site Variances Residents in the area have distributed information stating that there are numerous variances needed to approve the project. As the Council is aware, the PUD process allows the City to be flexible as related to the standard zoning districts, should they so choose In this case the R -2 zoning is used as the basis for evaluation of the project. There are several areas where the site plan varies from the ordmance standards 4 and it is up to the Council to determine if these variations are acceptable or perhaps, mitigated through other site planning techniques. The clearest variation relates to the parking on site. The ordinance requires a two -car garage of no less than 440 square feet for single family attached housing. The units proposed will allow for one enclose single -stall garage The second parkmg stall, also required by ordinance will be the driveway. The concept of allowing single -stall garages for affordable housing projects was discussed with the Council some time ago. The discussion centered on whether the ordinance should be revised to permit single -stall developments for affordable housing. It was determined not to change the ordinance and rather rely on the PUD process to allow a deviation from the ordinance standard, should the Council decide it was acceptable This allowed greater control to the Council allowing the decision to be dependant upon the project and its attnbutes. The concern was that developers who had "lower priced" products could claim the housing was "affordable" and therefore request similar treatment. There are also some setbacks that may require exceptions from the ordinance standards. At this time it is difficult to ascertain where those might be Staff is expecting that there will be modifications to the concept plan as the final details of the project solidify Specific locauons of units may be shifted somewhat to address some of the City interests in terms of setbacks and spacing between units. At this time there is a condition #8) which requires moving one building to increase the setback from the future pubhc street. When the access issue is resolved and the master development plan apphed for this issue will be reviewed more closely. The ordinance requires for single- family attached dwellings and townhomes "a maximum of six dwelling units be attached per building except where buildings are adjacent to RR, RL, R -1 and R -IA zoning district; such buildings shall be limited to a maximum of four dwelling units per building At present the CDA project proposes five structures with four units and two structures with five units. The two buildings with the greater unit number are along the most eastern edge of the development and not adjacent to the proposed western single family Glendalough development. To the north, the property is currently zoned Rural Residential, although staff expects over tune all of the rural properties along Highway 3 to convert to urbanized development, some potentially being multi- family rather than single family In staff's opinion the placement of the larger unit structures away from the future smgle family neighborhood, the additional landscaping requested on the western edge of the property, and the large buffer to the north caused by the pipeline easement mitigate the effects of the larger structures. The density is over what is stated for a traditional R -2 district which is 6 units per acre. However, the density for R -3 is maximum gross density of 12 units per acre. In staff's opinion the R -2 regulations are more consistent with the look and character of the project than the R -3 zoning district and therefore had recommended rezoning to R -2 PUD. In talking with the City Attorney, he indicated that Cities use the PUD process to allow for flexibility to ordinance standards for projects that generally meet the same goals as those reflected in the ordinance standards. For example, in the case of the number of units in a structure, the location of the larger structures away from the single family neighborhood achieves the goal of "protecting" the adjoining neighborhood consistent with the specific standard The recommended condition to add additional landscaping to further mitigate the potential impacts furthers the policy goal behind the creation of the ordinance regulation but achieves the goal in a different manner than the actual regulation. Other Because there is strong interest in this project the CDA has provided additional information about their program That information is attached for the Council's information. CONCLUSION Staff is recommending approval of the concept plan, comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning to R -2 PUD, acknowledging that the apphcant will need to come back to the City for final master development plan approval where the details for the site plan will be revamped. Staff continues to beheve that the project site is a good medium density residential site and will provide a reasonable buffer from Highway 3 to the future adjoining single family neighborhood. The main issue has been access to the site and based upon the traffic engineer there are two alternatives that are acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Staff favors alternative 2 which creates a new intersection with Connemara Trail, closer to the CDA project and allows for the CDA traffic and future traffic from the other underdeveloped parcels to the north to access Connemara Trail without going through the Glendalough neighborhood. However, the preliminary plat for Glendalough does provide for a local road connection and the developer and future residents should be aware that additional traffic from the adjoining lot (the subject property) would go through the neighborhood Because the traffic counts are relatively low, and certainly within the standards of acceptable for a local street, staff can also support access alternative 1 At this time staff is not recommending the Council choose either alternative. During the master development phase of the review, should the Council approve the concept plan, the access option will be determined and the site plan adjusted to accommodate the pubhc road alignment. 6 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING FOR ROSEMOUNT FAMILY TOWNHOMES WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Dakota County Community Development Agency requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning approval concerning property legally described as: That part of the following description of property lying north or south of Connemara Trail: That part of the South 736 06 feet of the North one -half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19 lying Westerly of the occupied right -of -way of State Highway 3 that hes North of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said North one -half of the Southeast Quarter, thence North 00 degrees, 21 minutes, 21 seconds West assumed bearing along the West assumed bearing along the West line of said North one -half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 252 29 feet to the point of begmnmg of said line to be hereinafter described: thence South 71 degrees, 53 minutes, 11 seconds East a distance of 262.15 feet to the Westerly right -of -way line of State Highway Number 3 and said line there terminating, Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a pubhc hearing and reviewed the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use for the property from Transition Residential to Urban Residential, and rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to PUD R -2, Moderate Density Residential Planned Unit Development for Rosemount Family Townhomes, and WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission tabled the action to January 24, 2006 to review additional information for the site access issues; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the land use of the property from Transition Residential to Urban Residential, and rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to PUD R -2, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguiding the property from Transition Residential to Urban Residential, subject to approval by the Metropohtan Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to PUD R -2, Moderate Density Residential Planned Umt Development and will adopt an Ordinance to rezone the site. ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2006 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk William H Droste, Mayor Motion by: Second by: Voted m favor: Voted against: Member absent: 2 RESOLUTION 2006- CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DAKOTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR ROSEMOUNT FAMILY TOWNHOMES WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application from Dakota County Community Development Agency requesting a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan approval concerning property legally described as: That part of the following descnption of property lying north or south of Connemara Trail: That part of the South 736 06 feet of the North onehalf of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19 lying Westerly of the occupied nghtof- -way of State Highway 3 that hes North of the following described line Commencing at the Southwest corner of said North onehalf of the Southeast Quarter, thence North 00 degrees, 21 minutes, 21 seconds West assumed bearing along the West assumed bearing along the West line of said North one-half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 252 29 feet to the point of beginning of said hne to be hereinafter descrbed. thence South 71 degrees, 53 minutes, 11 seconds East a distance of 26215 feet to the Westerly right-of-way line of State Highway Number 3 and said line there terminating, Dakota County, Minnesota WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing and reviewed the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for Rosemount Family Townhomes, and WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission tabled the action to January 24, 2006 to review additional information for the site access issues; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2006, the Planning Comrrnssion recommended approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan, subject to. 1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to Urban Residential by the Metropolitan Council 2. Final development of the parcel is contingent of City approval of a site plan, PUD Master Development Plan and execution of a PUD agreement. 3. Incorporation of recommendauons of the City Engineer regarding drainage, easements, grading, storm water management and utilities including: The street entering the development shall be public and located within a 60 ft. right -of way and included on the plat. The apphcant shall secure all permits agreements necessary for the proposed crossing or grading of the pipeline easements. The apphcant will grade the future northern road connection as part of their project and provide a cash deposit to the City to pay for its future construction. No parking will be permitted on the streets and turning radius information shall be provided subject to approval by the Fire Marshal. Additional storm water management detail is required including: a Infiltration calculations. b. Outlet elevations from ponds and control structures as noted. c. Maintenance plan for the ram gardens. Payment of connection and trunk fees required. 4. Park dedication m the form of cash in lieu of land in the amount of $90,000. (30 units x $3,000 per unit) based upon the 2005 fee schedule. 5. Approval and receipt of permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed 6. Seventeen common parking spaces shall be provided, based upon 15 for the 30 units and 2 for the office. 7 The applicant provide at a minimum, a setback of 20 feet between the units and the private streets which will be sufficient for driveway parking. This requirement is in recognition of the single stall garages proposed for the individual units 8. The northwest building must be re- oriented to create a more acceptable setback to the anticipated public street right-of-way, as well as increase the distance to the southerly building cluster inside the street loop. 9. Additional screening landscaping shall be installed along the Highway 3 right -of -way and along the western edge of the development, including both coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs 10. The Scotch Pines specified in the landscapmg plan shall be relocated elsewhere on the site, and conformance with sight triangle standards for visibility at intersections will be required for all public and private intersections within the development. 11. The applicant provide an acceptable pubhc street access to the site consistent with alternative 1 or 2 as defined in the WSB traffic study. 12. The apphcant obtain final building elevation approval mcludmg brick detailing on the front facades. ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2006 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Linda Jentmk, City Clerk William H. Droste, Mayor RESOLUTION 2006- Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: 2 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELMINARY PLAT FOR ROSEMOUNT FAMILY TOWNHOMES WHEREAS, the Community Development Depattcuent of the City of Rosemount received an apphcanon from Dakota County Community Development Agency requesting Preliminary Plat approval concernmg property legally described as That part of the South 736.06 feet of the North one -half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19 lying Westerly of the occupied right -of -way of State Highway 3 that hes North of the following described line Commencing at the Southwest corner of said North one -half of the Southeast Quartet, thence North 00 degrees, 21 minutes, 21 seconds West assumed bearing along the West assumed bearing along the West line of said North one -half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 252.29 feet to the point of beginning of said line to be hereinafter described. thence South 71 degrees, 53 minutes, 11 seconds East a distance of 262 15 feet to the Westerly right -of -way line of State Highway Number 3 and said line there termmatmg, Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a pubhc hearing and reviewed the Preliminary Plat for Rosemount Family Townhomes; and WHEREAS, on January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission tabled the action to January 24, 2006 to review additional information for the site access issues, and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2006, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Prehmmary Plat, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Preliminary Plat, subject to. 1. Dedication of right -of -way for the public street consistent with access alternative 1 or 2 as found in the WSB traffic study and in conformance with local street design requirements. 2. Dedication of appropnate drainage and utility easement subject to approval by the City Engineer 3. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed. 4. Conformance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a subdivision development agreement as needed for installation of public infrastructure. ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2006 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount: William H Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk RESOLUTION 2006- Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: 2 City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE Rosemount Fannly Townhomes 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 the property located on north of Connemara Trail and west of South Robert Trail, Rosemount, Minnesota, from RR, Rural Residential, to PUD R -2, Moderate Density Residential Planned Unit Development, legally described as follows: That part of the following description of property lying north or south of Connemara Trail- That part of the South 736.06 feet of the North one -half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 115, Range 19 lying Westerly of the occupied right -of -way of State Highway 3 that hes North of the following described line- Commencing at the Southwest corner of said North one -half of the Southeast Quarter, thence North 00 degrees, 21 minutes, 21 seconds West assumed bearing along the West assumed bearing along the West hne of said North one -half of the Southeast Quarter a distance of 252.29 feet to the point of beginning of said hne to be hereinafter described: thence South 71 degrees, 53 minutes, 11 seconds East a distance of 262.15 feet to the Westerly right -of -way line of State Highway Number 3 and said hne there terminating, Dakota County, Minnesota. Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount, referred to and described m said Ordmance No B as that certain map entitled "Zoning Map of the City of Rosemount," shall not be republished to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the said zoning map on file in the Clerk's office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this Ordinance and all of the notation references and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Ordinance. Section 3. This ordmance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. ENACTED AND ORDAINED into an Ordinance this 7 day of February, 2006. ATTEST: Linda lentil City Clerk CITY OF ROSEMOUNT William H Droste, Mayor Published in the Rosemount Town Pages this day of 2006. PROPERTY ID NUMBER. 34 -02010-015 -75 FEE OWNER PAYABLE 2005 TAXES NET TAX SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TOTAL TAX SA PAYABLE 2006 ASMNT USAGE RESIDENTIAL CHRISTOPHER G OSTERTAG LAND IIIMS LOT SIZE NO DATA AVAILABLE KATHLEEN M OSTERTAG BUILDING 461 THEIS DR TOTAL MS 276.900 TOTAL 50 FT SHAKOPEE MN 55379 -9533 5 35 TOTAL ACRES SCHOOL DISTRICT 196 58,450 ROAD RAN SO FT 000 SIMS LAST QUALIFIED SALE DATE AMOUNT NOTE Dimensions rounded to nearest foot Copyright 2005, Dakota County This drawing Is nearer a IegaFy recorded map nor a survey and is not Intended to be used as one This drawirg is a comp lotion of records, information ago data located in various ch county, and stare off ces and other sources, affecting the area shown, am s to be i.sed for reference purposes only Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies here n contairec f disorepsnoies are ound please contact Dakota County Survey and Lane Informal an Department 'dap Dale November P 2005 Parcels Uodated 10/27/2005 Aerial Photography 2004 SITE MAP 2005 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES !PAYABLE 2006) 2005 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 20(18) LOCATION NW114 SE1 /4 SECTION 20- 115 -19 PAYABLE 2006 HOMESTEAD STATUS NON HOMESTEAD WATERSHED DISTRICT VERMILLION RIVER PLAT NAME. SECTION 20TVJN 115 RANGE 19 TAX DESCRIPTION 5 736 06 FT OF N 1/2 OF SE 1/4 LY bV OF STH #3 SUB,' TO ESMNTS OVER 5 100 FT EX PT N OF S 100 FT S OF LINE COM SW COR SAID N 1/2 OF SE 1/4 N 252 29 FT TO BEG OF LINE S 7' D53M118 E 26215 FT TO W RAM STH it3 THERE TERM 20 115 19 O O F O 0 r. a O cn n1 O R 0 m c S IP s €i n G1 O O n m 0 51 0 O O 0 0 0 5 O C Z c O O D a 0 M 05Proi105026310VVGSILA1050263L1-LAND dwg Layout, 12/21/2005 2 06 12 PM, Con, Small Format pa II d M \05ProfC50263tDWGS\ A1050263L2- TREEREP dwg, Layout, 12/21/2005 2 12 06 PM, cpn, Small Format pc3 r N 0 0 s PP co m tiF m m m z s a N11111 P PreIrmnOry PIO' P•Dp..4 POSELIOUNT FAuLy mCUSING CDA DAKOTA COUNTY 1225 Tow, Cope Ofive Eagan, shnnoto 55113 I PEPPOPS RLK ..ztr _J At the Planning Commission meeting on January 10, 2006, issues were raised by neighbors of the proposed development at State Highway 3 and Connemara Trail. The following is additional information regarding the proposed housing and its prospective tenants. Income The proposed housing is designed for people working in modest paying jobs. The units have fixed rents that the tenants must be able to afford without being rent burdened. The current minimum income requirement tor acceptance into the units is: Overall, the Community Development Agency has found that average income of residents in our Family Partnership Development, of which there are 13, is $28,000 per year. Current income limits are as follows: 2 person family 3 person family 4 person family 2 bedroom unit: $15,552 per year 3 bedroom unit: $17,208 per year Pre`=rence Income $30,800 $34,650 $38,500 Maximum Income $36,960 $41,580 $46,200 Many corporations and small businesses have positions that pay wages within' the income guidelines set for these developments. Typical jobs held by residents in our other family development include: Mortgage companies (support staff, loan processors) Medical fields (Licensed Practical Nurses, medical records) Insurance companies (support staff, claims processors) Paraprofessional positions (teacher assistants, clerical support staff) Retail employees By providing affordable rents, many of the tenants are able to move into homeownership upon leaving the townhomes. Ownership The Family Housing Partnership Program is a partnership between the Dakota County Community Development Agency and Minnesota corporations. Each development is 99% owned by a private partner who invests approximately 60% of the financing. Dakota County Community Development Agency is the 1% general partner and lends it expertise in the housing industry to the ongoing management and operation of the property. US Bancorp CDC has been the private partner for 12 of the 14 workforce housing developments. Screening Dakota County Community Development Agency requires that tenants selected to live at each Family Partnership Development pass rental, credit, and criminal background checks. The Community Development Agency uses an outside firm to conduct credit and criminal checks. Areas considered include: criminal searches across state and county lines, credit searches examining records for timeliness of payments and unlawful detainers. Further, Community Development Agency staff meets one-on--one with perspective tenants to review income and as =t information. This information is then second party verified. In addition, staff .Aiso performs landlord reference checks asking for and verifying five years rental history from tenants. Service Calls As operator and manager of the Family Partnership Developments, the Community Development Agency asks each community for which a development is located to provide service call reports. The majority of reported calls are routine in nature and often include medical calls and advise and assist calls. The Community Development Agency is very proactive in its response and works closely with the community on addressing any issue that may come up. Most times Community Development Agency staff know about issues as they are occurring and have already taken steps to solve them. Household Size Preference Income Maximum Income 1 $26,950 $32,340 2 $30,800 $36,960 3 $34,650 $41,580 4 $38,500 $46,200 5 $41,600 $49,920 6 $44,650 $53,580 Family Housing Partnership Program Dakota County Community Development Agency The Dakota County CDA began developing affordable family housing in 1992. Since then, 13 developments have been com- pleted providing 404 affordable rental townhomes for working families. The CDA has plans to develop additional townhomes in Inver Grove Heights and Hastings and is continually looking for Land for future de- velopments. One of the primary purposes of this pro- gram is to leverage private investment in affordable housing. Over 50% of the de- velopment costs are paid for by private corporations who invest to obtain tax credits. Gap financing for the develop- ments have been provided by the Minne- sota Housing Finance Agency, Metropolitan Council, Federal Home Loan Bank, Family Housing Fund, Dakota County and the CDA. Income Limits These townhomes provide workforce hous- ing for families earning modest wages. Preference is given to families who are at or below 50% of area median income. Rents 2 bedroom townhome $575 -$595 3 bedroom townhome $625 -$645 Townhome Features Individual entrances Tot tot Attached garage Maintenance Free Exterior materials Hillside Gables, Mendota Heights Country Lane Townhomes, Lakeville Erin Place Townhomes, Eagan Marketplace Townhomes, Hastings s L w m Y @l. c A sc i 4. M Wc^a amp" i� F K r P.1. 11 00 14 N V1 uoaolg 0 �h STIk w 1 1,,ersas.....09.7sasarre. araueees sow> m tsr 11460 a 9 5 )T ac-0) 1 (,Oo 5 EVERM GLEN DA FUTURE 14 9.10.10, 16 78' I MIN. 24iFOd L TO BLDG (TYPsio co NI 17 Et DMUS ONE DIAMOND PATH (CSAH 33) o.Hxu.2 WINLIE -P a 1" F 'fl E I SHANNON PKWY e mir 2 H w PI% list‘ a lt q 8 g a 4 1 s S 4 BERT TRL (5TH 3) E (Trn o 5 33 o 5 m N ro A N a m 0 0 m 3 n 3 n 0 3 m ,c0" SXANNOI Pearson,Rick From: Bailey, Patricia A [patricia.a bailey @Imco.comj Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9 AM To: Rosemount City Council Cc: Pearson,Rick, Verbrugge,Jamie Subject: CDA Townhouse Development 05 -50 -CP Mayor Droste Fellow City Council Members, I would like to communicate to all of you my concerns about the location of the proposed CDA townhouse development 05 -50 -CP You are probably aware of many issues and concerns, but I'd like to share with you what concerns me the most as an area resident I'm not sure this the best, or proper, location for a high density townhouse development. I learned recently that several variances will need to be granted in order to build 30 units on such a small plot of land, bordered on 3 sides by roads To me, one of the biggest issues is the access to these roads If I had bought a home in the nearby Glendalough area on a cul -de -sac and/or other side street with the idea that traffic would be at a minimum, the possibility of having that cul -de -sac and /or street become a through street to accommodate access would not be very appealing The additional traffic from 30 units vs several single family or perhaps twin home buildings attempting to gain access to Connemara Trail is significant People (including my husband and myself) chose the area to live based on many factors, and having an area that isn't subject to traffic congestion was one of the considerations We realized that Connemara Trail is a major through street, but did not anticipate the volume of traffic from a development such as the proposed CDA development We moved to Rosemount 15 months ago, drawn by the small town atmosphere and the strong building covenants in Evermoor I feel very strongly that the property at the corner of Highway 3 and Connemara Trail is best suited for a park area Or at most, low density housing This would help present a positive image when entering Rosemount from the north on Highway 3 and entering Evermoor I know that I am not alone among the residents of Evermoor who would be willing to contribute monies to a fund to purchase the property in question and then donate that land to the City of Rosemount as a park area This would be a far more fitting use for that very visible corner lot than building high density housing Before routinely approving the proposed townhouse development, please address and consider my concerns, as well as those of the other 100+ people who have shown their concern by their attendance at the Planning Commission meetings The Mayor and City Council are elected by us, citizens of Rosemount, to represent our interests With so very many people having concerns about this development, it is incumbent upon all of you to fully address the issues and follow the wishes of your constituents. I, like many others, plan to attend the February 7 City Council meeting when this topic is scheduled to be on your agenda Thank you Tricia Myhre 3522 Crumfield Path 651 344 -2828 patricia,a.bailey @Imco com 2/3/2006 Page 1 of 1 Proposed CDA Project Page 1 of 3 Domeier,Amy From: Verbrugge,Jamie Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 5 55 AM To: Lindquist,Kim Cc: Cox,Alan, Domeier,Amy Subject: FW Proposed CDA Project From: ggaofseg @lightblast.net [mailto:ggaofseg @hghtblast.net] Sent: Fri 2/3/2006 12:55 AM To: Rosemount City Council Cc: Verbrugge,Jamie Subject: Proposed CDA Project Mayor Droste and Council Members Baxter, DeBettignies, Shoe Comgan, and Siemer I am writing you to express some of the reasons that many of the residents of Evermoor are opposed to the city sponsored CDA housing project at the intersection of County Road 3 and Connemara Trail but also that we get a fair and unbiased ruling from you on the matter First let me address our concerns for fairness Over the last few weeks, I have taken the opportunity to talk to many city officials, commission members, and commission chairpeople I have also noticed the Planning Commission Chairman has found it necessary to write to the editor of two local "Papers" which showed his bias in the matter when he should be neutral and Looking out for the citizens of Rosemount It also pointed out his lack of professionalism and his lack of an analytical approach to planning for the future of Rosemount. I have also talked to a high ranking member of the Rosemount City staff who, without a doubt, has a hidden agenda m this matter and appears to believe it's their job to equalize the economic housmg m Evermoor. Let me next discuss some of the reasons why I /we do not believe that the proposed site is the proper place to build this project I am sure by now you have received numerous communications from Evermoor people opposing this project and their reasons I therefore will not go over the same obvious ones Here are a few that are germane to the issue This project deviates from the Evermoor development concept by a magnitude Is it not good planning to have a gradual transition between developments? Many of us who elected to buy our dwellings m Evermoor/Rosemount researched what our environment would be like and chose Evermoor because we w ere moving into an area of like social/economic families That is usually the main reason most people buy property where they do The master association and the individual associations of Evermoor have enacted many covenants to protect the investments of the residents The variances being considered for the CDA project disregard all of those obligations and yet stands adjacent to Evennoor 2/3/2006 Proposed CDA Project Page 2 of 3 We were told that the City had researched other sites and none were available, yet at the Ianuary 24, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting, a representative for Lundgren suggested another site Have all possibilities been researched or are we choosing a sight on emotion? I have spent my entire adult life working in corporate America with some extensive involvement many years ago m local politics. I equate city gov eminent to a corporation A city has an elected board of directors, ala the City Council The city in terms of its staff has officers that run that corporation We, likewise. on buying property, became share holders in that city /corporation The only function of a corporation and likewise a city government is to ensure the best interest of the stock holders It is sometimes necessary for the Board of Directors, in its obligation to the share holders. to inform the staff that they are not looking out for the good of the company /city and to revise their direction. This is the case here. In closmg, let me comment on a few statements in your recent "Rosemount 2005 Annual Report" that has been mailed to all of us. In that Report, the following statements are made "CPDC has a proven track record m Rosemount as the developer of the high quality Evennoor residential area As we advertise to the public, do we also want to add that m the same area we are also putting in housing that is substandard to the rest of the area? "To maintain the progress Rosemount enjoyed in 2005, the City needs the input of its citizens...." We are giving you our input, please listen. "CITY MISSION STATEMENT The City of Rosemount and its citizens work together to provide a safe, healthy, pleasant community in a fiscally responsible manner Are not the people of Evermoor citizens of the City of Rosemount? I hope this Annual Report is not just rhetoric and you are committed and have signed up to what it says I have always believed that the city staff, commissions, and City Council only exist to aid the citizens of the community I hope that this is the case here Regards, Gary Anderson 3418 Cromwell Trail Rosemount, MN 55068 651- 344 -3418 2/3/2006 Lindquist,Kim From: Verbrugge,Jamie Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5 PM To: Lindquist,Kim Subject: FW. Affordable Housing site Jaime Verbrugge City Administrator 651 -322 -2006 Rosemount, MN "Spirit of Pride and Progress" From: Jill Smith [mailto:Jcsmithus msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:59 PM To: 'Jill Smith'; Pearson,Rick; Rosemount City Council; Verbrugge,Jamie; Droste,William Subject: RE: Affordable Housing site I understand that this land is independently owned by a couple from Shakopee Was this land offered to Lundgren Brothers for increasing their building area? Is this a sale that benefits the owners and the developers? I could not find anything that indicated that this property is on the market Were the owners approached by the developers for a nice price? One would think that if it was on the market, it would be a great piece of land for Evermoor to expand on! Jill Smith From: Jill Smith [mailto:jcsmithus@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:02 PM To: nck.pearson @a.rosemount.mn.us'; ntycouncil @ci.rosemount.mn.us'; Jamie .Verbrugge @ci.rosemount.mn.us'; 'wdroste @ci.rosemount.mn.us' Cc: 'RSMITH2 @SPT.COM' Subject: Affordable Housing site I watched the replay of the meeting on the proposal of the Affordable Housing that has been represented to the city by CDA After considerable research and discussions with neighbors within Evermoor and neighboring subdivisions, I think that the city needs to reconsider the location of the site I feel that it is good to have the housing within Rosemount, but I think there are other areas that would be better for the site In my findings, back in 1999, CDA approached Rosemount with this housing and it was rejected at that time due to location I feel that a more suitable site would be by the Technical collage giving the fact that the Airport Cargo site might be put in that similar area which I believe is creating 3000 or so jobs. Which the college available to the housing residents, they could get skills for the newly created jobs The planning committee agreed that there was and by the college but it will not be available for building for 2 or more years What is the hurry that we need to have this development built now? The residents of Rosemount (who elected the council to represent our needs) have voiced their opinions against the chosen location, why are we not being heard? The law requires the city to notify owners within 300 feet or yards (one or the other) of the proposed 1/24/2006 Page 1 of 2 I did not hear from the city council or the planning commission, what increase in crime occurred after a CDA project was done within a community. Hard facts from the police departments within these communities. Something that we as residents can look at and see that this is or isn't going to be a threat to our homes or children Page 2 of 2 development Well, Lungren Brothers is holding a majority of the land and honestly, do they give a hoot once they are done and out of here? Hence the reason the residents in the community are just now getting information about this The signs posted at the site are not easy to read when you are trying to drive SAFELY at an intersection and how many people actually read the paper to see if that piece of land is being rezoned for a low income housing development? This in my opinion is "flying under the radar' knowing that the community would resist this proposal' Safety is another issue. When I first heard of Rosemount, I wasn't sure if this was where I wanted to raise our children When Evermoor was built, that changed our opinion of Rosemount greatly We were able to find a home with other homes within our means and found the development to have a great neighborly feel and felt that it was a safe environment for our children A majority of the homes consist of 2 parents either 1 or both working From my findings, homes with 1 parent and that parent being the income provider, there isn't the same supervision that a 2 parent household can provide Which brings me to another point Putting the project so close to the downtown area, this only gives unsupervised children access to roam the town which in turn can create more problems What is the opinion of the elderly residents on the opposite side of the street think and feel about this Evermoor development was well planned and the residents have been happy with the outcome. We have put our trust into the city and have invested our money into what we feel is a great development Would we have done so knowing that there might be at our back door a housing development? Maybe, maybe not, it may have changed our minds about how much we were willing to pay for our lots. CDA said that they would manage the property and require background checks. What is in place to make sure that this is maintained and for how long will this be maintained? What is being done to insure that this property continues to be a housing development and that it doesn't change hands to become a regular apartment complex? Basically, what safeguards are in place to protect the neighboring properties that their property value is not going to drop if this housing development becomes a problem? I still do not know why this is being driven so hard for this site with all the residents against it What is in it for Rosemount to do it now and at that chosen site? 1 plan on being at the meeting tonight. This email as well as a lot of others have been circulating within Evermoor and I think it would be best that these and the many other questions be answered before this goes forward. Thank you, Jill Smith 13188 Danube Lane t 31 l g Rosemount, MN 55068 1/24/2006 Lindquist,Kim Page 1 of 2 From: Verbrugge,Jamie Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:32 PM To: Lindquist,Kim, Bill Droste, Kim Shoe Corrigan (getkimmer©aol com), Mark DeBettignies Home (debett @charter net), Mike Baxter (mbaxter @baxterengen corn); Rosemount Mayor, sternerbp @aol com Subject: FW Rosemount Rezoning Request Mayor and Council, I am forwarding an e-mail regarding the CDA project, as requested by the resident I responded to the resident late on Thursday evening from home Sorry for the delay Jamie Perbrugge City- Administrator 651- 322 -2006 Rosemount, B1N "Spirit of Pride and Progress" From: Verbrugge,Jamie Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9 :40 PM To: Moe Subject: RE: Rosemount Rezoning Request Dear Ms Retrum, Thank you for expressing your support for the need to provide housing to persons of varying incomes in our community, and also for your concern regarding this project It is important to clarify that this is not a City of Rosemount project. The applicant is the Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) the housing and development authority of Dakota County. The cities in Dakota County have a unique and very successful collaborative history in working through the CDA to administer housing programs for Dakota County cities, as well as having the CDA administer other federally and state funded programs that assist with home maintenance and reinvestment, neighborhood revitalization, and redevelopment, to name a few Regarding the housing projects administered by CDA, they have an exceptional history of building, managing and maintaining housing in Dakota County The agency and its staff are very highly regarded by state and local officials around Minnesota. CDA family townhome communities in other cities in Dakota County have been extremely successful and well- managed. The tenants are thoroughly screened and property management is done consistent with the accepted state and national standards for successful multi family housing It is also important to note that the tenants in CDA communities are considered to be "workforce" citizens As an example, the types of careers that would meet income eligibility for these units are starting -wage teachers, police officers, and bank tellers All of that being said, I want to point out two other issues that are important to consider First, the City has been working with the CDA for the past three years as they've sought a suitable parcel of land for their family townhornes Workforce housing is a rare commodity in Rosemount and getting more scarce as a result of sky- rocketing and prices Identifying an alternate site that can be acquired at a reasonable price is not an easy thing to do, as noted by the fact CDA has been searching for three years The second important consideration is that the Planning Commission and City Council make their respective 1/24/2006 decision based on the land use and its appropriateness for the parcel. The relative merits of the project do not include whether it is rental or owner occupied, whether it is affordable or luxury housing, or who owns the property Rather the Planning Commission and City Council will look at the density of the project, how the proposal fits the size of the parcel, and other land use planning concerns If you are wondering about the density and how it might compare to other neighborhoods in Evermoor, the Roundstone development (townhomes on the south side of Connemara just west of Bard's Crossing) has a greater density than is proposed by the CDA And some of those Roundstone units started at prices very near the level identified by the Metropolitan Council as meeting affordability criteria I hope that this information is useful to you and enlightening to others who may be concerned Again, I want to thank you for your message and will gladly make the time to talk with you at greater length if you'd like more information I will forward your concerns to the City Council as requested Sincerely, Jamie Verbrugge City Administrator 651- 322 -2006 From: Moe [mailto:moerah ©usfamily.net] Sent: Thu 1/19/2006 5:26 PM To: Verbrugge,Jamie Subject: Rosemount Rezoning Request Jamie, Please forward to all City Council Members. Page 2 of 2 Regarding Rosemount Rezoning Request and Request for Approval of a Planned Urban Development that would place low income rental units at the northwest corner of Connemara Trail and County Road 3 (South Robert Trail) the eastern main entrance to Evermoor, and immediately adjacent to Glendalough and across from Bard's Crossing. Please accept this e -mail as my request that Rosemount consider an alternative site for the low income rental units There is certainly a need for such housing and I'm also confident there are more appropriate locations where these units I do plan on attending the next the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting and City Council Meeting. Thank you, Marianne Retrum 3474 Cromwell Trail Rosemount, MN 55068 1/24/2006 USFamily.Net $8.25/mo! Highspeed $19.99/mo! Lindquist,Kim From: Bartz, David [David Bartz @navitarre corn] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1.26 AM To: Lindquist,Kim Kim, Page I of 2 My name is David Bartz and my wife Mo has communicated with you several times over the last couple of days over the CDA townhomes project as well as spoke this evening I want to thank you the responses the questions brought forth concerning the CDA development Tonight during the open discussion portion of the meeting, there were two points brought up by my wife, one of which was never addressed and the other that I'd like to get further clarification on Issue #1 that was not addressed from the open discussion I fully get the point that a PUD is allowed flexibility in the zoning ordinances. It's clearly stated in the definition in section 3 2 of the zoning ordinances 1/30/2006 Planned Unit Development An area to be planned, developed, operated and /or maintained as a single entity and containing one or more land uses or building types, which allows variances from the strict interpretation of this Ordinance in order to achieve other community or design objectives. But in order to receive flexibility from the strict interpretation of the Ordinances, there are design standards outlined in section 12 6 that must be met From page 216/217 of the zoning ordinances, section 12 6 B states B. Development Standards Within the PUD District, all development shall be in compliance with the following Specifically subsection 12 6 5.1 c deals with a PUD of a single land use or housing type, of which this proposed property falls under c. Single Land Use or Housing Type: Any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted, provided, that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan Does this not state that a PUD falling into this category basically loses it's flexibility with the Ordinances? The point of a PUD is to encourage creative uses of land development, take in account latest building techniques, preserve open space and provide density shifts with the parcel while maintaining overall density numbers to name a few When a PUD doesn't intend to make use of the creative use of space, such as a PUD with a Single Land Use or Housing Type, then isn't this really just a glorified subdivision? A PUD of this classification still would qualify for flexibility specifically defined for PUDs, such as street widths, but not flexibility with other ordinances not specifically mentioned in later sections of the PUD definitions The Evermoor PUD was continually brought up as an example of a PUD that received flexibility from the ordinances But the Evermoor development differs significantly from the PUD proposed this evening Evermoor is a 100+ acre development (as opposed to the <5 acre PUD) in which the exact items outlined above that a PUD encourages happened Glendalough, for example, preserves a significant amount of open space via it's trail system and parks Evermoor as a whole incorporates condominiums above the density level to the east while out to the west end of the development there are single family homes below the allowed density It employs different communities for different ages (tne 55+ community to the west of Glendalough), etc This is exactly what the state had in mind when they developed the statutes that required cities counties to incorporate the use of PUDs. If Subsection C does not deal with this type of PUD needing to adhere to the strict standards of the ordinances, what is it intended to do? Why as a developer would I not seek to rezone any piece of property that they want to Page 2 of 2 develop to PUD I've now got the zoning ordinances moved to guidances without really needing to necessarily meet the intentions of a PUD I personally don't care that the development passed tonight What concerns me is that a piece of property that really does not fit the definition or design criteria to be a PUD was passed The City has now set a precedence to allow substandard propertied to be developed as PUDs without meeting the strict design criteria required for a PUD Issue #2 deals with the answer you gave to Area requirements 2 Area Each PUD shall have a minimum area of ten (10) acres, excluding areas within a designated wetlands, flood plain or shoreland district or right of way, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following a Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community b The property is directly adjacent to or across the right of way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD and will appear as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development c The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on a collector or arterial (minor or principal) street, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan You commented this evening that the PUD does not need to meet the minimum area requirement because of 2.c I understand that Connemerra is a collector street and State HWY 3 is a principal arterial street, but the access to this property is not via (on) either of these streets It is on the cul de sac in the Glendalough neighborhood and this is what is be used to determine if the property "on a collector or arterial street" The ordinance does not state that the property is located adjacent to an arterial or collector street Bard's crossing (located on Connemerra) and GlenRose (located on State HWY 3) are two examples of such developments located on a collector or arterial street Again I just want to state that I don't care that this proposal passed or not My wife and I are concerned about the future development of the and to the north of this property as the zoning of this development will be used as a basis for future developments I have strong reservations that these Tots should be allowed to be developed as PUDs The area requirements as well as design purpose of a PUD need to be given greater considerations when evaluating a piece of property such as this for rezoning. I'll close by thanking you, your staff, and the planning commission for the work you do and apologize for the rudeness and out of order conduct shown by our communities at the past two meetings I don't know what the city pays you, but it's not enough to deal with all the crap you have had to deal with on this development Dave Bartz 1/30/2006 From: Joan A Anderson [SMTPLADYBUG @LIGHTBLAST.NET) Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6 23 17 PM To: Rosemount City Council Subject: Planned Urban Development CDA Proposal Auto forwarded by a Rule Dear Madam or Sir: This communication to the Rosemount City Council is in regard to the proposed and Planning Commission approved CDA (subsidized) rental housing project on the Northwest corner of Highway 3 (Robert Trail) and Connemara Trail According to the Planning Commission's Chairman, Jason Messner, "State and Federal Law prohibits cities from rejecting projects purely because they contain units that cost less than homes within a few miles of the construction This we can accept He also states "the city cannot block development based on whether the new residences will be rental or owner occupied and it cannot prevent new housing because families who live there may have lower income than some others While this may or may not be true, introducing "class warfare" is an insult to our intelligence and common sense in our opposition to this development for the following reasons 1. First and foremost, the expected negative impact on the value of the adjacent and surrounding homes and property 2. The increase in generated traffic, access in and out of the project to the detriment of an existing development by routing its traffic through it 3. If such a project provides NO financial or economic value to the City of Rosemount, why would the City want the cost of exercising nine variances and moving a pipeline just to put in such a project? Will the CDA reimburse the City for any police and fire services should it be required? They're certainly not paying for any, like the rest of Rosemount taxpayers /homeowners No doubt the CDA will pay District 196 for educating the children, with our taxpayer money, of course' 4. If Rosemount's "Spirit of Pride and Progress" edict requires a buffer between single family residences and Highway 3. why does it need to be an ultra- compact, high density subsidized rental housing complex of 30 units sitting on a little over 4 acres of land? Viewing other CDA projects in Apple Valley and Burnsville, they all are surrounded by medium to high density housing or commercial property 5 Could any homeowner m Rosemount get an understanding ear of the City Planner or the Community Development Director, if they should propose some nine (9) variances to be obtained to allow for some project deemed in our interest? I doubt it As was expressed by a Rosemount homeowner at the Planning Commission's hearing on January 24, he wanted just one variance and he was told by these two individuals not to even waste their time with such a request I guess it depends on "whose ox is being gored" as the expression goes 6. Are there any other parcels of and in Rosemount where all the aforementioned zoning changes and variances would not be required, and existing developments would not be compromised and intruded upon? There are, as one individual at the 1/24 Planning Commission meeting offered a site as an alternative that would not bear the costa, need for variances, or rezoning The eyes and ears of the City Planner, Planning Commission and the Community Development Director were certainly "closed" to any such proposal or its consideration What is most disheartening in our attendance at the hearings, was the apparent display of arrogance and indifference shown by the City Planner, the Planning Commission Chairman and its members and, most of all, the Community Development Director We keep hearing "workforce" housing for businesses coming to or thinking of locating in Rosemount This housing is NO such things "Workforce housing" is that which a company or employer would help towards or provide within close proximity to their businesses, plant, etc. See www wphd oro/WorkforceHousinciReport pdf This information is in keeping with the trend nationwide to provide affordable housing and promote city development. History has shown that providing subsidized rental housing does nothing to lift or encourage participants into home ownership and, in the long term, only contributes to area and /or community decay and devaluation See www city journal orq /html/7 1 we dont need html Your responsibility and challenge are to objectively consider the concerns and views made to the City concerning this project Will your decision reflect Rosemount's Spirit of Pride and Progress? Thank you for your consideration Malcolm and Joan Anderson 3470 Cromwell Trail Rosemount, MN 55068 Pearson,Rick From: Keith Myhre [kmyhre @lightblast net] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9 21 PM To: Rosemount City Council Cc: Pearson,Rick, Verbrugge,Jamie Subject: CDA Townhouse Development 05 -50 -CP Mayor Droste Fellow City Council Members, I would like to communicate to all of you my strong concerns about the location of the proposed CDA townhouse development 05 -50 -CP I attended the Planning Commission meeting on January 24th, where numerous, valid concerns and issues were expressed by residents of Rosemount You are probably aware of many of these issues and concerns, so I won't enumerate them here. Taken collectively, they raise the question. Is this the best, or proper, location for a high density townhouse development? I learned at the Planning Commission meeting that several variances will need to be granted in order to build 30 units on such a small plot of land, bordered on 3 sides by roads Have the City Planner and Community Development staffs fully investigated and evaluated site alternatives? There was insufficient information available at the Planning Commission meeting for me to determine what alternatives were considered and the shortcomings of each However, a representative of the parent company of Lundgren Brothers offered land at County Road 42 and Akron Ave for the construction of these CDA townhouses I strongly encourage the City Council to consider their land offer, as well as other potential sites, for the CDA development rather than trying to "shoehorn" it into the site on Highway 3 and Connemara Trail. I was a homeowner in Eagan for 26 years My wife and I moved to Rosemount 15 months ago, drawn by the small town atmosphere and the strong building covenants in Evermoor I feel very strongly that the property at the corner of Highway 3 and Connemara Trail is best suited for a park area Or at most, low density housing This would help present a positive image when entering Rosemount from the north on Highway 3 and entering Evermoor I know that I am not alone among the residents of Evermoor who would be willing to contribute monies to a fund to purchase the property in question and then donate that land to the City of Rosemount as a park area This would be a far more fitting use for that very visible corner lot than building high density housing Before routinely approving the proposed townhouse development, please address and consider my concerns, as well as those of the other 100+ people in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting. The Mayor and City Council are elected by us citizens of Rosemount, to represent our interests With so very many people having concerns about this development, it is incumbent upon all of you to fully address the issues and follow the wishes of your constituents I, like many others, plan to attend the February 7 City Council meeting when this topic is scheduled to be on your agenda Thank you Keith Myhre 3522 Crumfield Path 651 344 -2828 kmvhre(Dlightblast net This e -mail has been scanned by FTTH Communications /Lightblast, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. 2/1/2006 Page 1 of 1 January 30, 2006 Rosemount City Council, Mayor C/0 Rosemount City Hall 2874 West 145 Street Rosemount, MN. 55068 RE Feb 7 City Council Meeting Dear City Council, Mr. Mayor Richard Durig 13249 Derry glen Court Rosemount MN. 55068 651 423 5371 (11) 612 382 8601 (Mobile) I am resident of The Evermoor Development and a Board member of our association I am writing to you regarding the Rosemount rezoning request for "Planned Urban Development" that would place low income rental units at the corner of Connemara Trail and Country Road Three. I am not able to make the meeting due to a previous business commitment so I would like my ideas and opinions documented before the city votes and responds to outcries from the community. I have received calls and written notices from many residents opposing this rezoning effort on the basis of the potential for increased crime, lower property values, poor appearances and maintenance et al. I am about to take what is likely to be a very unpopular and contrarian's view of the situation but please hear me out. It seems to me that if we expect lower property values, higher crime etc. from our neighbors before we even know them, or they move in, then that is exactly what we will get I would like the city, the county (CDA) and its residents to consider a new model of collaboration so that affordable housing can be available to the working poor and they can be integrated and, indeed. welcomed into the community. Merely changing the location of the property will not change the situation it will just relocate the problem for another group of residents. The support for this housing comes out of our tax money anyway and I believe we have an obligation to see to that it is used wisely and effectively. We have an obligation as citizens and taxpayers to see to it that the residents of these communities are not only subsidized financially hut integrated in as a vital part of community so they can grow and develop along with it. We are blessed with an enormous abundance in the community in which we live and I believe fully that we have an obligation to assist those who are less fortunate. What I propose is collaboration between all the sub associations of Evermoor, the developer, the CDA, and the city to assure that these residents not only receive basic financial assistance for living but are helped in other ways that enhance their situations and allow them to contribute meaningfully to the community. I don't assume to know all the needs of the working poor or the needy of our community but it seems that if the community does all it can to help these new residents out then we will receive benefits in return that go well beyond avoiding crime, police calls and untidy appearances. So, rather than oppose these new residences why don't we integrate them into the community just as the original developer has integrated many different Lifestyle residences into the community? To me, this is just another lifestyle residence in the community One that gives us all an opportunity to give back to the country and community that has given us so much. I propose that the associations vote on voluntarily increasing their dues each by $1 to $5 dollars per month and those funds be contributed to a non profit association to help manage the property and assist the residents in the community. This association would be managed by representatives from both the master association and the new residents of the community. Members of the of the CDA could also be represented and any other entities that contribute to the fund This new, non profit entity /association would determine the best and most effective use of funds on a monthly basis. For example, they could be used for as much or as little as enhanced landscape and lawn care, subsidized day care, education facilities and training to enhance the education levels of the residents etc etc, The point is that the community and its members would be administering funds given directly to assist the residents and create mutually beneficial outcomes for the new residents and the community. Not to mention the feeling of inclusion and importance to the community these new residents will feel. It takes only one person to pull a person down but it requires a community to lift someone up. I believe in all human potential regardless of income level. In fact, any one of us could easily become "poor" in an instant. Why are we discriminating against people who have lower incomes') If this was a racial discrimination issue or any other ethnic minority situation you can bet all the righteous citizens would be up in arms against any opposition to the proposed community. Why is this any different? I believe this new model can preserve the neighborhood's appeal and its value but, most importantly it will preserve the dignity of the residents moving into the new community. I therefore, support the decision to locate the property at its current proposed site and stand ready to assist the residents in a manner that is befitting our Christian heritage and our call to action for the poor in our community. While I respect and honor other people's right to oppose this on the basis of their own property rights and self interest the reality is that this problem will never go away if it is left entirely to the government to fix and manage. This is a real opportunity to take a true community- neighborhood based approach to an important social and moral problem. I encourage all the residents of Evermoor to embrace this. or similar models. and work together as a community regardless of our individual socio economic status If possible please extend this perspective to the council at large and any members who are present at the meeting next month. Respectfully Submitted, Rick Durig Resident, Concerned Citizen January 20th, 2006 TO Rosemount Planning Commission: Jason Messner (Chair), Terry Zum (Co- chair), John M. Powell, Valerie E. Schultz, and Jeanne Schwartz 6 Rosemount City Council: Mayor Bill Droste, Mike Baxter, Mark DeBettignies, Kim Shoe Corrigan, Philip Sterner As a fourteen year resident of the City of Rosemount, I would really hie to attend the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting scheduled for 1/2 Unfonunately, I have to work that evening Since 1 cannot be present to voice my concerns, I am submitting this letter for the record pnor to the meeting regarding the approval of the proposed development of the land at Hwy. 3 and Connemara I strongly disagree with the proposed PUD town home development for the following reasons. 1. Poor use of land The City of Rosemount has a goal of diverse housing throughout the community Evermoor is a high density housing development, with two condominium buildmgs, numerous attached and detached town homes and single family homes That portion of Rosemount is full There is no need to add any more units. The initial land -use plat for Evermoor boasted of green space and well -used land There was never any talk of changing the abutting rural land to moderate density This option should have been put on the table pnor to families purchasing homes in Evermoor, and it is misleading to have failed to mention it until now. This land should be left as rural residential, or turned into parkland, as was in the initial plat The PUD development would be better placed in the new downtown area, or closer to the technical college, so that the residents have walking access to shops and /or Inge .r education If this development is in the new downtown, the residents will also be within walking distance of the Family Resource Center on 145th Street It is also important to remember that Rosemount wants to continue to project its positive image Commg into the city from the north, people used to see a golf course and trees, which is a lovely image of Rosemount. Now, people will see Harmony town homes (high density), the two senior condominium buildings (high density), the trailer park (moderate to high density) and the proposed PUD development (even more density) Proponents of this development will say that this land, because of its proximity to Hwy. 3, will only sustain a PUD development. This is based on a faulty premise. Simply drive up Huy 3, and all through Eagan there are beautiful homes lining this road Which image does the City of Rosemount wish to project to commuters on Highway 3 2. Safety Because there is so much traffic on Highway 3 and Connemara, there has been a traffic signal installed. Although this signal helps, it does not assist with the traffic on Connemara between Dodd and Hwy 3 This high level of traffic will only increase with the completion of the second Bard's Crossing building, as well as all of the development on the east side of Highway 3 To add another 30 rental units, which easily means at least 60 more vehicles, will only create more congestion and traffic accidents. Also, since the "working poor" are anticipated to be living in this development, will there be additional bus traffic running through the residential streets of Evennoor to accommodate these people and get them to work? 3, Property Values Many of the people who have purchased homes m Evermoor have put forth a significant investment, thus paying hefty property taxes to the City of Rosemount. Homes m areas with parks and green space are valued significantly higher than homes with high density and subsidized housing Since this PUD project was not in the plat when we made our investment in Evermoor, our homes are valued under the assumption that the parcel of land m question is "green," and will remain green, or undeveloped In addition, we've built two homes in Rosemount over the past fourteen years We have paid a premium both times relative to comparable, neighbonng communities (Lakeville, Apple Valley and Burnsville) in Dakota County. The obvious reason for this premium is that land values in Rosemount are higher. Given that higher cost of land m Rosemount (and subsequent higher property taxes), it would make much more sense to put this affordable housing on more affordable land Placing these town homes on the Connemara /Hwy 3 land is not fair to us, or to any other homeowner m Evermoor who has paid the stiff premium to hve here. If the PUD development goes in, will all the residents of Evermoor receive an annual reduction in then- property raxes 4. Covenants Evermoor is a planned community with covenants in place designed to protect our Investment and the mtegnty of the development. These covenants include property maintenance and improvements, association dues and that cars, trailers campers, waste receptacles, etc ..be stored m garages All of the homes built in Rosemount have two or more garage stalls, as required by the City of Rosemount. This development shows one car garage stalls This is a concern, given the lack of on -street and development designated parking. Why are there different rules and expectations for this property? Because this PUD project will be a "part" of the Evermoor area, will it also follow the association covenants and contnbute to the association dues and maintenance of Evermoor 5 Long term benefits Although it may at first appear to the Planning Commission that putting this PUD project next to the Evermoor development in Rosemount is a good idea, it is not a good long -term solution Since this development is targeted at the 'working poor," wouldn't it be wiser to place this project in an area where these people could move on from being "working poor," to being "working These families need homes in locations that have resources for them, such as Head Start, technical and skilled labor training and appropriate childcare. None of these programs are available m this area of Rosemount- If -the City Council and Planning Commission members -look autthe big picture, rather than a quick fix that will make a fast buck for the developer, they will realize that their reputations (and that of the City of Rosemount) and re- election and reappointment will depend upon their decisions regarding appropnate land use for the future of Rosemount, as well as its current and future residents Thank you for your sincere consideration in this matter Respectfully, Elodie Hubbard 13090 Crotty Path Rosemount, MN 55068 Pearson,Rick From: bra ©lightblast.net Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3 48 PM To: Pearson,Rick Cc: Rosemount City Council Subject: rezoning I am a resident of Bard's Crossing and am against the rezoning request for the nw corner of Connemara Trail and County Rd. 3. I feel there are too many "use issues" and variances being proposed.I feel these land use changes will have a negative impact on the value of my land, and it is a poor ase for this site. Please seek alternate sites that do not involve all tnese variances.( Reference Public Hearing Number 05 -50 CP Rosemount Family Townnomes (CDA Project) Comprenensive Plan Amendment/ Rezoning/ PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat. Bonnie Anderson This e -mail has been scanned by FTTH Communications /Lzghtblast, using Skeptic(tm) tecnnology powered by MessageLabs. 1 Rosemount CDA Project Page 1 of 1 Pearson,Rick From: Torn Sauro [Tom Sauro@gandermountain.comj Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:10 PM To: Pearson,Rick Subject: Rosemount CDA Project Dear Rick I am against the adjustments that make for a convenient fit for the CDA project I have invested a lot of money into my home in Evermoor and was never given a heads up to the plans of low income housing without all of the same open space, parks, drainage and Garage ordinances that I and my neighbors were held to My family and I moved here from Chanhassen because of the quality and management and good schools Please don't make that a mistake. Once again, I am against this project at the current location. Thank you for your time Regards Tom Sauro Tom Sauro 13180 Crolly Path Rosemount, MN 55068 651 -423 -2608 1/23/2006 Pearson,Rick From: Roger Tippett [rtippett@lightblast net] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 12 19 AM To: Pearson,Rick Cc: Verbrugge,Jamie Subject: Re: Public Hearings Mr Pearson, Thank you for your prompt repsonse to my question. Informally, I would like to make the following comments that I think may identify some potential continuous improvement opportunities. 1) Notices are mailed to property owners of record within 350 feet of the property subject to the application. 4) In addition, a sign has been located on the property since early December We have found that the sign is effective in alerting neighbors although it is not required by State Statutes. 1/23/2006 Page 1 of 3 Firstly I will start with the premise that local government would want to let the public know about a public meeting. I have no reason to believe this would not be the case in Rosemount As you point out, Mr Pearson there are statutory requirements for public hearings however i think that we can all recognize that the average resident of Rosemount would not actually be made aware of a public hearing by any of these means. What happens if a change such as a zoning change has a significant impact on residents >350 ft from the property? 2) A legal notice is publlched in the official newspaper of the City the Rosemount Town Pages After your e-mail, it took me about 15 minutes to locate the notice in the newspaper and even though I actually knew what I was searching for 3) A notice of the public hearing is posted in the lobby at City Hall. Great unfortunately how many people go to City Hall on a regular basis OK so that is the law and while you may agree or disagree on some of the points, I would assume that you would acknowledge that most people in Rosemount would not actually be aware of Public meeting. So now to move to the non regulated "extra" steps to ensure citizens know of these meetings It would seem to me that the City would want to take all reasonable (cost effective) measures to do this I agree that this is a good first step However it is not a "catch" all. In December it is dark when i leave for work and dark when I return Also, I'm sure I have driven past this property several time in the daylight, but failed to see the sign. The other area that I thought was missing was the City Web -site. In this particular case for some strange reason both the City Administrators weekly update of Jan 6th and the planning commison agenda for Jan 10th, both failed to note the location of the property in question I can only assume that this was a genuine oversight in both cases I notice this was corrected the City Administrators weekly newsletter for January 20th, out not for the planning commision agenda of January 24th As an example of how this is actually useful In November I was out of town at the time of the planning commisien meeting, but noticed from the City web -site (I think it was the weekly update) that there was a public Page 2 of 3 heanng of involving comp plan changes related to Evermoor. I wanted to know more, so i called up the City offices and was put in contact with Jason Lindahl who provided me with the background I requested Another suggestion would be to actually post the notice on the web -site even thought not legally required. A further option would be to create a direct rather than indicect link from the City web -page to the Rosemount Town News legal notice page. I would have liked to have known about the public hearing on January 10th and had my opportunity to speak I will be out of town on business on January 24th, so I will be sending you another e-mail with some formal comments related to the CDA project by e -mail Regards Roger Tippett 13070 Crolly Path Original Message From: Pearson Rick To: Roger Tippett Cc: Verbrugge,Jamie Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 8.29 AM Subject: RE Public Hearings Mr Tippitt The City follows Statutory requirements for public heanng notices 1 Notices are mailed to property owners of record within 350 feet of the property subject to the application 2. A legal notice is published in the official newspaper of the City the Rosemount Town Pages 3. A notice of the public hearing is posted in the lobby at City Hall. 4. In addition, a sign has been located on the property since early December We have found that the sign is effective in alerting neighbors although it is not required by State Statutes The notices were mailed and posted in the middle of December originally anticipating a December 27 Planning Commission meeting. However, the newspaper failed to publish the notice. As a result, the pubic hearing was continued for January 10 so the notice requirements would be fulfilled The property owner list comes from Dakota County Assessing property information If you have any other questions, 1 can be reached at 651 322 -2052. Rick Pearson City Planner From: Roger Tippett jmailto:rtippett@lightblast.net] Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:08 PM To: Pearson,Rick Cc: Verbrugge,Jamie Subject: Public Hearings Mr Pearson, Can you please outline for me, the City's legal requirements for notification of the public of a public hearing conducted by the planning commission? In practice how does the city accomplish this task? Regards 1 /);nnnK Pearson,Rick From: Brian.Kane@hti htch.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 6 12 PM To: Rosemount City Council, Pearson,Rick Subject: Planned Urban Development for NW comer of Connemara Hwy 3 Page 1 of 1 As a resident who has already endured a car break -in and property theft in the Crosscroft section of Evermoor, I am very opposed to any variances that would increase the density of population beyond what is currently planned The density surrounding Evermoor is already increasing at a rapid and, I assume, planned rate No variance should be allowed that would increase this density over the existing plan Density, traffic, and security issues lead to reduced home values and an unenjoyable life in Rosemount. Brian J Kane 3695 Crosscliffe Path Rosemount MN 55068 1/23/2006 Pearson,Rick From: Mark Foster Imarklfoster @hotmail corn] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 11 58 AM To: Pearson,Rick, Rosemount City Council, Verbrugge.Jarme Subject: Public Hearing 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Dear City Council Members: I as writing in regards to the upcoming meetings on Public Hearing 05 -50 -CP on the Rosemount Family Townhomes CDA project under review as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment /Rezoning /PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Plot. I will be traveling on business and will be unable to attend the meetings, so I am sharing my concerns with you briefly, below. 1. As an owner of a single family home in Evermoor, I am concerned about the proposed changes to the density of the Proposed property. Creating this kind of high density 'island' in an area that now leads to valuable neighborhoods filled with beautiful single family homes will nave a severe impact down the road. It is inconcievable that the City Council ana Planning Commission would pursue this path when homeowners of Evermoor have made substantial investments in their property, which has resulted in an increased tax base, not to mention significant contributions to the local economy by our very presence here. Why punish these valuable neighborhoods with a change in density that will create severe negative ramifications to property values and tax base stability? 2. The City of Eagan should be a 'model' of what's to come for your proposed CDA development. The lower income units that were developed along Yankee Doodle Road in Eagan are a continuing source of crime and police intervention. This is due largely to a demographic influence that has been proven to be statistically prone to crime, domestic violence, weapons violations and other legal infractions. Many of the police calls that occur on a regular basis in Eagan are due to the presence )f lower income rental units and have proven to be an ongoing source of frustration for nearby residents. 3. Making such dramatic and unnecessary changes at the head end of the Evermoor development is poor planning from the city's 'marketing' standpoint. Increased density, proposed variances to set backs, proposed changes to garage requirements ana street access changes to Glendalough and Connemera, all add up to negative impacts on visible 'packaging' for the area, which is a serious blow to the existing surrounding neighborhoods. Evermoor's appeal and 'packaging' are largely due to its substantial presence of single family homes. This appeal prevails despite the presence of condo units and higher income apartment -type dwellings on the southwest side of Connemera and Highway 3. Adding the proposed CDA development acrcss from these units will create an 'overkill' situation of density creating a serious detriment to the imagery and appeal of Evermoor, which will result in negative land values to adjoining neignorhoods. 4. The proposed changes for the development are excessive, and I'm certain that many of you understand that these changes constitute a 'surprise' to current homeowners. As stated earlier, homeowners in Evermoor have heavily invested .n their properties to create neighborhoods tnat are vaisable to them and to the city at large. The variety of changes being proposed, from set backs to density, to drainage, street access, utility easements, storm water management, and per unit parking standards, add up to too much negative change that were not even on the horizon „'hen Evermoor residents built their homes. This is the equivalent of changing the rules to build the proverbial 'smoke factory across the street.' Simply put, current residents may have thought differently about building in Evermoor, or in Rosemount at all, if these changes had been on the table and communicated in the beginning. I urge you to reconsider making these dramatic, excessive and unnecessary changes to the proposed site at the head end of the Evermoor development. There are most certainly more suitable locations for such a development in the vast expanse cf land that makes up Rosemount than placing it in Evermoor. These excessive changes will result in profound and substantial negative impacts to land values in the years to come, and as voting citizens of this great community, we have every right to urge 1 you to make the right decision. Sincerely, Mark L. Foster (via email) 13243 Danner Path Rosemount, MN 55068 2 TO: Rosemount Planning Commission Members the Rosemount City Council I am a resident of Rosemount and I am writing to you regarding the Rosemount Family Townhomes project that will be discussed at the January 24 Planning Commission meeting Unfortunately, I will be out of town on business and I will be unable to attend the meeting, so I wanted to let you know why I oppose the rezoning application. 1. The CDA PUD development would be better suited to a location either close to downtown Rosemount or close to the community college The future residents of this new development will likely have fewer cars per family than average and will be more reliant on walking or public transportation to access jobs, shops, education etc To walk from this location to downtown Rosemount you would need to walk along Highway 3, which has no sidewalk from Connemara Trail to the High School. This creates a potential safety issue especially when you consider that Highway 3 is a two -lane highway with a posted speed limit of 55 MPH in the area with no sidewalk. 2. The land is currently zoned as Rural Residential, which allows for a very low density of housing (one home per 5 acres) The current proposal is to change this to a 30 unit development on 6 acres. This increases the intended housing density by 2400 %!I This will not provide the transition in housing density that was identified in the 2020 Comprehensive plan. The 2020 comprehensive plan already shows a significant area zoned as urban residential area within Rosemount without changing the designation of this particular parcel 3. The City is undergoing an extensive multi -year downtown redevelopment plan. This will enhance Rosemount's positive image However the majority of cars will drive through the downtown on Highway 3 When entering the city from the North on Highway 3 you will see the high density Harmony Town Homes, a trailer park, condominiums and now potentially a high density PUD development. This is in stark contrast to the golf course and trees that were present until recently While some level of development is inevitable, this does not appear to be a well- managed plan that will leave visitors to Rosemount with a positive image If you travel as I do on a daily basis through Eagan on Highway 3, you will see a significantly lower housing density adjacent to the road compared to Rosemount. In summary I would remind you that the purpose statement in the zoning ordinance sets out nine objectives. The Rosemount Family Townhomes proposal fails to meet five of these objectives. It fails to assist in the implementation of the 2020 Comprehensive plan (the zoning change would require a concurrent changing in the Comp Plan.) It fails to create compatibility of residential uses, It fails to promote the orderly transition of rural to urban uses It fails to protect natural resources in the city It fads to create a safe effective pedestrian system Therefore I would request that you vote against this rezoning application. Sincerely, Roger Tippett 13070 Crolly Path Rosemount, MN 55068 January 22 2006 Pearson,Rick From: Roger Tippett [rtippett@lightblast net] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 7 42 PM To: Pearson,Rick Cc: Verbrugge,Jamie; Rosemount City Council Subject: Comments on the Rosemount Family Townhomes Proposal Attachments: Rosemount_ planning _commission_letter_012206 doc Mr. Pearson, I am unable to attend the planning commission meeting on January 24th as I will be out of town on business. However the attached letter outlines the reasons why I oppose the zoning changes associated with the Rosemount Family Townhomes project. As the city web -site does not have e -mail addresses for the Planning Commission members, can you please ensure that they all receive a copy of these comments prior to the meeting on January 24th Can you please also acknowledge receipt of this e-mail. Thank You Roger Tippett 13070 Crolly Path Rosemount This e -mail has been scanned by FTTH Communications/Lightblast, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. 1/23/2006 Page 1 of 1 Pearson,Rick From: d.stenseth @lightblast net Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:34 PM To: Pearson,Rick Subject: CDA Land Use Hi Rick, I am contacting you to voice my concern about the CDA project proposed at the corner of Connemara Trail and Hwy 3. I strongly believe that the city must offer a variety of different housing options that appeal to all income levels however, the current location is not a good fit for a change in zoning to Urban Residential. There a number of reasons why this proposed development does not fit in the current location: First, there are the excessive number of variances from the city's stanoards that are necessary to even make this project possible. Since variances are exceptions from development standards, it is not inappropriate to expect that a development stand on its own merits and not excessively rely upon variances in order to make a project possible. With the proposed change in zoning, everything from single car garages to variances for parking and water drainage runoff, among several other things are all requested as variances. Finally, just looking at the maps in the Planning Commission's Agenda for the January 24, 2006 meeting clearly show that the site is too small and poorly located to support the proposed development and a change in zoning. It is as if the project is being forced in a location that is not suitable for it. The access issue is a second basis for the project not fitting in its current location. A rezoning of the proposed property together with any one of the three access alternatives outlined in the Planning Commission's Agenda will nave a substantial negative impact on adjoining properties. A change in zoning to Urban Residential will clearly result _n an impairment of a significant portion of Lundgren's Glendalough project. As a neighborhood based project with sidewalks and gathering spots designed for the residents of Glendalough this proposed development with its access issues is opposite of what the City Council and you have previously approved in the Glendalough project. It is pointed out in the report from WSB Associates, Inc. that the roads within Glendalough will support the traffic flows and while it is technically correct that the city can add access through or adjacent to Glendalough the impact on the approved but not yet developed portions of the Glendalough project should not be understated. No one is going to spend 500,000 or more to nuild a Glendalough style house that backs up to, is adjacent to or is in close proximity to the access road or Urban Residential housing. As such, if approved, the zoning change together with its access issues will have a significant negative impact on Glendalough and Lundgren. The value of my property within Glendalough will also decrease. If Lundgren had knowledge that this proposed development was going to occur prior to exercising its option to continue Glendalougn, I believe that it is doubtful that they would of exercisea that option. Also, the owners of other properties in the area of the proposed development will suffer negative impacts due to this change in zoning especially those to the nortn of the proposed site. These property owners will need to work with an island of zoning that is inconsistent with that of what the City has done in developing all of the surrounding area including Evermoor and Harmony. Wnile �t is likely that these properties along Hwy 3 will be of higher density than Glendalough and much of tne rest of Evermoor, the City owes us as residents of Rosemount a dontinuation of consistent planning. The City needs to continue working to meet its goal of providing a variety of different housing options including low income housing. However, for several reasons, the proposed zoning change for the CDA development in its current location should be denied. The site is not large enough for the CDA to fully build the project, far too many variances and exceptions are necessary for the project to be sustainable, there is a significant negative financial impact on Lundgren and tne Glendalougn project and numerous other property owners would be negatively impacted by this single inappropriate change in 1 zoning. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, David Stenseth David Sheila Stenseth 3444 Couchtown Path Rosemount, MN 55068 p 651.344.3179 cell 651.398.6810 This e -mail has been scanned by FTTH Communicatilons /Lightblast, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. 2 Pearson, Rick From: FredOss @cs.com Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:14 PM To: Pearson,Rick Subject: Proposed Rezoning Variance Dear Mr Pearson' Page 1 of 1 We are writing this letter as Rosemount residents who will not be able to be present at the January 24th meeting of the planning commission Please convey our concerns to the planning commission if you would The one item on the agenda which has raised great concern for us -and the reason why we are writing this correspondence, is the proposed rezoning and variances for a multiple unit development on the northwest corner of Conemara and Highway 3 After discussion with several of our neighbors who are long -time Rosemount residents and conducting some basic research on the topic; we have come to the conclusion this project should definitely not be allowed to go forward. We were amazed that with the sheer number of items that would not be in compliance with current zoning, that this project was even proposed for the current location In our opinion, the current density limitations are adequate for that proposed area (without variance) and the proposed entrance onto Connemara with the number of units proposed, creates a serious safety concern This development does not appear to fit in with the immediate surroundings, either. Not to mention the other variances that would be required (that I'm sure you are familiar with) such as drainage, parking, set back —any one of which create problems. We thoroughly enjoy living in Rosemount and are concerned voters who wish to remain here for many more years to come with our family Please recommend that this project be stopped now Feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Best Regards, Frederick Siri Oss 13087 Danube Lane Rosemount, MN t /7annn6 Pearson,Rick From: Leslie Ascheman [Leslie0101 @frontiemet.net] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1 52 PM To: Pearson,Rick Subject: Rosemount Rezoning Request Page 1 of 1 We bought our townhome at Crosscroft at Evermore last June and were under the assumption that the zoning, for our area, was already established Now we find out that you are willing to change the established plan to make it 'cheaper' for a builder to put in cheaper housing Not taking into consideration all the variances that also need to be changed in order to re -zone There must be other areas in Rosemount that the CDA would be able to utilize without re- zonings I do not want low income rental units at the NW corner of Connemara Trail and County Road 3 to decrease our property value and possibly increase the crime rate Keep things the way they are the way I thought things would be when we moved here!!! Thank you, Leslie Ascheman 3807 Crossridge Way Rosemount, MN 1/23/2006 Pearson,Rick From: LRBC @lightblast.net Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 12 40 PM To: Pearson,Rick Subject: proposal for urban residential Dear Rick, I attended the meeting on Tuesday night regarding the proposed rezoning of the property on Hwy. 3 and Connemara Trail. I am deeply concerned about the routing of traffic from the proposed housing development on to Connemara Trail. I feel that section of road is already busy, from the traffic light on Hwy. 3 /Connemara. This sets up a VERY dangerous section of street on Connemara which is already feeding traffic from the skate park /soccer bubble. In my opinion, no more access to Connemara should be allowed on that stretch of road. I also feel that this section of land would be better utilized by possibly the Glendalough neighborhood instead of an multi family urban residential units. Has the developer Lundgren Bros. looked into this possibility? And lastly, the Evermoor Community is one of the more valuable neighborhoods in our community of Rosemount. From a tax base statis isn't it a smart move to encourage more expensive property tax producing housing vs. non property taxed developments 2 Thank you for your time, Lisa Cleveland 13852 Clare Downs Way Rosemount, MN P.S. The phone number on the posted sign on this property does not give you information regarding the development of this land. It does however, give you directions to call anotner phone number to call to inquire, which was a bit confusing... This e -mail has teen scanned by FTTH Communications /Lightblast, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered ny MessageLabs. 1 Pears on, Rick From: svhaselhuhn @aol com Sent: Friday, January 20. 2006 9.16 AM To: Rosemount City Council, Pearson,Rick, Jamie.Verbrugge @a rosemount mn us. Cc: ggaofseg @lightblast net Subject: Public Hearing Number 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Dear City Planning Commission and City Council Members: Page 1 of 1 We are very concerned about the far reaching impact of the proposed use and number of variances being considered for the purpose of developing rental units on the northwest corner of Connemara Trail and County Road 3 The City of Rosemount is a growing community that still has multiple alternative locations available for such a development that would not require so many variances. In concem for the number of variances, it is our understanding that for this proposal to go through the following variances must be made 1/20/2006 1) density must be increased to place 30 units on the 4 8 acres of usable and for a density of 6 6 units per acre; 2) normal garage requirement from two to one per unit; 3) drainage to off -site due to lack of on -site drainage capability resulting in ponding off site in Glendalough, 4) street access variances creating safety concems (access via a currently designated cul -de -sac in Glendalough or access directly onto Connemara), 5) change of utility easement; 6) variation of storm water management, 7) relaxation of set -back requirements, 8) "parking per unit" standards, 9) payment of cash instead of the required set aside park land. We are also very concerned about the statistical increase in the numbers of police calls to Dakota County CDA properties and its negative impact on our property value Please reject this low income rental unit proposal and seek alternate sites for this project. Thank you __for hearing our variance and_property value concerns. Residents of Evermoor, Steve and Ginny Haselhuhn FW. Opposing Rezoning issue at the corner of Highway 3 and Connamara trail in Rose... Page 1 of 1 Pearson,Rick From: nadeem gasim ©thomson corn Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11.42 AM To: Pearson,Rick Subject: FW Opposing Rezoning issue at the corner of Highway 3 and Connamara trail in Rosemount Hi Rick, We recently moved to Rosemount (Evermoor community) and so far it has been an exciting experience for us Recently we found out the rezoning going on at the location above to build housing for low income families. I just wanted to let you know that I and my family oppose this project because of security and crime concerns we also know what happens to the property values adjacent to these kind of housing projects. Please refer to the similar projects in Eagan (at Yankee Doodle Road) and the one right next to Burnsville center I heard from a Rosemount resident that police had to open a sub station there because of the high volume of calls taking place I did not invest half million dollars to live in an area next to this kind of housing. If I cannot send my kids out to play. I don't think I would like to live here anymore. All the neighbors have been very upset about this deal we request the city to say NAY to this project and find some alternative spot for this project It would be a hornble experience for the communities living in Rosemount if this deal goes thru In the upcoming elections this would be the most important issue for thousands of Rosemount residents of Evermoor, Heisman, Glandalough, HeathHaven communities. Thanks for understanding this matter Nadeem Qasim 3630 Clare Downs Path Rosemount MN 55068 651 322.2359 n nrn nnc Pearson,Rick From: Bob Spruytte [spruytte @iaxs.net] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9 31 AM To: Pearson,Rick Subject: Public Heanng Number50 -50 -CP REFERENCE: Public Heanng Number 50 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezoning /PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat PROPERTY LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Highway 3, and Connemara Trail Robert and Beverly Spruytte 13670 Carrach Ave #310 Rosemount, MN 55068 1/23/2006 Page 1 of 1 We respectfully request that you DO NOT approve the re- zoning of the reference property which is adjacent to the Evermore neighborhood We do think that the reasons for disapproval and required code variances have been defined by the residents of Evermore, and the details do not have to be redefined. We moved from Burnsville and one of the main reasons of our relocation to Rosemount was due to the problems that low cost housing projects were causing in the city of Burnsville. We were impressed with planned community of Evermore, and apparent foresight and planning by Rosemount's local government. Wth these factors, the decision to relocate and to live in Rosemount was an easy choice, The decision to re -zone and approve the various zoning variances must be made on what is good for the community, and not what is good for the builders or politicians Thank you, Pearson, Rick From: Ivalencour @mncee org Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8 39 AM To: Pearson Rick Subject: Public Hearing #05 -50 -CP Dear Mr.Pearson, I am opposed to the re- zoning of this property for use as rental property. The people of Evermoor did not make the investments in our homes to have rental property near by. My neighbors and I will show up in force and if this proposal is approved, we will snow up in force on election day. The residents of Evermoor co not want this. Thank you, Lee F. Valencour, CLMC, CLEP Center Fcr Energy And Environment Lighting Consultant 612-335-5824 (Office) 612 -805 -4296 (Cell) 612- 335 -5888 (Fax) lvalencoar @mncee.org Pearson,Rick From: Ann M.Allen @wellsfargo com Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8'42 AM To: Pearson,Rick Cc: Ross Allen @thomson.com Subject: FW Public Hearing 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Town homes (CDA Project) Mr. Pearson, I would like to make a few additional comments regarding the proposed development of the plat at the corner of Hwy 3 and Connemara One of the frustrations I have with this project (in addition to the numerous issues as presented by my husband and countless others in our neighborhood) is the late notification of the people most directly affected by it Isn't there some notification requirement when projects such as these directly impact a homeowner's property values and neighborhood make -up? I noticed a sign placed on that corner back in early December one stating that development plans were in the works and to call a specified number to get more details I've called that number numerous times, as recently as yesterday, and have received no relevant information The recorded message talks about a different project, with no mention of the specific one I was calling about I am sure the city would state that it had done its due diligence by placing that sign but if no relevant information was given through that means, what other steps should have been taken by the city to make the neighborhood aware of the project and its impacts? Finding out at the 11th hour is frustrating As you have seen by the outpouring of negative comments on this project, the neighborhood is strongly opposed to it! Since we have been failed in the notification process, please make sure that our voices are now heard and given weight at this late hour. Ann MH Allen CTO Compliance Manager Phone: (612) 316 -2900 Fax: (612) 667 -0784 Email: Ann.M Allen WellsFaroo com Original Message From: Ross.Allen @thomson.com [mailto:Ross.Allen thomson.com) Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:35 AM To: rick.pearson @a.rosemount.mn.us Cc: Allen, Ann M. Subject: Public Hearing 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Town homes (CDA Project) Good Morning Mr. Pearson, It has come to my attention that the City of Rosemount is considering adding 30 multi family townhouses at the intersection of Hwy 3 and Connemara Trail to be rented to low income families My wife and I specifically moved to this neighborhood and out of the city to avoid exactly this problem. We spent —a -large amount of money on our home-and -pay heft-y -taxes to live in a- community that is free of crime that.is. how we would Ike things to remain Currently, we have a pool and basketball court in our neighborhood that is for the private use of the residents. Unfortunately, we are already having problems with people from the owned townhouse neighborhood across the street using and damaging our facilities I have a great concern that if a low income rental property is added to our neighborhood that more riff -raff and unfortunately more crime will occur. I also have a great concern that our homes, property values, and desirability of neighborhood (the reason we all chose to live where we do) will be compromised if this project is carried through I do not want to position myself as being against this sort of project, but I do believe that Dakota County and the City of Rosemount could place this neighborhood into a better spot rather than right next to the most expensive 1n;/7nn6 Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2 neighborhood in the city Rosemount is yet to be fully developed and offers numerous other locations for a housing project of this nature to be placed I would like to request that more research is done before deciding on this project have all other options and locations been looked at Rosemount is in the cusp of revitalization with a new downtown and several new shopping areas, but a low income housing project just block's away is not commensurate with the direction that Rosemount as a city is trying to head Please rethink the rezoning of this property and allow both Glendalough and the new developments within Rosemount to flourish without the long -term problems that low income housing brings with it 1 appreciate your time and consideration on this matter. Regards, Ross R Allen Segment Marl.tting, FindLaw ph 651- 687 -8572 fax 651 -687 -1899 January 24, 2006 Planning Commission members: As a resident of Rosemount for 13 years, I do thank you for your service to this community. I also thank you in advance for the consideration of my concerns involving the proposed CDA project. I attended the Planning Commission Meeting in early January and listened to the proposed land use and CDA project details. I also listened to numerous community members outlining their various concerns involving the proposed land use. I have received an unsigned flyer in my mailbox with a number of reasons objecting to this project. In a cursory review on my own, I reviewed the city's website as well as Dakota County website with particular review of the CDA's mission statement and other Dakota county CDA townhouse projects. Based on my own review of this information, I have a number of concerns for the development of this project. My main concerns are the number of variances required for this proposal to go through. I have a heightened concern for the storm overflow capacity for that site. We saw some heavy rains in the Clare Downs area last summer. The drainage pond did its job well but the amount of overflow water also demanded drainage onto land adjacent to it. I am concerned given the variances described, that this piece of land and the high density units proposed would not allow for adequate storm/water overflow from that land and overflow may impede the area itself. Given the proximity of the project to Hwy 3 and Connemara, could there be overflow onto those roads, with heavy traffic, even with adequate off -site drainage? I understand one variance would be to tap into Glendalough off -site ponding One question I have is regarding the cost for doing that type of off -site drainage Is that the best use of this parcel of land given the costs required for a well designed off site drainage capability? Another issue I do have with the proposal for this project relates to the proposed change of utility easement. I guess I am unclear what this proposal would require to change for that utility easement, but I wonder how feasible that request is given the immense and intncate number of pipelines involved with that easement. Additionally, I respect the fact Flint Hills needs to protect the safety of the landowners by not allowing the digging or disturbing of the land too close to these pipelines given the highly dangerous nature of digging near them. I would ask the commission intensely review the easement requirements and question greatly the risks of changmg any utility easement for proceeding with this construction project. Given the proposed street access for this project, I would have heightened concerns for the would -be residents of this project. Will these residents have safe street access onto Connemara given the continually increasing traffic at the intersection of Hwy 3 and Connemara? I have reviewed the counties website and specifically the Community Development Agencies other projects within the county. I do feel the project is beneficial for the continued development of commercial business m Rosemount. With more commercial business endeavors, the need for diverse housing options is clearly beneficial for the city. I do wonder, however, if these variances and their costs, as wen as the risks for the construction of this particular parcel of land are worth it to the city and residents. My hope and respectful request is that the Planning Commission and City Council make careful consideration of these concerns before you make your final decisions pertaining to the use of this land. Sincerely and with Best Regards, Kristen Eneelmann 13812 Clare Downs Way Rosemount, MN 55068 Kasel,Mike From: Pearson,Rick Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:58 AM To: Kasel,Mike Subject: FW: rezoning issue /Evermoor Original Message From: Pam Anderson mailto :panderson @seasparish.org] sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:42 AM To: Pearson,Rick Cc: Rosemount City Council; Verbrugge,Jamie Subject: rezoning issue /Evermoor Dear Mr. Pearson, I am writing to you today with an urge plea to please stop this rezoning request at the corner of Hwy. 3 and Connemara. I live in the Glendalough neighborhood in Evermoor. My husband and I, and our three children, relocated to Rosemount from Burnsville last April. This was a huge decision for us, and a ma0or economic sacrifice, but we felt that Evermoor would be a safe and quiet place for our chiloren to grow up. The main reason we left Burnsville, after living there for 12 years, was that the increase of transient families was causing the crime to increase in our neighborhood. I didn't feel safe there anymore. I am very concerned about this happening again, in our new neignnorhood. I was adamant about moving to a community where all the homes were family owned. This rezoning issue was never mentioned when we bought our property, or else we never would have moved here. I realize you have been flooded with emails, or at least I hope you have! However, I would like t. make one final comment that perhaps you haven't heard yet. I grew up in low income rental housing. I know what it is like to be in that situation. Evermoor is not the ideal location for a family that needs quick access to public transportation, etc. There is more crime in these communities, whether you believe it or not. Oftentimes, kids are left to take care of themselves when their parent(s) are at work. They will wander into our neighborhood looking for something to do, and it will cause problems. It makes more sense to locate these units closer to the center of town where families have easier access to transportation, stores, schools. I will be at the meeting tonight, and intend to do whatever it takes to block this action. Please be aware tnat we are very concerned and upset by this. I hope you will no your best to consiaer the needs and requests of our entire community. Thank you, Pam Anderson 1 Pea rson,Rick From: Martin Dye [mddye @yahoo corn] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 6 54 PM To: Pearson,Rick, Rosemount City Council, Jaime Verbrugge ©ci rosemount mn us Subject: Low income rental units near Evermoor It is a totally inappropriate location for low income rental units to be placed near Evermoor. Bad planning! Rosemount has a lot of space where it is better suited for these units. This move will affect the outlook for the development. Gradual change in zoning is more effective way to plan not going to drastic changes. Think!Be wise. Don't make bad decisions for a quick buck that would destroy the concept of Evermoor. We :roved to Evermoor because of what was believed to be a better place to raise our children. Low income housing brings a lot of undesirable conditions with it. The people of Evermoor deserve better. The City of Rosemount deserves better. Rosemount is going through a revitalization downtown to bring in low income housing That doesn't make sense. Think! Be Wise. Martin and Dushani Dye of Evermoor Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http: /mail.yahoo.com 1 Pearson,Rick From: adam huang [ayh55122 ©yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 11 03 PM To: Pearson,Rick, Rosemount City Council Subject: Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA project) Dear city council member, As a home owner of Evermoor development, we are very much against the approval of a Planned Urban Development near the eastern main entrance to Evermoor. We are very concerned about the impact on our property value of locating these low income rental properties in Evermoor. We strong urge you to vote against the approval of the Rezoning Request. Thanks, Adam Huang 13093 Trolly Path Rosemount, MN 55068 Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http: /mail.yahoo.com 1 Pearson,Rick From: Dan Hedeen [dhed2002 @yahoo corn] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 11.28 PM To: Pearson, Rick, Rosemount City Council; Jamie verbrugge @ci.rosemount.us Subject: Public Hearing Number 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Dear Planning Commission Members and City Council Members My name is Dan Hedeen and I live at 13276 Creggs Circle in Evermoor. I recently received information regarding "Public Hearing Number 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project)" I would encourage each of you to vote against this rezoning request rd consider alternate sites for the proposed development. I believe that if the rezoning request were approved, it would be a poor use of the site, cause potential safety issues on Conemara, and require too many variances to the existing zoning of the site. Additionally, upon moving into the Evermoor development, this possible use of the land was unknown to myself and others who paid a premium to live in the area and continue to pay a very high premium m taxes. To make such a zoning change at this point that could have a negative affect on the property values would be unf air to all those, including myself, that chose to live in the Evermoor community based on the zoning currently m place. Again, I would encourage all of you to vote against this rezoning request. Unfortunately I will be unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, January 24th due to prior commitments. In my absence, I wanted to make my opinion known and say thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dan Hedeen 13276 Creggs Circle Yahoo! Photos Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and we'll bind it! 1 inn innnc Page 1 of 1 Rezoning at Highway 3 and Connemara Page 1 of 2 Pearson,Rick From: steve diane stahl [sdstahl @lightblast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7 40 AM To: Pearson,Rick Subject: Rezoning at Highway 3 and Connemara Mr. Pearson January 22, 2006 I am a resident of the Glendalough neighborhood and attended the January 10 City Council Meeting. I am opposed to the rezoning a nd medium /large density development of the land located at Connemara and Highway 3. Based on CDA provided numbers, there would be 30 housing units plus an office. Access into the proposed community depends on either obtaining access through the Glendalough neighborhood or accessing directly onto Connemara via a new road. Neither proposal is in the best interest of the community. If access is granted through the Glendalough neighborhood, the impact could be as great as 175 additional cars passing through the neighborhood each day. The amount of traffic affecting the Glendalough neighborhood would be unreasonable. Developers and cities have been very of ctive designing communities that minimize the amount of traffic flowing through residential neighborhoods To grant access to 30 town homes through the Glendalough defeats the planning Lundgren and the city have taken to ensure that our neighborhood provides a safe place for our families. The same traffic concerns would be valid if there is access directly onto Connemara. There are many single family and multi family housing projects already in process (Bards Crossing, Glendalough, Harmony, Dean Johnson, etc) directly affecting the traffic in this area. Over the last year, I have witnessed traffic at this intersection increase dramatically Adding 30 more units to the area does not appear to be in the best interest of the city's future We will also see added traffic at this intersection as more communities are developed south of downtown Rosemount The intersection cannot continue to withstand additional commuters and would certainly become congested and prone to accidents. This land located at Connemara and Highway 3 would be better suited as green space or low density housing. I do not believe this site is suitable for providing a safe environment for high density housing. I hope the City Council and the Planning Commission take great consideration toward the concerns of our community Many of_ the residents of the Glendalough neighborhood have moved to Rosemount from surrounding communities because of lifestyle provided by this community. We didn't feel Rosemount would be a community that would rezone land without consideration of the impacted community. I ask that you reject the use of this property for additional medium /high density housing Steve Stahl 1 hA /2nnt Pearson,Rick Sincerely, Tucker Johnson 33620 Couct}TolPti Tit 2 .,.nom Page 1 of 1 From: Tucker Johnson tucker @klassenperformancegroup.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 4:04 PM To: Pearson,Rick Subject: Rezoning near Highway 3 Connemara Rick My wife and I moved to Rosemount in April of 2005, in the Glendalough neighborhood next to the area for which rezoning has been proposed We strongly oppose rezoning this location As a newer resident of the city, I don't know exactly where multi- tenant subsidized housing would best be placed, but we urge you and the Council to find another location I look forward to meeting you at tomorrow's meeting Kasel.Mike From: Pearson, Rick Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12.26 PM To: Kasel,Mike Subject: FW: Low income townhome development near Evermoor Original Message From: Kristine Schwartz [mailto:kmo90 @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:43 AM To: Pearson,Rick; Rosemount City Council; jamie.vergrugge@ci.rosemount.mn.us Subject: Low income townhome development near Evermoor Dear Rick, Jamie and City Council members: I am a resident of Evermoor and own a single family :lone on Clare Downs Path. I have received numerous flyers regarding tne low income housing development proposed for the northwest corner of Connemara Trail and Hwy 3 and am very concerned about such a decision being approved. I am a real estate appraiser and from a conformity stand point, it appears that putting a development like that in that location next to an executive level single family home development does not make sense. Price ranges in our development range from the high $300K's to around $800K for single family homes (not incluoing the townhomes or coneos that are currently existing) and putting a low- income housing development so close to those upper bracket homes does not make sense. Also, I was wondering if a highest and best use analysis was performed on this vacant parcel of land? Is the best use of this land what is proposed? I would think not. It may be more convenient for the developer to build his low- income townhomes on this parcel because of easy access to city water and sewer hookups, but is this really the best use of the land from a long -term prospective? I have also heard rumors about crime rates increasing in developments such as this, however, I do not know for a fact that that is true. If it is, I would be quite concerned as tnere are many ch_ldren in Evermoor that enjoy playing, roller blading or riding bicycles on the public paths and sidewalks and I would hate to have safety in our area be compromised. Shannon Park Elementary is also at the center of our development and I think safety around our schools is an important consideration, especially when they cater to children so young. Also, by owning homes so expensive, we have already limted oar "pool of prospective buyers" when we all go to resell our nomes. Many people cannot afford this level of home as opposed to a starter home in the price range of $200K. The more negative external influences we have against our homes we have invested in, the less value we will receive from them. We already have a petroleum pipeline running through our development, can hear the train in the middle of the night on the other side of town, and some cf as are next to busier roads. All of these negative influences will lower the value of our home and make it more difficult to sell. From an investment standpoint, it doesn't make sense to add more negative external influences in tne form of a low income housing cevelopment to our area. Recent MLS data has shown that single family homes in our price range have an average days on market anywhere from 4 -6 months as it is. Let's not make it more cifficult for tne residents of Evermoor to turn a good profit on their home by making decisions regarding community development that will ultimately make it more difficult for them to sell tneir nome. In conclusion, please reconsider putting a low income housing development so close to Evermoor. In the long ran, I think it will hurt all of us more than it will help any of us Sincerely, Kristine Schwartz 3560 Clare Downs Path Rosemount, MN 55068 1 Kasel,Mike From: Pearson,Rick Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:30 PM To: Kasel,Mike Subject: FW: Affordable Housing site From: Jill Smith [mailto:jcsmithus @msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:02 PM To: Pearson,Rick; Rosemount City Council; Verbrugge,Jamie; Droste,William Cc: RSMITH2 @SPT.COM Subject: Affordable Housing site watched the replay of the meeting on the proposal of the Affordable Housing that has been represented to the city by CDA. "After considerable research and discussions with neighbors within Evermoor and neighboring subdivisions, I think that the city seeds to reconsider the location of the site. I feel that it is good to have the housing within Rosemount, but I think there are other areas that would be better for the site. n my findings, back in 1999, CDA approached Rosemount with this housing and it was rejected at that time due to location. I feel hat a more suitable site would be by the Technical collage giving the fact that the Airport Cargo site might be put in that similar area which I believe is creating 3000 or so jobs. Which the college available to the housing residents, they could get skills for the iewly created jobs the planning committee agreed that there Was land by the college but it will not be available for building for 2 or more years. ghat is the hurry that we need to have this development built now? Ths residents of Rosemount (who elected the council to epresent our needs) have voiced their opinions against the chosen location, why are we not being heard? Page 1 of 2 The law requires the city to notify owners within 300 feet or-yards (one or the other) of the proposed development Well, Lungren Brothers is holding a majority of the land and honestly, do they give a hoot once they are done and out of here? Hence the reason he residents in the community are just now getting information about this The signs posted at the site are not easy to read when ou are trying to dnve SAFELY at an intersection and how many people actually read the paper to see if that piece of land is being ezoned for a low income housing development? This in my opinion is "flying under the radar" knowing that the community would esist this proposal' ;afety is another issue When I first heard of Rosemount, 1 wasn't sure if this was where I wanted to raise our children When :vermoor was built, that changed our opinion of Rosemount greatly. We were able to find a home with other homes within our leans and found the development to have a great neighborly feel and felt that it was a safe environment for our children. A iajority of the homes consist of 2 parents either 1 or both working. From my findings, homes with 1 parent and that parent being ie income provider, there isn't the same supervision that a 2 parent household can provide Which brings me to another point. 'utting the project so close to the downtown area, this only gives unsupervised children access to roam the town which in turn can reate more problems What is the opinion of the elderly residents on the opposite side of the street think and feel about this? vermoor development was well planned and the residents have been happy with the outcome, We have put our trust into the .ty and have invested our money into what we feel is a great development. Would we have done so knowing that there might be t our back door a housing developments Maybe, maybe not, it may have changed our minds about how much we were willing to ay for our lots DA said that they would manage the property and require background checks. What is in place to make sure that this is iainta :ned and for how long will this be maintained? What is being done to insure that this property continues to be a housing evelooment and that it doesn't change hands to become a regular apartment compiexv Basically, what safeguards are in place protect the neighboring properties that their property value is not going to drop if this housing development becomes a coblem did not hear from the city council or the planning commission, what increase in crime occurred after a CDA project was done thin a community Hard facts from the police departments within these communities Something that we as residents can look and see that this is or isn't going to be a threat to our homes or children. Page 2 of 2 I still do not know why this is being driven so hard for this site with all the residents against it. What is in it for Rosemount to do it now and at that chosen site? I plan on being at the meeting tonight. This email as well as a lot of others have been circulating within Evermoor and I think it would be best that these and the many other questions be answered before this goes forward Thank you, Jill Smith 131$8 Danube Lane Rosemount, MN 55068 nnnnn4 Kasel,Mike From: Pearson,Rick Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 2:00 PM To: Kasel,Mike Subject: FW. rezoning at Hwy 3 and Connemara From: Wendy Riphenburg [mailto:swam @lightblast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:48 PM ro: Pearson,Rick Subject: rezoning at Hwy 3 and Connemara 1ello Rick, rhis email is to inform you that as current residents of the Glendalough neignborhood in Evermoor, we are opposed to the ezoning of the northwest corner of Hwy 3 and Connemara. rhank you, Nendy and Scott Riphenburg 13543 Couchtown Ave Rosemount [leis e -mail has been scanned by FTTH Communications /Lightblast, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by vfessageLabs. Page 1 of 1 Kasel,Mike From: Pearson,Rick Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1 59 PM To: Kasel,Mike Subject: FW CDA Land Use From: dean.anderson @thrivent.com mailto :dean.anderson @thrivent.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:31 PM To: Pearson,Rick Cc: Rosemount City Council Subject: CDA Land Use Planning commission City of Rosemount, I am writing to voice my concern over the proposal to re -zone the parcel of land on Connemarra and Hwy 3. I cannot believe that the planning commission has even let this project get this far. Rosemount has the opportunity to be a unique city and the Evermoor /Glendalough development is a Integral part of this cities future This project will jeopardize the future for the following reasons* Homeowners like myself searched many communities and decided on Rosemount and more specifically the Evermoor development for the appeal of a small town residential neighborhood. Hence the sidewalks /porches etc. By re- zoning for rental /transitional buildings this breaks that appeal. I desire an integrated community but by tryir, to satisfy 30 families y: will be harboring ill will with the hundred's if not thousands of us who have made a commitment to Rosemount based on certain zoning conditions. The Rosemount area and Dakota County probably has a better suited location that will meet the needs of the CDA and its tenants better than re- zoning an area that was not meant for this in the first place. Thank you for your consideration. Jean Anderson 13542 Crompton Court dean D. Anderson .ong Term Care Relationship Manager nsurance Product Management 25 Fourth Ave S Minneapolis, MN 55415 -1665 )erect 612 340 -7111 ax 612 -340 -5898 oil -free 800- 847 -4836, ext. 37111 :mail. dean anderson(athrivent com Page 1 of 1 is message contains confidential information intended only for the above addressees and may contain information that is proprietary or legally privileged. If you received s ressace in error, please notify us and delete the ongmal message You must obtain perrmssion from Thriven; Financial to use its Joao on all materials Failure to do so SIC resin• n legal action '2 4/2006 Lindquist,Kim From: Verbrugge,Jamie Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11 56 AM To: Lindquist,Kim, Bill Droste, Kim Shoe Corrigan (getkimmer @aol corn), Mark DeBettignies Home (debett@charter.net), Mike Baxter (mbaxter @baxterengen.com), Rosemount Mayor; sternerbp @aol com Subject: FW Low Income housing development near Evermoor Jamie Verbrugge City Administrator 651 -322 -2006 Rosemount, MN "Spirit of Pride and Progress" Original Message From: Kristine Schwartz [mailto:kmo90 @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:49 AM To: Verbrugge,Jamie Subject: Low Income housing development near Evermoor Dear Jamie: I am a resident of Evermoor and own a single family home on Clare Downs Path. I have received numerous flyers_ regarding the low income housing development proposed for the northwest corner of Connemara Trail and Hwy 3 and am very concerned about such a decision being approved. I am a real estate appraiser and from a conformity stand point, it appears that putting a development like that in that location next to an executive level single family home development does not make sense. Price ranges in our development range from the high $300K's to around $800K for single family homes not including the townhomes or condos that are currently existing) and putting a low income housing development so close to those upper bracket homes does not make sense. Also, I was wondering if a highest and best use analysis was performed on this vacant parcel of land? Is the best use of this lano what is proposed? I would think not. It may be more convenient for the developer to build his low- income townhomes on this parcel oecause of easy access to city water and sewer hookups, but is this really the best use of the land from a long -term prospective? I have also heard rumors about crime rates increasing in developments such as this, however, I do not know for a fact that that is true. If it is, I would be quite concerned as _here are many children in Evermoor that enjoy playing, roller blaaing or riding bicycles on the public paths and siaewalks and I would hate to have safety in our area be compromised. Shannon Park Elementary is also at the center of our development and I think safety around our schools is an important consideration, especially when they cater to children so young. Also, by owning homes so expensive, we have already limted our "pool of prospective buyers" when we all go to resell our homes. Many people cannot afford this level of home as opposed to a starter nome in the price range of $200K. The more negative external influences we have against our homes we nave invested in, the less value we will receive from them. We already have a petroleum pipeline running through our development, can hear the train in the piddle cf the night on the other side of town, and some of us are next to busier roads. All of these negative influences will lower the value of our home and make it more difficult to sell. From an investment standpoint, it doesn't make sense to add more negative external influences in the form of a low income housing development to our area. Recent MLS data has shown that single family names in our price range have an average days on market anywhere from 4 -6 months as it _s. Let's not make it more difficult for the residents of Evermoor to turn a good profit on their home by making decisions regarding community development that will ultimately make it more difficult for 1 them to sell their home. In conclusion, please reconsider putting a low income housing development so close to Evermoor. In the long run, I think it will hurt all of us more than it will help any of us. Sincerely, Kristine Schwartz 3560 Clare Downs Path Rosemount, MN 55068 2 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 24 January, 2006 Re: 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes Comp Plan Amendment My name is Maureen Bartz. I live at 13566 Crompton Ct. in the Glendalough neighborhood of Evermoor. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the commission this evening. I have a couple of topics that I believe are new, yet very relevant that I would like the commission to consider before ruling on the proposed zoning change and subsequent PUD development. 1. I question the appropriateness of allowing this property to be eligible for PUD consideration because in my opinion, the property does not meet the development standards of a PUD as defined by ordinance section 12.6.B. Major areas falling short of PUD stipulations include: a. 12.6.13.1.c requires that the PUD meet the existing zoning ordinances this property requires variances in order to make the project work. Section 12.6.B.1.c states: Single Land Use or Housing Type. Any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted; provided, that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. There are certain items where PUD type developments receive flexibility from the ordinance (i.e. street width). Outside of some very specifically defined items, a single housing type PUD development, by ordinance, receives no other dispensation from the rules outlined in the ordinance. The topic of the Evermoor PUD continues to be introduced to the discussion because of the "favorable" treatment it received. By definition it does differ significantly in the eyes of the ordinance due to it's incorporation of multiple housing types. As a single housing type development, this proposal would be held to a different standard as defined by ordinance than Evermoor and it does not meet that standard because it requires numerous variances (detailed below in discussion bullet #2). To further clarify, by definition, a PUD allows variances from the strict interpretation of this Ordinance in order to achieve other community or design objectives. As a single housing single land type, this proposal is excluded from that ordinance flexibility granted by definition to other PUDs, such as Evermoor (which makes use of multiple housing types) because it only incorporates a single housing type and a single land use. b. 12.6.B.2 outlines specific area requirements to which PUDs must adhere. This property does not meet the area requirement or any of the exception clauses. Section 12.6.B.2 states: Area: Each PUD shall have a minimum area of ten (10) acres, excluding areas within a designated wetlands, flood plain or shoreland district or right of way, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following: a. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. b. The property is directly adjacent to or across the right of way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD and will appear as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. c. The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on a collector or arterial (minor or principal) street, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The overall size of the property is less than 50% of the size required to qualify to be a PUD right off the bat To address exception clause a., this development does not conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. To address part b., although adjacent to Glendalough which is considered to be part of the Evermoor PUD, the proposed development does not appear as an extension to nor will it function as an extension to Glendalough. To address part c this property shouldn't be considered a transitional area as adjacent properties are zoned more restrictively and it is not on a collector street (unless access option C is pursued). c. 12.6 B 3 outlines density constraints. The flexibility that city staff has mentioned that PUDs allow does not apply to this particular property The reason is because the entire PUD must adhere to the density standards and since this is a small, stand -alone PUD (i e. there's only 1 housing type), there is no other section of development to off -set the overly dense buildings outlined in this proposal. Section 12.6 B.3 states: Density: Each residential PUD or the residential portion of each mixed use PUD shall have a density within the range specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the PUD site. The density of individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided the density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. Based upon these facts alone, this project should not be considered a PUD and the project falls apart because it doesn't meet the zoning ordinances outlined for single family attached housing. 2. To be specific, there are a number of variances required for this project in excess of what city staff has discussed to date in these meetings there are variances required due to setbacks (discussed), garage spaces (discussed), private street width (not discussed), number of units allowed as measured by the lot acreage (not discussed) and the limit on number of units that can be combined in a single building (not discussed). At what point in a proposal, do you determine that too many exceptions must be made and the development should not proceed? It is my opinion that for this proposal, the threshold has been passed and the project must be denied. 3. Several comments were made in the previous meeting and in various email exchanges with city staff stating that the residents of Glendalough should have known that access to the property in question was provided through the Glendalough neighborhood as part of the Glendalough preliminary platting Absolutely true The key point to note is that property was zoned rural residential at that time and remains zoned rural residential to this date. By ordinance, that means commercial horse stables (which this property wouldn't qualify for due to the small size), essential service stations (i e sewer lift stations), keeping of horses and single family detached dwellings are the only options that Glendalough residents should have expected for this property. It's important to note that by the ordinance, rural residential zoning specifications do not include any permitted uses of PUD. The point being that for residents that did their research prior to purchasing their homes, the scenario that is currently being proposed was not allowed and therefore was not expected. As zoned during the purchase of their homes, residents would have only expected single family detached homes on the property. To say that we should have known when we purchased our homes is not exactly an accurate or fair statement. 4. I understand the commission's desire to focus on facts In fact, the zoning ordinance allows and even requires the commission take into account surrounding property when approving projects. Section 7.2 A.1.b (General Provisions of the Supplementary Regulations section) states, `Buildings in all zoning districts shall maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with surrounding properties to insure that they will not adversely impact the property values of the abutting properties." As currently proposed, the buildings in question do not include any provision for brick or stone work on the front of the buildings. All adjacent properties and those viewable from the proposed site to the west incorporate either brick or stone in the building facade This proposed Thank you. development does not meet the standard set out in the ordinance as it does not maintain a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibility with the surrounding properties. Note that by the definition provided in the ordinance, `shall' means mandatory (section 3.1.D.) as opposed to `may' which does not imply obligation. Thank you for taking the time to hear my concerns this evening. I hope that you will not move forward with this proposal without thorough investigation of each item. I look to you to validate the facts I've set forth this evening and then deny the proposal under consideration and uphold the quality standards set forth in Rosemount's existing zoning ordinances Lindquist,Kim Kim, From: Maureen Bartz [mbartz ©gearworks cam] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:57 PM To: Lindquist,Kim Subject: Agenda for Tuesday Planning Meeting Page 1 of 3 My name is Maureen Bartz and I live at 13566 Crompton Ct and I'm interested in the zoning change request that is scheduled for continuation on Tuesday, January 24th, Planning Case 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes I was unable to make the first meeting on this topic, but was able to view the televised re -play As the agenda item discussion was wrapping up, Mr Powell (I believe) made a comment that the motion would be continued but it sounded like the topic would not be open for further public discussion My question is two fold One, is that accurate? Will there be public comment on the topic at the next meeting? And two, if I understood correctly and there is no further public comment, is there any mechanism to get clarification on a couple of points that were not discussed at the previous meeting? I understand the risk of opening the topic up to further public comment, but I am very interested in getting a better understanding of a couple of areas I thought it would be useful to highlight them in detail in the event that there will be no public comment, but that clarification could somehow be provided during the course of the meeting under the control of the commission 1 The City of Rosemount Zoning Regulations, section 4 18 A constrains the number of units allowed per building. The ordinance states "Building Site A maximum of six (6) dwelling units may be attached per building, except where buildings are adjacent to RR, RL, R -1 and R -1A zoning districts; such buildings shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per building The property under discussion is adjacent to RR property to the north and R1, Glendalough, to the west which limits the number of units per building on this property to four The proposal as presented in the previous meeting stated that there would be 30 units in severn buildings with four or five units per building the math then is five buildings with four units and two buildings with five units In addition, the staff also presented an alternative (setbacks section, bullet 1) to a set -back issue (the end unit in the northwest corner) to move one of those units to a building already containing five units This could potentially push the number of units in a single building to six, further exceeding what's outlined in the ordinance Would it be possible to get clarification on this section of the ordinance? This seems particularly important relevant given the expressed concerns of several members of the commission regarding the total number of units being proposed on the property, Mr. Messner and Mr Powell if I recall correctly, especially in light of the poor access to the property 2 The remainder of my questions also relate to apparent variances needed to move forward with the project: a Garage space As acknowledged by the staff, a single unit garage is in contrast to 4 18.G which states, "Each dwelling unit shall have a minimum of two and one -half car parking spaces available for each dwelling unit's use Two (2) enclosed garage car parking spaces, no less than four hundred forty (440) square feet in area, shall be provided on the dwelling unit lot and the remaining requirements provided for within the overall townhome development' b Setback The city planning staff highlight at least 4 areas where the proposed development do not meet minimum setback requirements c Street width Section 4 18 12 states that, "All internal private roadways shall be a minimum twenty -eight (28) feet wide face to face The development proposal contains two private streets that are twenty -four (24) feet wide, the north -south segment on the east side along S Robert Trail and the west side connection to the recommended public street. d Number of units density There are two areas where the maximum number of units allowed by ordinance 1 i1 nnnC Page 2 of 3 appear to be exceeded by the proposal The first, I highlighted above in my question regarding the number of units allowed per building for properties adjacent to RR and R -1 zoned properties, among others. The second ordinance of interest is 4.18 L 1 which states, "Density All Single Family Attached developments shall be built in platted additions to the City and shall have a maximum net density not to exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre" The preliminary plat data states the proposed lot 1, block 1 areas is 4 8 acres This means that a proposed development on this property could contain at most 28 8 units Although I could not find guidance in the Rosemount zoning statutes, my experience with state statutes requires that partial units be rounded down which would limit the property to at most 28 units. Looking at the number of apparent variances required for the proposed project to move forward (completely outside of the rezoning issue) does it make sense to introduce a development that cannot meet the minimum requirements of our ordinances? Is it common place for all proposed developments to obtain significant variances? Just as the City cannot regulate based upon the cost of the unit and cannot favor higher -end homes versus lower cost homes from a planning perspective, can lower cost housing be held to lesser standards? It seems as though the reason zoning laws exist are to protect all parties equally I do, of course, have more emotional based concerns questions as well: 1. Access to public transportation Having lived in a subsidized housing building in the past, I have a personal understanding of the need for close access to public transportation The property in question is approximately 3/4 of a mile from the closest public transportation scheduled stop and that route is extremely limited in the scheduled route times Public transportation is key to the success of affordable housing Furthermore, in reviewing the CDA website, all other comparable properties are close (i e a block or two) to very busy public transportation lines that provide a large variety of routes and schedules to accomodate just about any work or leisure schedule How are we setting these residents up for success here in Rosemount? Access to work? Access to groceries? Access to leisure activates? 2 Access to from development I am also concerned about the access to and from the development through the Glendalough neighborhood I think given the number of units, the additional traffic will negatively impact the safety of the children in the Glendalough neighborhood Studies show neighborhood speeding increases when local streets are used as "cut throughs" The access to the proposed oevelopment through Glendalough will encourage the "cut through" effect, especially across Carrach Avenue and Couchtown Path for access to the west This route contains both parks for the Glendalough neighborhood and given the location of the parks in relation to the homes, a large majority of children will have to cross one of these streets to get to a park I'd like to encourage creativity to implement access that limits the need for the traffic of one development to be 'dumped' into another development for all projects, not just in the situation of Glendalough but across all of Rosemount Several commissioners expressed concern about this situation I look forward to hearing the options put forward in the upcoming meeting that takes into account not only the safety of the Glendalcugh residents but also for the residents of the proposed development and their ability to get timely access to emergency personnel. I appreciate the opportunity for my questions to be answered. I hope that there is a method which allows some conversation on these topics whether as part of public discussion, a response from you or discussion directly between the commissioners I appreciate your time and attention to this topic, Maureen Bartz 13566 Crompton Court Rosemount, MN 55068 home 651 344 3313 work 651 209 0432 1/23/2006 ATTENTION EVERMOOR HOMEOWNERS #2 This is the second update concerning the Rosemount Rezoning Request and Request for Approval of a Planned Urban Development that would place low income rental units at the northwest corner of Connemara Trail and County Road 3 (South Robert Trail) the eastern main entrance to Evermoor, and immediately adjacent to Glendalough and across from Bard's Crossing. This is an urgent call for you to take action. As we learned at the recent Planning Commission Special Meeting where over 60 of you showed up with Less than 24 hours notice, the presence of concerned citizens has a huge impact. To paraphrase one of the Commissioners: "I came here knowing how I would vote, but now I have some concerns" (concerns that led 'o a vote to delay action!). Because of the great impact that YOU can have, you are asked to do three things: 1) send a letter or email or make a phone call to the City Council Members; 2) attend the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting that addresses this "deferred" Agenda Item; and 3) attend the upcoming City Council Meeting that will address this issue. Details are below. We need every possible resident to attend and make your opinion known. This development would be administered by Dakota County under the "CDA" or Community Development Agency. Many feel that this is an inappropriate location for these rental units and that the variances required to make it happen are excessive. The City of Rosemount has ample locations for such an endeavor; this location merely makes it easier for the developer due to already installed infrastructure, thereby low zg his costs. The various people that are advancing this agenda thought that it was a "done deal and it would have been, had many Evermoor residents not shown up to challenge the decision and to call into question the variances requested to allow this development to go forward. Wise zoning provides for a gradual change in housing in fact Evermoor itself conforms to this concept. This proposal would lead to an "oasis" of special designation that conflict with the best interests of the residents of Evermoor. It does not match the surrounding designations in Evermoor and Harmony. Specifically, it has been stated that we may not complain to the Planning Commission about the fact that these will not be owner occupied units one of the reasons we all live in Evermoor. Rather, we can only appeal to them on "use issues" and variances. We must call upon the City Council for the questions about eventual end -use of the property. Specifically, in order for this proposal to go through, the following must be varied: 1) density must be increased /changed it- would put 30 units on the 4.8 acres of usable land (total area 5.65 acres, but some is not usable) for a density of 6.6 units per acre; 2) variance of normal requirement for garages: from two per unit to one per unit; 3) variation of drainage to drain off-site due to lack of on -site drainage capability resulting in off -site ponding in Glendalough; 4)street access variances (one proposal has the access via a currently designated cul- de-sac in Glendalough, another puts the access directly onto Connemara a safety issue); 5) change of utility easement; 6) variation of storm water management; 7) relaxation of set -back requirements; 8) variance of "parking per unit" standards; 9)payment of cash rather than the normally required set aside park land; among others. This does not even address the elevated number of police calls to CDA properties in various Dakota County cities and the fact that it will (in the opinion of several veteran realtors) decrease your property values. Citizens do have the right to challenge requested land use changes that will result in negative impact on their land valves. If you agree that this is a poor use of this site, and that the number of variations being proposed are too many, and that the City and the CDA should seek alternate sites, please join your neighbors in contacting City Planning Commission members and City Council members. You may contact the Planning Commission Members at 651- 322 -2052 or through Rick Pearson, City Planner at ric :.pearsomii ci.rosemount.mn.us; and your City Council Members at 651- 322 -2006, or E -mail them at cih council a ci.rosemount.mn.us, or through Jamie Verbrugge (Rosemount City Administrator) at Jamie. crhrugger ci.rosemount.mn.us. But MOST importantly, you should attend in person the two upcoming meetings: Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, January 24`", 2006 6:30 P.M. City Council Chambers, City Hall City Council Meeting Tuesday, February 7 2006 7:30 P.M. City Council Chambers, City Hall Reference Public Hearing Number 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Rezoning/PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat. Please discuss with your neighbors and plan to attend the meetings. An overwhelming attendance will have direct impact on our quality of life for years ‘o come. Draft Excerpt of Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 24, 2006 Old Business: 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, PUD Concept Plan and Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Community Development Director Lindquist noted this item was contmued from the Planning Commission meeting held January 10, 2006. Ms. Lindquist provided additional information from staff and a compilation of letters and e -mails received from Evermoor residents. Ms Lindquist indicated staff had met with the Dakota County Community Development Agency (the "CDA to discuss options, but no conclusion had been reached. Ms. Lindquist responded to the list of variances stated in a flyer distributed by Evermoor residents and pointed out that several of the points were not vanances but allowed by ordinance or under the Planned Unit Development process Ms Lindquist stated a Master Development Site Plan will address many of the more detailed issues as plans are developed. Chuck Rickart, Traffic Engineer, WSB Associates, Inc. gave an overv=iew of three alternative access plans and pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. He indicated he preferred Alternate 2, but Alternate 1 would be feasible as well. Chairperson Messner noted the Pubhc Hearing was closed on January 10; however, he would allow additional comments from residents. He requested those speaking to take into account this is a land use issue such as zoning, land guiding, and access. Gary Anderson, 3418 Cromwell Trail, thanked the Commissioners for allowing additional comments He stated there were far too many variances for this site. The master association and individual associations of Evermoor have enacted many covenants to protect the residents He had visited six CDA developments and none of the projects were built next to single family residences. Gene Rusco, 3553 Couchtown Path, requested a show of hands from the audience to indicate if they are opposed the CDA development at the site near Highway 3 and Connemara Trail. The audience displayed a majority were opposed to the project. Maureen Bartz, 13566 Crompton Court, questioned the overall appropriateness for the project to be considered a PUD. In meeting existing ordinances, she believed the variances allowed in this project exceed what should be allowed She added that at the previous meeting it was stated the Evermoor residents should have known about the access point to the neighborhood. She agreed that anyone who researched the property should have known about the access but also would have sent eh property was zoned rural residential Ms. Bartz noted that in Ordinance 7.2 A -1 b a high standard of architectural and aesthetic compatibihty is required with surrounding properties to ensure that will not adversely impact the property values of the abutting properties. She stated the development does meet the ordinance requirements. Paul Essler, 13800 Claredowns Way, stated he moved to Rosemount 18 months ago and planned to install a swimming pool that required a variance. Mr. Essler added he was told by City staff not to waste his time asking for a variance. Mr Essler was trying to reconcile the difference between his one needed variance and the nine vanances requested for this project. Marsha Regan, 13330 Cranford Circle, stated she had no problem with moderate income housing, but focused on the physical structure of the housing development. Ms Regan had concerns with the traffic and parking impacts on the Glendalough neighborhoods. She also questioned the zoning regulations which state that for town homes a maximum of six dwellings may be attached per budding except for when adjacent to R -1 zoning districts Jay Liberacki, Development Director for U S. Homes, handed out a packet with maps and presentation notes. Mr. Liberacki showed the site in relationship to the Glendalough neighborhood He noted that this is not a flat area of ground and pointed out the slopes on the plat Mr Liberacki stated the average person looking at the site and its access would not have envisioned 30 town homes off the end of the cul -de -sac He questioned where else the City would have entertained an idea like this in Rosemount. He reviewed the different access options The first alternative would require bringuig the site up to road grade. The second option has some hidden costs with the moving of a water line, lowering the pipehne and lowering the grade The third opuon would allow continuity into the project. Mr. Liberacki stated a couple of weeks ago he met with the CDA m hope of arriving at a compromise where the CDA project would have its own dedicated access; not through Glendalough. Mr. Liberacki would like the dedicated access idea set on the table and stated it would be cheaper than lowering the pipeline. Mr. Liberacki added he and Aicon Development are co- owners of a parcel of land at Akron and County Road 42 and would be willing to talk to the CDA about a parcel m that area. Darrell Pavelka, 3505 Couchtown Path, stated his concerns with the density change to this parcel and what effect this project, if approved, would have on the marketing of the adjacent properties to the north. He assumes those properties will also be considered for medium density residential. He stated he feels the traffic issue will become worse with the development of the other properties Mr Pavelka stated this project will not broaden the tax base. Scott Rohr, 3964 154` Street West, stated some people m this town want this project. Mr. Rohr stated this project is needed m Rosemount and asked people not to judge others based upon their income. Ross Allen, 13539 Crompton Court, was disappointed that the previous speaker indicated the issue seems to be about race, ethnicity or financial bearing. He stated the neighborhood concerns relate only to the land use. Commissioner Zurn asked that the vanances referred to in the neighborhood flyer be addressed by City staff. Ms. Lindquist stated the flyer hsted nine variances; however, the PUD process allows a development to vary from the standard ordinance requirements In this case, the project is assessed based upon the R -2 zoning district although not held to those standards necessarily There is a shght increase in density from that expected in the R- 2 district. The ordinance requires 6 umts /acre and the density is 6 25 umts /acre. There is a variation from the normal garage requirements; however, there was previous discussion with the Council to allow for single stall garages m affordable housing projects. Thirdly, the variation from drainage to dram off site is not a variance and is allowed by the ordinance and this site will pay an off site pondmg fee. The change of the street access and utility easements, vanauon of storm water management, relaxation of setback requirements, and payment of cash rather than the normally required set aside park land are not variances but rather typical outcomes related to development. The parking stall variance relates to the single -stall garage issue Ms. Lindquist added the PUD process allows developers to meet the intent of the ordinance without meeting all ordnance conditions In staff's opinion there are miugating circumstances relating to the plan that allow some flexibility Ms. Lindquist noted one of the 10 acre exceptions for a PUD is when property is located in a transition area between different land use categones or on a collector or arterial minor principle street as defined in the comprehensive plan Commissioner Schultz noted that Glendalough has smaller lots then allowed by ordinance. Mr. Pearson responded that Glendalough is a classic example of a PUD that had a lot of open space buffering the outer edges of the lots so the preliminary plat had a variety of lot shapes that were not the typical rectangular lots Most of the lots are smaller, more shallow, and have reduced setbacks to allow maximum flexibility to the developer. The setbacks m Glendalough are not typical of those in an R -1 district and a PUD allowed the flexibility. Commissioner Schultz questioned if the developer of Evermoor had the opportunity to work with the property owner to purchase the property. Ms. Lindquist stated the developer did not want to expand further due to the financial concerns. Commissioner Zum questioned who would bear the cost of lowering the pipeline. Ms Lindquist stated that it is something to be worked out between Lundgren and the CDA It appears the pipeline will need to be lowered under several of the different access scenarios Chairperson Messner questioned the wetland to the north and where the potential connection to the north was drawn in. Mr. Rickart stated the alternative was just a concept based upon how the development could occur to the north. Mr. Liberacki asked for a change in the access design for Alternative 2 and requested the thru street be to the town homes and the turn movement mto the single family Mr. Liberacki added he prefers as many turns as possible to discourage short -cut traffic m the single family neighborhood. Commissioner Powell questioned the Tara Commons Court right -of -way. Ms. Lindquist stated the continuation to the east was part of the preliminary plat Commissioner Powell noted his concern with the access to the north with the existing development and how access would be gained He further questioned the long term disposition of the CDA project m particular if the project is owned or sold after a period of tame. Mark Ulfers, Executive Director of the CDA, 3771 Denmark Trail, Eagan, stated the CDA enters into a for -profit partnership. There is a muted partnership with a corporate partner. The last several partnerships have been with US Bank. The partnership exists for 15 years and the CDA has the option of purchasing the project. It is in the CDA's interest to own the property and they are making provisions to purchase in the future. Commissioner Powell asked staff to compare and contrast the CDA project with the Roundstone development to visualize the future improvements. Ms. Lindquist stated the density at Roundstone is about eight units per acre and is a different housing style. The back -to -back unites have access on both sides and there is more pavement area. Both projects use pnvate drives internal to the system. Commissioner Schultz questioned if the roads will be pubhc or private in the CDA development Ms. Lindquist stated staff is interested in having a pubhc road system so there is a through access to the north to access all the rural residential parcels. The road from the cul -de -sac would be public and up to the north, internal roads would be private smular to other townhouse projects. Commissioner Powell clarified that police and public safety have reviewed the project and possess no strong objections Ms. Lindquist stated he is correct. Commissioner Zurn questioned how many CDA projects abut up to single family projects. Mr Ulfers stated the Oak Ridge project m Eagan is next to single family homes as well as having detached town homes literally on the property line, Coinrmssioner Schwartz stated her concerns about the access and density issues. She added the recent City survey stated residents moved to Rosemount for the small town atmosphere and that the overwhelming opinion of tax payers should be taken into consideration Commissioner Schultz asked Pohce Chief Kalstabakken to discuss crime considering the flyers circulated m the neighborhood stating this was an issue. Police Chief Kalstabakken noted that general comments are not only from the Rosemount Police Department but are also from other police departments throughout Dakota County. The CDA is regarded as a very responsible property manager. The CDA is concerned with the long-term out come of their projects. The CDA is reactive to tenant and police issues brought to their attention and does not focus on turning out a profit on their projects Mr Kalstabakken referred the Commission to the 20 unit townhouse project located at 145 and Biscayne and noted it is not a problem property. The pohce department does track the problematic properties in the City. The CDA has the lower average of calls for service. A woman in audience questioned if the crime report was compared to single family or rental. Pohce Chief Kalstabakken noted his companson was against other rental projects m the City He fisted the different variables that may cause the information to be distorted for rental projects. Chairperson Messner stated he viewed this site as being suited for town home or medium density development based upon the location subject to workmg out access issues. In lus mind, there is not a clear indication whether Alternative 1 or 2 would be a preferred access solution Between the two concepts, one of the alternatives will work out given the number of umts and traffic projections. MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation for the site from Transition Residennal to Urban Residential subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council. Second by Schultz Ayes Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays: Schwartz. Motion approved 4 -1 MOTION by Messner to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance rezonmg the site from Rural Residential to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD. Second by Schultz. Commissioner Powell stated based on the surrounding land uses, medium density zoning is appropriate and the access issue previously raised has been significantly addressed and he could support the remaining actions. Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays: Schwartz. Motion approved 4 -1. Commmssioner Powell is comfortable with the access alternatives presented but hesitates to handcuff future discussions by going with a specific alternative. MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat subject to: 1. Dedication of right -of -way for the public street consistent with access alternative 1 or 2 as found m the WSB traffic study and m conformance with local street design requirements. 2. Dedication of appropriate drainage and utthty easement subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed. 4. Conformance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a subdivision development agreement as needed for installation of public infrastructure. Second by Schultz Ayes: Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays: Schwartz. Motion approved 4 -1. MOTION by Powell to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Concept subject to: 1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to Urban Residential by the Metropolitan Council 2 Final development of the parcel is contingent of City approval of a site plan, PUD Master Development Plan and execution of a PUD agreement. 3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage, easements, grading, storm water management and utilities including: The street entering the development shall be public and located within a 60 ft. right -of way and included on the plat. The applicant shall secure all permits agreements necessary for the proposed crossing or grading of the pipeline easements. The applicant will grade the future northern road connection as part of their project and provide a cash deposit to the City to pay for its future construction. No parking will be permitted on the streets and turning radius information shall be provided subject to approval by the Fire Marshal. Additional storm water management detail is required including: a. Infiltration calculations b. Outlet elevations from ponds and control structures as noted. c. Maintenance plan for the ram gardens. Payment of connection and trunk fees required. 4. Park dedication m the form of cash in heu of land in the amount of $90,000 (30 units x $3,000 per unit) based upon the 2005 fee schedule 5. Approval and receipt of permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed 6. Seventeen common parking spaces shall be provided, based upon 15 for the 30 units and 2 for the office. 7. The apphcant provide at a minimum, a setback of 20 feet between the units and the private streets which will be sufficient for driveway parking. This requirement is in recognition of the single stall garages proposed for the individual units 8. The northwest building must be re- oriented to create a more acceptable setback to the anticipated pubhc street right -of -way, as well as increase the distance to the southerly building cluster inside the street loop 9. Additional screening landscaping shall be installed along the Highway 3 right -of- way and along the western edge of the development, including both coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs. 10. The Scotch Pines specified in the landscaping plan shall be relocated elsewhere on the site, and conformance with sight triangle standards for visibility at intersections will be required for all pubhc and private intersections within the development. 11. The apphcant provide an acceptable pubhc street access to the site consistent with alternative 1 or 2 as defined in the WSB traffic study. 12. The apphcant obtain final building elevation approval including brick detailing on the front facades Second by Schultz. Ayes. Schultz, Zurn, Messner, and Powell. Nays: Schwartz. Motion approved 4 -1. Ms. Lindquist indicated this item will be on the February 7, 2006 City Council Agenda. 4 ROSEMOUNT PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Meeting: January 24, 2006 Tentative City Council Meeting' February 7, 2006 AGENDA ITEM: Planning Cases 05- 50 -CP, 05- 51 -RZ, 05- 52 PUD and 05 -53 PP, Dakota County Community Development Agency Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, PUD Master Plan and Preliminary Plat for Rosemount Family Housing PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: WSB Site Access Analysis, Draft 01/10/2006 PC Minutes, Location Map, Site Demolition and Erosion Control Plan, Site Layout and Dimension Plan, Site Grading Plan, Site Utility Plan, Landscape Plan, Site Tree Replacement Plan, Preliminary Plat, CDA Supplemental Information, Partnership Program Information, Resident Comments with Map AGENDA SECTION: Old Business AGENDA NO. 5a APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation for the site from Transition Residential to Urban Residential subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council. Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the site from Rural Residential to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD. Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat subject to: 1. Dedication of right -of -way for the public street consistent with access alternative 1 or 2 as found in the WSB traffic study and in conformance with local street design requirements. 2. Dedication of appropriate drainage and utility easement subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed. 4. Conformance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a subdivision development agreement as needed for installation of public infrastructure. Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Concept subject to. 1 Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to Urban Residential by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Final development of the parcel is contingent of City approval of a site plan, PUD Master Development Plan and execution of a PUD agreement. 3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage, easements, grading, storm water management and utilities including: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The street entering the development shall be public and located within a 60 ft. right of way and included on the plat. The applicant shall secure all permits agreements necessary for the proposed crossing or grading of the pipeline easements. The applicant will grade the future northern road connection as part of their project and provide a cash deposit to the City to pay for its future construction. No parking will be permitted on the streets and turning radius information shall be provided subject to approval by the Fire Marshal. Additional storm water management detail is required including: a. Infiltration calculations. b Outlet elevations from ponds and control structures as noted. c. Maintenance plan for the rain gardens. Payment of connection and trunk fees required. 4. Park dedication in the form of cash in lieu of land in the amount of $90,000. (30 units x $3,000 per unit) based upon the 2005 fee schedule. 5. Approval and receipt of permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed. 6. Seventeen common parking spaces shall be provided, based upon 15 for the 30 units and 2 for the office. 7. The applicant provide at a minimum, a setback of 20 feet between the units and the private streets which will be sufficient for driveway parking This requirement is in recognition of the single stall garages proposed for the individual units. 8. The northwest building must be re- oriented to create a more acceptable setback to the anticipated public street right -of -way, as well as increase the distance to the southerly building cluster inside the street loop. 9. Additional screening landscaping shall be installed along the Highway 3 right -of -way and along the western edge of the development, including both coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs. 10.The Scotch Pines specified in the landscaping plan shall be relocated elsewhere on the site, and conformance with sight triangle standards for visibility at intersections will be required for all public and private intersections within the development. 11.The applicant provide an acceptable public street access to the site consistent with alternative 1 or 2 as defined in the WSB traffic study. 12 The applicant obtain final building elevation approval including brick detailing on the front facades. ISSUE The Dakota County Community Development Agency "CDA has submitted applications to construct a 30 -unit townhouse development on a 4.5 acre site located on the northwest corner of Connemara Trail and STH 3, South Robert Trail The townhouses will be owned and maintained by Dakota County CDA. The discussions and recotmnendanons concern a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan A number of issues need to be resolved prior to the project being ready for PUD Master Plan that would commit the project to all of the design details of the project. Therefore, staff is reviewing the development as a concept to provide a basis for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. In addition, the plat will be comparatively simple, allowing for conditional approval of the preliminary plat. The site is currently vacant, and although it has frontage along Highway 3 it cannot have direct access The original plan was to gain access through the Glendalough project; however, very recently the applicant has indicated an interest in exploring access from Connemara Trail. This means that project residents would not have to travel through the proposed adjoining western 2 neighborhood. This access issues is still being explored and will be determined during the Master Development Plan stage of the process. Staff does not expect this potential modification to have a significant impact on the site design of the project. BACKGROUND Applicant: Location Property Owner. Current Comp Plan design: Proposed Comp Plan: Current Zoning. Requested Zoning: Current use: Preliminary Plat data: Number of Units Density: Anticipated primary access: Surrounding uses: Side West East South North Dakota County Community Development Agency Northwest corner of Connemara Trail STH 3, South Robert TraiL Christopher Kathleen Ostertag Transition Residential Urban Residential Rural Residential R -2, Moderate Density Residential Vacant Existing Parcel 5.65 acres Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 4.8 acres Outlot A (South of Connemara Trail) 0 18 acres Right -of -way for Connemara Trail 0.67 acres 30 amts 5.3 dwelling units /acre (requested). Connemara Trail through the Evermoor Glendalough neighborhood. Current use Evermoor developing residential Harmony developing residential, Cemetery S. of Connemara Tr. Rural Residential Zoning Comp Plan R -1 (PUD): Transition Residential R -2 R -3 (PUD) Urban and High density residential Public /Inst, Parks Open space Rural Res., Transition Residential PLANNING COMMISSION At the meeting of January 10, 2006 the Planning Commission held a public heanng on the CDA proposal Nine people spoke during the public hearing, all m opposition to the project. Additionally, there were 28 emails received also opposing the project The opposition was primarily related to the rental nature of the project and the income levels of future residents. There was also some concern expressed over the density of the development and the amount of medium density development within the area. The Commission discussed several site plan issues but focused most on the access to the site. The Commiscion continued the item to allow additional review of the access issue. SITE ACCESS There are three alteratives available to provide access to the site. WSB Associates has reviewed the three alternatives and provided traffic information about each option. Then study and the concept drawings of all three alternatives are attached. Alternative 1 The first alternative is to provide access as initially anticipated through the Glendalough neighborhood. A public road would be extended through dedicated right -of -way and then turned north to allow for a future through street; generally paralleling Dodd Road. Thus is the access provided m the first submittal. The WSB study finds that this is an acceptable access option for development of the site. The CDA site is projected to generate 175 vehicle trips per day based upon the ITE manual. This combmcd with the estimated traps on the Glendalough cul -de -sac would be approximately 350 vehicle trips per day The number of taps is consistent with the type of traffic expected on a local street, which is 500 -1000 daily trips. 3 Because all of the proposals would include access to the north from the CDA site, additional trips may go through the Glendalough neighborhood when the five lots to the north develop. However, it is expected that many of the trips would go north. Assuming a 50/50 split, the traffic generation, upon full development, would still be within the acceptable daily trip range for a local street. Alternative 2 The second alternative would extend the proposed cul -de -sac, Tara Commons Court, to Connemara Trail. One of the reasons this idea was imnally discarded was that existing pipehnes would need to be lowered to make the grade connection between the cul -de -sac and Connemara. To avoid this cost the road was planned to stop short of Connemara and the connection from the cul -de -sac to the CDA site planned. During the hearing there was some concern expressed about adding another access point to Connemara Trail as it is a designated collector street, prompting certain access and spacing guidelines If the Comrmssion would recommend this option, staff would recommend the through connection at Couchtown Avenue and Connemara Trail be disconnected. Local traffic would all be funneled through Tara Commons or G' _idalough Trail, which is already available. These two roads have received preliminary plat approval but have not received final plat approval and therefore the changes could be made with minor lot adjustments. There was also concern expressed that this connection may be too close to the Hwy 3 /Connemara Trail intersection. While it is closer than desired because it is on the north side of the street, quell for a nght- hand turn should not occur that would cause a back -up into the intersection. In other words, if the new road was on the south side, the left -hand turn movement may cause a back -up that could negatively impact the Hwy3 /Connemara Trail intersection Because there is very httle wait if any for the driver when turning nght, a back -up should not occur and therefore the stacking distance can be reduced. Alternative 3 The final alternative is to provide a separate access to the CDA site near Tara Commons. This alternative, similar to Alternative 2 would require lowering the pipeline Additionally, it would impact at least two lots within the Glendalough plat, perhaps rendering them unbuildable. While this alternative seemed to have some favor, it is actually more difficult to attain the appropriate road geometries required for a public road. Additionally, this option provides an additional access unto Connemara Trail which is undesirable since the Glendalough neighborhood would maintain two other access points further to the west. Staff recommends approval of Alternative 2 for access to the CDA site and the Glendalough neighborhood. This allows the two neighborhoods to directly access Connemara Trail but does not bring an adjoining neighborhoods traffic through a different residential neighborhood The road geometries can meet city standards for a pubhc road which are more difficult to attain, especially under alternative 3. However, alternative 1 is also acceptable from a traffic engineering standpoint as the local roads proposed are designed to carry traffic volumes like that proposed, even under a full build scenario. The recommended conditions of approval have been modified to reflect approval of access alternative 1 or 2. Site Density It is difficult to determine what the net density of the site is. The entire site is 5.65 acres including nght -of- way for Connemara Trail Without the right -of -way, which the city has obtamed, the site is 4.98 acres. That would result in a site density of 6 02 units per acre. However, a portion of the site is located on the south side of Connemara bringing the buildable area down to 4.8 acres This decreased land area would result in a density of 6.25 units per acre. For comparison the GlenRose project recently approved (and rezoned to PUD R -2) was 7 units per acre. The Brockway project in total was approximately 5 units per acre, although the calculation includes the dedicated park and private open spaces Round Stone within the Evermoor neighborhood is approxunately 8 units per acre Dunng the most recent Comprehensive Plan update, for the 42/52 area, the Commission recommended and the Council concurred adding a medium density 4 residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is as follows: Urban Residential 1 -4 units per acre Medium Density Residential 4 -8 units per acre High Density Residential 8 -20 units per acre The CDA project falls within the Medium Density Residential designation and is consistent for what would be expected in a townhouse project. Site Landscaping Another item discussed by the Planning Commission was the landscaping on the site, particularly along the western edge of the development. It appears that much of the natural vegetation will be removed due to site development and extension of the public road. Staff is recommending that additional buffering to the west, as well as along the eastern property line, be installed. The imnal condmon required additional shrubbery to supplement the deciduous trees proposed. Staff is recommending that the landscaping plan be revised in the future, dunng the master development plan approval phase to include both coniferous and deciduous trees as well as additional shrubbery. Other Because there is strong interest in this project the CDA has provided additional information about their program and what they would expect for this site given their current projects. That is attached for the Commission's information. CONCLUSION Staff is recommending approval of the concept plan, comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning to R -2 PUD, acknowledging that the apphcant will need to come back to the City for final master development plan approval where the details for the site plan will be revamped. Staff cr .unues to beheve that the project site is a good medium density residential site and will provide a rea,onable buffer from Hwy 3 to the future adjoining single family neighborhood. The main issue has been access to the site and based upon the traffic engineer there are two alternatives that are acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Staff favors alternative 2 which creates a new intersection with Connemara Trail, closer to the CDA project and allows for the CDA traffic and future traffic from the other underdeveloped parcels to the north to access Connemara Trail without going through the Glendalough neighborhood. However, the prehnunary plat for Glendalough did provide for that connection and the developer and future residents were aware that additional traffic from adjoining lots would go through the neighborhood. Because the traffic counts are relatively low, and certainly within the standards of acceptable for a local street, staff can also support access alternative 1 should the Commission believe that is a better option. 5 WSB WS Associates, Inc. To: Kim Lindquist Community Development Director, City of Rosemount Andy Brotzler City Engineer, City of Rosemount From: Chuck Rickart, P.E., P.T.O.E., Traffic Engineer WSB Associates, Inc. Date: January 19, 2006 Re: CDA Site Access Analysis WSB Project No. 1556 -55 Introduction/Background WSB Associates, Inc 701 Xenia Avenue S. Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 (763) 5414800 (763) 541 -1700 (fax) C \DOCUMENTS AND SERIIiOSA]DpLOCAL SETTINGSTEMEORARY INTERNET FILESOLKfl0' EEMO- EMAu,srrE ACCESS- 011806 DOC Memorandum City staff requested that an alternative analysis be prepared for potential access to the proposed CDA site located in the northwest quadrant of TH 3 and Connemara Trail. The site is located between TH 3 and the proposed Glendalough c' elopment on the north side of Connemara Trail The primary issues that have been discussed are the proposed location/configuration of the access to the CDA site and the impacts it might have on the proposed Glendalough development and Connemara Trail (see Figure 1). The Glendalough Development preliminary plat includes a right -of -way connection (Coachtown Street) from the most southerly cul -de -sac on Tara Commons Court, as well as a right -of -way connection further north from Glendawoods Way to Dodd Road. The Glendalough Development currently proposes two additional accesses to Connemara Trail. The proposed CDA development is comprised of 30 townhome units on a total of 4.8 acres. The traffic generation for the development is approximately 175 vehicle trips per day. A future street connection to the north from the CDA site with future development is planned. This street connection will connect ultimately to 132 Street. The area north of the CDA site and east of the Glendalough development is anticipated to develop in the future. For estimating purposes, a mix of low density residential (between the future north/south street and the Glendalough development) and medium to high density residential was assumed. Based on this assumption, it is estimated that the area would generate approximately 700 additional trips per day. These trips would be distnbuted to the three access locations at 132" Street, Glendawoods Way, and Coachtown Street (to Connemara Trail). Alternative Analysis Three access configuration alternatives were prepared for the CDA site Each is discussed below. Alternative 1 This alternative provides for an access street from the proposed CDA site via Coachtown Street to the cul -de -sac at the end of Tara Commons Court. In addition, a future street connection would be made north of the CDA site to the street connection at Glendawoods Way and ultimately to 132 Street via Dodd Road (see Figure 1) The additional traffic that might travel through the proposed Glendalough Development from the CDA site, would be approximately 175 additional trips in a day. The trips in the future from the area north of the CDA site that would use this access is estimated at 250 trips per day. It is estimated that the Tara Commons Court cul -de -sac will have approximately 180 trips per day, based on the proposed number of units along the street The addition of the CDA traffic and future traffic to the Tara Commons Court traffic would equal approximately 600 vehicles per day. This is equivalent a typical city residential street, which would have an average daily traffic of approximately 500 -1,000 trips per day. It appears, based on the data provided, that this altemative would not require lowering the Magellan pipeline under Coachtown Street or the future north/south street Site grading could be completed to ensure that lowering the pipeline is not required. Alternative 2 This altemative would make a connection from Tara Commons Court within the Glendalough Development to Connemara Trail. The connection from the CDA site would be through Coachtown Street, as well as the connection north of the CDA site to Glendawoods Way. With the proposed connection from Tara Commons Court to Connemara Trail, it is assumed that the site access via Coachtown Avenue would be closed (see Figure 2). Similar to Alternative 1, approximately 425 vehicle trips per day would connect through the street system to Tara Commons Court, however, with this alternative, the majority of the traffic will access to Connemara Trail, not traveling through the Glendalough Development. The traffic patterns within the Glendalough Development would change by routing traffic from other portions of the development to this new access location, rather than the original proposed access location at Coachtown Avenue. Based on the data provided, it appears that this alternative would require lowering of the Magellan pipeline under the Tara Commons Court connection to Connemara Trail. Alternative 3 This alternative would provide a direct connection to Connemara Trail using the new north/south street adjacent to the CDA site The street connection to Connemara Trail would line up with the existing Dodd Blvd street to the south. Similar to Alternatives 1 and 2, the future north/south street would ultimately connect north to Glendawoods Way and 132 Street (see Figure 3). CWDOCUMENTS AND SLI I NGSVDLOCAL SETTINGSTEMPDRARY INTERNET E LEMLKD1MEMO-EMA1LSr1E ACCESS 011606 DOC It appears, based on the data provided, that this alternative would require lowering the Magellan pipeline to accommodate the new roadway section to Connemara Trail In addition, it would require the elimination of two proposed lots from the Glendalough Development to accommodate the street connection. The primary issue with this alternative is that, in the future, the access location at Connemara Trail could potentially be restricted to right in/right -out This was a requirement that was put on this access location as part of the Irish Sportsdome project approvals. Recommendation Based on our review of the alternatives, it is our recommendation that Alternative 1 or 2 be considered for access to the CDA site, with Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative based on the following: 1. The amount of traffic that would be generated from the proposed CDA site (approximately 175 vehicles per day) and future development north of the CDA site (approximately 250 vehicles per day) will have little impact traveling through the Glendalough Development, with access directly through Tara Commons Court to Connemara Trail (Alternative 2). 2. The proposed right -of -ways for a street connection between the CDA site and Tara Commons Court has been included as part of the Glendalough Development preliminary plat In addition, a secondary access via Glendawoods Way would provide alternative access in the future to this site and area. 3. The proposed access configuration for Altemative 2 appears to require lowering of the Magellan pipeline based on the data provided. Although there will be additional costs for lowering the pipeline, the traffic engineer review of the site concludes that the benefits of not routing the additional traffic through the Glendalough Development neighborhoods, would outweigh the costs. lh C- WDCUMENFS AND Sti Z INGS JDLLOCAL SEI IINGSTEMFORARY INTERNET FILE9OLKDE.MEMo-EMAE.SITE ACCESS 011S06.00C 4R0SEM0UNT To: Planning Commission Members Kim Lindquist, Community Development uirector From: Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of Police Date: January 24, 2006 Subject: CDA Project POLICE DEPARTMENT As part of the review of the proposed CDA project, data has been gathered regarding police calls for service at Rosemount's primary rental properties, including CDA owned prof cities Information has also been gathered from other communines with projects similar to the proposed CDA project and from those communities referenced in a flyer distributed in the community by opponents of this project. CDA Property Management In general, Dakota County law enforcement considers CDA to be a very good property manager. CDA was described as "excellent" and "outstanding" by two of the police departments contacted not every department was contacted Rosemount's expenence with CDA as a property manager is consistent with those comments and CDA is regarded as a very good property manager of its Rosemount sites. CDA is considered responsive to both resident and law enforcement issues. They respond :o tenant issues of property maintenance or other issues and appropriate action is taken on issues brought to CDA by law enforcement regarding problem tenants. CDA manages several types of housing and housing programs, which makes it difficult to directly compare one complex to another complex. In Rosemount, CDA manages a twenty -unit town home complex, an assisted living senior complex and eleven rental homes /duplexes scattered throughout the community. Rental Properties in General Discussion of rental properties in generalities is very difficult because of the many variables involved. The type of rental housing can vary significantly along with the type of housing program offered, i.e market rate or the many assistance programs frequently lumped together as "low income subsidized housing" However, when speaking in broad, general terms, recital properties do have more calls for pohce services than owner occupied residences. This is particularly true of apartment units due to the shared walls, ceilings and general close quarters, which result m more noise and disturbance complaints being reported by neighboring units There are also more people to potentially witness incidents m an apartment complex with a shared parking lot The rental town homes with large, shared parking lots also tend to have more calls due to increased witnesses and contacts between residents. SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS Rosemount City Hall 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Emergency 911 Non Emergency 651- 423 -4491 TDD /TTY 651 423 -6219 Fax 651- 423 -4485 www 0 rosemount mn.us ADJACENT PROPERTY INFORMATION Another issue of concern raised has been the impact of rental properties on adjacent properties Crime statistics for two areas near rental complexes in Rosemount were reviewed to examine this claun. Based on the data from the areas, it does not appear that adjoining areas to the rental complexes have a higher incidence of crime or calls for police service than other areas m the community. The Enclave Biscayne Avenue and Bloomfield Path This is a complex of owner occupied town homes located just south of the CDA town homes located at 145` Street and Biscayne Avenue There is a combination of detached and attached units m the development. The seventy -six (76) attached units had .33 calls for service and 07 reports per umt during 2005. In further review of the types of calls for service, it is obvious that the majority of these calls were service related, i.e. medicals and alarms Data for the detached units was not reviewed because it was not as easily available through the data bases searched. Cobalt Avenue Town Homes This complex of owner occupied single level town homes and row -house town homes is located between 145 Street and Dodd Blvd. between the rental complexes along Shannon Parkway and Cunmaron Avenue There are a total of one hundred four (104) units at this site. In 2005, there were only .29 calls for service and 10 reports per unit in the complex. Anecdotally, this neighborhood parncipated in the National Night Out event last August. When visited at this event by the mayor and police chief, the neighbor= in attendance stated they lived m a very quiet neighborhood and did not experience issues from the adjoining rental sites. ATTENTION EVERMOOR, HEISMAN, GLENDALOUGH, HEATHHAVEN AND OTHER ROSEMOUNT COMMUNITIES City of Rosemount is planning to build a 30 unit low income subsidized housing at the northwest corner of highway 3 and Connemara Trail. We have seen similar projects in Eagan (at Yankee Doodle Road) and right next to Burnsville Center. The crime rate is so' high in those areas that police had to open a substation over there and firefighters won't_ go there unless escorted by police. Stabbings, drugs and all sorts of crimes are pretty frequent in these neighboihoods. We also know what happens to the property values next to HUDs. We, as the residents of above communities, oppose the City of Rosemount's intention to build such housing right next to us and want them to find some alternative spot. WHAT ARE WE DOING AS OF NOW right now Evetmoorcommunity is meeting with its members and corning up with action plans including writing down a petition to, let city know that we oppose this project, calling the City Council's members, meeting with mayor and spreading the word. We will need your names and signatures and your Support Tor a successful petition.. WHAT WE NEED TO DO These are just some suggestions to start wi _Tell your neighbors right away and come up with action plans. DO NOT w ai Call the following people in city council and tell them how you feel �`i Rick Pearson, Rosemount City Planner. 651.322.2051; l Rosemount City Council M embers: HI, 'Bill Droste (Mayor) 651- 423 -1944 Mike Baxter- 651- 423 -3606 Mark DeBettignies .651-423-4218:-' Kim Shoe-Corrigan; .ti 651 423 -7434; Phillip Sterner 612-751-297 3 Go to next city council meeting Jan 24, 2006 6:34 p.m. at, City Council Chambers, s oun City Hall (Reference Public Hearing N umber 05-50-CP Rosemount Fa mi] y Townhomes Pio'ect) and tell them how you feel If you have any additional inforrnation about the pi ojeetor if yon Want to help pleasne send your contact information to oppose_rezoning@yahoo.com Draft Excerpt of Minutes from the Planning Commission Special Meeting of January 10, 2006 Public Hearing: 5a. 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, PUD Concept Plan and Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Mr. Pearson reviewed the staff report The Dakota County Community Development Agency "CDA has submitted apphcations to construct a 30 -unit townhouse development on a site located on the northwest corner of Connemara Trail and STH 3, South Robert Trail The townhouses will be owned and maintained by Dakota County CDA The discussions and recommendations concerned a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Prelmijnary Plat and PUD Concept Plan. City Engineer Brotzler highlighted the engineering comments regarding site access, grading, and stonnwater issues. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Pearson. Commissioner Schultz questioned the proposed urban residential land use for the site and what other sites had the same land use designation. Mr Pearson summanzed other areas in the City where the Urban Residential zoning is located and further noted this request is similar to the Evermoor Roundstone and Waterford projects done m the past. Commissioner Schultz inquired if stop signs would be placed on the Connemara intersection. Mx Brotzler stated the traffic at the intersection will not warrant the placement of stop signs and that the extension of the median is a possibility Ms. Lindquist stated that staff received several emails and voicemails. Ms. Lindquist explained that in hght of the interest in the project, it would be beneficial to the residents to understand the issues that are facing the Planning Commission and potentially the Council on this item. The land use designation is moving from Transitional Residential to Urban Residential. It was not changed in the Evermoor project, it was kept Transitional Residential. The Commission's job is to review the project based on the land use impacts associated with the project The Commission should not consider ownership versus rental or affordability versus high end housing for residential projects The land use impacts are the same for either scenario When the City makes a determination that this project is a project they want to see in the community they must find land use impacts for denial and not solely because it's a rental versus home ownership project. Similarly, the City cannot say since it is affordable housing versus a million dollar home that we can deny the project The City needs to consider the appropriate land use for the site whether it be a muth- family, single family or a high density residential site Then there will be a mynad of issues regarding the site plan. The project does meet the goals set by the Council to offer a vanety of housing in the community. Chairperson Messner invited the apphcant to come forward. Kari Gill, Dakota County Community Development Agency, gave the background on what the proposed development. There is significant demand throughout Dakota County for affordable housing. Ms Gill stated the units are taigeted to people earning around 5O% of the median. The average income in the developments is about $28,000. There is a minimum income requirement and it is geared towards families that are working in modest paying jobs. Ms. Gill stated the ownership of the protect is a public pnvate partnership with 99D/0 of the development owned by a pnvate partner The Dakota County CDA has 1% ownership. The CDA does its own property management and its own staff to maintain the property and individual units. Ms Gill shared pictures of similar developments. The proposal is for 30 units, a small office, tot lot and a gazebo area Ms Gill commented that as development moves forward the CDA would work closely with the City to meet and exceed any landscaping requirements Ms. Gill was happy to answer any quesnons regarding the development Chairperson Messner opened the Public Heating Gene Rusco, 3553 Couchtown Path, respected the comments on the land use issues but still feels his comments are important based on the stated need for low income housing. Mr. Rusco quoted Professor Gary Painter of the USC School of Pohcy, Planning and Development by stating low income housing programs negatively impact labor force participation He further suggested that City staff refer to the Journal of Housing Research published by the Fannie Mae Foundation, Volume 12, Issue 1, published in the year 2001. Mr Rusco stated that studies show the only beneficianes of low income housmg are really high income builders and investors. He further referred the Commission to the work of Ron Feidmen of the Minnesota Fed who is cnncal of the government's pretence of helping poor people by subsidizing builders. He urged the Commission to realize the cultural impact on the community of this project He asked the Commission to vote no on this protect. Dean Smith, 3548 Cromwell Trail, urged the Commission to look at its policy manual. Mr. Smith beheves that public input should be sohcitated at an earlier time in the process He spoke about the potential crime issues He further urged the Commission to slow down the process to allow for more input and consideration. Gary Anderson, 3418 Cromwell Trail, stated he is not convinced why this site was picked for the CDA project given the amount of undeveloped land in Rosemount. He further stated this project will deflate his property value. He added CDA projects elsewhere have a higher pohce rate Joel Weiss, 13579 Crossmoor Avenue, said he is sy,upathettc with low income people. He suggested though that job skills should be offered and not subsidized housing stating a better choice for location would be near the technical college Leonarad Burndge, 13431 Cormack Circle, commented that many more people would be here tonight to give comments if notice of the pubhc hearing was given Mr Burndge stated his reasoning for choosing to live in Evermoor He asked the City to explore other options but if this is the only site chosen that Evermoor residents receive better notice of the process. Kelly Henson Evertz, 13113 Crolly Path, questioned the noticing of the pubhc hearing. Ms. Henson Evertz stated her concern with the high density housing and the traffic issues. She believes there has to be a better location for the project somewhere else in Rosemount. Barbara Harvey, 3566 Crosslough Trail, stated she would like the City to explore other options and stated she had concerns over traffic. Nancy Frosig, 3703 Crosslough Trail, stated she left the City of Richfield because of low income housing and the crime. She asked the Commission not to change the neighborhood feel Lon Stormoen, 3474 Crumpet Path, stated she is curious about what other specific parcels of land were entertained by the CDA. Ms. Stormoen was also concerned as to how this parcel was chosen Chairperson Messner commented that the site m question is what the Planning Commission ms lookmg at tonight. No Planning Commissioners are aware of what other sites were entertained. Darrell Pavelkka, 3505 Couchtown Path, stated his concern about the land use issue in regard to the intended designation for the property north of this site Mr. Pearson stated the property to north is guided Transition Residential and zoned Rural Residential The City has not entertained any development applications for that property. Mr. Pavelka stated his concern about potential trespassing at the pool and park in the Glendalough neighborhood. MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing Second by Zum Ayes: AIL Nayes: None. Public Hearing closed. Chairperson Messner asked the Commission for any additional follow -up comments or questions Ms. Lindquist addressed the cnme concerns raised Police Chief Kalstabakken compiled information from Hastings, Mendota Heights and Eagan who have CDA projects Police representatives stated they do not consider CDA projects a pohce problem area. Additionally, Police Chief Kalstabakken stated the low income housing project at 145 and Biscayne Avenue is not a problem property in the City. Mr Pearson stated development at the Technical Colleges would be a few years out given the availability for urban services in that area. Commissioner Powell questioned if there is a tight -of -way platted from the cul -de -sac west of the side coming from Glendalough to the east to make a connection It should be noted it's a through street and not a cul -de -sac. Commissioner Powell questioned how far in advance the development signs were placed at the subject property. Ms. Lindquist responded the signs for development were installed approximately two and a half months ago. Ms Lindquist further clanfied the City noticed the area within 350 feet of the subject property. The notice the residents are referring to is a notice distnbuted by the neighborhoods. Commissioner Powell questioned if this property was ever included m the Evermoor project. City Planner Pearson stated this parcel was not planned or platted out as part of Evermoor. Commissioner Schultz asked Ms. Lindquist to address the pubhc in regards to the rules for noticing a pubhc heating. Ms Lindquist stated the City adopts the same rules the State law has m terms of public notice and notification requirements. The City is required to nonce public heanngs in the official newspaper by publication 10 days pnor to the meeting date. The City is also required to notice property owners within 350 feet within the subject property. Mike Vipond, 3445 Couchtown Path, asked if Lundgren Brothers was notified of this project. Ms. Lindquist stated that Lundgren Brothers was aware of this project several months ago. Commissioner Powell asked the City Engineer to again review the roadway alignments imposed because of the access issues. Mr. Brotzler again showed Alternate A to the Commission including the pubhc street access proposed to the site from the future Glendalough street system. Staff is recommending a pubhc street extension to the north to provide for a secondary access as well as a continuous street extension to connect to Dodd Road m the future. An alternate that is being reviewed would provide a separate public street access to the proposed project site separate from the Glendalough development. Mr. Brotzler stated the alignment is concept only. Chairperson Messner stated an obvious Alternative C would be to extend the cul -de -sac out to Connemara Mr. Brotzler stated that in 2005 when the Glendalough grading plan was developed by Lundgren's engineer it was reviewed by die developer, its engineer and City staff The developer had incurred costs to lower the pipeline through the easement to accommodate the construction of Connemara Trail as it is today. Due to the grades that were proposed on the grading plan there would've been modifications to the grading plan and the proposed street to make a connection to Connemara Trail It would have required the pipeline to have been lowered and the developer elected not to lower the pipehne trail Commissioner Schwartz asked the theory behind collector streets. Mr. Brotzler stated collector streets are designed to carry a higher volume of traffic and by design are built to support access from local streets. When the E` ermoor development was planned, which included the extension of Connemara Trail to Highway 3, there was access to the subject prop erty. Commissioner Schwartz questioned why the project is allowed to have single car garages. Ms Lindquist stated through the PUD process they are able to address the concern When first working with the CDA several years ago, there was discussion with the Council about amending the ordinance to allow single stall garages for affordable housing It was felt at that time the PUD process would allow that variation, should the City wish to approve the project Mr. Pearson stated the site plan allows for 20 foot setbacks of the garages to the public street When this site plan comes back again, there will be two and one half parking spaces for each unit. Commissioner Schwartz stated her concern about parking because the Roundstone area has a parking problem and it has caused a great deal of strafe m that particular community. Commissioner Schultz asked staff to explain the landscaping requirements on the west side of the property. Mr Pearson responded that the landscaping plan shows a variety of trees, but shrubs should be added between the trees. There might be some other potential areas of landscaping on both sides of the street Chairperson Messner stated the Commission looks at land use plans and at what is an appropnate use for property along Highway 3, along a collector street. The Commission is not necessarily looking at the end use. Chairperson Messner apologized if the public thought the Commission was only going to talk about the CDA and what they are proposing for the site. He stated he understands the pubhc's concern, but the Commission is looking at the land use. Commssioner Powell shared his position. He has significant concern with the unresolved access to the site He did not favor direct access from Connemara Trail. Commissioner Schwartz concurred with the access issue. Commissioner Schwartz feels there does not need to be more density in that area of the City. Chairperson Messner stated that given the access concerns, does the Urban Residential land use designation seem to fit with this site located along Highway 3 and Connemara Trail. Commissioner Powell stated he could support the motion to reguide the property but the following three motions he could not support Ms Lindquist stated staff typically wouldn't support reguiduig the property if the Cormission is not interested in rezoning at this time If the access issue is resolved, would the Commission be comfortable with a medium density project or a single family project Ms. Lindquist said staff could get the access issue wrapped up by the next Commission meeting m two weeks, but if the Commission isn't going to support the project regardless of the access issue, then the CDA would prefer the Commission deny the project so it could go to the Council for discussion Commissioner Messner stated that other than the access issue that needs to be resolved, this is the type of site that is suited for medium density housing Commissioner Schwartz stated that both sides of Highway 3 have significant density and doesn't support high density m that area Commissioner Powell beheves the number of units could be routed through the cul -de -sac at Glendalough. He does not support a connection at Connemara or taking the access to the north Commissioner Zurn agreed with Commissioner Powell to resolve the access issues and reduce the number of units. Commissioner Schultz personally is for changing the Comprehensive Plan and agrees with the access issues raised. Ms. Lindquist suggested continuing the item to the January 24 meeting to bang back the access information. MOTION by Messner to continue this item to January 24, 2006. Second by Powell. Ayes: All. Noyes. None Motion earned. 4 ROSEMOLINT PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Regular Meeting: January 10, 2006 Tentative City Council Meeting: February 7, 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM: Planning Case 05 -50 -CP Rosemount Family Townhomes (CDA Project) Comp Plan Amendment from Transition Residential to Urban Residential, Rezoning of from Rural Residential to R- 2 PUD, Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat approval PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner ATTACHMENTS: Location map, Site Demolition and Erosion Control Plan, Site Layout and Dimension Plan, Site Grading Plan, Site Utility Plan, Landscape Plan, Site Tree Replacement Plan, Preliminary Plat, Partnership Program information AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing AGENDA NO. 5a APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan changing the land use designation for the site from Transition Residential to Urban Residential subject to approval by the Metropolitan Council. Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the site from Rural Residential to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat subject to: 1. Dedication of right -of -way for the public street providing access from the west or south and extending through the site to the north for a future northern connection in conformance with recommendations by the City Engineer. 2. Dedication of appropriate drainage and utility easement subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3. Approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed. 4. Conformance with the requirements for final plat including execution of a subdivision development agreement as needed for installation of public infrastructure Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development Concept subject to. 1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Rural Residential to Urban Residential by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Final development of the parcel is contingent of City approval of a site plan, PUD Master Development Plan and execution of a PUD agreement. 3. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage, easements, grading, storm water management and utilities including• The street entering the development shall be public and located within a 60 ft. right of way and included on the plat The applicant shall secure all permits agreements necessary for the proposed crossing or grading of the pipeline easements. The applicant will grade the future northern road connection as part of their project and provide a secured a cash deposit or another form acceptable to the City to pay for its future construction. No parking will be permitted on the streets and turning radius information shall be provided subject to approval by the Fire Marshal. Additional storm water management detail is required including: a Infiltration calculations. b Outlet elevations from ponds and control structures as noted. c. Maintenance plan for the rain gardens. Payment of connection and trunk fees required 4. Park dedication in the form of cash in lieu of and in the amount of $90,000 (30 units x $3,000 per unit) based upon the 2005 fee schedule 5. Approval and receipt of permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation as needed. 6. Seventeen common parking spaces shall be provided, based upon 15 for the 30 units and 2 for the office. 7. The applicant provide at a minimum, a setback of 20 feet between the units and the private streets which will be sufficient for driveway parking This requirement is in recognition of the single stall garages proposed for the individual units. 8. The northwest building must be re- onented to create a more acceptable setback to the anticipated public street right -of -way, as well as increase the distance to the southerly building cluster inside the street loop. 9. Additional screening landscaping shall be installed along the Highway 3 right -of -way and in- between the shade trees specified for the western edge. 10.Th7 Scotch Pines specified in the landscaping plan shall be relocated elsewhere on the site, and conformance with sight- triangle standards for visibility at intersections will be required for all public and private intersections within the development. 11.The applicant provide an acceptable public street access to the site which traverses the property and allows public access to the property to the north subject to engineering standards and City approval. 12.The applicant modify the front building elevations to include brick. ISSUE The Dakota County Community Development Agency "CDA has submitted applications to construct a 30 -unit townhouse development on a 4 5 acre site located on the northwest corner of Connemara Trail and STH 3, South Robert Trail The townhouses will be owned and maintained by Dakota County CDA. The discussions and recominendattons concern a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and PUD Concept Plan. A number of issues need to be resolved prior to the project being ready for PUD Master Plan that would commit the project to all of the design details of the project. Therefore, staff is reviewing the development as a concept to provide a basis for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. In addition, the plat will be comparatively simple, allowing for conditional approval of the prelunuiary plat The site is currently vacant, and although it has frontage along Highway 3 it cannot have direct access. The original plan was to gam access through the Glendalough project; however, very iecently the apphcant has indicated an mteiest in exploring access from Connemara. This means that project residents would not have to travel through the adlouung western neighborhood. This 2 access issues is still bemg explored and will be determined during the Master Development Plan stage of the process. Staff does not expect this potential modification to have a significant impact on the site design of the project. BACKGROUND Applicant: Location: Property Owner: Current Comp Plan design: Proposed Comp Plan Current Zoning Requested Zoning: Current use Preh mnary Plat data: Number of Units Density: Anticipated primary access: Surrounding uses. Side West East South North Dakota County Community Development Agency Northwest corner of Connemara Trail STH 3, South Robert Trail. Christopher Kathleen Ostertag Transition Residential Urban Residential Rural Residential R -2, Moderate Density Residential Vacant Existing Parcel 5.65 acres Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 (developable area) 4.2 acres Outlot A (South of Connemara Trail) 0.18 acres Proposed nght -of -way for Connemara Trail 0.67 acres 30 units 6.6 dwelling units /acre (requested). Connemara Trail through the Evermoor Glendalough neighborhood. Current use Evermoor developing residential Harmony developing residential Cemetery S of Connemara Tr. Rural Residential Zoning Comp Plan R -1 (PUD): Transition Residential R -2 R -3 (PUD) Urban and High density residential Public /Inst., Parks Open space Rural Res Transition Residential Dakota County Community Development Agency The project is part of the "Family Housing Partnership Program" an initiative for affordable family housing started by the Dakota County CDA m 1992. The intent is to provide affordable rental townhomes for working families. Of thirteen such developments in Dakota County, the most similar townhouse project examples are the "Marketplace Townhomes" in Hastings and "Heart of the City" in Burnsville (Northeast corner of 125 Street and 1" Ave Dakota County owns and maintains other properties in Rosemount, most notably "Cameo Place" a 44 -unit senior housing development on Lower 147 Street and Cameo Avenue and a 20 -unit rental project at the southeast corner of 145 Street and Biscayne Ave. Development Site The property is the most southerly of six rural residential properties between the Evermoor development and Highway 3. Total acreage is 6 36 acres. Connemara Trail intersects with Highway 3 at a perpendicular alignment and as a result, cuts across the property at an angle isolating the southwest corner of the property. The land isolated by Connemara Trail amounts to approximately 0 85 acres. The property is vacant and mostly open, with trees lining the western and northern boundaries. The topography is characterized as a plateau or flat knoll with elevations of 10 -15 feet higher than the south and eastern edges along Connemara Trail and South Robert Trail (STH 3) The site drops slightly to the west, and more significantly to the north over several pipelines. Two pipelines are contained in a 100 -foot wide easement corridor that traverses the north half of the site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT The site is currently designated for Transition Residential land use, the same designation as Evermoor and the rural residential propernes to the north. The property is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The transition land use designation was chosen in the late 1990's to provide the maximum flexibility for the sites. At the tune, Transition residential was also utilized for areas east of Highway 3 with concentrations of non conforming rural residential properties In considering the most appropnate land use for the site, the Planning Commission should consider physical attnbutes and its relanonship to surrounding properties. 1. The property is located between the Evermoor Glendalough single -family neighborhood and South Robert Trail (State Trunk Highway 3), a minor arterial highway, which creates a hard neighborhood edge. 2. Development densities and housing types change between Evermoor Glendalough (The 5 addition is 1.45 dwelling units per acre) to the Harmony development (about 6 units per acre) on the east side of Highway 3. 3. The south side of Connemara Trail is primarily open space with the Rosemount Cemetery (formerly the Rosemount Lutheran cemetery), and two remnant parcels isolated by Connemara Trail owned by Wensmann Homes and the balance of the Chnstopher Kathleen Ostertag property 4. Topography contributes to a sense of isolation of the site It is a plateau 10 feet higher in elevation from the east and south sides It also slopes downward to the north and west sides. As the Planning Commission and City Council is aware the review of this project, and all projects, is based upon land use impacts Ownership versus rental is not a land use consideranon and cannot be the basis for evaluation. Under both scenanos, ownership or rental, the land use impacts such as traffic are the same. Similarly, the City cannot regulate based upon the cost of the unit The City cannot favor higher -end homes versus lower cost homes from a planning perspective. The same would hold for subsidized rental units versus market rate rental units. Urban Residential Land 'Jse Designation The requested land use designation would be Urban Residential which allows townhouses at lower densities m addrnon to typical single family detached uses. The following is an excerpt from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan describing cntena for attached housing m the Urban Residential land use area: "Attached housing within the Urban Residential areas will be located m logical transition areas from higher to lower intensity land uses, at the edge of a defined neighborhood, and /or planned to sufficiently integrate within a large planned development area In staff's opinion the location of this project provides a reasonable transition from the Glendalough neighborhood to Hwy 3 and assist in defining the edge of the neighborhood, consistent wit the policy above. The 2020 Comprehensive Plan also references residential land use policies for the Urban Residential district that relate in one way or another to this project. The following is excerpted from page 31 of the 2020 Comp Plan "It is the City's policy to: 1) cooperate with Federal, State and County agencies to make affordable housing available and to redevelop and rehabilitate older homes in the City; 2) encourage clustering, where appropriate, and /or extraordinary setbacks at neighborhood edges to anturruze the unpact of major streets and conflicting land uses; 3) facilitate neighborhood planning for improvements which create or reinforce neighborhood unity, safety, and identity... Improvements may mctude landscaping, parks and local street modifications to reduce traffic impacts; 4) require the use of planned unit development for all developments proposing to vary from city standards in exchange for other benefits; 5) encourage the use of planned unit developments to protect and enhance natural features, open space and to provide appropnate neighborhood transitions, 6) maintain a balance of housing types and densities in conformance with community objectives; 4 and, 7) incorporate pedestrian fnendly neighborhoods with sidewalks and trails as important design elements." Staff interprets the policies as supporting the application with the following comments: The Dakota County Community Development Agency as the apphcant is the local agency whose mission is to provide affordable housing in the County. Affordable rental housing is a housing type within the Community which is lacking and would increase the life cycle housing opportunities in the City. The site location and physical characteristics support the concept of a housing cluster The development will be adjacent to two major streets, yet differences m elevation, setbacks, and landscaping should mitigate the impact of Highway 3 on the east side and Connemara Trail on the south side. The design of the development has a compact character because of the exclusive internalized street system and the open space resulting from the pipeline corridot forming the western and northern edges. The development will provide internal recreational amenities for its residents including a picnic gazebo, tot lot, sidewalks and open spaces with herbaceous perennial landscaping and ram gardens. The proposed housing provides for an affordable housing niche that will be maintained by the Dakota County CDA having an established performance record in with similar projects. The Evermoor PUD included a transition of density and housing types from lower densities along the north side to higher densities and attached units on the south and east side of the development along Connemara Trail (towards Highway 3). Higher density housing m this location would blend with the density transitions of the Evern: r PUD. The rural residential along Highway 3 is isolated and difficult to develop. Most likely it would have preferable to plan these lots as part of the Evermoor project. Barring that integration, the CDA has developed a stand along project that fits the site given the constraints of highway proximity and the presence of the pipeline. REZONING The requested rezoning is to R -2, Moderate Density Residential PUD from Rural Residential. The R -2 distract is appropriate for attached housing developments of about six units per acre. Generally, developments with twin homes, four and six unit buildings fit m the R -2 district in terms of density and development standards The following standards are excerpted from the R -2 district to be used as a baseline for considering the PUD The PUD process allows for flexibility m application of standards, with expectations of something in return PUD objectives can include preservation of natural features and open space, recreational facilities, architectural features and providing for affordable housing opportumtes. R -2, Standards for townhomes Setbacks Buildings Parking Muumum Lot area: 18,000 sq ft. Front 30 feet 30 feet Minimum lot width: 120 feet Side 30 feet 10 feet Minimum lot depth: 150 feet Rear 30 feet 10 feet Maximum lot coverage: 70% Maximum density 6 dwelling units per acre Maximum building height 35 feet Minimum lot dimension standards relate to combinations or clusters of dwellings located within blocks typically under common ownership. 5 Attached housing and townhouses also have applicable general performance standards including: Minimum separation between buildings: Side to side. 20 feet Side to rear: 40 feet Front to front. 60 feet Rear to rear. 60 feet PRELIMINARY PLAT The prelumnary plat provides the proposed property boundary lines for all parcels, dedicated right -of -way and easements. The subdivision for the project will be comparatively simple given that the CDA will retain ownership of the housing units, pnvate streets and open space. By comparison, a typical townhouse development contains a lot for each unit where each homeowner owns the foot -print of their individual unit. A subdivision is necessary to spht -off excess land isolated by Connemara Trail that is not going to be purchased by CDA for development. Easements for drainage utditaes typic: ly at the perimeter of the site, but also m places where pondmg and public ut occur must also be dedicated The prehnunary plat has been forward to the Minnesota Department of Transportation has an opportunity to examine the Highway 3 right -of -way to see if it is sufficient. A public street is anticipated to enter the property providing access. Right -of -way for the street will need to be dedicated. The preliminary plat includes: 1. 4.8 acres for the development area. 2. 120 feet wide previously dedicated nght -of -way for Connemara Trail amounting to 0.67 acres. 3. A 0.18 acre remnant south of Connemara Trail becomes Outlot A that could potentially be absorbed by the cemetery or Schwarz Pond Park. CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT This review is for concept approval The comments are detailed because the original submission was intended to be a complete PUD master plan. However, a number of issues have come to light requiring resolution before staff can recommend master plan approval The detail is to provide more specific direction to the applicant for plan revisions intended for the master plan Planned unit development is requested because it is supported by the previously mentioned policies and because PUD offers flexibility desired by the applicant One area of flexibility is to allow a pnvate drive system within the project area. According to Section 12.6. A of the zoning ordinance, one of the purposes of PUD is intended to encourage "Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant transportation or scenic corridors within the City" The PUD process is advantageous to the City because it commits to the specifics of the development plan including building design and landscaping which is a level of control not available through a standard review m a traditional zoning district. The following lists outstanding issues that must be addressed in the PUD master plan: 1. Development of a continuous public road system that will allow access to the site and also provide future access to the north. The applicant is exploring a public access through dedicated right -of- way from the Glendalough neighborhood or potentially access from Connemara. Additional research is necessary. 2. The recommended right -of -way for the public street connection conflicts with the location of the northwest building, primarily in terms of setbacks Resolution of the street and building location are necessary for the master plan 3. Provision of a final grading plan for the property incorporating the final street alignments and exploring the potential or need for linking the development to a future storm water pond to the 6 north. The concept recommendation also provides an opportunity to give the applicant feedback from the Planning Commission discussion and comments received at the pubhc hearing that may influence design revisions for the master plan. Access and Circulation Access to the development is still in question. There are two options available that are currently being explored. The first, and that shown on the subnnttal, has access via a street that will be stubbed to the western edge of the site from the Glendalough neighborhood, approximately 195 feet north of Connemara Trail This street is included with the approved prelmunary plat for the Glendalough area and will be built with a future phase of Glendalough The pubhc street enters the development site and immediately turns north with a more than 90 degree left turn for a future connection to Dodd Road across the adjacent northerly property. The plan shows this street as private, however staff recommends that it be pubhc. The second option is to provide direct access to Connemara Trail into the site. Additional land would be obtained from the west allowing the mtersecnon to be west of the median located m Connemara. This would allow a full access mto the site. Additional review is needed to assess the ability to provide a public road that would meet appropnate engineering standards. This road would predominately run along the western edge of the development site and continue to provide the same northern connection. Under both concepts the internal layout of the townhouse design should not be significantly altered. As presently proposed there are two pnvate entrances into the development from the pubhc street. First to the south from the pubhc street forming a "T" intersection and becoming a dnveway into a private street that loops the uitenor of the site for access to the individual dnveways The private street loops through the development to connect once again to the (recommended) public street as it heads north The street then is shown on the plans as a "potential future street connection" to link the site to the rural residential property to the north, ultimately to Dodd Road. Internal Private Streets The private streets within the development will vary in width. The east -west segments of the loop will be 28 feet wide, however, no on -street parking will be recommended The north -south segment on the east side along South Robert Trail is 24 feet wide, as is the west side connection to the recommended public street. Concrete curb and gutter is provided throughout, and turning radius will need to be approved by the Fire Marshal. Dodd Road Dodd Road extends south from 132" Street West and crosses completely onto the Evermoor site approximately 375 feet north of the proposed development area. The portion of Dodd Road that is currently located in future development areas of the Glendalough neighborhood will be absorbed into the Glendalough neighborhood street system Traffic utilizing Dodd Road will still be able to connect with Connemara Trail; however, the route will be more circuitous. Eventually, when the northerly properties are developed, a more direct hmk to Dodd Road will provide access to those properties as well as the CDA development site. Engineering comments regarding streets 1. All public streets must have 60' of dedicated tight -of -way shown on the plat. 2. For the proposed future public street extension to the north, the applicant shall secure all penmts /agreements for the purposed pipeline crossings. In addition, the appbcant will grade the road as part of the development and provide a cash deposit in an amount to be determined will need to be made for costs associated with constructing the street in the future. 3. Turning radius information shall be provided to demonstrate that emergency vehicles (i.e. fire trucks) are able to maneuver through the site. 4. Private streets narrower than 28 feet will be required to be posted for "No Parking" to maintain emergency vehicle access and shall be subject to approval by the Fire Marshal. Parking Staff is recommending that no on -street parking be allowed regardless of the street width because of the many driveways and the common parking that will be available. Each unit is normally expected to have 2 5 parking spaces with the half space being common available for visitors. The garage and driveway provide the two spaces required. Common parking is provided throughout with common parking spaces notched into the intenor side of the street. Sixteen spaces are provided in these common areas However, the site management office also requires two parking spaces based upon the net square footage of the office Therefore, one additional parking space is needed to provide for the combined common and office parking space requirements. One single -car garage is provided for each unit This is one area in which the units are mconsi- tent with ordinance standards Two -car garages of 4-40 sq. ft. are typical standards for attached housing (Section 4.18 G). These units are intended to be affordable and maintained by Dakota County CDA. Therefore, staff will reconirnend that the PUD permit the single -car garages. The basic parking requirement of 2.5 spaces per unit is provided for by the garage, the driveway m front of each unit and common parking spaces provided through -out the development. Sidewalks A sidewalk located on the north side of Connemara Trail has a pedestrian link into the development between the two southerly buildings. Steep grades require steps and railings along the sidewalk to negotiate the 10 feet elevational change. The proposed sidewalks cross the internal street loon providing linkages to the various recreational ameniues, the rental offic mailbox cluster and common lung. Sidewalks do not cross individual driveways There will be no sidewalks or trails along Highway 3 since the steep grades make such pedestrian systems impractical Housing orientation The 30 townhouse units are distributed among seven row house buildings each containing four or five umts. The buildings are arranged on either side of the loop street with setbacks of 20 feet from the street curb. This allows enough depth for parking m the driveways in front of the garages. A common open space provides recreational amenities and a focal point for the interior of the block. All of the units are side -by side row houses with one elevation including both main entrances and the garages. The entry /garage elevations are onented towards the internal loop street, generally screening them from the outer edge of the development The elevations opposite the entry /garage are considered the fronts and are limited to windows. These front elevations will be onented to Connemara Trail and the northern edge of the property. Side elevations of end units will be partly visible from South Robert Trail and the Glendalough neighborhood. Architectural Details Elevations The 30 housing units an mostly two stones with one exception One unit is a single -story accessible end unit There is also a small site management office attached to an end -unit facing the entrance to the development. Exterior materials consist of 6 -inch vinyl lap -sidmg and asphalt shingles for the roofs. The roof consists of a gable running the length of the building interrupted by dormers and intersecting gables giving each unit defirunon. Roof pitches are comparatively steep at 1.1 The elevations with garages have roof eves starting above the first level and second story windows are incoipoiated in dormers. Elevations facing the outer edges of the site have a more vertical character with 8 rehef provided by four foot off -sets in the exterior walls. Here, the roof hne starts above the 2 story except for the outer building corners on the end units. Combination windows are provided on both upper and lower levels, providing a high proportion of window area. Based upon mformation submitted by the applicant other properties in Dakota County communities provide some brick detailing on building elevations. There is none shown on the elevations proposed. Staff recommends a modification to the elevations to include some brick treatment, which is consistent with other townhouse projects within in the community Setbacks In most cases, the development conforms to the typical R -2 setbacks and dimensional standards as outlined above However, there are 4 situations that warrant discussion. 1. The end -unit in the northwest corner of the development closest to the public street entrance from Glendalough is 51.1 feet from the west property line including the street recommended to be public. The corner of the building scales only 13 feet from the curb. Given the normal expectation that 60 feet of right -of -way will be required for the pubhc street, this unit shall be re- oriented. Normal setbacks to streets would be 30 feet added to a boulevard of 15 feet for a total of 45 feet. Private street setbacks are 20 feet within the den elopment Staff would recommend that the 4 -unit building be re- oriented, to increase space available for landscaping, ut and snow storage Another alternative would be to shift one unit to another building The best candidate would be the 5 -unit building to the southeast with the office As a result, the corner of the building would be 35 feet from the curb or 20 feet from a typical 15 foot boulevard, enough space for screening landscaping. 2. The latest plan revisions placed the northwest building cluster with a 15 foot setback to the private street This setback is insufficient for parking in the driveway in front of the unit, which further exacerbates the need for plan revision. 3. The end unit closest to Highway 3 in the southerly building is 43.8 feet from the highway 3 right of-way. The setback is 50 feet as a result of highway 3's status as a Minor Arterial Highway. This setback deficiency is mitigated by the elevation of the housing being 15 feet above the grade of the highway. Staff will recommend that screening landscaping will be introduced to mitigate the impact of highway 3 as an alternative and potentially more effective screening device to increasing the setback by 6 2 feet 4. The distance between the opposing elevations of the buildings on the inside of the loop street scales about 47 feet between the 4 -unit building and the southerly 5 unit building with the office The standard for rear elevations facing each other is 60 feet. The gap is at a diagonal, and the more directly opposing units are 60 feet away. With implementation of item 1 above, this concem will likely be resolved or mitigated. 5. The plan is drawn with the southerly buildings built up to the south property line along Connemara Trail. The prelumnary plat shifts the right -of -way line 50 feet further south, assuming a title search venues the appropnate location for the nght -of -way. Recreational Amenities All of the amenities are private and intended to serve the recreational needs of this development The nearest park is Schwarz Pond. Other parks m the vicinity are the future parks associated with Harmony on the east side of Highway 3 and the private parks m Glendalough. Developer provided amenities include: a tot -lot play equipment area with swings; two picnic tables with a gazebo, and the previously mentioned network of sidewalks It seems logical that the recreational amenities development should be self sustaining especially for the small children given the sweet barriers to City parks. Landscaping Minimum landscaping expectations would include one boulevard tree per unit, screening along collector (and lughei classificauons) streets and the tree preservation replacement requirement The landscape plan 9 includes 41 boulevard /shade trees, 12 evergreens, 92 shrubs and 132 perennials. In addition, the ram gardens will be seeded with native herbaceous perennials. The shade trees are generally located in the front of the units between garages or at building comers, along with shrubs and perennials as foundation plantings The balance of the plantings are shown along the western edge next to Glendalough, the southern edge along Connemara Trail and four shade trees m the central open /recreational space. Because of the street design, the western edge allows only 10 feet between the property line and the loop street for screening plantings. In this area, the plan indicates an evergreen on either side of the intersection, and shade trees (mostly. Bur oak) extending along the edge of the site. The plantings along the southern edge of the site consist of alternate groupings of evergreen Scotch pine with boulevard trees (Bur oaks). Staff has several concerns about the landscaping plan. 1. The evergreens at either side of the entrance are inconsistent with sight -line criteria for intersections and may block visibility for turning movements Eventually, the lower branches will extend into the roadway. With open space available east of the "T" intersection, there is alternative space available for screening that would not conflict with the streets. The 10 ft. setback does not allow space for berms along the western edge either. Shrub groupings should be placed between the shade trees to provide additional screening, but far enough away from the intersection to preserve visibility. 2. The trees specified for north of the "T" intersection are apparently in the pipeline easement. Staff is skeptical about the willingness of the pipeline companies to permit trees in the easement area. Previous experience would suggest that groupings of trees should be located on the outer edges of the easements in staggered locations 3. There are no plantings proposed for the eastern edge of the site along highway 3. Staff is aware of a large grouping of native sumac trees in the side slope in the highway 3 right -of -way. These sumacs are usually hardy, but only reach a height of 6 -10 feet. Star' would recommend that some plantings be located in the 10 -foot gap between the internal private street and the nght- of -way edge to augment the sumacs. Park Dedication The Parks and Recreation Commission have recommended that no land be dedicated for parks. Therefore, park dedication will be cash based upon the number of units in the development. Grading Storm Water Ponds Much of the drainage from the site will be shifted to the north through the Glendalough project to a regional pond in the north. Oversizing of a pipe must occur to provide capacity for the site drainage There are is some on -site pondmg and ram gardens to permit rate control and water quality on site. A maintenance plan will be required for the rainwater gardens Engineering Review Comments for Grading, Storm Water Management and Utilities 1. The storm water modeling calculations for the site appear to meet the rate control and water quality treatment requirements in the City Plan (Comprehensive Storm water Management Plan). An outlet elevation from the pond should be defined to identify the elevation at which the water quality volume should be maintained 2. The infiltration calculations for the site were not included in the analysis and must be submitted. 3. Utilities should be shown to be located within the street areas. Drainage and utility easements will be requited over the proposed utilities. Anticipated Development Fees There will be a numbei of development fees that will apply to the property when it is developed. These fees are estimated based upon the plan as it was reviewed. Changes to the fees may occur with plan 10 revisions. Fees for storm water ponding can change depending if storm water is managed onsite or if ponding is available off -site. Trunk Sanitary Sewer Area Charge 4.5 acres $1,075 acre $4,837.50 Trunk Water Area Charge 4.5 acres $4,429 acre $19,890 00 Trunk Storm Water Area Charge 4.5 acres $6,200 acre $27,900 00 Storm Water Ponding Fee 4.5 acres $5,920 acre $26,640.00 GIS Fee 30 units $60 unit $1,800.00 Park Dedication 30 units $3,000 unit 90,000.00 The proposed storm water management plan for the project will utilve off -site pondmg available within the Glendalough development. Future storm sewer improvements within the Glendalough development will be upsized to accommodate flow from the site. The estimated off -site storm water pondmg fee provided elsewhere in this report is a preliminary estimate and may vary with the final amount of off -site pondmg capacity utilized. Rates are subject to change. Fees are reviewed each year and some are set by other agencies for example, Metropohtan Council Environmental Services sets the rate for Sewer Access Charges. CONCLUSION Staff is comfortable in recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Concept approval for the Rosemount Family Housing proposed by the Dakota County Community Development Agency. The concerns itennzed above can be resolved with plan revisions incorporated into the PUD master plan that would be the required next step. While there is a fair amount of detail m these concept plans, there would be a new series of review and a pubhc hearing for the PUD master plan incorporating the recommended revisions. 11