[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6186787,"mediaKeyId","5074267-7b0c998a00bdae1a16227eecc128fd61","parentId",5074267,"title","Planning commission reviews potential zoning ordinance tweaks on patios, event centers and screening","audioSeconds",2027,"startMs",3434000,"endMs",5461000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5074267-7b0c998a00bdae1a16227eecc128fd61&start=3434&end=5461","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5074267-7b0c998a00bdae1a16227eecc128fd61/thumbnail_3434000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6186787/Rosemount-City/Dakota-County/Minnesota/Planning-commission-reviews-potential-zoning-ordinance-tweaks-on-patios-event-centers-and-screening","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6186787-b275983d74a1eb2c5a68ff93e32ea6ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771192371&Signature=R0gvpyg-yIhFX1D733eWq7lPGX7qBtpOoWwkUWhGUvjkRD0NSbAtD9FqMvA~VLHLwq8~GxzN~pp4sEy9qHhC4bBOQUGZIDBCbdFoKMEO-19FlcO-tM3k8WzIBmn5PPc-AFTf3id3SlZEtPryEWMUKqSaICUDPGPIArwbeEGon35SYzwlGQnaBOpLGuRYpTX-zujqFMprUGO6ibw1qFCnfjJZgQBFBdHPB7rbx6IHD7K0TxAg3-n2Ykb3Ytvya5QZy9gcdUwBzOvpTTytiMcwtE7NSS3nP-WDCw3kwRTFbtI2LtVZgDdlqqUa84Avxa~AznDxKUkwCtJniWjjNhY2ag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Rosemount, MN","date","2025-06-25T13:20:42Z","article","At its June 24 meeting the Rosemount City Planning Commission held an informal discussion about several proposed amendments to the city zoning code, including rules for outdoor dining connected to liquor licenses, standards for commercial event centers in the agricultural district, and landscaping/screening requirements.

Why it matters: Staff framed the items as code “clean‑up” and solicitated commission feedback before drafting formal ordinance language. Changes could affect how restaurants and event venues operate outdoors, where event centers can locate and how screening and parking‑lot landscaping are measured and enforced.

Key topics and staff proposals: Planning staff (Julia) summarized three potential amendments: (1) update §11‑6‑8 (accessory uses) so the zoning code aligns with liquor‑license provisions (§3.1.14) on outdoor patios and fencing; (2) amend §11‑6‑3 (principal commercial uses) to clarify standards for commercial event centers, including whether the current 200‑guest cap should change and whether an owner must reside on the property; and (3) revise §11‑7‑6 (landscaping, screening and buffering) to simplify parking‑lot tree counting and require coniferous trees/shrubs if landscaping is used for screening while removing a specific opacity metric.

Patios and liquor licenses: Commissioners generally supported aligning zoning language with the liquor code to make patio management less restrictive and easier to administer. Staff said the difference emerged during recent liquor permit work for restaurants such as Las Tortillas; under the existing zoning language “an uninterrupted enclosure” with access only through the principal building can be hard to reconcile with modern outdoor dining layouts. “Allowing the city more flexibility in reviewing the patio would make it easier for more interesting places for people to go and eat and drink outside,” Julia said. Commissioners asked about nonconformity and whether existing businesses would need updated licensing; staff said changes would generally be less restrictive and would not require existing licenseholders to re‑sign contracts.

Commercial event centers: Commissioners debated whether the code should keep the current owner‑residency requirement and a 200‑guest cap. The rule was originally written to allow small farm‑based venues (barn weddings) in agricultural areas while limiting intensity. Some commissioners favored keeping a residency requirement as a control on intensity; others said requiring an owner to live on the site is unnecessary and would deter investment. The commission broadly endorsed the use of conditional use permits and site‑specific review to set guest caps, parking and other mitigation rather than an inflexible numeric maximum. As one commissioner summarized, “If the facility is able to hold more than 200 people based on … fire code requirements, then I don't see why we would limit that structure to that.” Staff will prepare draft language that preserves review criteria (parking, ingress/egress, neighbor impacts) and considers geographic boundaries where event centers are allowed.

Landscaping, screening and buffering: Staff proposed allowing parking‑lot trees to count toward the overall site landscaping requirement (currently they are counted separately), a change commissioners supported to simplify requirements and reduce developer confusion. On screening staff suggested requiring coniferous trees/shrubs when landscaping is used for screening but removing a fixed “90% opacity” metric because enforcement and measurement are difficult. Commissioners asked staff to return with more prescriptive, enforceable options—such as minimum planting heights, caliper/height specifications, or spacing counts—and to check peer city practices. Several commissioners noted past cases where plantings failed or did not achieve expected opacity and said rules should focus on durable outcomes and maintenance obligations.

Next steps: Staff will return with draft ordinance language that reflects the commission’s feedback; any formal changes would proceed through public hearings and a council ordinance process.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting - June 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners discussed possible code amendments to align patio rules with liquor licensing, to reconsider limits and residency rules for commercial event centers, and to clarify landscape screening requirements; staff will return with draft ordinance language.","taxTitle","Rosemount City, Dakota County, Minnesota","taxId",63709,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6186792,"Rosemount planning commission recommends council approve Aspen Fields land use amendment, rezoning and preliminary plat",3231,182000,3413000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5074267-7b0c998a00bdae1a16227eecc128fd61&start=182&end=3413","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5074267-7b0c998a00bdae1a16227eecc128fd61/thumbnail_182000.jpg","/articles/6186792/Rosemount-City/Dakota-County/Minnesota/Rosemount-planning-commission-recommends-council-approve-Aspen-Fields-land-use-amendment-rezoning-and-preliminary-plat","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6186792-0fe38f32ae36f6f2908adb34a8304bf4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771192371&Signature=P4Lp20zW5tHzgcaAIWiZ~3u3gbLaMjAAKHWBvalzOv9U1fZLkngvVttiSQAisNO4qeFCFw4cKLj3-DNW3IEAfEkQy906O3bqUoFFrCKH-BCKkgunQJl-LLKuCncVn-EUvpMuN1e6aP4HIAzgAbY1ZUSB3RCgkBULK6ojrZZaDBbaUfLbP2MdV3Lvq4LBdA1H8-fhJpsaaRj-4E4vcONDzfpO3sIiaUj2qVroT0qh5ILi80qwg~15GTwCrFEtkTzTY2cMALSDelj7Bkjcbbg11TiUYjQzXraz5g-5wdJbIQryYZLpwA3kFTt4ltlNWf9Zj85wZIvkHCySq~I3GyRYMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rosemount City Planning Commission on June 24 recommended that City Council approve a comprehensive land use plan amendment, a rezoning and a preliminary plat for the Aspen Fields development on the former City Hall site on the city’s east side.

The commission voted, by voice, to forward three recommendations: (1) change the site’s designation in the 2040 comprehensive plan from public institutional to community commercial and high‑density residential; (2) rezone the site from public institutional (PI) to B‑1 (general business) and R‑4 (high‑density residential); and (3) approve a preliminary plat that divides the roughly 10‑acre property into four buildable lots (three commercial, one multifamily) plus an outlot for stormwater. Chair Reid and commissioners voted in favor; no recorded nays were raised during the roll calls and each motion passed.

Why it matters: The site, previously owned by Dakota County Technical College and used for city functions, sits north of DCTC and immediately east of the Lifetime Fitness facility along County Road 42. The applicant, Aspen Field LLC (represented at the hearing by John Anderson), proposes two small retail strip buildings, a daycare and a multifamily parcel. Staff told the commission the mix is intended to increase rooftops near 42 and Akron Avenue to better support nearby commercial development and transit expansion described in the city’s comp plan.

Planning staff presentation and applicant comments: Planning staff opened the public hearing with a detailed review of the three requests and how they relate to the 2040 comp plan, explaining that the amendment is legislative in nature while the plat is quasi‑judicial. Anthony (city planning staff) said the amendment would change the land‑use designation from “public institutional” to “community commercial and high‑density residential” and described the applicant’s preliminary plat showing three commercial parcels and one multifamily parcel. “There would be two retail strip centers and a daycare facility,” Anthony said. He noted constraints on the site including two existing wells that require a 50‑foot undisturbed buffer and a pipeline easement crossing the northeast parcel.

Applicant John Anderson said the developer has a letter of intent with a daycare buyer and is negotiating with potential buyers for the multifamily parcel, including discussion of a 55‑plus building. Anderson said the vacated pipeline easement owner has verbally agreed to allow parking lots to be placed over the easement and to allow encroachment up to 10 feet from the easement centerline, but that a written agreement remains to be completed. “We can place the parking lots over that easement, and we can encroach on one side of the easement up to 10 feet from the center line,” Anderson said.

Resident concerns: During the public comment period multiple residents raised traffic and safety concerns. Melvin Evans (14349 Alder Way) questioned how many apartments would be required to attract commercial retailers and expressed worry about added traffic on County Road 42, the train crossing and new roundabouts. Ashley Lopez (14371 Aspen Avenue) said traffic associated with Lifetime Fitness already creates safety problems on her corner and asked what measures will protect pedestrians and cyclists if the new development adds residential and commercial traffic. Vesna (last name not provided) also said the area’s infrastructure “does not support what is going in already” and urged more commercial rather than additional apartments.

Staff responses and conditions: Anthony and other staff replied that commercial decisions are market driven, that the city cannot require a specific business (for example, it cannot compel a Burger King to locate), and that traffic effects will be reviewed when individual site and building plans and any planned unit developments come forward. Staff recommended a fee in lieu of park land dedication: as presented staff estimated a commercial fee of about $40,500 and an illustrative residential fee based on a notional 150 units at $2,000 per unit totaling $375,000; staff recommended fees be collected at building permit rather than at plat.

Access, utilities and off‑site improvements: The preliminary plat shows three access points: a separate Aspen Avenue access for the daycare, an Aspen access tied to a private east‑west road serving the apartment parking and a Connemara Trail access. Aspen Avenue will remain a right‑in/right‑out approach. Staff recommended the developer install a sidewalk to the northern boundary of the subject property (revising the staff report language to stop at the city‑owned parcel rather than requiring sidewalk to Connemara Trail). The site will use a private street for internal circulation and will connect sewer and water to stubs in Aspen Avenue. Stormwater will be handled in an outlot at the southeast corner.

Commission action: Commissioner Rivera moved to recommend Council approve the comprehensive plan amendment; Commissioner Biedner seconded and the motion passed by voice vote. Commissioner Ellis moved to recommend the rezoning (B‑1 and R‑4) conditioned on Council approval of the comp plan amendment; Commissioner Arnab seconded and the motion passed. Chair Reid moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the rezoning and the staff conditions (including the sidewalk wording change); Commissioner Biedner seconded and that motion also passed.

What’s next: The applicant still needs to address engineering review comments, finalize agreements related to the pipeline easement and well rights, and then take the final plat and any planned unit development or site‑and‑building plans to the City Council and future public hearings. Staff noted MVTA plans to extend transit service to the Dakota County Technical College station, which the applicant and staff cited as supportive of higher‑density residential near transit.","The Rosemount City Planning Commission voted June 24 to recommend that City Council approve a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning and preliminary plat for the Aspen Fields development on the former city hall site, sending three motions forward after a public hearing with residents pressing traffic and safety concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission reviews potential zoning ordinance tweaks on patios, event centers and screening

Rosemount planning commission recommends council approve Aspen Fields land use amendment, rezoning and preliminary plat