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

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.