Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.b. Vacation of te Drainage and Utility Easements on Outlot D of Evermoor Glendalough 7th Addition, 06-57-FPAGENDA ITEM: Vacation of the Drainage and Utility Easements Outlot D of Evermoor Glendalough 7 Addition AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, AICP; Senior Planner AGENDA NO. `I. b. ATTACHMENTS: Vacation Resolution, Rosemount Family Housing Final Plat, Evermoor Glendalough 7 Addition Final Plat APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the vacatio of the drainage and utility easements on Outlot D of Evermoor Glendalough 7 Addition subject to one condition: 1 The vacation of the drainage and utility easements on Outlot D of Evermoor Glendalough 7 Addition is effective only upon the recording of the Final Plat of Rosemount Family Housing 4 ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: January 16, 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ISSUE On May 16, 2006, the City approved the Evermoor Glendalough 7 Addition for US Homes, which included "Outlot D" in the southeast corner of the plat, m the general location of the former Dodd Bvld connection to Connemara Trail. As an outlot, and therefore undevelopable, a drainage and utility easement was recorded over the entire Outlot D. On December 19, 2006, the City approved the Rosemount Family Housing Preliminary Plat which would allow the Rosemount Family Housmg Limited Partnership (RFH), with Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) as its General Partner, to construct 32 townhomes. The plat included a parcel located at the northwest corner of Connemara Trail and South Robert Trail and a portion of Oudot D of the Evermoor Glendalough 7t Addition. The purchase of the portion of Outlot D was necessary to realign Dodd Bvld and provide a connection from both Rosemount Family Housing and eventually the Glendalough neighborhood to Connemara Trail. On the consent agenda is the final plat approval for Rosemount Family Housing. Before the Final Plat can be recorded, the drainage and utility easement over Outlot D of Evermoor Glendalough T Addition must be vacated. The final plat contains three oudots; Outlots A and B will be owned by the RFH and Oudot C will remain m the ownership of US Homes for the eventual development of the Glendalough neighborhood. All three outlots will be recorded with drainage and utility easements over them. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the approval of the easement vacation with one condition. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION APPROVINGTHE VACATION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OF OUTLOT D, EVERMOOR GLENDALOUGH 7 ADDITION WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an apphcation from Rosemount Family Housing Limited Partnership requesting Preliminary Plat and Final Plat concernmg the former Ostertag parcel and Outlot D of Evermoor Glendalough 7th Addition into one lot and three outlots, legally described as: That part of the following descnption of property lying north 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 he 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 terrmnating, Dakota County, Minnesota. AND Outlot D, Evermoor Glendalough 7th Addition, Dakota County WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Rosemount Family Housing; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a pubhc hearing for review of the Prehnunary Plat and Final Plat apphcation as required by Ordinance B, the Subdivision Regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Prelumnary Plat and Final Plat subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2006, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat subject to conditions, and WHEREAS, the vacation of the existing drainage and utility easements of Outlot D, Evermoor Glendalough 7th Addition is requited before the Final Plat can be recorded for Rosemount Family Housing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the Vacation of the Drainage and Utility Easements of Outlot D, Evermoor Glendalough 7th Addition legally described as subject to: RESOLUTION 2007 A drainage and utility easement vacation over, under, and across all that part of Outlot D, EVERMOOR GLENDALOUGH 7TH ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. 1. The Vacation of the Drainage and Utihty Easements of Outlot D, Evermoor Glendalough 7th Addition is effective only upon the recording of the Final Plat of Rosemount Family Housing. ADOPTED this 16t day of January, 2007 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk William H. Droste, Mayor Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member absent: 2 93 5 00 s II *!U I iF NORM A A/ ...:IV:4.1 Q% 1l 737 76 N885747'E ,ryin Of Lry baryon 5ryon 2, Try III N "E j 48 50 Cry, 0 x •ISCLIYI Obeli 1139191fN fNNRWO 830NnN SNMV O Motion by Droste. Second by Sterner. ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Rosemount City Council was duly held on Tuesday, November 21, 2006, at 7:30 p m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 2875 145`" Street West Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members Sterner, Baxter, DeBettigmes, and Shoe Corrigan attending. Staff members present were City Administrator Verbrugge, Community Development Director Lindquist, City Engineer Brotzler, Project Engineer Dawley, Senior Planner Zweber, City Attorney LeFevere, Finance Director May, Assistant City Administrator Foster, Communications Coordinator Cox and City Clerk Domeier. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA City Administrator Verbrugge stated that Item 6.d JJT Business Park 2n Addition Preliminary Plat and Final Plat, 06 -49 -PP and 06 -50 -FP has been removed from the Consent Agenda to January 16, 2006 along with Item 7.d. JJT Business Park 1" Addition Easement Vacation, 06- 50 -FP. He requested that the pubhc hearing for Item 7 d be opened to allow for public testimony and continued to January 16, 2006 Mr. Verbrugge stated additional information was provided for Item 8 a Continued Assessment Hearing GlenRose of Rosemount, City Project #397 and Item 9.a. Manufactured Home Park Text Amendment, 06- 05 -TA. Motion to adopt the Agenda with Item 6.d. removed and with additional information for Items 7.a 8 a and 9 a Ayes: 7. Nays: 0. Motion carried. DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS /BUSINESS 5.a. Police Officer Oath of Office Police Chief Kalstabakken took great pleasure in introducing Scott Sandell. He stated the hiring process began in August where Officer Sandell exhibited his people skills and writing skills. Mr. Kalstabakken stated Officer Sandell's education history and noted he comes from a family of law enforcement officials. Mayor Droste administered the oath of office to Scott Sandell. Mayor Droste welcomed Mr. Sandell to the Rosemount Police Department. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Baxter. Second by DeBettignies. Motion to approve the Consent Agenda Items 6 a., 6.b and 6.c. a. Bills Listing b. 10 -year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Working Program c. Expenditure Approval from the Donation Account Parks Recreation Dept 47 JJT Busl..cs3 Park 2 Additi n Prclunina y and Phial Plat, 06 19 PP and 06 50 Fp Ayes: DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Sterner, Baxter. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings 7.a. JJT Business Park V Addition Easement Vacation, 06 -50 -FP City Engineer Brotzler stated that the easement proposed was platted with the first addition project With the proposed plat for the 2n Addition, the landowner /developer is proposing to replat an outlot that was platted within the 1" Addition. In order to do so, there is a need to vacate the drainage and utility easement that is m place over the entire Outlot A. Mayor Droste opened the Pubhc Hearing. Julie Martini, representing the owners of MRCI, 15191 Boulder Court, Rosemount, questioned if vacating the easement would have any affect upon the drainage or access to the MRCI site. Mr Brotzler stated there would be no impact on the MRCI site Motion by DeBettignies Second by Sterner. Motion to contmue the Pubhc Hearing until January 16, 2007. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion carried. ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 OLD BUSINESS 8.a. Continued Assessment Hearing GlenRose of Rosemount, City Project #397 City Engineer Brotzler stated the assessment hearing was continued from the October 17 City Council meeting At that time, the City Council tabled the item for further discussion at the November 1 Special Work Session. Mr Brotzler provided a bnef recap of the discussion at the November 1 Work Session. He stated the pnmary matter the City Council was considenng was the funding of the proposed easement acquisition The primary change for the easement that was acquired from Hidden Valley was the proposed funding of 50% to the City, 25% to the developer and 25% from assessments to the adjacent property owners to the proposed cost to be funded 100% by the City. The net effect that has on the project funding and proposed assessments was provided m table 2 of the City Council packet Mr. Brotzler described the net effect on the per unit assessment rates The assessment rates that were proposed were included m the assessment rolls He added a draft response letter was provided to the City Council with the intent to finalize and mail out to the property owner following the meeting City Adnunistrator Verbrugge noted that a majonty vote is needed in order to adopt the assessment roll. Motion by DeBettignies. Second by Baxter. ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Motion to Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for the GlenRose of Rosemount Street and Utility Improvements, City Project #397. Council Member Sterner questioned the procedure scheduled to take place on November 22, 2006 Mr Brotzler responded that there was a commissioner's hearing for the commendation scheduled for November 22 Due to the tuning of the project, the City did authorize condemnation so it is necessary for the commissioner's to meet and sign off on the settlement that was reached after the court process was started. He added the process is a formality that must occur before the release of payment. Ayes: Droste, Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies. Nays: Shoe Corrigan. Motion carried. (Resolution 2006 -118) NEW BUSINESS 9.a. Manufactured Home Park Zoning and Property Maintenance Ordinance Text Amendments, 06- 05 -TA. Senior Planner Zweber reviewed the staff report and outlined the changes to the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that three items suggested during the public hearing process were not included in the ordinance. The items included the reimbursement for moving of accessory structures, removal of the maximum cap, and the supplemental payment for the increase in housing costs. Council Member Steiner stated that while Bloomington had a 20% cap, Elk River did not have a cap and it was not court challenged. Mr. Zweber responded that a majority of the Cities had a 20D/0 cap based upon Information received from APAC. Council Member Baxter questioned the functional difference if there was no cap. Mr. Zweber stated it was possible that if every mobile home needed to be purchased instead of moving the homes, 100% of the value of the park could be considered an eligible expense thereby making the reimbursable value equal to the property cost, removing all value of the property Council Member Baxter also questioned how to determine what percentage is reasonable. City Attorney LeFevere stated that under the current ordinance there would be no one to determine what the cap is for paying for relocation costs. He added there was no procedure for administrative approval of a cap which could cause a challenge, depending upon the eligible costs, which would go before the Court At that time, the Court would decide if the City adopted ordinance is reasonable. Community Development Director Lindquist added that m part raises the question from the previous work session. The City will not understand the ramifications of having or not having a cap until they are actually in the process. Without a cap, the City will have no idea what the eligible relocations costs amount to until people determine whether they will relocate or sell their residence By that nine it will be too late to set a cap Mr. LeFevere stated with a cap, you start with a dollar figure divided by the ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 amount of residents and if the claim is larger and there is money left after the first go around, it can be distributed again He added there is no way of recovering money that has already been paid. Mr. LeFevere further stated if you did not have a cap there is a potential for problems with adnumstrattng the expenses. Council Member Baxter stated he believes the mobile home park is an asset to the community meeting He added that the Planning Commission and the Community Development staff have done a good lob and he will vote for the ordinance. He has spent time reading on the cap issue and finds the 25% cap is reasonable and will do a good lob of protecting residents than an Ordinance without a cap He added that Rosemount is making the right step in addressing the current legislation Mr. LeFevere noted there has not been a direct percentage by any court that is permissible but if future court cases give more leverage, the ordinance could be amended in the future. Mayor Droste stated he will support the Ordinance but stated his concern with having too many rules and regulations that may potentially make mobile home park rates rise. While the ordinance may protect residents in the short term he cautioned the adverse effects in the long term. Council Member Shoe Corrigan questioned the opportunity to go without a cap. She was concerned if the cap could go up or down depending upon what was negotiated Since the City does not know what the land would be worth if it was ever redeveloped, no cap would give future City Councils and homeowners more of a chance for a higher cap or maybe even a lower cap She suggested that the reasonableness could be determined at the closing. Ms. Lindquist stated if there is no Ordinance in place, the City would follow the state rules by holding a public hearing to set up the process that we lust spent several months discussing. Council Member Shoe Corrigan questioned how the City could provide flexibility relating to the aging and maintaining of the homes. Ms. Lindquist responded that the City would have an opportunity to review the Ordinance prior to implementation Council Member Shoe Corrigan suggested leaving the cap out and to put in a mechanism that would tugger a hearing process and a cap could be determined at that time She added that Language should be included to set an evaluation prior to redevelopment or sale of the property and the Council and community would have the authority to look at the ordinance Mayor Droste questioned if residents have the right of first refusal Mr. Zweber responded that the park owner shall provide each of the residents with a 45 -day written notice of the purchaser's intent to dose the park or convert it to another use. A public hearing takes place after written notice from park owner of the intent to relocate. Council Member DeBettigtues stated by having language that includes no cap, the City needs to evaluate the sides of the resident and the property owner. Right now, everything is purely speculation. Mr. LeFevere stated the City can be challenged on changing the ordinance but the consequences are unknown. 1 Mayor Droste cautioned modification may be made at the State level and it would not be to the City's advantage to get to aggressive Right now, the City is trying to guess the market flow of the money Council Member Sterner stated a 25% cap is to low but he would support a 30% cap or no cap. Council Member Shoe Corrigan suggested a 25 cap with additional language that the City Council would take public testimony at the tune of sale Mayor Droste supported no cap while realizing if a cap would be triggered a pubhc heating would be held to develop a cap number. Council Member Baxter support Mayor Droste's statement stating he would be more comfortable with no cap. Ms. Lindquist noted it was a policy decision but from an administration standpoint there was concern with starting without a cap. She suggested starting with the basis for a negotiation instead of a wide open discussion Mayor Droste questioned if 20% cap would be a reasonable base number and to address it at the time of a public hearing Mr. LeFevere suggested that language be added into the pubhc hearing process that one of the areas included be what is reasonable relocation expenses so that the City Council would have a forum for people to come in and present information on what is reasonable Council Member Baxter stated a 25 cap is reasonable but City Council reserves the right through the future pubhc hearing process to revise the cap amount. Council Member Shoe Corrigan agreed with Council Member Baxter Mayor Droste suggested a 20% cap. Mr LeFevere suggested revising the language and bringing it back for approval on December 5. Mayor Droste requested that the public heating process be defined Motion by Baxter. Second by Shoe Corrigan. Motion to table the Ordinance to December 5 ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Ayes: Droste, Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan. Nays: None. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Verbrugge congratulated Mayor Droste, Council Member DeBettignies and Council Member Shoe Corrigan on their reelection to the Rosemount City Council. He further congratulated the other candidates that came forward and their efforts in running for the City Council. The City of Rosemount had a 75 °/o voter turnout. Mayor Droste announced the upcoming City meetings in December. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Droste moved to adjourn the meeting at 9 03 p m. Second by Sterner. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned Respectfully submitted, Amy Domeier, City Clerk December 29, 2006 Dear Mr. Lindahl: DEVELOPERS APPRO DEVELOPMENT INC. 21476 Grenada Avenue Lakeville, Minnesota 55044 Phone: (952) 469 -2171 Fax: (952) 469 E Mail: office @approdevelopmentcom Website: www.approdevelopmentcom Mr. Jason Lindahl, Planner City of Rosemount 2875 145` Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 RE: Preliminary and Final Plat applications Lot 1, Block 1, JJT Business Park Second Addition Site Plan Review application Lot 1, Block 1, JJT Business Park Second Addition Property Identification number: 34 03210 010 35 We the applicant, APPRO Development Inc, hereby request the preliminary and final plat applications for JJT Business Park Second Addition be tabled by the City Council until approximately April 17, 2007. Subsequently, we request that the City of Rosemount take action on the Industrial Surplus administrative site plan application as soon as possible following action on the preliminary and final plat applications. Given this request, we hereby waive the 120 and 60 day statutory review periods for the above listed applications and request that the City of Rosemount act on the above stated applications no later than June 20, 2007. This project is part of a 1031 real estate exchange. The H E Kuretsky Family Trust currently has an offer on their existing Minneapolis property that needs to go through a 90 -day due diligence period and this is why we are requesting a continuance to April 17, 2007. Please contact me with any questions or the need for additional information on this request. Again, w appreciate your time and review regarding the above listed applications. Sincerely, Jack D. Matasosky, cEO Heidi Winsor APPRO Development, Inc. APPRO Development, Inc. L cc: Howard Kuretsky David Kuretsky Tom Alexander John Gambell Bruce Rydeen Peter Glashagel ARCHITECTS CONTRACTORS