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
â˘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