HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.h. Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd Addition Final Plat, DR HortonNoo18 jo pue uaaylnos ay} le Isol uaaq seq lol eup quelslsuoo aq of punol Alleaaua6 pue geld
tieu!ua!laad panoidde aul yl!m paiedwoo uaaq sey leld leug ay1 - slot awoyumol payoelap
£Z leld o} uoli!ppy pU Z i}oaossoaO a01 lenoadde leld leug slsanbaa 'uolaoH 210 'lueo!idde ay1
Auvwwns
and aoouaa9A3 V Al!suaa mol :6uluoZ luannO
•slol ewoqumol Pegoelaa £Z :sl!un/slol jo aagwnN
- asnOH
gnlO :4oaossoao aul jo glnos pue `anuany 74ojossoaO to
isee 'Aemn jed aoouaa9A310 is9m `I!eal eaeuaauuoO }o;PON :uoileool
uolaoH pia :(s)jeumo A:padoad 12 lueo!lddy
aNnoijcmovs
uo!i!ppy pU Z 740JOSSOJO aoouaa9A3
aol lu9uaaaJ6e uo!s!Aipgns ayj jo lenoadde pue Ienoidde geld leug 6u!isenbaa si lueo!ldde ayl
3nss1
:NOIlOV
tOOZ `L aunt :alea 6u!leaW llounoO A4!0
N0113V HOA AmvwwnS 3AlinO3X3
1NnOMS021 :10 A113
uo!i!ppy p uZ 740JOssoaO
aoouaa9A3 a01 luaua9 9J6y uo!s!A!pgng ayl anoidde of uoijoW
- suoll!puoo of loa(gns
uoli!ppy puZ i}oJossoaa
JoouaJaA3 jo} jeld leu!} aul 6u!Aoidde uoilnlosai a 1dope of uol4oW
:N0113V a3aN3WW033M
uolinlosaU luauapuauay and JoouaJ9A3
`00 1 9 00 L -L salnulW '0•d '00
salnulW 'O'O `00 L - t , solnuilN •O•d `uoilnloseU
leld keulwIlWd `suo!lonpa2l leld leu!4
leld leu!d `dew uo!leool `t O - t , solnu!lN
AU a3AONddd
'O'd `lu 9ua99a6 y uo!s!A!pgng `uoilnlosoU :S1N3WHOV.Ll.V
b
Jauueld �l!O luels!ssy "d•O•I'd `IUepu!l uoser :AG a3NVd3Md
luasuoO
uolaoH ba
:NO1133S daN30V
leld leu!d uoli!ppy p - 40aossOJO aoouaJ9A3 :W311 daN3Jd
tOOZ `L aunt :alea 6u!leaW llounoO A4!0
N0113V HOA AmvwwnS 3AlinO3X3
1NnOMS021 :10 A113
2 to create additional area within Outlot C fora pedestrian underpass underneath Connemara
Trail. Another lot was lost to create Outlot B which will provide a pedestrian connection to the
development's club house. Finally, the applicant gained one lot when the northern
connection from Outlot C to the private street was removed. As a result, staff recommends
consent approval for this item.
The Planning Commission reviewed this item during their April 27, 2004 meeting. Minutes
from that meeting are attached for your reference. Note that these minutes reflect that the
Engineering staff amended condition three to withdraw their recommendation for a 20 -foot
wide drainage and utility easement between Lots 4 and 5, Block 2. The Commission
approved this amendment and unanimously recommended approval of this item.
2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2004 -
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT
FOR EVERMOOR CROSSCROFT 2 ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application from D.R. Horton — Minnesota requesting Final Plat approval for the Evermoor
Crosscroft 2nd Addition, legally described as:
Outlot E, EVERMOOR CROSSCROFT, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County,
Minnesota.
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed
the Final Plat for Evermoor Crosscroft 2 nd Addition for detached townhouses in the area north of
Connemara Trail and west of Evermoor Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount found the Evermoor
Crosscroft 2 nd Addition Final Plat consistent with the Preliminary Plat as it was approved; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend that the City Council
approve the Final Plat for Evermoor Crosscroft 2 nd Addition, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2004, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission's recommendation and the Final Plat for Evermoor Crosscroft 2 nd Addition; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of- Rosemount hereby
approves the Final Plat for Evermoor Crosscroft 2 °d Addition, subject to:
1. Execution of the Subdivision Development Agreement for Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd
Addition.
2. Payment of all other development associated fees in conformance with the current fee
schedule including but not limited to G. I. S., Storm Water Access & Trunk, Water and
Sewer Access Charges,
3. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer.
ADOPTED this I" day of June 2004 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
RESOLUTION 2004 -
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by: Second by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
2
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd Addition
AGREEMENT dated day of , 2004, by and between the CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, ( "City "), and D. R. Horton, Inc., (the "Developer ").
1. Request for Plat Approval The Developer has asked the City to approve the subdivision of land
and a plat of land to be known as Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd Addition, which land is legally
described on Attachment One, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (hereinafter referred
to as the "subject property")
2. Conditions of Plat Approval The City has approved the subdivision and the plat on the
following conditions:
a. Incorporation of recommendations of the City Engineer concerning design and installation of
public infrastructure and including grading, erosion control, streets and utilities.
b. Execution of a Subdivision or Development Agreement to secure the public and private
improvements.
c. Payment of all applicable fees including G.I.S., Park Dedication and other fees identified in the
current fee schedule.
d. Incorporation of any easements necessary to accommodate drainage, ponding, trails,
conservation areas, streets and utilities.
3. Phased Development The City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent additions of the
plat if the Developer has breached this Contract and the breach has not been remedied.
Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Subdivision Agreements for such phases
are approved by the City.
4. Effect of Subdivision Approval For two (2) years from the date of this Agreement, no
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the
current urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density,
lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or
agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this
Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require
compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan, official controls,
platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement.
5. Development Plans The subject property shall be developed in accordance with the following
plans, original copies of which are on file with the City Public Works Director. The plans may be
J prepared, subject to City approval, after entering this Agreement, but before commencement of any
work on the Subject Property. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the
written terms shall control. The plans are:
Plan A -- " Plat
Plan B -- Soil Erosion Control Plan and Schedule
Plan C -- Drainage and Storm Water Runoff Plan
1
Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd
05/6/04
Plan D -- Plans and Specifications for Public Improvements
Plan E -- Grading Plan and House Pad Elevations
Plan F -- Street Lights
Plan G -- Landscape Improvements
6. Installation by Developer The Developer: shall install or cause to be installed and pay for the
following:
A. Street Lights
B. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
C. Surveying and Staking of work required to be performed by the Developer.
D. Gas, Electric, Telephone, and Cable Lines
E. Site Grading
F. Landscaping
(Hereinafter referred to as the "Developer Improvements ")
And other items as necessary to complete the development as stipulated herein or in other
agreements.
7. Time of Performance The Developer shall install all required improvements enumerated in
Paragraph 6 which will serve the subject property by June 1, 2005. The Developer may, however,
request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon
updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended
completion date.
8. Public Infrastructure The following improvements, known as City Project #388, shall be
designed, inspected, surveyed and administered by the City and installed in the Subject Property at
Developer expense by a Contractor selected by the City through the public bidding process:
A. Sanitary Sewer
B. Watermain
C. Storm Sewer
D. Streets
E. Sidewalks/Pathways
(Hereinafter referred to as "Public Infrastructure Improvements ")
The attached figure shows the area within which the Public Infrastructure Improvements will be
constructed pursuant to this Paragraph. Contracts shall provide for construction in accordance with
plans and specifications prepared by the City or its consultants. The City will not enter into such
contracts until all conditions of plat and subdivision approval have been met, the plat is recorded and
the City has received the bonds and security required by this agreement.
The City will obtain any necessary permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Department of Health and all other agencies before proceeding with construction.
2
Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd
05/6/04
9. Deposit for Cost of Public Infrastructure Improvements For the purpose of financing the
construction, installation and maintenance of the Public Infrastructure Improvements, Developer
shall promptly make payments to the City of sums deemed necessary by the City to make timely
payments to its contractor as follows:
a. Prior to the receipt by the City of bids for the Public Infrastructure Improvements, Developer
will. pay to the City a cash deposit in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($150,000) to cover one or more periodic payments to the City's contractor. Such
deposit and later payments to the deposit as provided in this paragraph will beheld by the
City and used to pay the City's contractor for Public Infrastructure Improvements and no
other purpose.
b. From time to time as the City's construction of the Public Infrastructure Improvements
proceeds and the amount held in the Developer's deposit is diminished by payments to the
City's contractor, the City will give written notice specifying an amount due from the
Developer to replenish the deposit, as determined by the City to be necessary to cover one or
more periodic payments to the City's contractor. Payments shall be due no later than five (5)
working days after receipt of notice by the Developer.
C. No interest will be paid or credited to Developer on funds held by the City in the deposit.
Following final payment for Public Infrastructure Improvements the City will return any
unused funds in the deposit to Developer.
d. Upon execution of this Agreement, Developer will provide a letter of credit in form
satisfactory to the City in the amount of Two Hundred Twenty -nine Thousand, Five Hundred
Dollars ($229,500) (which is 110% of the estimated construction costs ($345,000) less the
initial deposit), conditioned on the prompt and faithful performance by Developer of its
obligations under this paragraph 9. This letter of credit may be combined with any other
letter of credit given to secure performance under this Agreement provided the form thereof
is approved by the City.
e. In the event City does not recover its costs for completing the Public Infrastructure
Improvements under the provisions of this paragraph, as an' additional remedy, City may, at
its option, assess the Subject Property in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
429, and Developer hereby consents to the levy of such special assessments without notice or
hearing and waives its rights to appeal such assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.081, provided the amount levied, together with the funds deposited with the City
under this paragraph, does not exceed the expenses actually incurred by the City in the
completion of the Public Infrastructure Improvements.
10. Security for Developer Improvements To guarantee compliance with the terms of this
Agreement, payment of the costs of all Developer Improvements and construction of all Developer
Improvements (as noted in Paragraph 6), the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or
two (2) individual irrevocable letters of credit from a bank ( "security ") for:
a.) $35,200 Landscaping
3 Evermoor Crosseroft 2nd
05/6/04
b.) $30,250 All Other Improvements
which is 110% of the estimated cost of the Developer Improvements. The amount of the security
was calculated as follows:
Refer to Exhibit A for an explanation of each item.
The bank and form of the letter of credit or other security shall be subject to the approval of the City
Administrator. The letter of credit shall be automatically renewable until the City releases the
developer from responsibility. The letter of credit shall secure compliance with the terms of this
Agreement and all obligations of the Developer under it. The City may draw down on the lettex of
credit without notice if the obligations of the Developer have not been completed as required by this
Agreement. In the event of a default under this Subdivision Agreement by the Developer, the City
shall furnish the Developer with written notice by certified mail of Developers default(s) under the
terms of this Subdivision Agreement. If the Developer does not remove said default(s) within two
(2) weeks of receiving notice; the City may draw on the letter of credit. With City approval the letter
of credit may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid and developer installed
improvements completed to the City's requirements.
11. Grading Plan /Site Grading Site grading shall be completed by the developer at its cost and
approved by the City Public Works Director. The completion of grading activities will need to be
coordinated by the City in conjunction with the installation of utilities. Developer shall furnish the
City Public Works Director satisfactory proof of payment for the site grading work and shall submit
a certificate of survey of the development to the City as the site grading is completed by phase, with
street and lot grades. If the installation of utilities is occurring simultaneously with the grading, the
4 Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd
05/6/04
Cost
110%
Landscaping
32,000
35,200
Grading & Erosion Control
.00
.00
Pond Restoration and Erosion
Control Removal
.00
.00
Survey Monumentation
11,500
12,650
Retaining Walls
.00
.00
Street Lighting (4 lights)
16,000
17,600
Buffer Monumentation
.00
.00
Park Equipment/Improvements
.00
.00
Wetland Restoration/Mitigation
.00
.00
Wetland Monitoring
.00
.00
Total
27,500
30,250
Refer to Exhibit A for an explanation of each item.
The bank and form of the letter of credit or other security shall be subject to the approval of the City
Administrator. The letter of credit shall be automatically renewable until the City releases the
developer from responsibility. The letter of credit shall secure compliance with the terms of this
Agreement and all obligations of the Developer under it. The City may draw down on the lettex of
credit without notice if the obligations of the Developer have not been completed as required by this
Agreement. In the event of a default under this Subdivision Agreement by the Developer, the City
shall furnish the Developer with written notice by certified mail of Developers default(s) under the
terms of this Subdivision Agreement. If the Developer does not remove said default(s) within two
(2) weeks of receiving notice; the City may draw on the letter of credit. With City approval the letter
of credit may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid and developer installed
improvements completed to the City's requirements.
11. Grading Plan /Site Grading Site grading shall be completed by the developer at its cost and
approved by the City Public Works Director. The completion of grading activities will need to be
coordinated by the City in conjunction with the installation of utilities. Developer shall furnish the
City Public Works Director satisfactory proof of payment for the site grading work and shall submit
a certificate of survey of the development to the City as the site grading is completed by phase, with
street and lot grades. If the installation of utilities is occurring simultaneously with the grading, the
4 Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd
05/6/04
Cost
110%
Landscaping
32,000
35,200
Total
1 32,000
35,200
Refer to Exhibit A for an explanation of each item.
The bank and form of the letter of credit or other security shall be subject to the approval of the City
Administrator. The letter of credit shall be automatically renewable until the City releases the
developer from responsibility. The letter of credit shall secure compliance with the terms of this
Agreement and all obligations of the Developer under it. The City may draw down on the lettex of
credit without notice if the obligations of the Developer have not been completed as required by this
Agreement. In the event of a default under this Subdivision Agreement by the Developer, the City
shall furnish the Developer with written notice by certified mail of Developers default(s) under the
terms of this Subdivision Agreement. If the Developer does not remove said default(s) within two
(2) weeks of receiving notice; the City may draw on the letter of credit. With City approval the letter
of credit may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid and developer installed
improvements completed to the City's requirements.
11. Grading Plan /Site Grading Site grading shall be completed by the developer at its cost and
approved by the City Public Works Director. The completion of grading activities will need to be
coordinated by the City in conjunction with the installation of utilities. Developer shall furnish the
City Public Works Director satisfactory proof of payment for the site grading work and shall submit
a certificate of survey of the development to the City as the site grading is completed by phase, with
street and lot grades. If the installation of utilities is occurring simultaneously with the grading, the
4 Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd
05/6/04
12.
13.
utility contractor shall have preference over the grading activities. No substantial grading activities
can be completed over installed utilities unless otherwise protected. All improvements to the lots
and the final grading shall comply with the grading plan as submitted and shall be the responsibility
of the Developer.
License The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a
license to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the
City during the installation of Public Infrastructure Improvements.
Erosion Control Prior to site grading, and before any utility construction is commenced or building
permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected and approved
by the City. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded within
72 hours after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion
control plan, seed shall be rye grass or other fast - growing seed suitable to the existing soil to provide
a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be mulched and disc
anchored as necessary for seed retention.
All - basement and/or foundation excavation spoil piles shall be kept completely off City right -of -way
and shall be completely surrounded with an approved erosion control silt fence. Approved erosion
control fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of each lot or at City approved locations at the
time of building permit issuance and remain in place until the lot is seeded or sodded. A 20 -foot
opening will be allowed on each lot for construction deliveries.
The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If development does not
comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the
City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion. This right also applies
to the required erosion control for basement and/or foundation excavation spoil piles. The City will
endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so
will not affect the Developer's or City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not
reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may
draw down the letter of credit to pay any costs. No development will be allowed and no building
permits will be issued unless the Subject Property is in full compliance with the erosion control
requirements.
14. Planting and Seeding Landscaping shall be in accordance with Landscape Plans approved by the
City Planner.
15. Clean up . The Developer shall clean streets of dirt and debris that has resulted from construction
work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. The City will inspect the site on a weekly basis and
determine whether it is necessary to take additional measures to clean dirt and debris from the
streets. After 24 hours verbal notice to the Developer, the City will complete or contract to complete
the clean up at the Developer's expense in accordance with the procedures specified in Paragraph 13.
The Developer shall inspect and if necessary clean all catch basins, sumps, and ponding areas of
erosion/siltation and restore to the original condition at the end of home construction within this
development. All silt fence and other erosion control should be removed following the
establishment of turf. These items are to be secured through the letter of credit as is noted in Exhibit
A.
5 Evermoor Crosseroft 2nd
05/6/04
16. Ownership of Improvements Upon completion and City acceptance of the work and
construction required by this Agreement, the public improvements lying within public rights-of-
way and easements shall become City property without further notice or action unless the
improvements are slated as private infrastructure.
17. Warranty The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it against poor material
and faulty workmanship for a period of two (2) years after its completion and acceptance by the
City. All trees, grass and sod shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality and disease free for
twelve (12) months after planting.
18. Responsibility for Costs
A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the
City in conjunction with the development of the Subject Property including, but not limited
to, Soil and Water Conservation District charges, legal, planning, engineering and inspection
expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the subdivision and the
plat, the preparation of this Agreement and any amendments hereto, and all costs and
expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the Subject
Property.
B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made
by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat or
subdivision approval and development of the Subject Property. The Developer shall
indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses which
the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees.
C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the preparation and enforcement
of this Agreement, including engineering and attorney's fees. The estimated City fees of
$78,380 less the initial deposit of $10,000 shall be deposited with the City at the time this
Agreement is signed, and represent the following estimates:
$58,650 Engineering Fees
$ 2,000 Attorney Fees
$17,250 5% City Fees
$ 480 Street Light Energy Cost
$ 0 Seal Coating
$78,380
If the City fees exceed this estimate, the Developer shall pay the additional costs to the City
within 10 days of the request.
D. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred
under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time,
the City may halt development work and construction including, but not limited to, the
issuance of building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the
6 Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd
05/6/04
bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of
nine percent (9 %) per year.
E. The Developer shall pay all energy costs for street lights installed within the Subject Property
for 24- months at a cost of $5 /month/light. After that, the City will assume the energy costs.
F. The Developer will pay the cost of sealcoating the streets within the development at a cost of
$0.60 /SY. The sealcoating will be completed within two (2) years following wear course
placement.
19. Developer agrees to pay fees, charges and assessments set forth in this Section prior to, or at the time
of, execution of any plat by the City:
A. Park dedication fees in the amount of $0.00.
B. Geographic Information System (GIS) fees in the amount of $1,265.
C. ` Storm Sewer Trunk Area Charges in the amount of $31,521.75.
Or such other amounts for such fees as in effect at the time of plat approval.
20. Developer understands that builders will be required to pay for the Subject Property the fees, charges
and assessments in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. The rates for each of these
items will be set according to the current rate structure at the time the building permit is received.
The fees, charges, and assessments in effect as of this agreement are:
A. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Availability Charges per SAC unit (current
rate is $1,350).
B. Storm Sewer Connection Charges per single family unit and per multiple family unit
(currently at $510).
C. Sanitary Sewer Availability Charges per SAC unit (currently at $1,125 /SAC unit).
D. Water Availability Charges per SAC unit (currently at $1,340 /SAC unit for single family
residential and multi - family residential).
E. _ Trunk Sanitary Sewer Charges per Unit (currently @$358.78 /unit
F. Trunk Water Charge per Unit (currently @$1,417.45 /unit)
21. Building Permits No occupancy permits shall be issued until:
A. The site grading is completed and approved by the City.
B. All public utilities are tested, approved by the City Engineer, and in service.
7 Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd
05/6/04
C. All curbing is installed and backfilled.
D. The first lift of bituminous is in place and approved by the City.
D. All building permit fees are paid in full.
F. No early building permits will be issued.
The Developer, in executing this Agreement, assumes all liability and costs for damage or delays,
incurred by the City, in the construction of public improvements, caused by the Developer, its
employees, contractors, subcontractors, materialmen or agents. No occupancy permits shall be
issued until the public streets and utilities referred to in paragraph 6 and 8 are in and approved by
City, unless otherwise authorized in writing by the City Public Works Director.
22. Developer's Default In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be
performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall
promptly reimburse the, City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first
given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license
for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to
enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies,
levy the cost in whole or in part as a special assessment against the Subject Property. Developer
waives its rights to notice of hearing and hearing on such assessments and its right to appeal such
assessments pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081.
23. Miscellaneous
A. The Developer represents to the City that the development of the Subject Property, the
subdivision and the plat comply with all city, county, metropolitan, state and federal laws and
regulations including, but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances and
environmental regulations. If the City determines that the subdivision or the plat or the
development of the Subject Property does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to
allow construction or development work on the Subject`Property until the Developer does
comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall,cease work until there is compliance.
B. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement.
C. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of
building permits, including lots sold to third parties.
D. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phase of this Agreement is
for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this Agreement.
E. If building permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public
improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion
of public improvements and damage to public improvements caused by the City, Developer,
its contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, employees, agents or third parties.
8 Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd
05/6/04
F. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the
provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing,
signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's
failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or
release.
G. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property.
The Developer shall take such steps, including execution of amendments to this Agreement,
as are necessary to effect the recording hereof. After the Developer has completed the work
required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request, the City will execute and
deliver to the Developer a release.
H. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to
every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to
the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power
and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so exciting may be exercised from time to time as
often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of
the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
I. The Developer may not assign this Agreement without the written permission of the City
Council.
24. Notices Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to
the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the
following address:
D. R. Horton, Inc.
20860 Kenbridge Court, Suite 100
Lakeville, MN 55044
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Administrator, or
mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: City
Administrator, Rosemount City Hall, 2875 145 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068.
9 Evermoor Crosseroft 2nd
05/6/04
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above
written.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
BY:
William H. Droste, Mayor
BY:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
BY:
Its
BY:
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA
) SS
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2004, by William H. Droste, Mayor, and Linda Jentink, City Clerk, of the City of Rosemount, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by
its City Council.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)SS
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
2004 by , and
a , on behalf
of the said
Notary Public
Drafted By:
City of Rosemount
2875145th Street West
Rosemount, A1N 55068
10 Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd
05/6/04
EXHIBIT A
The following clarifies the various portions of the letter of credit for Developer Improvements that are
outlined in the Subdivision Agreement:
Grading & Erosion Control - A restoration and erosion control bond to ensure revegetation and erosion
control ($3,500 /acre). Note: The minimum bond amount is set at $25,000.
Pond Restoration/Erosion Removal — A security to allow for cleaning of sedimentation ponds prior to City
acceptance and removing any installed erosion control measures such as silt fence and woodfiber blanket
following development of 75 percent of adjoining lots (estimated Lump Sum).
Survey Monumentation — An amount" equal to 110% of the cost to monument all lots within the
development.
Landscaping — An amount equal to 110% of the cost to complete the minimum required landscaping. If
additional landscaping is. planned, a bond for that cost is not required.
Retaining Walls — An amount equal to 110% of the cost to complete the retaining wall construction.
Street Lighting - An amount equal to 110% of the cost to complete the minimum required lighting. If
additional lighting is planned, a bond for that cost is not required ($4,000 per light has been used to calculate
this cost).
Buffer Monumentation - An amount equal to 110% of the cost to manufacture and install the necessary
buffer monumentation signs around all ponds and wetlands ($50 per sign has been used to calculate this
cost).
Park Equipment — An amount equal to 110% 0 of the cost of improvements agreed upon to be completed in
the park areas.
Wetland Monitoring - An amount equal to 110% of the cost to hire a wetland specialist to monitor the
mitigation areas for 5 years to ensure their proper creation. This wetland specialist will be hired by the City.
Wetland Restoration/Miti ag tion — An amount equal to 110% of the cost to develop new wetlands should the
mitigation not be effective ($20,000 per acre of mitigation).
l 1 Evermoor Crosscroft 2nd
05/6/04
Excerpt from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 27, 2004
MOTION by Powell to approve consent agenda revised as noted by the City
Planner. Second by Humphrey.
5A. CASE 04 -21 -FP Rosewood, Village 2 " d Addition — Final Plat
5B. CASE 04 -23 -FP Evermoor Crosscroft 2 "d Addition — Final Plat
5C. CASE 04 -26 -CON Dean Johnson Homes Concept Plan Approval -
Continue Public Hearing to May 25, 2004.
Ayes: Humphrey, Powell Schultz, Zurn, and Messner. Nays: None. Motion
carried.
SITE MAP
0
o s�
b
� G I
�"owec
I�
NOTE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot, n
Copyright 2004, Dakota County -
This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
This drawing is a compilation of records. information and data located in various city, county, and
state offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes
only. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are
found, please contact Dakota County Survey and land Information Department.
Map Date: April 22, 2004 Parcels Updated: 4/8/2004 Aerial Photography:
1
rLTrl r "OP17.X M ..I
y
�\ 1
__J n
•
o •,
1 $• p Q r- - U iAF.m. __�
i;
O
•
mx
P
�) �'���i
_
_ 1.__ -�: wn.m�, •OI 1 C' non - -- ) „
it
1 -
ok
I i at
�
i' � � 1 0 I I : 4 tt'y. i..' = � " „� •f f �„ '%"i' sc rcrz.L'�
c�
rW
4 t:��
G
S• C \� �•ts'J'1,'i� ' i a \\ � _ 1 i1 =. 1
^
: `�
Pf • 0
r �^I'i ' \\ S \ rS�' t \ i. �� a t t i tq ; n,
J RV
`\
h :•K�ti'� (Q
\\
\ ) ,a rn '
\\\ O i Iti ' •r'a -. iiV 0 J \ I
\i \ 1 1t 1 P
\
2. M
"'}
t••r \ \ ( ` 1 �
` 1
�
b✓9 .�J
\`
r �,' t \��1 t \i H wl It
a
\�
\
* f f i �` t t
\\ Q t•' �
t)
�
'
N F�.� � ?tS •p �; 1 \ � �
>E
1 1
1
s3
I
LUI
I
:
a
:-
y
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2000- 4 8
A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. FOR
EVERMOOR
Contractor Property Developers Co.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an
application for approval of the Preliminary Plat and Final Planned Unit Development for
Evermoor; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed
the Final Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for Evermoor and recommended
approval, subject to conditions; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
Preliminary Plat and Final Planned Unit Development for Evermoor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the Preliminary Plat and Final Planned Unit Development for Evermoor, subject to:
I . Approval of the wetland mitigation and replacement plan and execution of a PUD
agreement that will secure the recommendations of the Engineering/Public Works, Parks &
Recreation, Planning, Police & Fire Departments; and
2. Rezoning of land consistent with applicable zoning districts.
ADOPTED this - 16`'' day of May, 2000, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
l l "
Cathy Busho . Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda J. Jentink;'City-Clerk
Motion by: C i s e w s k i Seconded by: Edwards
Voted in favor: Edwards, Kiassen, Cisewski, Bu,sho, Caspar.
Voted against: N o n e .
Member absent: N o n e .
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2000
Page 2
Public Hearing: Evermoor !Kelley Trust) Preliminary Plat/PLTD
Development Plan, Rezoning% (Cont'd. from 3- 28 -00)
Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing on the application by Contractor Property
Developers Company (CPDC) for the Preliminary Plat for Evermoor (Kelley Trust
development). This public hearing is continued from March 28, 2000.
Councilmember Klassen announced a City Council worksession scheduled for
Wednesday, April 12, 2000, at 6:30 p.m., to discuss issues related to the Kelley Trust
development.
Chairperson Droste opened the floor to the Applicant. Homer Tompkins and consultants
for CPDC were present to respond to questions.
Mr: Pearson presented a summary of staff's recommendations for the preliminary plat.
He indicated that the wetlands would go through a separate review process. Examples of
wetland mitigation were given. Mr. Pearson explained the developer has reduced the
level of impact to the high. quality wetlands by modifying the street design, preserving
ponds, adding graded wetland areas, and constructing retaining walls.
Unresolved issues include street widths, trail maintenance, and public vs. private open
spaces. The developer does not agree with 36' street widths for Street A in the area with
direct driveway access.
Commissioner Weisensel inquired about the impact on wetlands. Alyson Morris
responded there is a total of approximately 32 acres of wetlands, 1.1 acre of which has
been impacted. Mr. Jelle with CPDC clarified the total acres include wetlands and
stormwater ponding.
Discussions continued concerning rear yard setbacks, density east _of Shannon Parkway,
housing percentages, and the cost of maintaining open space.
In response to questions concerning parks on the east side, Dan Schultz indicated the
Parks & Recreation Committee recommended those parks be private. He suggested the
city pursue an underpass on Connemara Trail.
Chairperson Droste suggested clear language in the PUD requiring paved paths along
both sides of the collector streets, including Shannon Parkway, Connemara, and Street A.
Bret Weiss addressed issues of trail maintenance, recommending the city maintain the
trails on collector streets and that the homeowner associations be responsible for mowing
and tree maintenance along the trails.
Mr. Weiss also addressed concerns about the 36' wide streets. Chairperson Droste feels
the wide streets take away from the charm of the neighborhood. Mr. Weiss noted
rianning commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2000
Page 3
problems that would result if Street A were less than the recommended 36' in the area
where houses front the street. He further recommended no parking on Street A.
Mr. Tompkins named various builders for this development. He explained an
Architectural Advisory Committee would be assembled to review all building plans. All
building permits must obtain committee approval prior to issuance. Mr. Tompkins also
described plans for fiber optics and communication systems.
Chairperson Droste opened the floor to the public.
Chairperson Droste entered into the record a letter, dated March 26, 2000, from Richard
and Meryl Eastwood.
Katie Corrigan 12990 Shannon Parkway, presented -a Petition signed by students saying
they care about the land and want to save the views. The was entered into the
Clerk's record.
Commissioner Shoe - Corrigan summarized her concerns about the development,
including speed & safety concerns on Connemara, Shannon Parkway, and Street A. Also
of concern is the transition area between the senior housing and R -1 housing on Shannon
Parkway, together with the northern area on the east side between houses on 131 Street
and the R -1 housing. She feels a 50' setback between different housing types is more
appropriate for transition. The paved trail between 131 Street and the R -1 housing
should be replaced with a mowed trail that could be used for cross - country skiing. She
.would like to see language in the PUD addressing setbacks, sheds, and outside storage,
along with height restrictions on the Estate Homes. She prefers to see the high point vista
preserved and landscaping along Street A to create a corridor. Mr. Jelle indicated they
would address the spacing on 131 street, trails, and setback concerns.
Mr. Pearson indicated the Estate Homes are of tremendous value, ,and that landscaping,
buffering and setbacks will mitigate the multi - level. homes. He explained that height
restrictions could not be mandated. Density in the Estate Homes area is consistent with
the concept plan.
MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Shoe-
Corrigan, Weisensel, Tentinger, and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Commissioner Weisensel expressed his concern that 63% of the wetlands have been
impacted. He feels the developer did not meet expectations. Alyson Morris explained a
more accurate representation is the percentage of impact based on acreage. A further
breakdown of impacts to the wetlands will be provided to the Planning Commission.
Commissioners noted remaining issues and the importance of clearly stating expectations
in the PUD.
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2000
Page 4
MOTION by Droste to table action until April 25, 2000, to allow staff an opportunity to
provide additional detail regarding the PUD agreement. Seconded by Shoe - Corrigan.
Ayes: Weisensel, Tentinger, Droste, and Shoe - Corrigan. Nays: 0. ' Motion carried.
Chairperson Droste recessed the meeting at 9 :15 p.m. for 5 minutes.
Chairperson Droste recessed the regular Planning Commission meeting and opened the
Board of Appeals& Adjustments.
Public Hearing: Jeffery Johnson Variance for Accessory Struct re
(Cont'd. from 3 -28 -00)
Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing on the application by Jeffery Jo son for a
van r_ce to setbacks for an accessory structure. This public hearing is con ' ued from
Marc 8, 2000.
Jeffery 7o son explained the limitations for building sites on his operty due to steep
slopes and tr es. He is requesting a variance to place a garage irr the northeast corner of
his pr _71r e feet from the north and east property lines.. he required setback is 30
feet. /
Mr. Pearson noted th t stee slopes are characteristic bf the entire site. He
p p , su an
alternative .location in� e front yard, which would Aquire a lesser variance. Mr. Pearson
was unable to support th equested variance for. northeast corner.
Chairperson Droste opened th Public Hea 'fi .
rP P g
Sharon Johnson 12445 Chinchill Coin , is a neighbor and expressed her strong
opposition to placement of the gara,,,, in the front yard. This would be in direct view of
her house and would decrease her �ro rty value. If the garage were placed in the
northeast corner, it would be o Y of sigh
Discussions continued congemin- alternate locations, including a site closer to the house.
Mr. Johnson responded this site was initially preferred but, because of the severity of the
slope, it required exter�s'ive grading & backfilI and also involved the removal of 4 oak
trees. This site woul' be more visible to homes across the pond, and he would be unable
% to back equipment into the garage at this location. Mr. Johnson explained the location in
the northeast C rner would allow the garage to be cut inio the side of a hill, resulting in
less visible concrete.
MOTION by Droste to close the public hearing. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes:
Tentinger, Droste, Shoe - Corrigan, and Weisensel. Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Commissioner Tentinger felt the variance in the northeast corner was too much, but
would be willing to grant a lesser variance for the site closer to the house.
ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 16, 2000
Evermoor (Kelley Trust) Preliminary Plat/PUD Development Plan, Rezonings
City Planner Pearson reviewed the Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Agreement for
the Kelley Trust property east of Diamond Path, either side of Shannon Parkway and west of Dodd
Boulevard by Contractor Property Developers Company. Pearson reviewed the Park Dedication,
wetland , and woodland designations, which are also scrutinized by the Fish & Wildlife agency and
Minnesota Natural Resources. The Planning Commission made specific recommendations for
additional landscaping along some of the borders and next to the senior's housing. Set backs were
discussed. The PUD is the control mechanism and the final plat will come before the Council next
month. The land will be purchased for the first phase next week and then grading of the land will
begin in mid -June. It will take about three years to complete the first phase of the project.
MOTION by Cisewski to approve the Evermoor preliminary plat/PUD development plan subject
to approval.of the wetland mitigation and replacement plan and execution of a PUD Agreement that
will secure the recommendations of the Engineering/Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Planning,
Police and Fire Departments; and the Planning Commission. Second by Edwards. Ayes: Edwards,
Klassen, Cisewski, Busho, Caspar. Nays: None. Motion carried.
MOTION by Busho to rezone land consistent with applicable zoning districts. Second by Caspar.
Ayes: Klassen, Cisewski, Busho, Caspar, Edwards. Nays: None. Motion carried.
MOTION by Busho to adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISON OF THE
EVERMOOR PROPERTY COMMENSURATE NVITH THE PHASING PLAN SUBJECT
TO THE EXECUTION OF THE PUD AGREEMENT. Second by Cisewski. Cisewski, Busho,
Caspar, Edwards, Klassen. Nays: None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Modification to the Tax Increment Financing District
Mayor. Busho explained the Public Hearing procedure and confirmed with City Clerk Jentink that
the affidavits of public notice and publication were on file. The Public Hearing was continued from
the May 2, 2000 City Council meeting.
Mayor Busho opened the Public Hearing. There was no one present in the audience for input.
MOTION by Edwards to close the Public Hearing for the Modification to the Tax Increment
Financing District. Second by Klassen. Ayes: Five, Nays: None. Motion carried.
City Administrator Burt noted that the TIF District budget was being amended to increase the level
of debt for the project area to accommodate future expansion of public improvements. The hope is
to encourage new businesses which allows more jobs and more benefit to the commercial areas. The
business park lots will be back on the tax roll for county and school districts by 2006. This will not
impact an increase to Rosemount taxpayers.
3
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
July 11, 2000
Page 3
done by the developer and the city's failure to install a lift station on his property. He
requested that activity on the east side of Shannon Parkway be stopped until a lift station
is put in.
Mr. Fick explained the lift station is part of the utility improvements for the project. Ms.
Morris indicated that the city's engineering consultant is working on the utility design
and that the area south of -the Marcotte lot is in Phase 2 of the development.
Mr. Marcotte requested that either the lift station be put in or a temporary pump be
installed to control the flooding. He indicated the City identified the problem in 1993.
He was told a lift station would be put in prior to any excavation.
Discussions continued concerning the stormwater management plan and runoff from
properties to the north of the Marcotte property.
Faye Marcotte 12931 Shannon Parkway, questioned past engineering decisions and
recommended the storm water plan be re- evaluated before more mistakes are made.
Cliff Carlson 13540 Diamond Path, provided a past history of problems with Birger
Pond and asked when it would be cleaned up. Ms. Morris responded that the developer is
working with the city in reseeding and landscaping the area around Birger Pond.
Ann Loch 13411 Diamond Path, inquired about the status of Birger Pond and requested
the city take a close look at its storm water management plan. She had no concerns with
the changes to the Innisfree townhomes.
Mary Skinner 4455 Upper 135' St., lives south of Birger Pond and noted the pond grew
from 15 ac. to 35 ac. caused by homes on the hill and the city draining. He urged the city
to enforce regulations on developers.
Mr. Pearson explained the review and approval process for a development. He indicated
the utility plans are reviewed in a separate process and are addressed by the City Council.
He encouraged the Planning Commission to focus on the PUD Amendment.
MOTIOi`i by Droste to close the public hearing. Seconded by Shoe - Corrigan. Ayes:
Weisensel, Napper, Droste, and Shoe - Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Commissioner Napper suggested the water situation be taken care of before proceeding
with the housing.
Commissioner Shoe- Corrigan expressed concern about the townhouses located near
Birger pond and inquired about the distance from the townhouses to the high water mark.
Mr. Fick explained that it would not be practical to design a development based upon
probabilities typical of a catastrophic event such as the weekend storms. He further
explained that utility plans are designed for a 100 -year event, in accordance with standard
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes ,
July 11, 2000
Page 4
engineering principles. The storm water management plan for the Ever project
meets city standards.
Councilmember Klassen recognized that something needed to be done in response to the
issues discussed, but not in this forum. She offered to bring the issues to the City Council
for consideration.
Craig Rapp indicated there is no definitive determination of CDPC's responsibility to the
problems experienced by the Marcottes. He offered to sit down with them to discuss the
issues. The developer has put together in good faith a detailed plan to meet the demands
of the community. He feels the developer has addressed all anticipated concerns.
Ms. Morris explained she has inspected portions of the Evermoor project. The city is
working with the contractor to fix silt fencing damaged by the storm. Erosion control
devices are being put in.
Commissioner Shoe - Corrigan indicated the buffer on the western edge of Crosscroft must
be increased to a minimum of 30' before she could support the amendment. She wanted
more information on increasing the buffer and additional time to look at the landscaping
plan and architectural drawings.
Commissioner Weisensel supported the . Innisfree and Crosscroft redesigns, with the
exception of the reduced buffer. He felt the matter should be tabled for more information
addressing the immediate concerns of the neighbors to the north.
Mr. Pearson responded the water /drainage concerns are separate issues from the
amendment. Those concerns should be addressed by the City Council.
Craig Rapp indicated the developer would be willing to make any necessary adjustments
to provide. the minimum 30' separation as requested by Commissioners.
MOTION by Weisensel to table action on the PUD Amendment for the Innisfree and
Crosscroft neighborhoods. Seconded by Napper. Ayes: Napper, Droste, Shoe - Corrigan,
and Weisensel. Nays: 0. Motion carried.
There being no further business to come before this Commission, upon MOTION by
Droste and upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dianne G. Quinnell
Recording Secretary
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
CITY HALL
2875 — 145th Street West
Rosemount, IVIN
CCACO A
* IV/
Phone: 651-423-4411
Hearing Impaired 651-423.6219
x iaiuni.L6 VV1111111JJ1V11 Fax: $51 423 5203
T?im vdn-r 'N/TPPf1?1 Tx i-n-tifa T I 25 AW)
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting X the Planning Commission
was duly held on Tuesday, July 25, 2000. Chairperson B
' i W
Droste called the meeting to
order at 6:32 pin. with members Myron Napper and Shoe-Corrigan present.
Commissioner J6ffery Weisensel arrived at 6:40 p.�tlso in attendance were City
Planner Rick Pears , Community Development} irector Jim Parsons, and
Councilmember Shei Klas.
lasse,
There were no additio%nsor Q to the
Commissioner Shoe-Corrig-an i;4NstF/Modificat to the July 11, 2000 minutes.
MOTION by Droste to approve the" ttly 11, 2000 Regular Planning Commission
Meeting, Minutes, as modified. Sjeconft by Shoe-Corrigan. Ayes: Napper, Droste, and
Shoe-Corrigan. Nays: 0. Motion carrie
Discussion
Mr. Pearson indicated t1the time for the Septembe 2, 2000 meeting must be changed
/t
due to elections that d,6.
nbe 2 ' 2000 me,
MOTION by N a p�r to change the time for the S3\eptember I , 000 meeting to 8:00
, �m
M
p.m. Seconded.b Droste. Ayes: Droste, Shoe-Corrigan, and N per. Nays: 0. Motion
carried.
Councilin /mber Klassen indicated that the City Council discussed issues related to the
heavy rainfall from the July 8 storm. She thanked Homer Tompkins of CPDC for the
assistance provided by the developer of Evermoor.
Old Business: Evermoor Major Amendment to PUD
This matter was before the Planning Commission on July 11, 2000 for a public hearing.
The public hearing was closed and action on the amendment was tabled.
Mr. Pearson summarized the proposed amendments to the Evermoor PUD. The
developer submitted a revised drawing, from the Crosscroft area. The width of the
corridor was increased to a minimum of 30 feet. An updated landscaping plan was
reviewed, along, with additional elevations from DR Horton.
Commissioner Shoe-Corrigan pointed out one house along the corridor that needed an
additional tree.
Mr. Pearson indicated the consulting engineer is reviewing the stormwater plans.
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2000
Page 2
MOTION by Shoe - Corrigan to recommend that the City Council approve the PUD
Amendment for the Innisfree and Crosscroft neighborhoods subject to: 1) Provision of
additional architectural renderings for the Active Senior neighborhood in order to
guarantee diversity of housing styles; 2) Updating the planting plan legend to include the
48 10 %12' Colorado Blue Spruce; 3) All other previously stated conditions of approval
remain in effect; and 4) Execution of an amended PUD Agreement. Seconded by
Weisensel. Ayes: Shoe-Corrigan, Weisensel, Napper, and Droste. Nays: 0. Motion
carried.
Chairperson Droste recessed the meeting until 7:00 p.m.
Public Hearing: KTJ Limited Partnership (Cub Foods) PUD
Amendment and Final Plat
Ch irperson Droste opened the public hearing on the PUD Amendme and Final Plat for
Cub ods. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of P ,ublication and Affidavit
of Maili and Posting of a Public Hearing Notice on file with e City.
Mr. Pearson pr nted an overview of the Cub Foods pro' ct. This development is
located between C tone and Claret Avenues , south CSAH 42 and north of 151 St.
The development pro sal consists of an 80,000 s Cub Foods store, 13,000 sq.ft,
attached retail bays, and eparate 7,000 sq. ft. r ail building. An amendment to the
PUD is necessary because o the proposal to ve less than the required 50% brick and
for a modification of the sign ectations hree 100 sq.ft. signs are permitted, but the
developer is proposing two 150 s ft. si s. Mr. Pearson reviewed access to the site,
parking, and traffic circulation. Par ' g requirements have been met, however, staff has
requested the parking stalls located ' ont of the retail area attached to the Cub facility
be eliminated. Building elevatio were viewed, together with the landscaping and
lighting plans. A 6 -7 foot be plus land sc ing is provided for screening along 151 St.
The store is 60 feet from the roperty line, 17 eet to the south edge of the 151 St.
right -of- way, and 200 fee o the nearest building. taff recommends additional
sidewalks along Crest e Avenue. The developer h agreed to lower the light poles to
30 feet.
Commissionerreviewed the sign designs. A monument- style,sign is proposed in the
southwest corner of the site on 151 St.
Chairperson Droste opened the floor to the applicant. Paul Tucci of Oppidan was
present. Mr. Tucci indicated the developer has revised its plans to incorporate staff
recornmendations. Additional sidewalks and connections have been included. Mr. Tucci
summarized plans for landscaping, berming, elevations, and signage. Canvas awnings
are planned on the retail bays.
Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing.
ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 1, 2000
a. Minutes of July 18, 2000 Regular City Council Meeting
b. Minutes of July 12, 2000 Committee of the Whole Meeting
c. Bills Listing
d. Expenditure Approval from Donation Account for Police Equipment Funds
e. Temporary On -Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor License for the SKR Women's Softball Team
f. Payment #1, Rosemount Business Park Phase 2 Street & Utility Improvements, City Proj.308
g. Payment #3, Biscayne Pointe P Addition Street & Utility Improvements, City Project 313
h. Debt Management Policy
i. Naming Additional Depository / Financial
j. Firefighters' Relief Fund Schedules to State Auditor
k. Resignation of Employee — Public Works Director Dan Fick
1. Lance Johnson/Shafer Contracting Co. Mineral Extraction Permit Re- Assignment Pulled for
discussion
Lance Johnson /Shafer Contracting Co. Mineral Extraction Permit Re- Assignment
Councilmember Klassen had some clarification questions. City Planner Pearson noted that a
settlement had been reached with Shafer Contracting Co. two weeks ago. Klassen agreed to re-
assignment.
MOTION by Klassen to authorize the execution of the revised 2000 conditions of operation for
the Shafer Contracting Co. Mineral Extraction Permit. Second by Cisewski. Ayes: Klassen,
Cisewski, Busho, Caspar, Edwards. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Evermoor Planned Unit Development Amendment
City Planner Pearson presented an amendment request that would change two neighborhoods in
the Ever development. The Distinctive Townhomes (Innisfree) north of Birger Pond would
become detached units (single family) instead of twinhomes. And, the Active Senior
neighborhood, Crosscroft, south of Shannon Park Elementary School, will have a new street
design that simplifies circulation and creates a larger space for the Association building. This
eliminates the street connection to Shannon Parkway. after Phase II, and allows additional units
as a result of efficiencies created through the new street design.. Architectural renderings of the
housing styles were submitted for the amendment request. Additional landscaping was added,
including 48 blue spruce trees. Council was pleased with the additional single family units.
Councilmember Edwards did not approve of the small lot size. Councilmember Klassen reported
that the construction operations now in progress need some signage for safety on Shannon
Parkway and when large equipment is left, it should be parked in an orderly fashion. The
Developer agreed to talk with the grading contractor.
MOTION by Cisewski to adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO
THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR EVEKNIOOR. Second by Klassen. Ayes:
Cisewski, Busho, Caspar, Edwards, Klassen. Nays: None. Motion carried.
2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2000 - 80
A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FOR EVERMOOR
WHEREAS, the Planning Department of the City of Rosemount received an application for
approval of an amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Evermoor; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount conducted a public hearing on
July 11, 2000, as required by the subdivision ordinance for the purpose of receiving testimony
regarding the requested amendment; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend
approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Evermoor with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the
recommendation forwarded by the Planning, Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Evermoor, subject to:
l) Provision of additional architectural renderings for the Active Senior neighborhood in
order to guarantee diversity of housing styles.
2) Updating the planting plan legend to include the 48 10' -12' Colorado Blue Spruce.
3) All other previously stated conditions of approval remain in effect.
4) Execution of an amended PUD Agreement.
ADOPTED this Vt day of August, 2000, by the Ci (Council of the City f Rosemount.
ATTEST: Cathy Busho, Ma
o
�
Linda Jentink ity Clerk
Motion by: Cisewski Seconded by: Klassen
Voted in favor: Cisewski, Busho, Caspar, Edwards, Klassen.
Voted against: rTone .
Member absent: DTone .