Loading...
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 .