The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.c. Evermoor Final Plats 8th AdditionsCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Meeting Date: June 18, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: Evermoor 8th Addition Final Plat AGENDA SECTION: Old Business PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner AGEND IW* ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution, Location Map, Final Plat, APPROVED BY: P.C. Minutes (5- 22 -01), City Attorney Memo /itf 1 2e lnpc4 s ice, Resfcr y, c r Applicant & Property Owner(s): Location: Number of Lots: Current Zoning: Planning Commission Action: SUMMARY D. R. Horton Custom Homes East of Shannon Parkway and north of Evermoor Parkway 42 total R -1, Low Density Residential Motion failed This final plat concerns lots arrayed around two connected cul -de -sac streets extending north from Evermoor Parkway in the northeast corner of the development east of Shannon Parkway, north of the elementary school. The lots have been checked for conformance with the Evermoor PUD. Eight of the lots are between 70 and 80 feet wide, but this is allowed with the PUD. While some of the lots back up to rural residential uses, there is open space that separates those lots from the rural area. No variances have been identified, in fact, most of the lots exceed several of the standards, especially lot depth at the end of the cul -de -sac. The cul -de -sac is longer than minimum standards. However, it was acknowledged in the PUD that this was preferrible to another street connection to Shannon Parkway and the additional disruption of grading. Final Plats do not require public hearings when they are consistent with the approved preliminary plat (and PUD). Otherwise, previously unidentified variances would have to be processed as new applications. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission was concerned about the status of construction and erosion control issues in the development area. Because of those concerns, there was no support for adopting a motion to recommend approval of the final plat. Because this is an application that requires Council action, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere has provided an opinion regarding the recommended action. The bottom line is that the final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat and the City is bound by State Statute to approve it if all of the other requirements are met. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a resolution approving the final plat for Evermoor 8 Addition. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR EVERMOOR 8 T H ADDITION WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received an application for final plat approval submitted by D.R. Horton for Evermoor 8`' Addition, as required by ordinance for the purpose of a residential development on land legally described as: Outlot D, Evermoor 2 " Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount reviewed the final plat application for Evermoor 8' Addition at their regular meeting on May 22, 2001; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion to recommend approval of the final plat to the City Council as required by the Subdivision Ordinance, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the final plat application as required by the Subdivision Ordinance on June 18, 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the final plat for Evermoor 8"' Addition, subject to: 1. Execution of a subdivision agreement to secure public infrastructure including streets and utilities; 2. Incorporation of recommendations of the Interim City Engineer relative to drainage, easements, grading, public streets and utilities; 3. Payment of all platting, G.I.S., Park Dedication, applicable City Review fees and trunk/area fees as specified in the current fee schedule resolution. ADOPTED this 18th day of June, 2001, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount. Cathy Busho, Mayor ATTEST: Linda J. Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Seconded by: Voted against:_ Member absent: o� Iv 3 . 11 n — A I to M. 3�3 to 30 1�j 3 fD A • y + y A A y . m 1� D r y- f9 i }7 _, i t tI 0 0 � tn -Appl. ro co',- m . M Ul . LL, 9 > Im 71 L � ........ .... .. .... ... ... �zj ooze s S�j ,!E 4 ° H 4. �zj ooze s S�j ,!E OU7LOr A -- t: F —_j E l j8 .0 §y �O IHI mI I 3 ^ I of I eam � m 9 4 gtm m 2+ 881 ei «R Fem Di I 3,i 4e p �i tg gip; s a t31 c4i I � ' �I - j�; NCI 3n'Eoi 3^ r 3� i g; 1 3 I sl I I og oo, I ,I I as O O � _r � MM W §y �O IHI mI I 3 ^ I of I gtm 2+ 881 ei p 1 � =ol I 3,i 4e p �i tg gip; s a t31 c4i I � ' §y �O Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes May 22, 2001 Page 4 MO>to Weis el to recommend that the Carriage Homes (Blocks 12 and 13) be rezo oderate Density Residential. Seconded by Carr. Ayes: Arveson, Carr Nap, an eisensel. Nays: 0. Motion carried. New Business: Evermoor Stn Addition Final Plat Mr. Pearson presented the Final Plat for Evermoor 8 th Addition, located north of Shannon Park Elementary School. The lots have been checked and are consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and Evermoor PUD. The Evermoor PUD permits eight lots which are less than 80 feet wide. No variances have been identified. Commissioner Weisensel expressed concerns regarding the status of the wetlands. He described areas where dirt has washed out into wetland areas. Mr. Weisensel does not feel the developer has met its commitments to protect the wetlands. He requested strong enforcement of erosion control. Councilmember Klassen summarized City Council activity on the wetland issue, indicating that areas of non - compliance were addressed at a recent meeting with several environmental agencies. Councilmember Klassen stressed that compliance will be strictly monitored. Chairperson Caspar inquired about sidewalks on the cul -de -sacs. Mr. Pearson described a network of trails on open spaces and thru- streets. Discussions continued concerning long cul -de -sacs and traffic patterns. MOTION by Caspar to recommend that the City Council approve the final plat for Evermoor 8 1h Addition subject to: 1) Execution of a subdivision agreement to secure public infrastructure including streets and utilities; 2) Incorporation of recommendations of the Interim City Engineer relative to drainage, easements, grading, public streets and utilities; 3) Payment of all platting, G.I.S., Park Dedication, applicable City Review fees and trunk/area fees as specified in the current fee schedule resolution. Seconded by Napper. Ayes: Napper, Caspar. Nays: Carr, Weisensel, and Arveson. Motion failed. Director's R orts None. There being no further ss to come before this Commission, upon MOTION by Caspar and upon un ' ous sion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dianne G. Quinnell Recording Secretary Evermoor 8th Page 1 of 1 Burtjom From: LeFevere, Charlie L. (clefevere @Kennedy - Graven.com] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 10 :28 AM To: Tom Burt (E -mail) Subject: Evermoor 8th Tom, You have advised me that the City has received an application for final plat approval for Evermoor 8th. You have asked for an explanation of the discretion that may be exercised by the Council in the approval of that application. I understand that all of the conditions imposed at the time of preliminary plat approval either have been met or would ordinarily be made a condition of final plat approval (such as requiring the developer to enter into a subdivision agreement with the City before the plat will be signed and recorded). However there have been substantial shortcomings in the matter of erosion control in other parts of the overall development covered by the PUD - although these problems were caused by a different developer (CPDC) than the owner of Evermoor 8th. The statute dealing with this question is Minn. Stat., Section 462.358, Subd. 3b, that provides in part "Following preliminary approval the applicant may request final approval by the municipality, and upon such request the municipality shall certify final approval within 60 days if the applicant has complied with all conditions and requirements of applicable re gulations and all conditions and rPni uramantc i Innn ,.,t,;,.ti .�.. ining Therefore, under state law, if the applicant has met all conditions of preliminary plat approval and complied with all conditions of law relating to the plat, the City is required to approve it. The discretion of the Council is very limited. Reasonable conditions may be imposed at the time of preliminary plat approval, but the Council is not authorized to add additional conditions at the time of final approval or refuse to approve the final plat if all conditions have been met. There is a provision in the original subdivision agreement with CPDC that the City may refuse to approve plats of the Subject Property (which I understand does include the area in Evermoor 8th) if the Deloper has l breached the subdivision agreement "and the breach has not been remedied." That agreement does impose certain obligations on the Developer to control erosion problems, but I am not aware of any breaches that have not been remedied. If the contractor has failed to follow procedures required by law to control erosion, then the appropriate agency (City, PCA, DNR, or County) should enforce those laws. If the developer has violated the terms of a development agreement for earlier phases of the development, then the City should enforce those contractual obligations - if it has not already done so. However, unless there are unremedied breaches of the existing subdivision agreement, I am not aware of any legal basis to deny final plat approval for Evermoor 8th or delay it beyond the deadline specified in the statutes Please let me know if you have any further questions on this matter Charlie 6/4/2001 June 4, 2001 Mr. Tom Burt City Administrator City of Rosemount P.O. Box 510 2875-145 1h St. W. Rosemount, MN 55068 ._ Re: Evermoor — Site Restoration Dear Tom: just wanted to share a bit of good news regarding the Evermoor development. Attached is a follow up inspection report from the MPCA of the site conditions at Evermoor. In short we have corrected the erosion issues and restored the site in accordance with the NPDES permit. Sincerely David C. Hempel Project Manager R,EC IVED JUN 5 - 2001 Cc Jay Liberacki CITY OF R I CPDC Corporate Offices: The Quadrant Building - 7100 Northland Circle - Suite 108 - Minneapolis, MN 55428 phone: (763)971 -0477 - fax: (763)971 -0576 - email: cpdc @schererbros.com Minnesota Pollution Control Agency W hite: MPCA Yellow:. owner Pink: Contractor Storm Water Permit Program for Construction Activit B'ne: on Site INSPECTION REPORT 1G91J"V6,4i0i 0 3/113331 - roject Name / Location: 6"v Vvte�Y Rt' ��(( �~ )weer:-L,-AY-.%C r.. -An Ya t�� v & s �`, � f � .. Telephoner contractor: ` �e4� AVAK :, Telephone; �� 5 = 4 Z(r )ate / Time: �.Q� r2.'ir� Weather :overed by Permit (�; ( bot�c fp(G� NofCovered byPermt MPCA Piroject I.D. Number 'ermit Requirements Inspected:; Notice o -Storm Water Permit Coverage Card -- - Posted ❑ N Ot Posted ❑ Final Plans and Specifications On Site[] Not on Site ❑ Did not ask t': � see (] }Erosion Cntrol'Erac °tices During Construction:. mpo ;aryp p Z'e ro�ection / er�anent cover 100' of all waters of the state c Tem ora -. ) P Permanent energy dissipation =b) Sta'bilgahon of drainage ditch bottoms;'T00' of a water of the state at pipe on sets when connected to'a_water of the state Sediment'Gontrol Ptktices.Dunng- Construction a Down gradient r peuneter'co�tiol established < (WT mporary s kon basins '� � .._ dun to Mamtenance Ero;:ion and perimeter sediment controlpractices . `' " `- _b �'eiri or ) �onstructiori s t to er wafers of.the state � i � � §-' ary- sedimentation basins g catidns` — Records.of Inspections, Corrective Actions and All Rainfall Evenfs e j tionsJ - Correct v eAction iola s• , -, }U �r t`1 m2v U '., �< t �. rt'3 t t rr.� 1 ' #�e�t . f ot/eiy t?f7s. R.st CA^ s , C r �iYr"� T � C' � � �-iU G�Cf't`TTf C � _ t4I as� 2 N w p Vic �tirt v r� �4 . �.E c 4 �}?�X.✓ �. $ • ..� O�' �ua. y' S .' � �E.l m� y h.� '�� YA t a l t a C K`C.tw+rs�f a t 3 M^^t KGtM e Ci4ef 74' w.r j f The abov � v><oIaho s require mmed><ate corrective action mments: Vl'cctctn fetre.:�.csc Svc "f7 Y'1C A bS i . t -r ��racCh -, .o�*. Cn�"f `Sce�wr.c.r-., _�`-�' .� l-- �t- :deuce C ollected Received by Storm Water Permit Inspector imm photographs As the owner, general contractor, employee, and/or agent for Ideotape either Permittee, I hereby acknowledge receipt of this s Inspection Report. My signature does not imply agreement inoff sample or disagreement with the information in this report. Telephone Number nal Pollutant Dischar a Elimi g nation System (NPDES) Program