HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.f. Evermoor 8th Addition Final Plat0
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
City Council Meeting Date: July 2, 2001
AGENDA ITEM: Evermoor 8th Addition Final Plat
AGENDA SECTION:
Consent
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner
AGENDA NO. 6 F
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution, Location Map, Final Plat,
APPROVED BY:
P.C. Minutes (5- 22 -01), City Attorney Memo,
MPCA site restoration letter
f
Applicant & Property Owner(s): D. R. Horton Custom Homes
Location: East of Shannon Parkway and north of Evermoor Parkway
Number of Lots: 42 total
Current Zoning: R -1, Low Density Residential
Planning Commission Action: Motion failed
SUMMARY
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 backup 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 preferable 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 th Addition.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2001
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR
EVERMOOR 8T 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 2n 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 July 2, 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 2nd day of July, 2001, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount
ATTEST:
Cathy Busho, Mayor
Linda J. Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:_
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
o
11 o.n
I
2 I.p!
P
>Z5
im-
RIM19
rAN
D
lciWli
No
m o
00 14
aoo�ooaoa
a
ooa
fb
r
� yJl
fb rk
o
0 0
So—l)
0
0 s 0 fA
a
_APPLs.
Ul
w
to
c O n
0
0 0
t Z P
0 1 ,
vs
o
11 o.n
I
2 I.p!
P
>Z5
im-
RIM19
rAN
. .... ... ... ....
.... .... ..
�A
1 11
� RM Vk%A
OI
. .... ... ... ....
.... .... ..
�A
1 11
/
•wc.
Q
d 3 05
' ;
7
N 89 E N 89 ° 72 1 0" W
- i
"'o
/ 129.68 -
a
131.88
esa
3 �
g
I
w 1
\
�
Co.
3•�' 69 1
S
�
H I
�
I
m
�I
= v
C� ± � 1
ml
m
1
�
v
° o ono
• n
y C
w,
/
o� i / - �p r
, •01'6'0"
0
°
$ / --- '-yea: ,,,�.
m•;a
^ 1
S
r�
ar
/(/
2,•. � J
I fi
.
•wc.
Q
d 3 05
' ;
7
- i
ti
yea
3 �
g
I
w 1
\
�
Co.
3•�' 69 1
S
�
H I
�
I
m
�I
= v
C� ± � 1
ml
m
1
�
v
° o ono
• n
y C
0
o�
'Y
d 3 05
>6'�\r
7
- i
g ,
'
yea
3 �
y
�O
^o
i
I
I
'Tap
r
I/
r I
> ;
d+`�
L // / � � .�� L ei • i I, ppA ��
/// / C vac \•'o m \� ' \0 � I
vm\ y °• m \ \d I: 1 I
,,
u1 '172T (
' 1 •�•' L__ L-- 1 Yr
o -
w eyr.lJ' [
e.:i -
.� 1 I
b I I 1 i I
ME
r[
•o u. p` __, _
__ Im _____
t Ig I w.w
vr.v ,x
ulti I �i I C)
e`Y.. Iro il_ co
zi
' /'. ee 'O� S. / � / I _.__ - I ro C)
/ I P M �
r G,
e\ \: \ \\ .'0 �.✓�.
' Ny Y
I
1 < mq
o
>6'�\r
7
- i
g ,
'
r5
\
091 °2
\
�
Co.
3•�' 69 1
S
�
i yr�
�
\'y0 0049•`01.91
0
0
^ 1
S
i
I
I
'Tap
r
I/
r I
> ;
d+`�
L // / � � .�� L ei • i I, ppA ��
/// / C vac \•'o m \� ' \0 � I
vm\ y °• m \ \d I: 1 I
,,
u1 '172T (
' 1 •�•' L__ L-- 1 Yr
o -
w eyr.lJ' [
e.:i -
.� 1 I
b I I 1 i I
ME
r[
•o u. p` __, _
__ Im _____
t Ig I w.w
vr.v ,x
ulti I �i I C)
e`Y.. Iro il_ co
zi
' /'. ee 'O� S. / � / I _.__ - I ro C)
/ I P M �
r G,
e\ \: \ \\ .'0 �.✓�.
' Ny Y
I
1 < mq
2
�?
Q
�
mo
n
e
m
xoge
�tl
;p�
del
YI
� S
of
_
2
Oi l
0
yy $$
�j
a
t m o Q
t m gD
Oi l
yy $$
�j
a
t m o Q
t m gD
p p
o�
�y
:p
�C
II
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
May 22, 2001
Page 4
MOT by <aneisensel. recommend that the Carriage Homes (Blocks 12 and 13) be
rezoned to - ensity Residential. Seconded by Carr. Ayes: Arveson, Carr,
Napper, par Nays: 0. Motion carried.
New Business: Evermoor 8 th 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 th 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 ort: None.
Where being no further ' ss to come before this Commission, upon MOTION by
Caspar and upon un ous ci ion, 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 regulations and all conditions and requirements upon which the
preliminary approval is expressly conditioned either through performance or the execution of appropriate
agreements assuring performance [underlining added).
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 final
plats of the Subject Property (which I understand does include the area in Evermoor 8th) if the Developer has
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
X
9
COMPANY
Creating Neighborhoods of Merit
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 RECEIVED
Cc Jay Liberacki JUN 5' - 2001
CRY OF R08i:.MOUN
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
r
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency W hite: MPCA
Yellow:. own
Pink: Contractor
Storm Water Permit Program for Construction Activit r, Blue: on Site
INSPECTION REPORT 169 nlue6ld6,4101
'roject Name / Location: 6 &V It r6 V (e 1�j!{
0 3/11303tI
tr
7
owner: r r a ae-v v" r_lo i s J Telephone: 7( t - Cry- - 7 - 7
'.ontractor: �Vae vtQ
—� Telephone: (
)ate / Time: _ir'tlt J.oC „ fi2. �ri3 ` Weather: _. - :,
;overed by Permit ( trto( - .
Not Covered by Permit
• MPCA Project I D. Number ,
'ermit Requirements Inspeciled..
Notice OJFStorm Water Permit Coverage- ar :-- --�--- _ Posted -� Not Posted []
�� -
Final Plan and eclficatoris "
P On Site Not on �Ite (� "Did riot ask 6 see
} Erosion Cpntrol Practices Dunng Construction:
Tempos ary lrofection / pe'� ent covey 100' of all waters of state c Tem ora or ermanent energy diss ipation
P xY P
;b) Stabilization of drainage ditch bottoms, 100' of a water of the state at pipe outlets when connected fo a_water
g Construction .. .
Sediment -
1 =
of the' state
ent Control Practices
Down gradient peruneter'coi6�Fol establisfied Temporary sedunentatxon basins
Maintenance"
��.: »..
_.ta) Ero ot
sion and perimeter sediment control practices t c) Drainage ditches and her waters of the state
�. �, r
b Tem ,or -.. � ,
p, ary =sedimentahoii basms - . �� ; -
d) Construction site ex itloeatidns"
Records of Inspections, Corrective andll Rainfall'Everits
iolathonsf Correct><ve- A_ctionsi
ij c C - 41 EM S
�vv; '14 t^sn ` t 4YT3� C Gf t fS��t f * I t! fief Wt c Grp t y
..r aJLV �[E.Q
�1Uk �C�r�E 1 ti +.G yt l
S
1.�X"tr 1✓i CA,%
mkt
y
AA
-r� t
7
trot
" C " ,
A try -
1Sc. 1 .� F t eativ�l
lu
t
� �� �G ,'� * 9t•o. �� VG °`GMr? `�,�p �' � . �_'?. r °�"� �p �� m ry
v. ��4+ti. f , Z A
c � LMri GC ii,t:...e � �
�� The b ve ViA ho �s require.><mmed><ate correchve'action
mments: Yil c t aw` e4c �. �� f w.,.- -
:�t w
c
deuce Collected Received by Storm Water Permit Inspector
mm photographs As the owner, general contractor, employee, and/or agent for
deotape either Permittee, I hereby acknowledge receipt of this
Inspection. Report. My signature does not imply agreement -
inoff sample or disagreement with the information in this report. Telephone Numbee
nal Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program