HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.a. Resolution Request by S.O.A.R. � I
. City of Rosemount
Fxecutive Summary for Action
City Council Meeting Date: Se�tember 19, 1995
Agenda Item: Resolution Request By SOAR Agenda Section:
New Business
Prepared By: Andrew Mack Agenda. No:
Senior Planer ���.��1 # � �
Attachments: Letter from Kevin Carroll dated 9/14/95; Approved By:
Proposed Resolution drafted by SOAR;
Memo from Kevin Carroll dated 8/23/95
/
On 1`uesday night Mr. Kevin Calroll will be present representing SOAR to request from
Council approval for a resolution supporting Dakota County's efforts to effect a formal position
upon � possible relocation of the MSP International Airport. Among other things, the
proposed resolution states specifically that the City of Rosemount reaffirms it's position of
opposition to an airport relocation and to any proposal connected to possible land banking or
site preservation of the proposed future airport site. It is anticipated that City Staff will be in
attendance at the Dakota County Physical Development Committee Meeting on September 26,
1995 to formally represent the City of Rosemount's position as may be taken upon this request.
Mr. Carroll will be available to elaborate upon any further questions that Council may have on
this proposed resolution at Tuesday night's meeting.
Recommended Action: MOTION to approve a resolution as requested by SOAR reaffuming
the City of Rosemount's opposidon to any possible relocation of the MSP International
AirpOrt.
City Council Action:
, 09�14i95 12:10 CARROLL LA� OFFICE LTD � 1 612 423 5203 D02
Mffi1�CORANDUM
TO: Mayor E. B. McMenomy and City Council members
FR�M: Kevin Catroll, S�AR Board af DireGtars
gE: Proposed Resolution
DATE: September 14, 1995
�t is my understanding that you were previ.ou�ly provided with a copy o�
iny Mema ta Tom 8�rt and Andrew Mack dated August 23, 1995, an additional
capy of whieh ha� been attached �or refaren�ce.
After the Mema isz que�tion �nt�a� reviewed by City sta��. I 's+a'as asked to
prepare a dr�ft o� the type of R�aolution that S h�d ref�rred to in
Pazagraph #3 on pag� 3 of the M�mc�. A copy af a pa�o�osed Resalution h�.s
been attached fa� your review.
I �rill be p�esent at the City Council meeting on September 19, 1995 to
• answer any questions that you might have about the praposed ResoYut�.rsn.
Xatx are a�.sd �relcome tn contaat me at 322-4000 or 4�3-70?0 prior to next
� Tuead�y if you would like to discuss the Resolution. Thank you �ar your
in�erest in tk�zs important matter.
,
. , .���'�1�.
MEMORANDUM
T0: Mr. Tom Burt, City Administrator
Mr. Andrew Mack, Senior Planner
FROM: Kevin Carroll, SOAR Board of Directors
RE: Recent Developments - Dual Track Airport Planning Process
DATE: August 23, 1995
Tom and Andrew,
On the afternoon of August 22, 1995, I attended a meeting of the Physical
Development Committee of the Dakota County Board of Commissioners.
During the weeks prior to that meeting, SOAR representatives had
indicated to some of the Dakota County Commissioners that SOAR would be
better able to fulfil its objectives if Dakota County would provide SOAR
with some of the funds that it needs for its public information campaign,
its future lobbying efforts, and its other endeavors. In short, SOAR was
asking that Dakota County follow the example of the townships and cities
(such as Rosemount} that have already agreed to make such financial
commitments.
In any event, Commissioner Joe Harris proposed two resolutions at the
Physical Development Committee meeting on August 22. The first
resolution essentially proposed that Dakota County issue a "position
paper" (or alternatively, that Dakota County adopt an official position)
that reflects the following points:
1. Dakota County endorses and supgorts any reasonable efforts that
have been made (and/or that can be made in the future) to
mitigate the impact of airplane noise upon individuals and
communities in the northern portion of Dakota County.
2. Dakota County is opposed to moving the entire (and/or any portion
of) Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport to Dakota
County, and is in favor of expanding or improving existing
airport facilities to meet future air transportation needs.
3. Dakota County is opposed to the concept of "land banking" or
"site preservation" .
The second resolution that was suggested by Commissioner Harris proposed
that Dakota County provide SOAR with [an unspecified amount of] funding
for its future lobbying efforts and public information campaign. The
specific amount of the proposed funding would presumably be determined
after the County staff' s review of SOAR's budget and "work plan" for
1996.
1
Commissioner Patrice Bataglia elected to use the committee meeting on
August 22 to demonstrate her concern for her constituents in northern
Dakota County. She had apparently arranged for representatives (city
administrators, mayors, council members) of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights,
Sunfish Lake and Mendota Heights to be present in the audience. These
individuals, and Commissioner Bataglia, asked that decisions on the
aforementioned resolutions be deferred until the northern communities
could be "brought up to speed" on the airport issues in question.
Commissioner Bataglia indicated that although SOAR has shown "leadership"
on airport issues, she was not convinced that SOAR had any "followers" .
She also suggested that she would oppose any effort to provide SOAR with
Dakota County funds unless a comparable amount of money is given to a
comparable "northern Dakota County area" citizens' group (although she
did not specify any such group, and I personally do not believe that any
such graup currently exists) .
The Physical Development Committee ultimately decided to put the
resolutions on the agenda for its next meeting at 1:00 p.m. on September
26, 1995. The County staff was directed to contact each community in
Dakota County to determine the position (if any) that each community has
officially adopted with respect to the issues of airport relocation and
"land banking" .
I believe that several of the Dakota County Commissioners, and most of
the Dakota County staff, would like Dakota County to take a clear and
definitive position with respect to the airport issues in question. I
believe that continuing efforts by Dakota County to maintain a "neutral"
position will be unsuccessful and counter-productive. However,
Commissioner Bataglia has demonstrated a willingness to "rally the
troops" who may be in favor of airport relocation, and SOAR believes that
townships and cities (such as Rosemount) that are opposed to airport
relocation should therefore be present in force at the next Physical
Development Committee meeting on September 26.
I am therefore suggesting, on SOAR' s behalf, that the City of Rosmeount
take the following action(s} r
1. Arrange to have appropriate City staff inembers present for the
next Physical Development Committee meeting at the Western
Service Center in Apple Valley at 1:00 p.m. on September 26,
1995.
2. Encourage City Council members, Port Authority members, Planning
Commission members, and interested citizens to attend the
aforementioned meeting on September 26.
2
3. Consider adopting an updated City Council resolution regarding
airport issues at the next City Council meeting, so that the
City' s position on the issues in question can be more effectively
conveyed to the Physical Development Committee prior to or at its
meeting on September 26th. (I will, upon request, provide you
with a draft af a proposed resolution for your consideration. �
4 . Convey (preferably by letter) the City' s official position on
airport issues to Commissioner Steve Loeding well in advance of
the September 26th meeting. �
In 1996 or 1997, SOAR will be trying to convince a majority of our
legislators to vote against airport relocation and land banking. SOAR' s
efforts in that regard may be adversely affected if we cannot convince
a majority of Dakota County' s own Cammissioners to adopt a formal
position against airport relocation and site preservation. The Committee
meeting on September 26 may therefore become an important turning point
in the airport planning process, so I once again encourage you and other
City representatives to attend and participate in the discussion that
will take place at that time.
3
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAROTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1995-
A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF CONII�tISSIONERS
TO ADOPT AN OFFICIAL POSITION REGARDING CERTAIN ISSUES RELATED TO
THE DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS
WHEREAS, a meeting of the Physical Development Committee of the
Dakota County Board of Commissioners was held on August 22, 1995;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount has been advised that at the
aforesaid meeting, Dakota County Commissioner Joe Aarris proposed
a resolution that (if adopted) would result in Dakota County taking
an official position on certain issues related to the Dual Track
Airport Planning Process; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount has been advised that the aforesaid
resolution (if adopted) would indicate the following:
--that Dakota County endorses and supports any reasonable
efforts that have been made (and or that can be made in
the future) to mitigate the impact of airplane noise upon
individuals and commu�nities in the northern portion of
Dakota County
--that Dakota County is opposed to moving any portion of
the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to any
site located within Dakota County, and is in favor of
expanding and/or improving existing airport facilities
to meet future air transportation needs
--that Dakota County is opposed to the concept and/or
implementation of "land banking° or "site
preservation" as a means of restricting the uses or
development of land located within Dakota County in order
to "preserve" said land as a future airport site if the
Minnesota Legislature fails to canclude the Dual Track
process in 1997 with a definitive decision regarding the
possible relocation of the airport; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount has been advised that at the
aforesaid meeting on August 22, 1995, Commissioner Joe Harris also
proposed a resolution that (if adopted) would result in Dakota
County providing SOAR, Inc. {Stop Our Airport Relocation) with a
portion of the funding needed for its ongoing public information
campaign and for its future lobbying efforts regarding the
aforementioned airport issues; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount has been advised that at the
aforesaid meeting on August 22, 1995, Dakota County staff inembers
were directed to contact each community in Dakota County to
determine whether those communities had adopted formal or official
positions with respect to the issues raised by the aforesaid
resolutions proposed by Commissioner Joe Harris; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount has previously taken an active
interest in the' Dual Track Airport Planning Process, as evidenced
by its adoption of Resolutions 1992-28, 1992-29 and 1995-3, copies
of which have been attached hereto for reference; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount now considers it appropriate and
necessary to convey to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners,
and to any other interested parties, its official position
regarding the issues raised by the aforesaid resolutions proposed
by Dakota County Commissioner Joe Harris.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Rosemount hereby
reaffirms that it is opposed to relocating any portion of the
Minneapolis-St.Paul International Airport to any site located
within Dakota County, and reaffirms its belief that expanding or
improving existing airport facilities to meet future air
transportation needs is the most sensible and affardable
alternative; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Rosemount hereby
reaffirms its opposition to the concept of "land banking" or "site
preservation, " on the basis that the implementation of said concept
would adversely affect the right and ability of the City of
Rosemount, and the right and ability of its neighboring
communities, to fulfill the objectives outlined in their respective
comprehensive guide plans and related planning documents; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Rosemount endorses and
supports the continuing study and implementation of reasonable
noise mitigation efforts for any community that is adversely
affected by its proximity to existing airport facilities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Rosemount is prepared
to commit its own funds to an organized effort to persuade the
public, and the Minnesota Legislature, that the opinions and
course(s) of action referred to above are in the best interests of
the citizens of Dakota County and the entire State of Minnesota;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Rosemount believes that
Dakota County should be similarly willing to immediately take an
official position on the critically important airport issues in
question, and that Dakota County should be similarly willing to
commit its financial resources to an organized effort to advocate
the opinions and positions expressed above; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the reasons set forth above, the
City of Rosemount �ully and unqualifiedly supports the two
resolutions that were proposed by Dakota County Commissioner Joe
Harris on August 22, 1995, and strongly encourages the Dakota
County Board of Commissioners to immediately adopt said
resolutions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this Resolution be
provided to the Dakota County Board of Commissioners, the
Metropolitan Council, the Metropalitan Airports Commi.ssion and any
other interested parties, prior to or at the September 26, 1995
meeting of the Physical Development Committee of the Dakota County
Board of Commissioners.
Adopted this 19th day of September, 1995.
E. B. McMenomy, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
CTTY OF ROSF'iVIOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLIJTION 1995 - 3
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE TIlVIELY COMPLETION
OF THE DUAL TRACK AIItPORT PLANI�IING PROCESS
VVHEREAS, the 19$9 Dual Track Aiigort Planning I.egislation clearly defined a generous
seven year period within which the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropalitan
Council could study and recommend how to best meet Minnesota's aviation needs, specifically
requiring a recommendation by July 19, 1996, and;
WHEREAS, the agencies and their numerous consultants managed an elaborate process
involving hundreds of citizens in the selection of the fmal designated site in the Southem Dakota.
County Townships of Empire, Vermillion, Nininger and Marshan, and a portion of the City of
Hastings, and;
WHEREAS, the design of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process was democratic and well
know to all affected units of government under the governance of the agencies involved since
the beQinning, and;
VVHT�REAS, the City of Rosemount and its residents have participated in the process in good
faith and deserve a reasonable and timely conclusion to this process which supersedes its own
_ ability to plan and govern.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount
--- resolves that the Minnesota Legislature and its State Advisory Council on Airport Planning
require the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropolitan Council definitively
recommend one of the three options described in Statute and thereby conclude the Dual Track
Airport Planning Process on time in 1996.
BE IT FLTRTHER RESOLVED, that the recommendation be considered and a final decision
� rendered by the 1997 State I,egislature.
DATED this 17th day of January, 1995.
L' .
ATTEST• E.B. McMenomy, Ma r
S an M. W sh, City Clerk
� Motion by: W � P P e r m a n n Second by: B u s h o
Voted in favor: Anderson, W i ppermann, McMenomy, Busho
. Voted against: N o n e .
Absent : Staats .
.�._, CITY OF ROSEMOIINT
- DAKOTA COIINTY, MINNESOTA
' RESOLIITION 1992- 29
�::�
A RESOLIITION SIIPPORTING THE FIINDING OF A
COIINTY BIOLOGICAL SIIRVEY
FOR DAKOTA COIINTY BE GR.ANTED
WSEREAS, Dakota County continues to experience extensive growth
in certain areas of the county; and
WSEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has selected 115 square miZes
of Dakota County for a future airport; and
WHEREAS, within these 115 square miles there are wetlands,
farmland, forest preserves, wildlife preserves, cemeteries,
homes, businesses, rivers, lakes and schools; and
�REAS, it is essential that we continue to conserve the
preservation of our natural resources as well as the socio-
economic well being of our region; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has indicated that they will be
conducting a study "similar" to a "County Biological Survey" but
� similar ma.y not mean that a factual, complete and thorough study
' will be done as the °County Biological Survey" would be for the
.`, _ ,; purposes of detexinining the appropriateness of the utilization of
certain lands for a new airport.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Rosemount hereby requests the State Legislature to appropriate
funds for the completion of a Dakota County "County Biological
Survey" and that the Dakota County Biological Survey be given
priority over other counties to have this survey completed.
Adopted this 17th day of March, 1992.
� �• �
E. B. McMenomy, Ma. r
ATTEST:
�
S an M. W sh, City Clerk
Motion byc Klassen Seconded by: Wippermann
' ` Voted in favor: Willcox, Wi permann, McMenomy, Staats , Klassen
�--- Voted against: None
�.
i
CITY OF ROSED20IINT
�' DAKOTA COUNTY, D�INNESOTA
� RSSOLUTION 1992- 28
: ;
A RESOLIITION OPPOSING TSE RELOCATION OF TSE
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAIIL AIRPORT AND THE CONTINVATION
OF THE Z'9Q0-TR.ACK PROCESS FOR AIRPORT PLANNING IN MINNESOTA
�HEREAS, the Metropolitan Council was directed to proceed with
airport planning in Min.nesota by the Minnesota Legislature in
1987 through a "dual track" process. Track "A° called for
planning to expand the current Minneapolis-St. Pau1 Airport, and
Track "B° called for the selection of a site for a new airport if
needed; and
�HEREAS, the Metropolitan Council, the agency for making
recommendations to the legislature on whether to finally build a
new airport or continue to use the existing facility, did
(1) Draw up its own criteria for selection of a new airport
site,
(2) Developed a unique environmental process for determining ,
site adequacy;
�1
` : (3) Developed self-guiding rules for controlling development in
: ; areas affected by the new airport search area selection;
(4) Applied its own defined criteria for site selection; and
(5) The criteria established eliminated the possibility of
choosing options such as use of the Rochester Airport as a
reliever airport and other existing airports in the
Metropolitan area; and -
WHEREAS, the entire dual track process continues with public
input limited to public information meetings, no access to those
persons making decisions on this process and no public
accountability for the Metropolitan Council on its development of
the dual track plan; and
WHEREAS, the state legislature has given the Metropolitan
Council, the same agency responsible for development, management
and enforcement of the Metropolitan Development and Investment
Framework, the autonomy to recommend whether or not a new airport
is needed; and this same agency has already violated the
guidelines set out in its own "Guide Plan" for managing
development in the region; and
; . ..
\
RESOLUTION 1992 - 28
- qPSEREAS, the premature selection of a search area encompassing
some 115 square miles of Dakota County and the development
� guidelines established by the Metropolitan Council without giving
the affected cities, county and townships an opportunity to
affect those decision has already adversely affected property
owners, taxpayers and residents in those municipalities; and
wHEREAS, the relocation, and even the serious discussion of the
relocation of the airport, causes economic harm to farmers,
business owners, employees and families who derive their income
from and develop their lifestyle around the existing airport and
the agriculturally based economy of rural Dakota County; and
ooHEREAS, this planning process has already stymied the timely
completion of the City of Rosemount ' s Comprehensive Guide Plan
update and caused delays, additional expenditures and taken away
from the City total land use regulatory control; and
WBEREAS, no study has been completed, as requested by hundreds of
Dakota County residents, which can determine the socio-economic
effects of the planning process, developmental controls and
eventual relocation of the airport; and -
�REAS, the relocation of the Minneapolis-St. Pau1 Airport and
the planning to accomplish this is and wiil be the most
; � significant public works project in Minnesota history; and the
;� State of Minnesota, its cities and towns and the region are alI
experiencing extreme difficulty in meeting financial
responsibilities to provide services to their residents; and
WSEREAS, there exists no overall plan for the region or the state
for transportation pianning and development, and this process for
airport planning has become a state-wide issue affecting all
taxpayers in Minnesota and more significantly the economic/social
development corridor between St. Cloud and Rochester; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Rosemount, Minnesota, taxpayers to the
city, county and region and state, are being negatively and
irreversibly affected by the planning process and the potential
relocation of the airport.
NOW THEREFORE BP IT RESOLVFD, that the City Council of the City
of Rosemount does hereby call on the Governor of the State of
Minnesota, -the legislators of this state and the Metropolitan
Council to:
(1) Take action to stop the "Dual Track" airport planning
process immediately because the data referenced as "Revenue
_� 2
\
. .
RESOLUTION 1992 - 28
� Emplanements" and "Total Operation" figures used to support
the need to either expand or relocate the airport in 198?
� � are no longer at such Ievels to encourage such need; and
(2) Take action to remove all developmental regulations in and
around the designated search area regarding airport related
planning, including any site protection regulations and land
banking procedures taken or proposed.
(3) Address the people of the state and this region to present
an overall plan for transportation in the region and the
state that justifies either the expansion or th.e relocation
of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport;
(4) Show evidence that the Metropolitan Council and its staff is
carrying out the intent of the direction given to them by
the legislature;
(5) Request that the Federal Aviation Administration conduct a
separate needs assessment to lend their expertise and
objectivity to the consideration of expansion or relocation.
(6) Show evidence that the Metropolitan Council has provided, in
its governance of developmental policies, for the protection
� of the legal, economa.c and social rights of those citizens
. affected by the selection of the Dakota Search Area and the
;_� continuation of the Dual Track process;
(7} Address the people of this state and the region with a plan '
that establishes an off ice for citizen awareness, research
and information processing that is separate from the
Metropolitan Council and reports directly to the
legislature, and whose sole purpose is the unbiased review
and policy development for decision making on this issue;
and develops a Minnesota transportation plan for highway,
mass transit, air and river travel including the socio and
economic ramifications of such decisions including the need
for and relocation of the Metropolitan-St. Paul Airport; and
gg IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Rosemount supports HF2153 legislation which provides for the
strengthening of the State Advisory Committee on airport planning
and the appointment of persons to that committee which are
neutral to this issue; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Rosemount opposes any further consideration for the relocation to
Dakota County, of the Minneapolis - St. Paul Airport; and
. .._ 3
RESOLUTION 1992 - 28
.--.
88 iT FQRTSER �SOLVSD, that this Resolution be sent to Governor
Arne Carlson, Metropolitan Council Chair Mary Anderson, State
Representative Dee Long and Sena.tor Roger Moe.
ADOPTED this 17th day of March, 1992 .
� � • /f2c
E. B. McMenomy, Mayor
ATTEST:
� I
us n M. Wa h, City Clerk '
:.�
Motion by• Klassen Seconded by: Willcox
Voted in favor: Willcox, Wippermann, McMenomy, Staats , Klassen
Voted against: None
.__, 4
�
, ���v�c�per sl�,t,l Pa..c�v i d� a -1-i�,�,n,� a►� Pl�,ro:.s�r 9 (�I�a.r� -Fo r �Ppa.mJ0..i by
'�n.e, C�i-y C'o�.n c� ( o..�t- `F�he �'f in e. c�C °�P P�'vM�,,:,,�o-F `�-fn�'. ��r`a,� �t�L D ct.�2ee rr1�-z,�{',
_ � � ,,. z.,.. � ��"'�- b.�`N-`
��-��- 1y,,�-e_. �w.� �e a P�"°'` '� � � �u0 n,
�. �..2 a.�- �'�`� ,� � a,�,�.,o..Q��. ���'-
C� �
7. adoption of a PUD and Master Subdivision Development agreement to identify and guide future
phases of development and guarantee approved variances as appropriate; and
8. adoption of findings to support variances via PUD and that the Developer eliminate variances
wherever possible through design modifications.
� ' -}r� c ofi 'Rs„�+1 . '''� ��
, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTIiER RESOLVED, in the event
to acquire and develop property for public use, the City Council of the City o semount
dete ' es that the previously mentioned conditions be revised to read as follows:
1. inco ration of engineering recommendations relative to grading and ' ties plans and ponding
capacity ' to the final development plan;
2. execution o re-assessment agreement to provide funds in e amount of$6,365 for the
Developer's sha of trunk water main improvements if t trunk water main is installed as a
public (chap. 429) rovement, or the Developer ' e reimbursed for oversizing from core
funds if the water main� rivately installed;
3. Geographic Information Sy ems (GIS) ded' tion of$50.00 per dwelling unit totalling $4,950;
4. dedication of 1.4 acres of prope for development with the balance of park dedication paid
in cash at the time of final plat appr al;
5. adoption of a PUD and Master ubdivis' n Development Agreement to identify and guide the
future phases of developm and approve 1 plats with guarantees of approved variances as
appropriate;
6. adoption of findin to support variances via PUD c sistent with section 12.2 of the
Zoning Ordin e; and
7. enter into puchase agreement for the sale to the City of Ou t C for a purchase price of ,
$144 0, $59,120 of which will be provided by waiving pre-ass ent amounts of$44,670.00
f the Developer's share of improvements on Dodd Blvd. in additian $14,450.00 for the
Developer's share of trail improvements on Dodd Blvd. �
ADOPTED this 19th day of September, 1995. ,�G��� �
a` ,QD Q
�.
E.B. McMenomy, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
,
.
��
� �
��. crrY oF xos�our�T 9i9/y,f-
DAKOTA COIJNTY, A�IINN�SOTA S'`:oo� ��
.
RESOLUTION 1995-
� A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WENSMANN NINTH ADDITION
� � FINAL CONCEPT�hLANNED UNPT DEVELOPMENT
AND PRELINIINARY PLAT
WHE�EAS, the City of Rosemount has received a proposal for a final residential planned unit
development and preliminary plat for the following legally described properties:
The East 440.0 feet of the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 lying Northwesterly of State Aid Road No. 42
(Now Dodd Boulevard), Section 30, Township 115, Range 19, according to the Government Survey
thereof, except the North 379.50 feet thereof; and
That part of the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 115, Range 19, lying North of
Dodd Boulevard, except the East 44Q.0 feet, except those parts platted as Shannon Park lst Addition and
Limerick Way, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, according to the Government Survey thereof.
WHEREAS, on August 1, 1995 the City Council of the City of Rosemount approved of the concept for a
residential planned unit development on property currently referred to as "The Dodd Triangle"; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 1995 the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount recommended
approval of the final concept for a residential planned unit development and preliminary plat on property
currently referred to as "The Dodd Triangle"; and
WHEREAS, the proposal is in conformance with the R-2 Single Family Residential District density
standards; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 1995 the City Council held a public hearing in accordance with the City
of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance and State Statutes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves
the final concept plan for the residential planned unit development and preliminary plat on property as
legally described above subject to:
1. incorporation of engineering recommendations relative to grading and utilities plans and ponding
capacity into the final development plan;
2. execution of a pre-assessment agreement to provide funds in the amount of$65,070 for the
developer's share of future improvements on Dodd Blvd with the p ' � that should the City
acquire Outlot C for public use, the amount would be reduced to 44,670.00 Z I
3. execution of a pre-assessment agreement to provide funds in the amount of$6,365.00 for the
Developer's share of trunk water main improvements if the water m is installed as a public
(chap. 429) improvement or the Developer will be reimbursed for ove�rsizing of the trunk water
main from core funds if the water main is privately installed;
4. execution of a pre-assessment agreement to provide funds in the amount of$21,054.00 for the
Developer's share of future trail improvements on Dodd Blvd., with the provision that should the
City acquire Outlot C for public use, the escrow amount would be reduced to $14,450.00; —�
5. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) dedication of$50 per dwelling unit totalling $5,550, with
the provision that should the City acquire Outlot C for public use, the GIS dedication fee would
be reduced to $4,950;
6. dedication of 1.4 acres of property for park development with the balance of park dedication paid
in cash at the time of final plat approval;
; •,�\ �,,, >.,
�v�s �yet�t �tcnva�¢nv� NORTH ' . �� .� � -�.� �
, �`.
�� �-.
,, , ` .
, .� � �
, .� �\ �._,..
�. �\ '��\\
`\` \
/ ! .- ��
, /� '�� �'�.`\ ��.
eo• ,zo• ,sa• � SHAMNON PARK 2 ��
/� %i ` \
� % iST ADOiT10N p 1 \\� ��
PLANT UST // / • � r4s
s�ew arc cora�woc sa 1,� �\\
� ,m ��,�,�� _� !/ � 1 \ sr� �
. F� sz ssees m wL�oe txe raaora � �� �\ 3 �r \
�uw� 'rm�r»��e""°` � I.0 1
Pe�-x cv�..�
. .. . . .. � ���,qL'li/�t � � � �� ID—2C 9N 11 Q . . . . � . . � . .. . . . � . . . � � L O C �� . � . - . . . . � . . .
. . . .. . . �� . . . . �\\
74 9W7.7�Q!TD MCInE AiE faJD�MQ � � . . � . . /. . � . . . . . . � z . . � . � . . . � . � . .. . . .
. �. . . . �� .. . � ;s!•� . . . . . . .;� � � . .. . . � . \ � .
/
. . . IJYI Y�ME C{liP . . 6'diY � . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
� �. �,�m.�„Q,Ka,�..� 4
�� �;�/y"
. ��"""` . 2;//S�`'Y�iq� . . . � . . � . .. .. . � . ..
. �. . ...Y�Pfl�K MOtriDQli1 . . .� 2 77Z!Si! . . . . � . . . O 2 . . � . . . . . . . � . . . . �. .
� .� � � � � . . . � .. � � . . . . . .. � . . � � � . � . . � . . .
/ LIMERICK WAY T 3 . �
� � tAPT. UNIT31
� �
� �
10 �� 4
1
s
�
� .. . . � � . � � . . ���' . . . . � . .. 11 � . � �. � . ��'""'. 8'B(T. PAhI . � �.. . � .. . . . . . .
. . . � . � . . . "lk�' �� �a � � . � � . . '4 �z � �. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . - .� �.
r3 8 5 PARK >s
4 � � _ OUTLOT A �5 �
13
,
,�.� 32 33 15 7 4 i � 14
� 6
Q, � 3> s4 �BLOCK 3 � 21 �s � � �
Q 1� 3 � 12 ��
O� � � � z 2 3 6 7 9 11 � ,%
�' � f 0 /
%�
�� 30 27 � 26 23 2Z 19 � BL� �
!
�� zs ze � z5 z4 '�II(� z� zo � POND > 4 s a J/,
; � � � � � � � � � %�
� �;
/� r'
� ,
�
DC1DD BOULEVARD
� �
,
,-
,
,
I
��.y�voN uei mr o+a�e or.nv.a e�m.Q�.r�e.y �061f8AFlJt � . . . OAIE �
� REVIS�ONS � . ..anat�pwla�aN Not 1 an o mM��M�.PROfB,90MM. � OFSnED :PA/R ��� PMR � . . . �T/7/� �
owrm+�.e..a.a..o�a.s�.ar��.�...w. Wsdu B�� Iat 'TFE TRIANflLE' PRELIMfiARY
8/8/95 PLANT IDENTIFlCATION FOR CITY SUBMITTAI ��� oe..� x ,�o,,,,�m.�„�
�,e mu1N aas mve � — 3312 L�W4t ea�a�.fwrooT� LAti�SCAPE PLAN SHEET
w ew°�.•« sm� DATE x REG. NO. 2207t X II��. S!� 1 OF t
� � � . . � � � . . . mn..wo �
aif�S �YAN �YGIIYSg�ING. /
� � ��.� � , `_ � ,\ :�
l/ '� � �.,
' � ` �.! ..�
� `�;�` '�, ',, , ,�
. . . . . .. . . . . \ � \ .` � .S ��\ \ . .
� ( �_ �
�� ��
, �,� �,
N 0 R TH ,BNAI�MlCN PARlF 2 ,r `� ,� '��-' \\
/ � iST A � � � � • � �
! ;;� ; ., ,-
DWTt4N % � ` �_ �� ��
�
' ;" Q 1 '; s�:, w�
; ; ,: , ; „ '
," s�� � \\
�./ / %� a, / r
�' '� ;� , 4
80' _j a� � �'��e�' � y � � \ s�y��
t2o' tao' a� � � � sr
: . . . . . � . /� . . �•' . c�,�.;� � . � / ,, `�� � . .
� r �,�,�,� ,� �,; �� a��' L� � R�F�
�� �,a�t� ,� � ! �
-""qeo— oo+o,es ou�r+c caN,a�,xs � ��/ ''�� � � � '
�
--9eo--.- oo+o�ts raaros�n conra,Rs � a' � �,/. � T 2 q A2 ■ 2.80 Aa .,`S 4
(,�""x.
. . �' `\ �=ssaa c /i
� OFN07ES OtlS7Y1G SPOi ELEVA710N � . . � . . `l E m a51.d0 . . � . �, .. . . . .
� � dd . �EN07ES PItOPOBm 9+0T Ei.EYATp1� . � � \� . . . . t � . . . . . . .
b / ;' /� �'`,..) 4 � :,..,-... � / ',
�g• oo�ohs�earosm c�n�¢�unar � ,/'\
�! � � t; � � � � �a�.,_.-.-�, ~
,�.. �-1 �z � / -
L�RICK WAY%� T 3
_ � �sT� � � f €APT. i�NiT3i
.��
. . . . . /l �", �� . .. � ;a'�'��. . . . 5'S/D£WALK a `./ � � � � � � . . . . . .
� : . . � � . . . � . /. . . .. . . .. � � � �t�1 . � g � � �. . . � � � . . � � � � � . �
v
� �!� 'O � `• � \ nio�o���ououur
. f��� . � . . .
�` ,;3q ` �. 4 A1 ■13.2 AC.
RE 961 9
� �{�/ ,F=s*r.sa s � , �
.ff �. > � �, :----: � �
' �� ` ""'-.,-�-�_._._.
_ :' \ ``
. . . '4 �. � 5'SIDE ALK . . . . . . . . . . . .
�/ �� � f2 �`' ° . _
� � A3 ■ 1.71Ac. 13 / 8 5 � � � PAR
�� / e i ; '6 ,%
�' � F
'�' � 3z b 33 >5 .. 4 1 �� �i' �� A 13
QQ"4 31 34 21 ' Lfi �s � ,�' 1 l � 14 5 � ,�
B � i `,\ q? %
;
�?- � ��
? +y,�� � / � z '��BLOC >z
L \
�� 30 O 27 �'4,,�� 2 3 i g 7\ ` 9 >1 � /
�� 26 23 22 y 19 �� � .-.. ,a p �
,� f0 /� f
29 z8 z ' � �-^ z� � zo ,� � 1 i �'� � , : � % `� �
.. � t I i -��. '' � i � `¢ 5 8 � . � ;!
� �- ` �
.a s $ � �+q. � � , ti / �
� ""� �� `� � / � � j
. . i.c�, � �s r t �.. ..i ` � v�✓ . . � . . . . . � . � . .
\6Yi� � ��►
� �,
. . __ �. � ♦ � � � � . `I .
� . . . . }00 \ ..���..�..r.��t.,�.,,,���.�. l...�.�. . . . . ( . . . . �
. . . . . . 01flPfLOW QVA7KW• . � . . � I� .
D gp '_' t �
I��'---.��a =�-'=�.--. , �
�� �---_..
-. . ',
— '�,
:z s aszrrs +�,.asza� /� 1� __'__.-------�--�
t ; �
\��—.-----f � �s:y.,�'s° � `� : �• ,`
QN� w
. . . . � � .. . . � � .. . . . .. . . ��ro� . . � � . . � � � . \��\. ..� . . � � . � � � � .
'^t�� `
� �w�� �
,
R��oNs RYAN ,�.a.�.a.,----.--
8/8/95 ADD GRADES. MOO STORM FOR CITY SUBMITTA p°""°'p��s��o-u�ar mr ��.
�.a.w�wm aa nwt i an a aN�eYwna rnarEa9ww. � 06� cxcacm OMI.OMII
9/14/95 MOD. CONTOURS ADD S70RM & EMERGENCY °�'"�""0'"'""O"'°�""'SOOf'a M�»� ---. P"�R �R
OVERFLOW FOR C�ITY SUBMITTAL ���� � auw� We�t H�r Itc. 'THE TRIANflLE' P�LIMNARr DATE
� DATE X z acoono aurho ar/oarz
REc. No. 2za�� x �L�..oraW s�w "0'�ror■*,+.�w.or� GRADING � ER0810N �nros
CONTROL PLAN sHeET
` t «� t
. . . . . . . . � .. 'TftIGRAO. . .��I .