Loading...
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 .