HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.a. Legislative PoliciesAGENDA ITEM: Legislative Policies
AGENDA SECTION:
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: None
APPROVED BY:
ll
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council discussion
4 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session: February 15, 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The 2006 Legislative Session begins on Wednesday, March 1. The City Council reviewed a number of
issues at the January Work Session that are likely to impact or be of importance to the City of Rosemount.
Based on that discussion, staff has prepared a draft legislative policies document for Council review.
ISSUE
Staff also invited State Senator Chris Gerlach, State Representative Dennis Ozment, and Metropolitan
Council Representative Bnan McDaniel to attend the February Work Session. Rep. Ozment is unavailable
to attend due to travel. .fir McDaniel notified staff that he also will be unable to attend because of a
recent scheduling conflict Sen. Gerlach is expected to attend.
SUMMARY
Staff requests further direction on the attached legislative policies and encourages a healthy dialogue with
Sen. Gerlach on his expectations of the upcoming session.
The draft legislative policies will be distributed via e-mail no later than Monday, February 13.
AGENDA ITEM: Transition Residential Property North of
135 Street
AGENDA SECTION:
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
Director
Andy Brotzler, City Engineer
AGENDA NO. ITEM 2B
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction
xROSEMouNr
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session: February 15, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ISSUE
Some time ago, staff discussed the County Road 38 road project with the City Council. At that time there
was some discussion about the ramifications of upgrading the street and extending utilities m the area for
those rural residential or agricultural properties north of County Road 38. Staff wants to clarify the
Council's position because we are aware that there are developers looking at various properties in this area.
DISCUSSION
Staff is aware that developers are looking at the properties north of old County Road 38, west of Bacardi
Avenue, and south of 130' Street. The vast majority of the land is owned by the Nieland family There are
other parcels also in the area. One developer has come to the city with a concept that included much of
this "block"
It is staff's understanding that the Council recognized that property owners affected by the road and utility
upgrade and assessments would be permitted to develop, after a formal planning review process. However,
in this particular area, it would appear that more than just the properties Immediately adjacent to old CR
38 would be developed. One reason is that the ownership extends further north than just the properties
immediately next to the road. From a planning and engineering standpoint, it would be preferable to have
the enure area developed concurrently so that road systems, neighborhood access, and regional ponding
could be designed
CONCLUSION
Staff is requesting clarification from the Council regarding their intentions about property north of old
County Road 38, east of Bacardi Avenue. This area is designated Transition Residential and is already
located within the City MUSA boundary. However, the property is zoned agriculture Specifically, Staff
would like to gauge Council's comfort level with all properties m the area being developed or would the
preference be to only allow properties immediately adjacent to the County Road 38 road project develop at
a more urbanized rate If the whole "block" were to develop some time m the future, staff would expect
130' to serve as the dividing hne between urban and rural development.
11ra1: 7i
S
m I K
1
AVE
1 J
I-___
11a� D y
y
A-
Btraerc aWAN
-BkAN WM4L W
yr y
al
�I
1 yin
i i r Th
m0
Sallir
tl
Y is
uo
A
2
I
r1 a m
Rc na
m
Om<
0
I
I
ell'
BEN GAL AV
ra
1
Ala
111
A
m
F.-1,z
0
R
AA
2y
FLIcer
cp
ROBERT L i I JEANNE ETAL REUTER
KAUFMAN 1
A A2
2 a 'II
BA
.a.
w
0
A
A
Z
Z
D
G)
D
cn
O
O
\G
r
l