HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.c. Minutes of the September 19, 2006 City Council ProceedingsCALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Rosemount City Council
was duly held on Tuesday, September 19, 2006, at 7 :30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City
Hall, 2875 145' Street \Vest.
Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members Sterner, Baxter,
DeBettigmes, and Shoe Corrigan attending Staff members present were Pohce Chief
Kalstabakken, Community Development Director Lindquist, Parks and Recreation Director
Schultz, City Engineer Brotzler, City Attorney LeFevere, Communications Coordinator Cox
and City Clerk Domeier. The Pledge of Allegiance was said.
ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA
Community Development Director pulled Consent Agenda Item 6.e. Acquisition of
Easements Old County Road 38/ 132n Court \Vest Street and Utility Improvements, City
Project #387 from the Agenda.
Motion by Droste. Second by Sterner.
Motion to adopt the Agenda with Item 6.e. removed.
Ayes: 7.
Nays: 0. Motion carried.
5.a. Oath of Police Officer
Mr. Kalstabakken took great pleasure in introducing Mikael Dahlstrom to the City Council.
Officer Dahlstrom began workmg for the Pohce Department on September 5, 2006. Mr.
Kalstabakken summarized Officer Dahlstroin's background and education.
Mayor Droste administered the Police Officer Oath of Office to Mikael Dahlstrom. Mayor
Droste congratulated Officer Dahlstrom and welcomed all the family who attended the
event.
Consent Agenda
Mayor Droste pulled Item 6.b for further discussion.
Motion by DeBettigmes. Second by Baxter.
Motion to adopt the Consent Agenda Items 6.a. and Items 6.c. through 6.i.
a. Bills Listing
b. St. J scph Church Task Force
c. Pine Bend Paving Asphalt Plant Interim Use Permit, 06- 41 -IUP (Resolution
2006 -98)
d. Acquisition of Easements GlenRose of Rosemount City Project #397
e. Declare Cost /Set Hearing -2006 Pavement Management Project, City Project
#396 (Resolution 2006 -99)
f. Declare Cost /Set Hearing GlenRose of Rosemount Street and Utility
Improvements, City Project #397 (Resolution 2006 -100)
6.c.
g. Approve Agreement with Xcel Energy for Utility Relocation -Old County Road
38, City Project #387
h. Bioscicnce Zone Application (Resolution 2006 -101)
i. Robert Street Corridor Committees
Ayes: DeBettignics, Shoe Corrigan Droste, Sterner, Baxter.
Nays: None. Motion approved.
6.b. St. Joseph Church Task Force
Mayor Droste explained the composition and purpose of the task force in looking at the
feasibility of the St. Joseph Church site He further added the process will last approximately
one year to develop short and long term plans that would detail the best use for the
buildings in the future Staff plans to recruit the volunteer positions by posting information
in the local newspapers and on the City's website.
Motion by Droste Second by Sterner.
Motion to approve the composition of the St. Joseph's Church Task Force and the
recruitment of its members as detailed by staff in the execuuve summary.
Council Member Shoe Corngan stated the church will remain in place and the intent to
carefully review the possibihty of reusing the school building.
Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies
Nays: None. Motion approved.
Public Hearings
a. Flint Hills Preliminary Approval to the Project and the Issuance of Revenue
Bonds
Community Development Director Lindquist stated that per the apphcant's request the
public hearing should be tabled unul October 3, 2006 to resolve issues on the project.
Mayor Droste opened the podium for pubic comment. Myron Napper, 3381 145 Street
East, Rosemount, questioned what type of project is to be approved. Ms. Lindquist
responded the project is for the purchase of additional equipment Mayor Droste noted at
the next meeting representatives from Flint Hills would be available to provide a formal
presentation with greater detail on the project.
Motion by Droste. Second by Shoe Corrigan.
Motion to table the public hearing to October 3, 2006
Ayes: 7.
Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Old Business
7.a. Twin Ponds Conservation Easement, 05- 41 -AP -V
Community Development Director Lindquist reviewed the staff report and also referenced
City Attorney LeFevere's memo related to the buffer averaging and ordinance information.
She stated the item is not a variance or a land use based approval process. While on other
occasions the buffer averaging has been approved it often occurs through the course of
review and approval of a development project.
Council Member DeBettrgnies noted from the minutes of February 14, 2004 that when the
previous lot split was approved the City Council ruled that approval did not guarantee two
buildable lots.
Jenm Hattervig of Pioneer Engineering representing Manley Land Development stated since
the homes are custom built they were not aware of the situation until the buyer was in place.
The proposed house for the lot is over 80 feet wide. She added that a conservation
easement was provided in an attempt to work in favor of the buffer averaging.
Council Member Baxter questioned the difference between a 75 feet or 45 feet buffer with a
30 foot setback. Andrea Moffit of WSB Associates stated the 75 foot buffer is associated
with the preservation of higher quality wetlands and is a no touch natural area. The 30 foot
setback area would allow usable space for a back yard. From wetlands preservation
perspective the buffer is more important than the setback.
Council Member Shoe Corrigan stated while she could support a reduced setback to
something closer to 20 feet. She would not support allowing a house to be built next to the
buffer. She did not consider the item a hardship and did not support vacating the easement.
Council Member Baxter stated the 75 foot buffet should be protected. He further stated if
the setback were reduced and could be enforced that the homeowner get a smaller yard he
could support the suggestion. Council Member DeBettigmes concurred.
City Attorney LeFevere stated the original request was to realign the buffer by averaging and
with an additional 30 foot setback. If the City Council is contemplating adjusting the
setback that would fall into a variance situation which would require the applicant go
through the vanance process.
Andrea Moffit stated the wetland plan does include a case by case buffer averaging The
buffer is more important to protect the overall area and setback was put into place because
homeowners were often mowing the buffer areas City Engineer Brotzler added the wetland
management plan is fairly new New homeowners tend to receive good information about
the purpose of the buffer A majority of the wetland problems occur where the wetland
predates the wetland management plan
Council Member Shoe Corrigan stated her concerns if in the future the homeowner decides
to construct an addition, outbuildings, patio or an m ground pool. She stated a fair
compromise would be to allow the applicant to go through the variance process.
Motion by Sterner to table Item 8s until the October 3` meeting. No second. Motion
denied.
Mayor Droste questioned staff if the application was nearing the 60 day period. Ms.
Lindquist responded that the request is to vacate an easement and is not a formal planning
application. Mayor Droste also questioned Ms. Hattervig with how flexible it is for the
buyer to find a house that fits the lot. She added since these is no guarantee with a variance,
direction is needed from the buyer on other options. Mayor Droste stated he would like to
know about the flexibility of the building foot pnnt and the buyer may have more influence
on the situation.
Ms. Lindquist stated that based upon advice from Attorney LeFevere if the City Council
chose to deny the vacauon request the item should be tabled to the next meeting to perrmt
staff to draw up findings for denial. Because of the ambiguity of the case by case basis
found within the Wetland Plan, staff wanted to have on record the basis for moving in the
direction chosen by the City Council Council Member DeBettigmes added that a vanance
was previously approved with the lot split and the driveway easements by the Planning
Comimssion and approved by the City Council. He pomted out the 75 foot buffer was part
of the previous approval.
Motion by Sterner. Second by Baxter.
Motion to table Item 8.a. until the October 3n meeting.
Ms. Lindquist clarified that the tabling was to produce the findings of fact for denial.
Council Member DeBettigtues added a fnendly amendment to the motion stating "for
permitting staff time to draw up findings of dental." Council Members Sterner and Baxter
agreed with the amendment.
Ayes: Droste, Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan.
Nays: None. Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
9.a. County Road 42 and Akron Avenue AUAR, 06 -16 -CP
Andrea Moffit, from WSB Associates, provided the background, analysis and steps going
forward for the ALTAR process.
Council Member DeBetugnies questioned the location of the Greenway Comdor. Ms.
Moffit responded that the approxnnate location of the corridor will depend upon
development and how it is configured. She noted that the graphic found within the
document does not illustrate that the Greenway extends far beyond the study area, but it
does. Council Member Sterner inquired what types of comments Ms. Moffit is expecting
from agencies. Ms. Moffit stated she would expect comments from the PCA, Met Council
and DNR but does not foresee any surprise comments.
City Attorney Brotzler informed the City Council that a copy of the plan will be mailed to
public agencies. He continued that before the pubhc meeting the plan will be posted on the
City's website and available for public review at City Hall.
Motion by Baxter. Second by Sterner.
Motion to release the CSAH 42 and Akron Avenue AUAR for a 30 -day public
review and comment period.
Ayes: Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan, Droste.
Nays: None. Motion approved.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Droste reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule for September and noted the next
regular City Council meeting would be held on October 3, 2006.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Droste moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Second by Sterner. Upon
unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Domeier,
City Clerk