HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.b. Minutes of the October 17, 2006 City Counsel ProceedingsCALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a City Council Regular Meeting was duly held on
Tuesday, October 17, 2006, at 7.30p m in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 2875 145` Street
West.
Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies,
and Shoe Corrigan attending Staff members present were City Administrator Verbrugge,
Community Development Director Lindquist, City Attorney LeFevere, City Engineer Brotzler,
Chief of Police Kalstabakken and Recording Secretary Hanson The Pledge of Allegiance was
said.
ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA
City Administrator Verbrugge noted the addition of Consent Agenda Item 6.k. Bioscience Zone
Application, a Resolution relating to Interim Use Permits, amending City Resolution 2005 -135
to the New Business Item 9 c and a correction to the resolution in Consent Agenda Item 6 i
Motion by Droste to approve the additions and correcuons to the Agenda. Second by Shoe-
Corrigan.
Motion
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
Packet page 7 of 177
ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 17, 2006
DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS /BUSINESS
a. Special Event Update Haunted Woods Trail Parks and Recreation Director Dan Schultz
approached the Council He reported that this is the 24` year that the City of Rosemount has
had a Haunted Woods This year it is taking place on October 28, 2006, from 6.00p m
8:OOp.m in Central Park for preschool to middle aged children. Mike Bouchard, chairperson of
the Halloween Committee, gave a report of the activities The Halloween Committee started 24
years ago and at that point, the Haunted Woods was a small trail. In 1991, the big blizzard made
all activities cease for 11 years. In 2002, activities resumed and since then, the numbers have
doubled. This year, 2400 -2600 people are expected The Committee consists of 43 people
who start planning in April Next year is the Committee's 25 anniversary. There is no cost to
attend the Haunted Woods Trail; it is free will donations. Mayor Droste thanked Mr. Bouchard
for his leadership and years of commitment
CONSENT AGENDA
a. Minutes of the October 3, 2006 City Council Proceedings
b. Bills Listing
c. Acquisition of Easement -Old County Road 381132 Court West Street Utility
Improvements, City Project #387 (Soo Line Railroad Company)
d. Acquisition of Easement GlenRose of Rosemount, City Project #397 (Hidden
Valley)
e. Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Report Street Improvement Program, City
Project #410 (Resolution No. 2006 -107)
f. Change Order #1 Old County Road 381132 Court West Street and Utility
Improvements, City Project #387
g. Payment #9 Final Glendalough 6"' Addition Street Utility Improvements, City
Project #395
h. Payment #12 Final Glendalough 5`" Street Utility Improvements, City Project
#389
i. Special Assessment Deferrals (Resolution No 2006 -108)
j. Great River Energy Lot Split, 05 -23 -LS (Resolution No 2006 -109)
k. Bioscience Zone Resolution (Resolution No 2006 -110)
Motion by DeBettignies. Second by Shoe Corrigan.
Motion to approve Consent Agenda items 6.a. through 6 k.
Ayes: 4 DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Baxter
Nays: 1 Sterner.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Assessment Hearing 2006 Pavement Management Project, City Project #396.
At the 9/19/06 meeting the City Council declared costs and called for the Public Hearing to
consider the assessments for the 2006 pavement Management Project, City Project #396. The
total project cost is $1,341,579 $582,305 is proposed to be assessed to adjacent properties as
shown on the assessment roll. The project will be assessed over a 10 -year penod at an interest
rate of 5.9659% Project Engineer Kevin Kawlewskt presented the following slides: the project
area of Broback Addition and Edwin Rahn Addition 1 2n and 3 proposed improvements and
project costs, funding assessments and how the proposed assessments compared with the
actual assessments
City Attorney LeFevere provided a brief overview of the public heanng process and process for
appeal. Mr. LeFevere explained to the pubhc that if anyone wanted to preserve their legal right
to go to court, a written objection needed to be file at tonight's meeting Mr. LeFevere further
explained how to file a wntten objection and nonce of assessment with the City and the Court.
Deadhnes were explained in the notices sent to the residents
Mayor Droste asked the Council for any questions or comments. There were none.
Mayor Droste opened the Public Hearing at 7:48p m.
Packet page 8 of 177
Dawn Young, 3565 148` Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, asked if the City's proposed
assessment went down for the Edwin Rahn Addiuon then why weren't the individual
assessments reduced as in the Broback Addition. City Engineer Brotzler replied that the City
has a set rate in the fee resolution for full street reconstruction which is charged regardless of
whether the costs are higher or lower It is the practice and policy of the City that the amount
stays at the $4400 rate because of the consistency of those types of project. The northern part
of the project was on a percentage basis and those types of projects utilize an amount of 35% of
cost Ms. Young then asked about the criteria for changing some curbing on 147`" Street
whereas on 148t Street, all of the curbing was replaced Mr. Brotzler stated that the two areas
were built at different tunes and on, 148t Street, the storm sewer system needed to be
completed in the enure area Ms Young stated that the storm sewer was re -done in a previous
year and the residents were assessed for the storm sewer at that tune. She asked why they were
bemg assessed again. Mr. Brotzler replied that this assessment was for the street reconstrucnon,
not for the actual storm sewer. Ms. Young asked the difference and reasoning between the type
of curbs in their neighborhood and newly constructed neighborhoods and Mr. Brotzler
explained the differences between drive -over curbs and barrier curbs with respect to cost, snow
plowing, and drainage purposes.
Ted Northwick, 3645 148` Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the Council and
stated that he lived on 145t when the storm sewer was put in, then the sewer and water, and
now the street reconstruction He stated that 148`" Street was not as torn up as around the
corner, but 148 Street was assessed at a higher amount Mr. Brotzler again stated the City has a
set rate m the fee resolution for full street reconstruction. Mayor Droste questioned whether or
not owners are assessed for spot repairs on storm sewers and Mr Brotzler answered that they
are not. Council member Shoe Corrigan asked if staff had checked on the amount of the
previous assessments for the storm sewer and lilt. Brotzler replied that he hadn't Council
member DeBetugnies questioned the residents if 148 was they felt the road was totally
reconstructed. Ms. Young and Mr Northwick replied that the surface was down to the dirt but
nothing was dug up
Dave Stapf, 3568 -3570 Upper 149th Street, Rosemount, Minnesota, has lived at this address for
25 years. During the first 10 years, the home was used as a duplex. Now, Mr Stapes mother -in-
law lives there and it is not a rental Mr. Stapf is being assessed $8800 because of the two
addresses /driveways He asked the Council if there was any way to have his assessment reduced
in fight of the fact that it is no longer a rental, but actually one unit Attorney LeFevere stated
the question is not whether it's rental property or a separate family unit but if it is zoned R -1 and
is not a sub dividable lot Mr. Stapf replied that they have opened the house up and taken the
separating wall out Attorney LeFevere then stated the property should be treated as an R -1
single family unit, There is no requirement to provide nonce to the City. If it is no longer a
duplex, then it should be treated as a single family unit He advised the Council that the
resolution can be adopted tonight leaving out this particular parcel if they so wish. Mr Brotzler
asked how many driveways were on the property and stated that the City's assessment policy
states that if there are two driveways then it is considered two units. Mr Stapf confirmed that
there are two small driveways Council member Shoe Corrigan asked what the City ordinance
actually says on what is determined as a multi- family unit Attorney LeFevere replied that if it is
a single family dwelling with two driveways, both driveways are assessed. Council member
DeBetugnies asked Mr. Stapf if he filed for permit when he removed the hallway between the
two units. Mr. Stapf replied that he did not file for a pernut Mr. Brotzler told the Council they
Packet page 9 of 177
could consider reducing the assessment from $8800 to $4400 plus cost of the new curb and
apron for the second driveway Mayor Droste suggested continuing with the public hearing and
discussing this particular issue later.
Don Rathbone, 3606 148 Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, stated he still hadn't
heard an answer from the City Engineer on what the City had done on 148` Street compared to
the rest of the streets Mr Rathbone stated he was assessed $4,400 for a new street surface and
three fire hydrants Mayor Droste stated the City has one firm cost for complete reconstruction
of streets Having the $4,400 as the flat assessment, the advantage is where there is more work
to remove unsuitable material, these owners throughout the whole addition have the same
product City Adnunistrator Verbrugge clarified that the assessment isn't necessarily based on
the amount of work that is done but based on the value of the finished project to the
homeowner Assessment rates are based on the assessment of having a new road installed. Mr.
LeFevere stated that he understands the concerns of this particular neighborhood that there was
less sub -work done. However, the owners are not paying more than their fair share because
their share is not increased by this assessment; the amount would stay the same even if there
were good soils everywhere in the neighborhood.
Ted Northwick, 3645 148 Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the Council again
and stated that when the storm sewer was installed in 1973, he gave an easement to the City over
his property line to Chippendale Avenue. The City, at that point, told him he would never have
to pay another dune. They had a water problem down the slant, and no one else had to pay for
that because it wasn't affecting the other residents.
Gerry Goodrich, 3545 148` Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, asked where it states that if a
resident does not need the project, then the resident does not have to pay for it Attorney
LeFevere stated the legal hmitation on the ability of the City to charge an assessment is based on
the benefit to the property. If the value of the property is increased as a benefit of the project,
then an assessment can be charged. Mr Goodrich stated this project was all re -done in 1971, in
1972 they put the sewer in through the whole project, and in 1973 they installed the storm
sewer Council member Shoe Corngan restated that this assessment is only for the new road,
not the storm sewer City Administrator Verbrugge explained that the pavement management
project is the City's system to rate the condition of the streets The streets having the complete
reconstruction are essentially streets that failed the rating Total cost is part of a levy spread out
over the whole community to improve the street system The City rates the streets on a year -to-
year basis. Mayor Droste stated this system is to insure that streets are kept in well- maintained
order to get longer life out of the City streets. Council member Shoe Corngan stated that the
City now has a practice to have a set program every year for street reconstruction, so everyone
has an opportunity to have their street reconstructed.
Roger Peterson, 3625 148t Street West, Rosemount, 55068, stated that the residents are trying to
explain that they are paying for the storm sewer twice They believe then assessments should be
discounted because they paid for the storm sewer when it was first installed, and now are paying
for it again on every water bill. Mr. Brotzler responded that yes, to theory they are paying twice,
but the smaller amount is going toward the storm sewer fund for new systems in existing
neighborhoods and maintaining the storm sewer systems in the community, but it a small
percentage of what it actually costs to maintain the systems. Mayor Droste stated that it is
unfortunate that some of the residents moved into the City when new systems were being
Packet page 10 of 177
implemented and the City did not have a maintenance program in place. Even people in a new
home pay some assessments that go towards paying for the repair of older homes
Dawn Young, 3565 148"' Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, asked what the rating was for
147 and 148 Streets Mr. Brotzler replied that the average across the neighborhood was 31
and reconstruction begins at 39 The northern neighborhood, Broback Addition, was over 40 in
rating. City Administrator Verbrugge clarified the scale for rating Ms. Young asked how long
seal coating lasted. Mr Brotzler explained that seal coating lasts 3 -5 years and 12 -15 years in the
hfe of the pavement He stated he didn't think seal coating on 148 Street was ever done.
Joe Zannuller, 14886 Cimarron Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the Council
and asked how the assessments are estabhshed and why they've increased so much over the
years Mr. Brotzler responded that the rate based on market increase to a property was $6000-
$8000 and the Council was not comfortable with that high of an increase. Council member
DeBetngnies stated a majority of the increase is for increased costs in construction, petroleum
increases, etc. City Administrator Verbrugge stated assessments are based on benefited value,
not on materials
Mayor Droste reconfirmed Attorney LeFevere's instructions for residents to provide written
objections at tonight's meeting will preserve their tight to file a nonce of appeal within 30 days
and 10 days after that with the court. Recording Secretary will accept written objections.
Motion by Droste. Second by DeBettgnies.
Motion to close the Public Hearing.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0. Motion carried.
The public hearing was dosed at 8:52p.m.
It was decided that the City will work with the homeowner located at 3568 -3570 Upper 149th
Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, to determine whether m fact the property has ceased to be
a two unit dwelhng and to determine what the incremental cost of more than one driveway
apron installed.
Motion by DeBettignies Second by Shoe Corrigan.
Motion to adopt a resolution adopting the assessment roll for the 2006 pavement
management project, City Project #396, excluding 3568 -3570 Upper 149th Street.
(Resolution No. 2006 -111)
Ayes: Shoe Corrigan Droste, Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies.
Nays: 0.
Motion carried.
Packet page 11 of 177
Mr. Brotzler reported the assessment statement will be mailed to all owners. They have 30 days
to pay the assessment without Interest and after 30 days the assessments are filed with Dakota
County
Motion by DeBettignies, Second by Shoe Corrigan.
Motion for Staff to work with the homeowner at 3568 -3570 Upper 149 Street,
Rosemount, Minnesota, 55068, to determine whether in fact the property has ceased to
be a two unit dwelling and to determine the incremental cost of the new apron on the
driveway.
Ayes: 5 Droste, Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan
Nays: 0.
Motion carried
b. Assessment Hearing GlenRose of Rosemount Street and Utility
Improvements, City Project #397. City Engineer Brotzler presented this item. At the
9/19/06 meeting the City Council declared costs and called for the Public Hearing to consider
the assessments for the GlenRose of Rosemount Street and Utility Improvements, City Project
#397 The total project cost is $1,639,356 Mr. Brotzler presented an updated project cost and
funding summary of the total amount. $90,168 is proposed to be assessed to adjacent properties
as shown on the assessment roll. This proposed amount to be assessed is $46,568 more than the
amount proposed to be assessed in the feasibility report. The increase in the assessment amount
is dtrectly related to increased easement acquisition costs for the project. The project will be
assessed over a 10 -year period at an interest rate of 5.9659% Staff recommends that the City
Council adopt a resolution adopting the assessment roll as presented. Mr. Brotzler asked the
Council for questions or comments.
Council member Baxter asked who we acquired the easements from. Mr. Brotzler responded
Rosemount Woods Manufactured Home Park, the Lucking property, the Gramsey property, the
Peters property and the Franz property Council member Shoe Corngan asked for clarification
on the acquisition process. the owner is paid for the easements and then they charged the cost of
the project Mr. Brotzler confirmed that is correct, the additional costs of the construction
Council member Shoe Corrigan asked what the costs of the easements were that the City paid to
each of the property owners. Mr. Brotzler replied Lucking $20,500, Gramsey $18,600, Peters
$7,300, Franz $20,000 and Hidden Valley SPC, LLC $37,800.
There were no other questions or comments from the Council. Mayor Droste opened the
pubhc hearing at 9.11p m.
Todd Franz, South Metro Auto Broker, 13940 Robert Trail, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068,
approached the Council with three issues 1 I-Ie thinks it is disingenuous that It is made to
appear that the City pays 50 of acquisition costs because it does not He feels it should have
been paid when the trunk line was brought over to the armory and now they're pigging backing
it onto this project In the breakdown, the fees are based on a percentage The acquisition costs
breakdown differently 2 Regarding the assessment amount, Mr Franz's property is being
assessed $36,400 The fees for the permits will be another $12,000, and he will have to pay a
Packet page 12 of 177
contractor to frame the sewer and water lines to both units. He currently has one well and one
septic system. He stated that when they installed the septic system for the 5 unit building down
the road in 1995, he paid $1,600 and now Mr Franz is being charged $36,400 for a two unit.
Mr Franz stated that his property is a non conforming use and was downgraded by the Council
to a residential property He has a business and a home and feels that if he was to sell, he could
not recover any money from the sewer project. He does not see how his property is benefited
from the sewer and water 3. The GlenRose developer paid $475,000 for 76 units which breaks
down to $5,000 per unit, while Mr. Franz has to pay $36,500 for only two units.
In response to Mr. Franz's statement, 1v r. Brotzler rephed that if you took the project costs
without the acquisition costs and divided it by the number of units, the per unit basis was used
for the improvement costs. For the easement acquisition costs, prior to these property owners
requesting this project, the developer had planned to run the sewer and water along the TH 3
right -of -way and only after these properties expressed desire to have city sewer did the City look
into the easement acquisition costs. On the sewer and water connection, connection fees are in
the City fee resolution The time penod was two years for an owner to connect to city water and
has been extended to 10 years As for the assessment amount for sewer connected to the
apartment building, Mr. Brotzler stated he could not respond as to the accounting practices at
the time the connection was installed Mr. Franz stated that the City paid 50% but they paid
50% for 1/3` compared with 2 /3rds with the developer. Mr Franz wondered what GlenRose
had anything to do with acquisition costs for the trunk hne to the armory Mr Brotzler rephed
that if the City had extended sewer and water to these properties without the GlenRose
development included, the costs would be much higher. Acquisition costs were evaluated on an
individual basis based on improvements made to that area. The projects were added together to
lower costs. Mr. Franz stated when he went to court for the condemnation hearing, it was
determined that if the City put the pipehne 5 feet over, they would not have had to pay $20,000
for an easement He still wondered why his assessment for two units was at $36,500 while the
assessment per unit next door was $5,000 per unit according to information from Project
Engineer Morgan Dawley
Council member Shoe Corrigan asked for an explanation of the difference between the
GlenRose unit assessment and Mr. Franz's assessment Project Engineer Dawley approached
the Council. He stated when Mr. Franz inquired as to the developer's contribution, contrary to
what he stated the numbers did not include acquisition costs, the numbers were not a complete
representation of what the developer's contribution was. It amounts to approximately $6,800
per unit for sanitary sewer and water The developer has a lower rate because of staff
interpretation that part of the reason this project was done in this area was at the request of the
homeowners. The total cost for the project to the developer per unit comes out to
approximately $15,000 per unit. $1,200,000 reflects the entire cost of the project including
streets, etc but we are only assessing the cost of the improvements with respect to Mr Franz's
property. Mr. Franz asked that if the actual costs of acquisition and city water for the developer
is a httle over $6,800 per unit, why isn't it fair between owners? Mr. Brotzler stated that had the
project not provided water and sewer to these properues, the city would not have had to acquire
the easements and consequently, no acquisition costs would have been incurred.
Packet page 13 of 177
Tom Lucking, 13830 South Robert Trail, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the Council
and stated that he did not receive $20,000 for an easement His property value went down and
he received 50% He tried hooking up to the sewer in 1995, and the City at that time did not
allow it Mr. Lucking asked how much of the acquisiuon costs were for the sewer that they
didn't get before. Mr. Brotzler stated $11,400 was for the new easement area beyond existing
sewer line and $8,900 for compensauon for past use of the sewer. Mr Lucking stated that his
neighbors have no frontage on this property and they got assessed $12,000.
Mark Lucking, 13830 South Robert Trail, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the
Council and stated he's been in construction for 20+ years. His impression from what he's
heard so far is someone dropped the ball, and easements weren't recorded. Mr Lucking asked
how City water benefited him when he can't even hook up to it. Mr Brotzler confirmed the
easement in 1995 did not get recorded. For those easements the City acquired for this project,
the City attempted to recognize that if there was an easement there, the acquisition costs would
have been considerably less.
Todd Franz, South Metro Auto Broker, 13940 Robert Trail, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068,
approached the Council again and asked why Rosemount Woods is not involved in the costs
when they have frontage on the whole project.
Council member Baxter wondered why he was hearing two different things people saying they
didn't want sewer and water installed and Mr Brotzler stating that people requested it Mr.
Brotzler clanfied that the Peters property is the one that originally requested and Mr. Franz
expressed desire for the project .Mr. Franz acknowledged that he supported the extension of
sewer to his property As far as the benefits, there is benefit and value to the property for
having City water capabilities.
Tom Lucking, 13830 South Robert Trail, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, approached the Council
again and stated that his property value went down $22,000 according to the City's appraisal
because of the easement When an appraiser does an appraisal, evaluates the before and after
effect of a project and looks at what the City is proposing with the piece of land, the amount for
the easement acquisition is to replace the property value lost for the restricuon the easement
places on the property.
Todd Franz, South Metro Auto Broker, 13940 Robert Trail, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068,
restated that his property should be assessed at a rate lower than the 5 plex down the road.
There was no further pubhc comment
Motion by Droste. Second by DeBettignies.
Motion to close the Pubhc Hearing.
Ayes: 5.
Nays: 0. Motion carried.
Mayor Droste asked Council members for comments or questions on the matter.
Council member Shoe Corrigan addressed the issue of the easements that should have been paid
at the time of the armory sewer project and what amount would have been paid at the time Mr.
Packet page 14 of 177
Brotzler stated he did not have any background on the amount of the assessments at that time
From an easement standpoint, on the Lucking and Gramsey property, there is an existing sewer
hne to provide sewer to the Community Center. For the easement area that the City secured in
total from the Luclungs and the Gramseys and for the portion of the Rosemount Woods facility
going to the north, the sewer easement in 1995 would not have been wide enough to gain sewer
access. 75% of the total area of the easement that could have been assumed m 1995 is a City
cost The developer pays 12.5% of the remaining total and the other 12.5% is split among all
five property owners Council member Shoe Corrigan asked about the residents referring to
the drop in value of the property Attorney LeFevere stated the easement acquisition and
property assessments are two different issues The property is valued after the easement and
before the easement and the owner is owed the difference. After the acquisition is concluded,
the landowner is made whole. The easement reduces their property value and they've been paid
that. The City then puts in a sewer system and this increases the value of their property It
happens to be in the same easement, but it does not have to be.
Council member Baxter asked Mr. Brotzler to explain the location of the easement on a diagram
and asked if the cost of putting the easement further north was part of the project cost Mr.
Brotzler stated 100% of the cost for the easement on the Hidden Valley property to the north
for the existing sewer line is being paid by the City because it should've been done in 1995 The
only thing being assessed to property owners is 12,5% of the easement cost for the Hidden
Valley easement that is new with this project which amounts to approximately $6,000.
Mayor Droste stated that the City does not know what past council members did with the
assessments in 1995. The City could lower the current fee rate on an annual rate but the tax
payers would have to pick up the additional cost in the long run
Council member Baxter stated Ins opinion that it doesn't seem right to assess these property
owners for what did not happen in 1995.
Council member Sterner suggested Council table this item to a later meeting to digest all of the
information Council member Shoe Corngan agreed and asked about the background zoning of
Mr Franz's property and why he was being assessed for two hook -ups Mr. Brotzler responded
that the determination of the hookups does not have anything to do with the zoning, it has to do
with the fact there are two buildings
Council member Baxter commented that this is the same issue that was presented to us on the
County Road 38 matter on the issue of two hookups. If an owner has two buildings and wants
two hook ups, the value far exceeds the cost
City Administrator Verbrugge asked about the deadline of certification of assessments to the
County. He suggested Council take a 10 minute break to research the deadline requirements.
The Council meenng reconvened at 10:23.
Attorney LeFevere confirmed that the certification deadhne with Dakota is November 30, 2006
Packet page 15 of 177
It was decided to continue the public hearing to the next City Council meeting on November 21,
2006, with a special work session on November 1, 2006, at 6.30 p.m Notices should be mailed
to the property owners
Motion by DeBettigmes. Second by Sterner.
Motion to continue the Assessment Hearing GlenRose of Rosemount Street and
Utility Improvements, City Project #397, to November 21, 2006, and discussion to a
special worksession on November 1, 2006
Ayes 5
Nays: 0.
Motion carried.
c. Application for On -Sale Liquor License and Special Sunday License, McDivots
Sports Pub and Eatery Chief of Police Kalstabakken presented this item to the Council A
liquor license application request has been made by MSPE, LLC who will be the new owner of
MCDvvots Sports Pub and Eatery located at 14550 South Robert Trail An application was
received on 9/20/06 for a new on -sale and special Sunday Liquor License The apphcanon was
submitted based upon the sale of McDivots to MSPE, LLC MSPE, LLC has completed the
required application forms and paid for a prorated license to be effecuve upon approval They
will also be applying to the State for an Opuonal 2.a.m Closing license The Pohce Dept
conducted a background check of the applicants and mvesngated their other businesses held in
Minnesota There were no violations of liquor laws found to have occurred at other licensed
establishments owned or co -owned by the partnership The persons listed as partners were all
found to be free of criminal record Staff recommends approval of the On -sale Intoxicating
Liquor License and Special Sunday Liquor License for MSPE, LLC at 14550 South Robert Trail,
Rosemount.
Mayor Droste invited the applicant to come forward.
Ryan Wentz, Operating Partner for MSPE, LLC, approached the Council and stated how
excited he is to be part of the community
Mayor Droste opened the Public Hearing at 10:30 p.m.
There was no public comment.
Motion by Droste. Second by Baxter.
Motion to close the Public Hearing.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0.
Motion carried.
Motion by Baxter. Second by Shoe Corrigan.
Motion to approve the on -sale liquor license and special Sunday liquor license to MSPE,
LLC for property located at 14550 South Robert Trail.
Packet page 16 of 177
Ayes: Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan, Droste
Nays: 0.
Motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS. None
NEW BUSINESS
a. Industrial Districts Zoning Text Amendment for the GI- General Industrial and HI-
Heavy Industrial District, 06- 33 -TA. Community Development Director Lindquist
presented this item. This item was initiated by staff with the purpose of amending the General
Industrial District, creating a new Heavy Industrial District, and amending the definitions for
Heavy Manufacturing, Outdoor Storage /Display and Recycling Operanon It was previously
before the City Council during work sessions on August 9, 2006 and September 13, 2006.
During those meetings, staff and the Council reviewed the proposed amendments, the timeline
for Council action, and discussed how these changes could impact existing businesses. The
Planning Commission held public hearings on this item during their regular meetings on July 25,
2006 and August 22, 2006. At the conclusion of the public hearing in August, the Comnnssion
recommended adoption of the ordinances as provided in the attached.
Ms. Lindquist explained the issues remaining with some of the business owners, that being
setbacks and building height requirements. The Planning Commission wanted to review
structures over a certain height and wanted to require conditional use permits. Trucks would be
considered outside storage.
It is staff's opinion that these text amendments do not make any existing land uses non-
conforming. They will be conforming in that they are allowed on the site Setback and height
changes could make some structures non conforming If there are existing non conformities,
this amendment may further them If a property owner does have certain non conforming
structures, the City would typically try to bring the site more into conformance during a planning
review process, depending on the level of the non conformity Outdoor storage is an issue for
some businesses
Planner Lmdahl has met numerous times with property owners on topics raised by various land
owners CF Industries sent a letter regarding the rezoning and concerns about setback issues
and height requirements. Ms. Lindquist explained that staff's position to items raised in the
letter.
Letters were received today from CF Industries, Wayne Transports, CHS, and Bay and Bay.
One other letter was provided to the Council from Flint Hills Resources dated 10/16/06.
Mayor Droste asked the Councils for questions and comments.
Council member Shoe Corrigan in making reference to the letters received today asked about
the 10% building requirement in the ordinance and the screening requirements Ms. Lindquist
stated that the 10% building requirement is to the existing ordinance and the new ordinance
Packet page 17 of 177
simply continues the same requirement. The businesses do not have to complete the required
screening right away, with the ordinance change it would be considered an existing non-
conformity The City would look to bring the site into more conformity through a development
review process
Mayor Droste invited brief public comment even though this was not a formal public hearing.
Scott Dohmen, CF Industries, Inc., 5300 Pine Bend Trail, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068,
approached the Council He stated that CF Industries needs their whole faahty to be heavy
industrial and they would like the comprehensive plan changed. They pay a lot of tax money
and they are good citizens and would like to conunue operating their business with the
possibility of expansion..
Todd Phelps, Leonard, Street Demard, 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402, representing CF Industries, Inc approached the Council and made reference
to page 146 of the packet regarding permitted uses "(2) blend, store and distribute chenucals or
fernhzer" They had requested that the "and" be changed to "or". Their second issue was with
respect to the multiple zoning classifications, in terms of combining the parcels. CF Industries
purchased the property to the 70s and they have no current business plan to sell off separate
parcels. Minn Stat. 272.46 does not allow separate tax parcels to become one tax parcel if a
section line is crossed.
Council member Baxter stated that in changing the "and" to "or the City does not want
anybody to just distribute chenucals. Mr. Phelps stated he does not know how to do the text to
conform with CF Industries business other than look at the business and make them entirely
heavy industrial Ms Lindquist commented that the reason the "and" to "or" has not been
changed is the City is not interested in promoting tank farms or merely distribution businesses.
This was a conversation that the Planning Commission also had during their meeting and they
felt the current language was sufficient.
Mike Nolan, CHS Transportation, 3290 140` Street, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068, thanked
the staff and Mr Lindahl They have sent a letter expressing their concern with expansion of
their outdoor storage sites. They do have undeveloped portions of property they acquired in
2002 with the intention of expanding. Council member Baxter stated he did not understand
Mr Nolans' issue as the trucking company will be larger than the 30% limitation and they would
not be able to expand in the future. Mayor Droste stated the City would try to bring them into
code at the time they wish to expand. Ms Lindquist stated it would require a variance from the
outside storage requirement. Council member DeBettignies asked CHS how much land is
undeveloped and Mr Nolan replied about 1.5 2 acres of green space is available
Council member Sterner asked if the Planning Commission factored the air cargo facility into
this matter and Ms Lindquist replied that this only involved properties currently zoned general
industrial.
Packet page 18 of 177
Dave Anderson, Bay and Bay Transfer Co 3686 140 Street East, Rosemount, Minnesota
55068, stated they have six acres remaining to expand their business. Their concern is the
ordinances and different zonings looking toward the future and in the event the air cargo does
come to Rosemount, they will need to expand their business to accommodate the extra business.
Trucks and trailers should be excluded from outdoor storage
Council member DeBettignies how the City adjusts the ordinance to accommodate these
businesses since this is prohibiting them from expanding Ms Lindquist stated that the
Council's primary goals is to increase the tax base and a business with a small building with a
large area of outdoor storage does not create a large tax base It is staffs understanding that the
10% building coverage requirement was prompted by businesses such as trucking firms that
have more outside storage than building Council member Shoe Corrigan stated the need to
balance current businesses with attracting future businesses. The City could look at these
businesses on a case by case basis on the possibility to expand. City Attorney LeFevere stated
that under the current proposal, there is no expansion for these businesses. In New Brighton,
their ordinance allows for a non conforming use permit The Council could allow for expansion
if the non- confornuues are reduced to the least amount.
Council member DeBettignies would like to discuss developing a non conforming use permit
some time in the future, in order to serve the City's existing businesses and Council member
Sterner agreed.
Motion by Baxter Second by DeBettignues.
Motion to approve the attached ordinances:
a. Ordinance amending the General Industrial Zoning District,
b Ordinance creating the Heavy Industrial Zoning District,
c. Ordinance amending the definitions for Heavy Manufacturing, Outdoor
Storage /Display and Recycling Operation.
Ayes: Baxter, DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Sterner
Nays: 0.
Motion carried.
Motion by Baxter Second by Shoe Corrigan.
Motion to adopt a Resolution authorizing publication of Ordinance No B -174
amending Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance related to GI General Industnal District,
Ordinance No B -175 amending Ordinance B, the Zoning Ordinance creating a new HI
Heavy Industnal Zoning District, and Ordinance No B -176 amending Ordinance B, the
Zoning Ordinance creating new definitions for terms heavy manufacturing and outdoor
storage /display and amending the term recycling operation. (Resolution No. 2006 -112)
Ayes: DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Sterner, Baxter
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Packet page 19 of 177
b. General Industrial District to Heavy Industrial District Rezoning, 06- 46 -ZA.
Community Development Director Lindquist presented this item that was initiated by staff for
the purpose of rezoning selected parcels from GI General Industrial to HI Heavy Industrial
m coordination with the industrial districts text amendment process. The selected properties are
located north of 140` Street, south of 120 Street, east of Blaine Avenue (County Road 71) and
west of the Mississippi River. These properties were selected based on the criteria outlined by
the Planning Commission. Ms. Lindquist reviewed the issues with the properties not guided
industrial or zoned industrial.
Mayor Droste asked the Council for any questions and /or comments. There were none.
Motion by Baxter Second by Shoe Corrigan.
Motion to approve an Ordinance rezoning portions of the properties owned by CF
Industries, Continental Nitrogen, Dixie Petro Chemical, and Flint Hills Resources from
GI General Industrial to HI Heavy Industnal as illustrated on the attached map.
Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies
Nays: 0.
Motion carried.
c. Amendment of Fee Resolution for Transient Merchants. City Administrator Verbrugge
stated that as part of the changes to the zoning text amendments last year, Christmas tree
vendors fell within the transient merchant category The recommendation before the Council is
to amend the rates and fees so that Christmas tree sales would require a $50 00 permit fee and all
other interim use permits would require the existing $500.00 fee.
Motion by Baxter. Second by Sterner.
Motion to approve the amendment of Resolution 2005 -135 schedule of rates and fees
for interim use permits for seasonal Christmas tree sales in the amount of $50 00 and all
other interim use permits in the amount of $500.00 (Resolution No. 2006 -113).
Ayes: Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies
Nays: 0.
Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council member Shoe Corrigan announced that the Irish boys soccer team is going to the State
Championship.
Packet page 20 of 177
Council member Shoe Corrigan asked Community Development Director Lindquist about
negotiations on the Joint access driveway for the hbrary with Dr Hansen and Less Blake and
why the City was unable to reach an agreement Ms. Lindquist gave a brief timeline the City
met with the County in August; then forwarded the plans to Dr. Hansen and Mr Blake on
August 24, 2006; at the end of August Dr Hansen left a voicemail indicating they were
interested in working on a shared access for the library; on September 21, Dr Hansen and Mr.
Blake met with City staff about the shared driveway and were given a draft cross access
easement for review, driveway, later the City forwarded a revised draft cross- access easement
agreement to the two partners which included addinonal language based upon the previous
meeting for final acnon. To date, the City has not received any feedback from either Dr.
Hansen or Mr Blake. The County wanted a decision by September 30 Ms Lindquist assumed
they were no longer interested when she hadn't received any mformanon. She contacted Mr.
Blake before contacting the County Ultimately Letters were sent to Dr. Hansen and Mr. Blake
explaining that the library plans would be modified since we hadn't heard from them or received
a signed easement She had not heard any response to the letters. The City is moving forward
with the library board with the revised site plan
Mayor Droste presented the upcoming calendar
Parks Commission meeting October 23, 2006
Planning Commission meeting October 24, 2006 at 6:30p.m
No Work session on October 25, 2006
Special work session on November 1, 2006, at 6:30p.m.
Haunted Woods Trail October 28, 2006, from 6.00p m. to 8.00p.m.
General Elections November 7, 2006
City Council meeting November 7, 2006, at 8 OOp.m.
No Port Authority meeting on November 7, 2006
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Droste moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Baxter. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0.
The meeting was adjourned at 11.33p.m
Packet page 21 of 177
Respectfully submitted,
Kathie Hanson,
Recording Secretary