Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Minutes of the November 21, 2006 Regular City Council ProceedingsAyes: 7. Nays: 0. Motion carried. ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 CALL 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, November 21, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. m 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 Engineer Brotzler, Project Engineer Dawley, Senior Planner Zweber, City Attorney LeFevere, Finance Director May, Assistant City Administrator Foster, Communications Coordinator Cox and City Clerk Domeier. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA City Admuustrator Verbrugge stated that Item 6.d. JJT Business Park 2‘ Addition Preliminary Plat and Final Plat, 06 -49 -PP and 06 -50 -FP has been removed from the Consent Agenda to January 16, 2006 along with Item 7 d JJT Business Park 1" Addition Easement Vacation, 06- 50 -FP. He requested that the public hearing for Item 7.d. be opened to allow for public testimony and continued to January 16, 2006. Mr. Verbrugge stated additional information was provided for Item 8.a Continued Assessment Hearing GlenRose of Rosemount, City Project #397 and Item Manufactured Home Park Text Amendment, 06- 05 -TA. Motion by Droste. Second by Sterner. Motion to adopt the Agenda with Item 6.d. removed and with additional information fox Items 7.a.,8.a. and 9 a. DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS /BUSINESS 5.a. Police Officer Oath of Office Police Chief Kalstabakken took great pleasure m introducing Scott Sandell. He stated the hiring process began m August where Officer Sandell exhibited his people skills and writing skills. Mr. Kalstabakken stated Officer Sandell's education history and noted he comes from a family of law enforcement officials. Mayor Droste administered the oath of office to Scott Sandell. Mayor Droste welcomed Mr. Sandell to the Rosemount Pohce Department. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Baxter. Second by DeBettignies. Motion to approve the Consent Agenda Items 6.a., 6.b. and 6.c. a. Bills Listing b. 10 -year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Working Program c. Expenditure Approval from the Donation Account Parks Recreation Dept. d. JJT BUSme33 Park 2" Addition Preliminary and Penal Plat, 06 19 PP and 06 50 EP Ayes: DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan, Droste, Sterner, Baxter. Nayes: None. Motion carried. Public Hearings 7.a. JJT Business Park i Addition Easement Vacation, 06 -50 -FP City Engineer Brotzler stated that the easement proposed was platted with the first addition project. With the proposed plat for the 2n Addition, the landowner /developer is proposing to replat an outlot that was platted within the 1" Addition. In order to do so, there is a need to vacate the drainage and utility easement that is m place over the entire Oudot A.. Mayor Droste opened the Public Hearing. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion carried, ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Julie Martini, representing the owners of MRCI(5191 Boulder Court, RoserriOun questioned if vacating the easement would have any affect upon the drainage or to the MRCI site. Mr. Brotzler stated there would be no impact on the MRCI site. Motion by DeBettigmes. Second by Sieriret;,, Motion to continue the Public Hearing untiijanuary 16, 2007. OLD BUSINESS 8.a. Continued Assessment Hearing GlenRose of Rosemount, City Project #397 City Engineer Brotzler stated the assessment heanng was continued from the October 17 City Council meeting. At that tune, the City Council tabled the item for further discussion at the November 1 Special Work Session. Mr. Brotzler provided a brief recap of the discussion at the November 1 Work Session. He stated the primary matter the City Council was considering was the funding of the proposed easement acquisition. The primary change for the easement that was acquired from Hidden Valley was the proposed funding of 50% to the City, 25% to the developer and 25% from assessments to the adjacent property owners to the proposed cost to be funded 100% by the City. The net effect that has on the project funding and proposed assessments was provided in table 2 of the City Council packet. Mr. Brotzler described the net effect on the per unit assessment rates. The assessment rates that were proposed were included m the assessment rolls He added a draft response letter was provided to the City Council with the intent to finalize and mail out to the property owner following the meeting. City Administrator Verbrugge noted that a majority vote is needed m order to adopt the assessment roll. Motion by DeBettigmes Second by Baxter. ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 Motion to Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for the GlenRose of Rosemount Street and Utility Improvements, City Project #397. Council Member Sterner questioned the procedure scheduled to take place on November 22, 2006. Mt. Brotzler responded that there was a commissioner's hearing for the commendation scheduled for November 22. Due to the tuning of the project, the City did authorize condemnation so it is necessary for the commissioner's to meet and sign off on the settlement that was reached after the court process was started. He added the process is a formahty that must occur before the release of payment. Ayes: Droste, Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies,, Nays: Shoe Corrigan. Motion carried. (Resolution 2006 -118) NEW BUSINESS 9.a. Manufactured Home Park Zoning and Property Maintenance Ordinance Text Amendments, 06- 05 -TA. Senior Planner Zweber reviewed the staff report and outlined the changes to the Zoning Ordinance He noted that three items suggested during the piibhc hearing process were not included in the ordinance. The items included the reimbursement for moving of accessory structures, removal of the maximum cap, and the suj plemental payment for the increase in housing costs. Council Member Sterner stated-tlfat while Bloomington had a 20% cap, Elk River did not have a cap and it was riot court challenged. Mr. Zweber responded that a majority of the Cities had a 20% cap based upon information received from APAC. Council Member" B questioned the functional difference if there was no cap. Mr. Zweber stated it was possible that if every mobile home needed to be purchased instead of moving the homes, 100% of the value=of the park could be considered an eligible expense thereby making the reimbursable value equal to the property cost, removing all value of the property. Council Member Baiter also questioned how to determine what percentage is reasonable. City Attorney LeFevere stated that under the current ordinance there would be no one to determine what the cap is for paying for relocation costs. He added there was no procedure for administrative approval of a cap which could cause a challenge, depending upon the ehgible costs, which would go before the Court. At that time, the Court would decide if the City adopted ordinance is reasonable Community Development Director Lindquist added that m part raises the question from the previous work session. The City will not understand the ramifications of having or not having a cap until they are actually in the process. Without a cap, the City will have no idea what the eligible relocations costs amount to until people determine whether they will relocate or sell their residence. By that time it will be too late to set a cap Mr. LeFevere stated with a cap, you start with a dollar figure divided by the ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 amount of residents and if the claim is larger and there is money left after the first go around, it can be distributed again. He added there is no way of recovering money that has already been paid. Mr. LeFevere further stated if you did not have a cap there is a potential for problems with administrating the expenses. Council Member Baxter stated he believes the mobile home park is an asset to the community meeting He added that the Planning Comnussion and the Community Development staff have done a good job and he will vote for the ordinance. He has spent time reading on the cap issue and finds the 25% cap is reasonable and will do a good job of protecting residents than an Ordinance without a cap. He added that Rosemount is making the right step in addressing the current legislation. 4 Mr. LeFevere noted there has not been a direct percentage by any court that is permissible but if future court cases give more leverage, the ordinance could be amended in the future. Mayor Droste stated he will support the Ordinance but stated his concern wit`h having too many rules and regulations that may potentially make mobile home park rates rise. \While the ordnance may protect residents in the short term he cautioned the adverse effects in the long term. Council Member Shoe Corrigan questioned the opportunity to go without a cap. She was concerned if the cap could go up or down depending upon what was negotiated. Since the City does not know what the land would be worth if ifwas ever redeveloped, no cap would give future City Councils and homeowners more of a chance for a higher cap or maybe even a lower cap. She suggested that the reasonableness could be determined at the closing. Ms. Lindquist stated if there is no Ordinance in place, the City would follow the state rules by holding a public hearing to set up the process that we just spent several months discussing. Council Member Shoe Corrigan questioned how the City could provide flexibility relating to the aging and maintaining of the homes Ms Lindquist responded that the City would have an opportunity to review the Ordinance prior to implementation. Council Member Shoe Corngan suggested leaving the cap out and to put m a mechanism that would tugger a hearing process and a cap could be determined at that time She added that language should be included to set an evaluation prior to redevelopment or sale of the property and the Council and community would have the authonty to look at the ordinance Mayor Droste quesioned ifresidents have the right of first refusal. Mr. Zweber responded that the park owner shall provide each of the residents with a 45 -day written notice of the purchaser's intent to close the park or convert it to another use. A pubhc hearing takes place after written notice from park owner of the intent to relocate. Council Member DeBettigmes stated by having language that includes no cap, the City needs to evaluate the sides of the resident and the property owner. Right now, everything is purely speculation. Mr. LeFevere stated the City can be challenged on changing the ordinance but the consequences are unknown. 1 Mayor Droste cautioned modification may be made at the State level and it would not be to the City's advantage to get to aggressive Right now, the City is trying to guess the market flow of the money. Council Member Sterner stated a 25% cap is to low but he would support a 30% cap or no cap. Council Member Shoe Corrigan suggested a 25% cap with additional language that the City Council would take public testimony at the time of sale. Mayor Droste supported no cap while realising if a cap would be triggered a public hearing would be held to develop a cap number. Council Member Baxter support Mayor Droste's statement stating he would be more comfortable with no cap. Ms. Lindquist noted it was a policy decision but from an administration standpoint there was concern with starting without a cap. She suggested starting with the basis for a negotiation instead of a wide open discussion. Mayor Droste questioned if 20% cap would be a reasonable base number and to address it at the time of a public hearing Mx LeFevere suggested that language be added into the public hearing process that one of the areas included be what is reasonable relocation expenses so that the City Council would have a forum for people to come in and present mformatiotf on what is reasonable. Council Member Baxter stated a 25% cap is reasonable but City Council reserves the right through the future public hearing process to revise the cap amount.' Council Member Shoe Corrigan agreed with Council Member Baxter. Mayor Droste suggested a 20% cap. Mr. LeFevere suggested revising the language and bringing it back for approval on December 5 Mayor Droste requested that the public hearing process be defined. Motion by Baxter. Sond by Sloe Corrigan. Motion to table the Ordiil&nce,to December 5. Ayes: Droste; Sterner, Baxter, DeBettignies, Shoe Corrigan. Nays: None. Motion carried. ANNOUNCEMENTS City Admuustrator Verbrugge congratulated Mayor Droste, Council Member DeBettignies and Council Member Shoe Corrigan on their reelection to the Rosemount City Council. He further congratulated the other candidates that came forward and their efforts m running for the City Council. The City of Rosemount had a 75% voter turnout. Mayor Droste announced the upcoming City meetings m December. ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 2006 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Droste moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 p.m. Second by Stemer. Upon unanimous decision, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Amy Domeier, City Clerk