HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Minutes of the February 16, 2010 City Council Special Work Session Proceedingsba
ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special work session of the Rosemount City Council was
held on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 2875 145`''
Street West, Rosemount.
Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members Bills, DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan
and Weisensel attending. Staff members present included City Administrator Johnson, City Clerk
Domeier, Senior Planner Zweber, Community Development Director Lindquist, Director of Public
Works /City Engineer Brotzler and Director of Parks and Recreation Schultz.
DISCUSSION
2.A. Request by Laxman Sundae Regarding Drainage Issue at 2055128th Street
Director of Public Works /City Engineer Brotzler provided background on the drainage patterns on
Mr. Laxman's property. Mr. Brotzler stated that the presented drainage problems are not a
responsibility of the City; rather the issue is a civil dispute between private property owners.
Drainage laws require property owners to maintain drainage patterns. In this instance it appears that
the development of the property at 2055 128`" Street was required to maintain drainage from
adjacent properties as the lowest property. Laxman Sundae talked about his property markers being
moved and the subsequent building that occurred on his property afterward. Mr. Sundae also
provided information about the drainage situation surrounding his property. He was looking for the
City to enforce trespassing against his neighbors and questioned the sidewalk that was built within
an easement.
Mr. Brotzler stated that a fence can be built up to a property line or an easement. He explained the
purposes of easements. He added that the City does not have or assume responsibility of the
easements being maintained amongst property owners. He explained that the situation is between
property owners. Community Development Director Lindquist stated easements are for private and
public utilities. The addition of a swale is not a public utility and that would be discussed between
property owners. The City does not monitor activities on private property related to drainage unless
the improvements require a grading permit; it was again noted that drainage law requires property
owners to perpetuate drainage to and dim properties based on existing and developed conditions.
Mayor Droste talked about when he was on the Planning Commission and residents argued that Mr.
Sundae's lot was an unbuildable lot. Mr. Sundae stated that since that time alterations have been
made on the property. Council Members DeBettignies and Shoe - Corrigan recalled the resident's
concerns about the amount of standing water on the lot. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan stated
that it is a civil issue. If neighbors have altered the plans it has become a civil issue. Council
Member Weisensel reviewed the elevations of the survey and explained his concerns.
Mr. Brotzler stated that staff met with Mr. Sundae last summer. Mr. Brotzler stated that Mr.
Laxman claimed there was water in his yard since he built the house. Mr. Sundae denied that claim.
Mr. Brotzler summarized that Mr. Sundae's property started as a hole and is still a hole that needs
positive drainage to have the water flow to the front area of his house. He added that when the
project was approved the neighbor's drainage already existed and that Mr. Sundae is required to
maintain the drainage. Mr. Brotzler noted that there were pre - existing conditions before Mr. Sundae
built the house that showed the drainage of other lots moving through the property. Council
Member Shoe - Corrigan stated it was known since the beginning of the project that there was water
on the lot.
ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
Community Development Director explained again that the boundary line dispute is a civil matter.
She stated that the property owners should have new surveys drawn up to figure out the lot lines.
Mr. Sundae continued to question and requested the City's trespass law. Mr. Brotzler responded
that there was no City trespass law and that trespassing is enforced under state statute. Mr. Sundae
continued to talk about the water that is trespassing onto his property. Mr. Sundae requested a copy
of the City's nuisance ordinance and grading ordinance. City Administrator Johnson stated that staff
would contact Mr. Sundae when the information has been gathered.
2.6. UMore Gravel Mining Plan
Senior Planner Zweber summarized the information included within the staff report. He provided a
review of the plans to discuss the particular issues that may come up with any large scale mining
operation.
Discussion was held regarding the phasing by DCTC and the amount of homes that would be close
to the mining ancillary facilities. Community Development Director stated that the first phase
includes development close to DCTC. Mayor Droste expressed concern about the proximity of the
homes to the mining. Mr. Zweber stated that these operations may inhibit orderly development.
Council Member Bills talked about the mining revenue. Ms. Lindquist stated that while there are the
same common goals you are still projecting out 40 years.
Mr. Zweber provided more information about the proposed ordinance that would apply to this
project. It would incorporate what type of activities can take place within the UMore property. He
explained that UMore's gravel operator, Dakota Aggregates, was asking for different operations
compared to other mining locations in Rosemount including the 24 hour mining, changes in
operational procedures, access, berming, and haul routes.
Mr. Zweber explained that the grading plans show the berming starting outside of the Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services (MCES) sewer line easements. Discussion was held regarding the
sewer line location from the mining pit. Mr. Zweber stated that Dakota Aggregates would accept
measuring from the center of County Road 42 and that it would be approximately 350 feet from
where mining was occurring. If another zoning district has a boundary at the edge of the street,
then the setback begins at the measurement from the center line.
Discussion was held regarding signal lights at Biscayne Avenue and County Road 46. Director of
Public Works /City Engineer Brotzler stated that the traffic volume warrants will not be met with the
amount of truck traffic so Dakota County will not approve the installation of traffic signal lights. Mr.
Zweber added that staff has had discussion with Dakota Aggregates and the University about the
cost of installing signal lights.
Discussion was also held regarding the amount of dust associated with the mining. Mr. Zweber
stated that if the City were to adopt our own standards then the City would be in charge of
enforcing the standards. However, if the City were to follow the State standards other entities could
enforce the issues. Ms. Lindquist stated that with the 24 hour mining it was anticipated that there
would be a steady flow of the trucks.
ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
Mr. Zweber explained where the access points would be located. He also provided more
information about the haul routes and indicated that if Dakota Aggregates is approved for a 24 hour
operation access would be limited to Station Trail and County Road 46.
Council Member Weisensel questioned who would serve as the RGU for the EIS. Ms. Lindquist
stated that the University will serve as the RGU but that the City would be the RGU for the AUAR.
Based upon the location from the existing homes, Mayor Droste found the proposed plan to be
OK. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan requested that staff explain the difference between an AUAR
and an EIS. Ms. Lindquist explained that an AUAR is for development and includes multiple
scenarios that can be assessed with the different density values. Mr. Brotzler added that the EIS
requires a specific plan that developers cannot deviate from and it includes no flexibility.
Council Member DeBettignies was comfortable with the 24 hour operation if access was limited to
one spot. Mayor Droste suggested that language be included to change the operations should
complaints be received on dangerous driving. Mr. Brotzler stated it would be hard to define the
issues because the challenge is that different residents have different perceptions of the operation.
Further discussion was held regarding traffic lights and dust control.
Council Member Shoe - Corrigan stated that every meeting attended has been in conjunction with
Empire Township. She added that Empire Township will be charging hosting fees for mining and
suggested that whatever Empire Township negotiates the City should do the same. Ms. Lindquist
talked about the concerns with the water quality including the testing, maintenance and cost of
operation.
Mr. Zweber provided information on the type of berming that was proposed. He talked about the
stages of the berming anticipated and what was expected. He noted that an annual permit would be
required for the operation and that during the annual renewal different berming installation would
be required. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan commented that other businesses are required to have
landscaping where no one else can see and that with this project everyone will see what is going on.
Mr. Zweber added that the vegetation associated with the berming would also help with dust
control.
Discussion was held regarding the proposed setbacks. The City Council preferred a 350 foot buffer
from the residential districts and 200 foot buffers from industrial areas.
Mr. Zweber stated that approximately 20 acres of trees were proposed to be removed from the site.
Council Member Shoe - Corrigan stated that the trees should be saved or replaced similar to other
tree preservation among developments.
Mr. Zweber stated that staff wants to be able to have the ordinance written so that if the
development of UMore is accelerated we can revoke this permit and have development accelerated.
Staff would develop thresholds or performance measures.
ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
2.C. Harmony Multi- family Architecture
Senior Planner Zweber summarized the information provided within the staff report. Ten buildings
located in Harmony were constructed without the brick and stone that were required. Rottlund had
meeting with HOA and the homeowners do not want the disruption of the addition of brick and
stone. Mayor Droste stated that the homeowners bought the homes exactly as they are built. Mr.
Zweber proposed to add additional brick to those future buildings that already have brick so the
homes would look more architecturally significant. Ms. Lindquist stated the PUD would need to be
amended for the areas that have the new brick noting that the HOA approved that the brick would
not be included within the previous built homes.
2.E. Updating of Operations Coordinator Job Description
Director of Parks and Recreation Schultz provided information as to the changes staff was
recommending to the Operations Coordinator job description.
Council Member Shoe - Corrigan questioned if the change in position would include a raise in salary.
Mr. Schultz explained stated it would involve a pay raise. He explained that the proposed annual
salary was based upon the job points for the position. Mayor Droste expressed concern with having
four management positions within the department and suggested changing the job title. Mr. Schultz
explained that even if the job title changed the job points would warrant the pay scale that has been
proposed. The job title had little to do with the pay and the pay was determined based upon the
responsibilities and other items. He added that a point study was conducted to ensure the pay scale
was correctly set up and pay equity was also taken into consideration.
Discussion was held regarding the job duties and the impact to the budget. Mr. Schultz explained
that the effect was less than a quarter of percent on the parks budgets and less than a half percent on
impact on the arena budget. Council Member Bills questioned the personnel policy for raises. Mr.
Schultz stated that employees must receive a favorable evaluation before getting a step increase.
Council Member Shoe - Corrigan supported the position change but had concerns about a pay
increase. Discussion was held regarding the proposed pay. Mr. Schultz explained the importance of
the change and how it would have a positive impact on the operations of the department. Council
Member Weisensel stated that Mr. Schultz had a clear value on the position and favored moving
forward. City Administrator Johnson stated the position would be on the agenda for approval in
March.
2.13. Council Goals and Work Plan
Council Member Weisensel provided the City Council with an updated list of the goals. He
explained the minor changes made to the goals related to the Shannon Parkway roundabout. Mayor
Droste talked about the importance of the Hipp initiatives. City Administrator Johnson commented
that the partnerships were not limited to just the Hipp but included other agencies that would fall
into the category such as UMore and DCTC. He added that staff is always exploring cost share
opportunities with other government agencies.
Mayor Droste suggested holding town hall events but wanted to be more creative in topics and
locations. Discussion was held regarding the early candidate filing dates for the 2010 elections.
Additional discussion was held about the new resident brochure, interactive ways to communicate
ROSEMOUNT CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL WORK SESSION PROCEEDINGS
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
with residents via the City's website including a comment section and feedback /survey section.
Discussion was also held regarding the changes to the middle school sports and the potential impact
it may have on the City. The City Council talked about growth and to keep the job planning goals
that were adopted in 2009. There were no significant changes made to the goals and the City
Council was comfortable moving forward with the goals as presented.
UPDATES
3.A. Updates by City Council /Staff
City Administrator Johnson informed the City Council that Dakota County received the same grant
for the same Safe Route to School project as the City.
City Administrator Johnson stated that a new name should be determined for the former St. Joseph
Church and School campus.
The City Council had a brief discussion about the political climate with the recent cuts at the schools
and changes at City Hall.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council and upon a motion by Droste,
second by Bills, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Amy Domeier, City Clerk