HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacketROSEMOUNT AGENDA
City Council Special Work Session
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
C I T v C o U N C I L Following Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
2. DISCUSSION
A. Discussion of Rental Housing Inspection Program
B. Assessments for County Road 38/132" Court West Street and Utility
Improvements, City Project #387
3. UPDATES
4. ADJOURNMENT
City Council work sessions are held for Council and staff to discuss items for future Council agendas.
Comments from the public during work sessions are not generally solicited.
ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session: October 16, 2007
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Rental Housing Inspection
AGENDA SECTION:
Program
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
Director
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction
DISCUSSION
Over the last year, the Council has discussed various aspects of implementing a rental licensing
program in the City. Initially the program was going to be an inspection only program but recently
the city attorney indicated that it may be more beneficial to have a rental license component.
The attached is a draft ordinance that the City Attorney has written for the City based upon input
from staff and Council. Procedurally the ordinance is similar to that previously discussed. The owner
of a rental property must apply for a license. Information required with the application includes
information about the owner, location of the rental premises, contact information, and business
names and addresses of any other rental property within MN communities. Issuance of the license is
predicated on a successful inspection; proper information on the application; up-to-date property
taxes, fines, and penalties; and if the building has 4 or more units attendance at a crime -free multi -
housing program.
The inspection will continue to focus on the life/safety issues previously discussed with the Council.
It would also include compliance with the maintenance code, zoning code, and parking regulations.
The one issue included in the ordinance not previously discussed is the conduct of the tenants.
Similar to many other communities, the draft ordinance includes an enforcement component
associated with the conduct on the licensed premises. The ordinance notes five violations that can
occur on the property that could ultimately lead to revocation, suspension, or non -renewal of the
rental license. Revocation is the harshest penalty and would mean that three conduct violations had
occurred within a 6 month time period. The conduct violations include disorderly conduct, noisy
parties, prostitution or acts relating to prostitution, unlawful use of or possession of firearms, or
violations of nuisance laws.
Staff had asked the City Attorney to include this language so the Council can discuss whether they
would like to include tenant conduct as part of the licensing ordinance. There are three options
available to the Council; not include any conduct related performance standards, address conduct of
renters by this ordinance, or enact a citywide ordinance for conduct, regardless of whether it is an
owner occupied or rental unit. The Citywide ordinance would affect all property owners violating
the above items, and would not single out only rental properties. In talking with the Police Chief
there are both rental and owner occupied properties that would be considered a nuisance by
surrounding neighbors. Presently the enforcement is limited to individual ticketing per offense. A
citywide ordinance would allow the city to address the cumulative affects of negative behavior by
penalizing the property owner, usually through a fine, to aid in addressing "problem properties" in a
neighborhood. Staff is asking Council's direction on this matter. If the Council would like to
investigate a citywide ordinance, staff would recommend removing the conduct section from the
rental ordinance which would be redundant. Chief Kalstabakken would begin looking into drafting a
citywide ordinance and further research the administrative side of implementing the program.
CONCLUSION
Staff is looking for feedback on the draft ordinance. After receipt of any changes, modifications to
the ordinance will be made and the item will be scheduled for formal Council review and adoption.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE CITY
CODE, ADDING NEW CHAPTER 8
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Rosemount City Code is amended by adding a new Chapter 8 to Title 9
as follows:
CHAPTER 8
RENTAL LICENSING AND INSPECTION
9-8-I: PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this section to assure that rental housing
in the City is decent, safe and sanitary and is so operated and maintained as not
to become a nuisance to the neighborhood or to become an influence that fosters blight
and deterioration or creates a disincentive to reinvestment in the community. The
operation of rental dwelling units is a business enterprise that entails certain
responsibilities. Operators are responsible to take such reasonable steps as are necessary
to assure that the citizens of the City who occupy such units may pursue the quiet
enjoyment of the normal activities of life in surroundings that are: safe, secure and
sanitary; free from crimes and criminal activity, nuisances or annoyances.
9-8-2: SCOPE: This section applies to all dwellings and dwellings units that are
leased in whole or in part for residential purposes. This section does not apply to retail,
commercial, or industrial rental activities; nursing homes as licensed by the State
Department of Health and Human services; assisted living facilities as licensed by the
State Department of Health and Human services; and manufactured home parks where
the owner of the building is the primary occupant of the structure.
9-8-3: DEFINITIONS: Unless otherwise provided here, the definitions in section
9-4-5 of this Code apply to the terms in this Chapter.
CITY: The City of Rosemount.
CITY COUNCIL: The City Council of the City of Rosemount
RENTAL
DWELLING UNIT: A dwelling unit occupied and leased by a tenant.
9-8-4: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall lease any dwelling or dwelling unit
for residential purposes without first obtaining a license and paying a license fee.
Licenses are required for each unit of a building.
320918v3 MDT RS215-I
A. License Application: An application for a license must be made on a form
provided by the City. The application must include all information requested on
the form, including, but not limited to:
The applicant's full name; business address; email address and telephone
numbers ("contact information");
2. Contact information for the proposed license holder, if different from the
applicant;
3. Contact information for the owner of the property;
4. Contact information for the property manager;
5. The location for which the license is sought; and
6. Business names and property addresses for rental properties operated by
the applicant in other Minnesota municipalities.
B. Action on License: The City Council or designee may approve or deny the
license upon completion of review of the application. If the City Council denies
the license, it will notify the applicant of the denial and appeal rights under
section 9-8-11.
C. Term: All licenses are issued for a period of one year. The license period is from
January 1 to December 31.
D. Transfers: A license may not be transferred to another location or another person
without the prior approval of the City Council or designee.
E. Renewals: A license renewal will be handled in the same manner as the original
application.
F. Denials: The City Council may deny the issuance or renewal of a license for the
following reasons (this list is not exhaustive):
1. The applicant has had previous rental license revocations;
2. The applicant fails to provide any information required on the City's form,
or provides false or misleading information;
3. The applicant has outstanding fines, penalties, or property taxes owed to
the City;
4. The building or dwelling unit fails the initial property inspection in the
3209180 MDT RS215-1 2
opinion of the City's Building Official.
G. Crime -Free Multi -Housing Program: Within 12 months of obtaining a license,
licensees operating four (4) or more rental dwelling units in the City must attend,
or require a property manager to attend, an approved training program in the
Minnesota Crime -Free Multi -Housing Program as a condition of continued
licensure. The City may also require such training as a penalty, in addition to the
penalties described in section 9-8-10.
9-8-5: LICENSE FEE: The City Council will determine the license fee by
resolution. Applicants must pay the fee at the time of application. For
licensing periods of less than one year, the fee will be prorated.
9-8-6: APPLICABLE CODES: The City of Rosemount Building and Property
Maintenance Ordinance and the State building code, which adopts by reference
the International Building and Residential code and the International fire code in their
entirety, except as modified or amended in this code, are adopted by reference and are
made a part of this Chapter as if fully set out at length.
9-8-7: MAINTENANCE: The owner of rental property must maintain all dwellings
and dwelling units, including common areas, in compliance with the applicable
codes identified in section 9-8-6.
9-8-8: CITY INSPECTIONS: All rental dwelling units are subject to City
inspections. The owner or property manager must permit access to the City for
the following inspections:
A. An initial inspection upon application for a license. The City will not issue a
license until each rental dwelling unit for which a license is sought complies
with the applicable codes in section 9-8-6.
B. Any follow-up inspections required due to non -compliant items.
C. Inspections scheduled in response to complaints to the City.
D. Biannual inspection of each rental dwelling.
9-8-9: CONDUCT ON LICENSED PREMISES: It is the responsibility of the
licensee to see that persons occupying the licensed premises conduct themselves in such a
manner as not to cause the premises to be disorderly.
A. For purposes of this section, a premises is disorderly at which any of the
following activities occur:
1. Violation of section 7-1-1 of the City Code (disorderly conduct) or
violation of laws relating to disorderly conduct as defined in Minn. Stat.
3209180 MDT RS215-1 3
§609.72;
2. Violation of section 7-1-5 of the City Code (noisy parties or gatherings);
3. Violation of laws relating to prostitution or acts relating to prostitution as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 609,321;
4. Violation of laws relating to unlawful use or possession of a firearm as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.66;
5. Violation of laws relating to nuisances as defined in Minn. Stat. §617.81
B. First Instance of Disorderly Conduct: Upon determination that a licensed
premises was used in a disorderly manner, the City Administrator will give notice to the
licensee of the violation and direct the licensee to take steps to prevent further violations.
C. Second Instance of Disorderly Conduct: If another instance of disorderly
conduct occurs within three months of the first instance, the City Administrator will
notify the licensee of the violation and require the licensee to submit a written report of
the actions taken, or proposed to be taken, to prevent further instances of disorderly
conduct. The licensee must submit the written report to the City Administrator within
five days of the notice of the disorderly use of the premises.
D. Third Instance of Disorderly Conduct: If another instance of disorderly use of
the licensed premises occurs within three months of any two previous instances, the City
may revoke, suspend, or not renew the rental license, following notice to the licensee and
a hearing before the City Council.
E. Adverse License Action: Following a hearing, the City Council may revoke,
suspend, or not renew the license for all or any part or parts of the licensed premises that
it deems necessary, or impose a penalty pursuant to section 9-8-10. The City Council
may postpone or discontinue adverse action against a license if it appears that the licensee
has taken appropriate measures to prevent further instances of disorderly use. A licensee
may appeal the City Council's decision pursuant to section 9-8-11.
9-8-10: PENALTIES: The City may revoke a license or impose a civil fine for
violations of this Chapter.
A. Revocation: The City may revoke a license for the following reasons (this list is
not exhaustive):
Violation of the applicable codes described in section 9-8-6.
2. Failure to maintain the property in compliance with the applicable codes.
3209180 MDT RS215-1 4
3. Leasing any dwelling or dwelling unit without a license.
4. Commission of a felony related to the licensed activity on the property.
B. Fines: The following fines may be imposed for violation of this Chapter:
Violation:
First Violation
$100.00 fine
Second new violation (based upon complaint) $200.00 fine
within 12 months or failure to comply with
initial order
Third or more new violations (based upon $300.00 fine
complaint) within 12 months or failure to
comply with initial order
9-8-11: APPEALS: The following appeal process will apply in the case of a license
denial or revocation or if a property owner objects to a penalty imposed under
section 9-8-9.
A. Hearing: Following receipt of notice of a license denial or revocation or a notice
of a violation and fine, an owner may request a hearing before the City Council.
An owner must request a hearing in writing and file the request with the city
administrator or city administrator's designee within ten (10) days of the mailing
of the notice of the license denial or revocation or the alleged violation and fine.
Following receipt of a written request for hearing, the owner will have an
opportunity for a hearing before a committee consisting of the city administrator
or city administrator's designees.
B. Findings: After the committee conducts the hearing, it will report its findings and
make a recommendation to the City Council. If the committee finds that the
license denial or revocation is proper or the owner has violated this chapter, the
council may affirm the license denial, revocation, or the fine given to the owner.
The City Council may also conclude that the license denial or revocation or the
fine is not warranted and dismiss the penalty.
C. Default: If the owner does not request a hearing within the ten (10) day period,
then the license denial, revocation or civil fine imposed will take immediate effect
by default. In that case, the city administrator or designee will mail notice of the
license denial or revocation or fine to the owner. The owner must pay the fine
within 30 days of this notice.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in effect following its passage and publication.
3209180 MDT RS215-1 5
ADOPTED this day of , 2007, by the City Council of the
City of Rosemount.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Amy Domeier, City Clerk
3209180 MDT RS215-1
RO.JEMCJl_.11 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session: October 16, 2007
AGENDA ITEM: Assessments for County Road 38/132"
Court West Street and Utility
AGENDA SECTION:
Improvements, City Project #387
PREPARED BY: Morgan Dawley, PE, Project Enginee
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Project Cost and Funding Summary;
Map; ROW Map; Assessment Roll; Work
APPROVED BY:
Session Executive Summary and Map
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion
BACKGROUND:
At the October 2, 2007 regular Council meeting Council held a Public Hearing regarding the assessments
of Old County Road 38/132nd Court Street and Utility Improvements. At that last meeting, the City
Council asked for additional information about special assessments proposed for tracts of land along
Bonaire Path.
The entire project area comprised of properties proposed to be levied assessments to offset project costs is
guided for single family housing densities. The area north of Bonaire Path and west of Bacardi Avenue is
zoned agricultural but guided for Transitional Residential (TR) which calls for an average density of 2 units
per acre. This designation was presented to Council for discussion at the February 15, 2006 City Council
Work Session at a time when there was interest in development of the area. The remaining properties in
the project area are guided for Urban Residential (UR) which allows a range of density from 1 to 4 units
per acre. All properties proposed to be assessed on a front foot basis, with the exception of the Xcel
Energy substation (Map Reference No. 6) and the Northern Natural Gas receiver station (Map Ref. No.
9), are sufficiently sized to subdivide a 60 foot right-of-way for public street access and create lots in excess
of the minimum 125 foot depth requirement.
Parcels specifically noted during the public hearing (refer to Map Reference Numbers 20, 21, 22, and 23)
are fairly large, approximately six acres in size, two of which lie along Bonaire Path (20, 21) and two of
which are served by driveway easements through the properties on Bonaire Path (22 and 23). The
proposed front footage assessment rate was arrived at as an aggregate based on two separate portions of
project costs, roadway construction and land acquisition (permanent tight -of -way — refer to attached map
for easement and right-of-way costs by parcel). During review of the proposed assessments with the City
Attorney, the initial proposal was to assess the properties on Bonaire Path (20, 21) for the full amount but
not the properties behind them, as no right-of-way was acquired from the latter (22, 23). At that time, the
City Attorney raised concerns that the owners of property along Bonaire Path would object to such an
assessment on the ground that the properties behind them were also served by Bonaire Path and that
therefore they benefited from the improvement as well. The only road access for those properties is to
Bonaire Path. Therefore, Bonaire Path is the roadway serving those properties and Staff revised the
assessments such that all four properties were proposed to be assessed an equal amount, as was presented
G:\ENGPROJ\387\Assess.mtQues6msCWS10-16-07.doc
to Council at the public hearing.
According to the City Attorney, if all four of these properties were single-family residential lots, charging
each of the lots a comparable assessment for the road that provides them with access to the City's street
system is reasonable. If a property owner feels an adopted assessment exceeds the special benefit
(meaning the increase in fair market value to a property caused by the construction of an improvement)
caused by the project, the assessment appeal process exists and actual appraisals are done at that time to
determine that increase in fair market value to the property. Staff is currently seeking input from a
certified appraiser on the issues specific to the properties in question and expects additional information
for discussion during the work session, however it may be assumed that an assessment of the amount
proposed might only be justified for property that can be subdivided so that the cost of the assessment per
subdivided lot is lower.
The City Attorney has now raised concern about the two back lots in that they cannot currently be
subdivided under the City's subdivision regulations. Even though they have driveway access, subdivision
would not be possible without a variance because the subdivision regulations require that lots have
frontage on a public street. Therefore, before the back lots can be subdivided, local street access must be
made available to those parcels. If it were certain that local street access would come from Bonaire Path,
an appraiser might conclude that there was substantial benefit from the upgrading of Bonaire Path because
the extension of the City's road infrastructure to that area would allow properties to be subdivided. As
development from the south may occur first, it is not at all certain that these back lot properties would be
served with local streets leading to Bonaire Path, but instead from Connemara Trail Therefore, it may be
difficult to demonstrate benefit in the amount as currently proposed. Again, staff anticipates having
additional information on this matter from an appraiser available for the Council at the work session.
SUMMARY:
Staff will present this information to Council at the Work Session and be available to respond to questions.
Project Costs
W.SB Project: Old County Road No. 38 (Bonaire Path) & 132nd Court W.
Project Location: City of Rosemount
City Project No.: 387 & 393
WSB Project No.: 1591-02 & 1556-52
Design By: BDC
Checked By: AJB
Date: 10/12/2007
Old County Road 38 lmorovements
1) Surface Improvements
2) Sanitary Sewer Improvements
3) Water Main Improvements
4) Storm Sewer Improvements
$2,348,912.45
$545,229.41
$1,810,706.45
$1,245,372.35
Old County Road 38 SUBTOTAL
$5,950,220,66
132nd Court West Improvements
5) Surface Improvements
6) Sanitary Sewer Improvements
7) Water Main Improvements
$79,704.49
$74,111.70
$47,934.45
11 132nd Court West SUBTOTAL
$201,750.64
Additional Incurred Costs
8) Road Right -of -Way Acquisition
9) Pending Easement Acquisition
10) Private Utility Relocations
11) Railroad Crossing Installation
12) Indirect Costs (LEAF - 20.4 % of Improvement Costs, Items 1-7)
$1,068,330.89
$934,254.00
$1,154,932.00
$205,000.00
$1,257,495.34
Additional Incurred Costs SUBTOTAL
$4,620,012.23
11 TOTAL Project Costs
$10,771,983.53
1 of
Project Funding
WSB Project: Old County Road No. 38 (Bonaire Path) & 132nd Court W.
Design By: BDC
Project Location: City of Rosemount
Checked By: AJB
CityProject No.: 387 & 393
WSB Project No.: 1591-02 & 1556-52
Date: 10/12/2007
Old County Road 38 Improvements
1) Dakota County
$2,900,000.00
2) Street Capital Improvement Program
$767,712.93
3) Storm Sewer Core Fund
$1,255,606.27
4) Sanitary Sewer Core Fund
$657,117.65
5) Water Main Core Fund
$2,181,948.91
6) Developer & Property Owner Pre -Paid Assessments
$581,400.00
7) Assessments
$2,185,290.00
Old County Road 38 SUBTOTAL
$10,529,075.76
132nd Court West Improvements
8) Street Capital Improvement Program
$16,080.21
9) Sanitary Sewer Core Fund
$89,230.49
10) Water Main Core Fund
$57,713.08
11) Assessments
$79,884.00
132nd Court West SUBTOTAL
$242,907.77
TOTAL Project Costs
$10,771,983.53
H
m
X
LU
T
c
E
E
O
O
a
E_
T
06
w
W
Q 0 K
a
O0w
zw}
ER
m
W co 2 0 H
z z z
z z W W W
H H V) V) w
U U V)fNm
W W N w w
0 7 W
00 y U N
a a ¢ ¢ Q
C
O N
M
d z'
Q
a
a�
b
O O U
-
'E3
N
O
T
A
?i
�
o
o
C
0
o
R'
O
O
O
O
A
O
m
ro
m
m
O
O
o
O
T
3
0
0
0
0
O
K
O1 T
C @
0
0
N
O
W 0
N
C �
O
r
r
0
O
LL O
LL
N
N
o
°
C
Z
g
o Z
y Y
Z
Z
E a E
a o
m
O
o
..
$ H x
o
Q .: x
Z<?
a
n
0
0
o
m
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z
o
0
0
0
0
0
d
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
M
<
M
V
M
V
M
V
N1
V
M
F
W
J
O
zz
Z J
Oa
W
w J
O
LL �
O�
z
LU
U N
W
fN
fN
a
V
C
J
N
E
O
y
p
E
O
U
T
7
W
O
LL
V%
C
O
>
lL
v
r
a
0
O
U
Q
U
9
C
N
ro
�
v
r
o
O
O N
�
N �
N y
O
N
U
C m =
O
> C
OMOzF-
LU
W
oO a
U t W
Z WLu
}
m
W W 7 W
W to S m f
a Z z z
zzwww
FF�gg
UU qJ m U)
W W N(n
0 0 W W w
OO w NH)
a a Q Q
C
E
m
a
$
H d
m �
a c Q
w
' E
y
a�a
' E 3
(A
O
a
a
v
v
r
r
r
r
T
c1
M
M
M
O
O
p
N
»
N
N
»
0
0
0
0
m
O
ro
m
m
ro
o
O
o
0
T
i0
0
0
0
A
«
«
«
«
O
O1 T
c ;
�v
W Q
N
o
LL o
LL
s
N
o
A
w
'O
Z �
Z
�n
z
u+
"
<
Z v
Z
�i�
R ezz`=>`'
Z
o
ca
O
J O C
O
E
9 O O
� E
dJ O
c o° E
O O
O O
C O O
N
U N C
T 0.v
Z
G
Vt
M
O
M
M
M
M
M
O
N
M
<
MV
�
Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LL
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
F
Ci
x
w
w
N
J
c�
rz
Z j
Oa
w�
y J
O J
Ix C
LL r
}O z
F
U N
LU
W
y
a
4
W
0M
O�a
w
z W ?
Co
W Wuj
O UJ
W M x a
z z W W W
�-Fgmi
000) U)U)
W W CO) U) U)
W W W
OO U)wm
aaaa¢
O
O
LL
0 O
IL
d
a
0 0
U
C
M
_ E
d
o0
0
vi
v�
r"
�'
a"
dA
°mowo'
a W
w)E
a 1p U
a = a
y E3
3
0
T
tC
3
�
o
�
t?
o
t0
o
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
ri
w
ni
m
M
m
rvi
co
ri
m
ryi
ro
o
0
0
0
0
0
T
O
0
O
ae
K
O1 T
C W
N U
O
O
W
a
N
N
Vl
M
�J
li O
N
'"
LL
U m
a
a
a
n
Si
Cl Q^
e
C N
y h
fL uCi
a
W z
z
F C ui
vNCi
O Z
U
Z
W
F
F
Z
F
C C
rt
U
N]
D
a
0
I�
M
O
vl
N1
VI
N
O
vIV
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
N
N
O
rl
�l
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
g
d
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
M
d
M
c
M
v
M
c
M I
v
M
v
M
d
M
!
§
!
zk
kk
§o
/(
LU
)\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
4
)))
\k)
§
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
0
§
\
\ \
§
§
§
§
t
§
§
§
�(\\}(
:)!/
\\\}\\\\\\{\\(
\\
\\�\\
\
c
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
4
4
4
i
?l
!
(
/
-
zk
Bk
LULU
/)
uj
\
\
\
\
\
0
«
)E
\E
§
\
\
\
\
\
2
\
}
{ \
§
§
5LU
§
J
!
_
_
\
)\
k
\\(}}§
�� ��SEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session: February 15, 2006
AGENDA ITEM: Transition Residential Property North of
135 Street
AGENDA SECTION:
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
Director
AGENDA NO. ITEM 2B
Andy Brotzler, City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction
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 in 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 staffs 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 entire 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 in 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 in the future, staff would expect
130`h to serve as the dividing line between urban and rural development.
ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session: October 16, 2007
AGENDA ITEM: Assessments for County Road 38/132"
Court West Street and Utility
AGENDA SECTION:
Improvements, City Project #387
PREPARED BY: Morgan Dawley, PE, Project Engine'
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Project Cost and Funding Summary;
Map; ROW Map; Assessment Roll; Work
APPROVED BY:
Session Executive Summary and Map
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion
BACKGROUND:
At the October 2, 2007 regular Council meeting Council held a Public Hearing regarding the assessments
of Old County Road 38/132"d Court Street and Utility Improvements. At that last meeting, the City
Council asked for additional information about special assessments proposed for tracts of land along
Bonaire Path.
The entire project area comprised of properties proposed to be levied assessments to offset project costs is
guided for single family housing densities. The area north of Bonaire Path and west of Bacardi Avenue is
zoned agricultural but guided for Transitional Residential (TR) which calls for an average density of 2 units
per acre. This designation was presented to Council for discussion at the February 15, 2006 City Council
Work Session at a time when there was interest in development of the area. The remaining properties in
the project area are guided for Urban Residential (UR) which allows a range of density from 1 to 4 units
per acre. All properties proposed to be assessed on a front foot basis, with the exception of the Xcel
Energy substation (Map Reference No. 6) and the Northern Natural Gas receiver station (Map Ref. No.
9), are sufficiently sized to subdivide a 60 foot right-of-way for public street access and create lots in excess
of the minimum 125 foot depth requirement.
Parcels specifically noted during the public heating (refer to Map Reference Numbers 20, 21, 22, and 23)
are fairly large, approximately six acres in size, two of which he along Bonaire Path (20, 21) and two of
which are served by driveway easements through the properties on Bonaire Path (22 and 23). The
proposed front footage assessment rate was arrived at as an aggregate based on two separate portions of
project costs, roadway construction and land acquisition (permanent right-of-way — refer to attached map
for easement and right-of-way costs by parcel). During review of the proposed assessments with the City
Attorney, the initial proposal was to assess the properties on Bonaire Path (20, 21) for the full amount but
not the properties behind them, as no right-of-way was acquired from the latter (22, 23). At that time, the
City Attorney raised concerns that the owners of property along Bonaire Path would object to such an
assessment on the ground that the properties behind them were also served by Bonaire Path and that
therefore they benefited from the improvement as well. The only road access for those properties is to
Bonaire Path. Therefore, Bonaire Path is the roadway serving those properties and Staff revised the
assessments such that all four properties were proposed to be assessed an equal amount, as was presented
G: \ENGPROJ\ 387\AssessmentQues6onsC WS10-16-07. doc.
to Council at the public hearing.
According to the City Attorney, if all four of these properties were single-family residential lots, charging
each of the lots a comparable assessment for the road that provides them with access to the City's street
system is reasonable. If a property owner feels an adopted assessment exceeds the special benefit
(meaning the increase in fair market value to a property caused by the construction of an improvement)
caused by the project, the assessment appeal process exists and actual appraisals are done at that time to
determine that increase in fair market value to the property. Staff is currently seeking input from a
certified appraiser on the issues specific to the properties in question and expects additional information
for discussion during the work session, however it may be assumed that an assessment of the amount
proposed might only be justified for property that can be subdivided so that the cost of the assessment per
subdivided lot is lower.
The City Attorney has now raised concern about the two back lots in that they cannot currently be
subdivided under the City's subdivision regulations. Even though they have driveway access, subdivision
would not be possible without a variance because the subdivision regulations require that lots have
frontage on a public street. Therefore, before the back lots can be subdivided, local street access must be
made available to those parcels. If it were certain that local street access would come from Bonaire Path,
an appraiser might conclude that there was substantial benefit from the upgrading of Bonaire Path because
the extension of the City's road infrastructure to that area would allow properties to be subdivided. As
development from the south may occur first, it is not at all certain that these back lot properties would be
served with local streets leading to Bonaire Path, but instead from Connemara Trail. Therefore, it may be
difficult to demonstrate benefit in the amount as currently proposed. Again, staff anticipates having
additional information on this matter from an appraiser available for the Council at the work session.
SUMMARY:
Staff will present this information to Council at the Work Session and be available to respond to questions.
2
Project Costs
WSB Project: Old County Road No. 38 (Bonaire Path) & 132nd Conn W.
Project Location: City of Rosemount
CityProject No.: 387 & 393
WSB Pro'ect No.: 1591-02 & 1556-52
Design By: BDC
Checked By: AJB
Date: 10/12/2007
Old County Road 38 Improvements
1) Surface Improvements
2) Sanitary Sewer Improvements
3) Water Main Improvements
4) Storm Sewer Improvements
$2,348,912.45
$545,229.41
$1,810,706.45
$1,245,372.35
Old County Road 38 SUBTOTAL
$5,95 ,220.66
132nd Court West Improvements
5) Surface Improvements
6) Sanitary Sewer Improvements
7) Water Main Improvements
$79,704.49
$74,111.70
$47,934.45
11 132nd Court West SUBTOTAL
$201,750.64
Additional Incurred Costs
8) Road Right -of -Way Acquisition
9) Ponding Easement Acquisition
10) Private Utility Relocations
11) Railroad Crossing Installation
12) Indirect Costs (LEAF - 20.4% of Improvement Costs, Items 1-7)
$1,068,330.89
$934,254.00
$1,154,932.00
$205,000.00
$1,257,495.34
Additional Incurred Costs SUBTOTAL
$4,620,012.23
TOTAL Project Costs
$10,771,983.53
1 of 1
Project Funding
WSB Project Old County Road No. 38 (Bonaire Path) & 132nd Court W.
Design By: BDC
Project Location: City of Rosemount
Checked By: AJB
City Project No.: 387 & 393
WSB Pro'ect No.: 1591-02 & 1556-52
Date: 10/12/2007
Old County Road 38 Improvements
1) Dakota County
$2,900,000.00
2) Street Capital Improvement Program
$767,712.93
3) Storm Sewer Core Fund
$1,255,606.27
4) Sanitary Sewer Core Fund
$657,117.65
5) Water Main Core Fund
$2,181,948.91
6) Developer & Property Owner Pre -Paid Assessments
$581,400.00
7) Assessments
$2,185,290.00
Old County Road 38 SUBTOTAL
$10,529,075.76
132nd Court West Improvements
8) Street Capital Improvement Program
$16,080.21
9) Sanitary Sewer Core Fund
$89,230.49
10) Water Main Core Fund
$57,713.08
11) Assessments
$79,884.00
132nd Court West SUBTOTAL
5242,907.77
TOTAL Project Costs
$10,771,983.53
1 of 1
W
W
W
W
W
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
A 3
T 9
c11
O
Z O?
x
z
v
; a
�
91
n.
'^
o°°
Z� a
n
a
°
N
N
ro
9
o
o
N
fwa
T
O T
J
J
G 0
10 .+
A
om
m
0
0
� ro
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
w
0
�
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
A
A
O
A
O
01
C
0
o
y
A
O
C
A
W
9
0 m
N�c
Day
n m
m
a
�
N
to
.V
Y
W
z 00
J
0
H 01
N
_
w
D D D v v
N to U) X A
N (M N00
m m m c "
Q) O) fA m m
tlI fA cn 00
339-1-1
mmmzz
z z z >
mammm
3 m z ;aca
{ m z
c>
O
A
O
ymmm
y
w
m
w 0
3 I A
z 0
OA
ry
rm
3 3
D c
r' z
z -
c)
r
41
m
x
x
a
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Z
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
=
0 o C
0
.. �'
n o
.. T
..
.,.
Z
Z e. a
z
z
z$ z'
z$°
z n
z
z? E
z
Qe
D
g
n
^a, U,
o
0 Z
$'
6
a
n
2
o
N
N
N
A
R
O m
10 ..
m
om
x,
� m
N
.m
«
w
»
G
0
o
s
o
F
w
w
w
w
0
0
0
0
a
as
«
«
1
w
w
m
m
O
ro
u
0
0
0
A
N
N
N
N
O
o.
b
vWi
twig
twig
twig
J
J
J
J
W
W
W
W
CO
G
A
A
A
A
y
3 y
y G
O
n 01
ry
N
W
W
W
W
0
N
A
UI C
�J
cVVOV
d
cAi
�
O
A
aDD-o'D
N lya w00
m m m � "
yrernmm
999-g1
mmmzz
1 1 1 3 3
1 0 x O m
A mDA
3 w22
.� m z
Dzo
ymi
m
w
N
a
°m
o
m
�
m
�
O
N
m
00
W
C
0
3
O
w
O
A
r
fD
O
�
N
y
m
y 0-{
m _
K
zO
A m
00
r O
CO
r m
m
30
as
rz
z 1
O
r
N
i
9
k
�
0lp
Mk{
;|{
i
|k
);G§G
}�(�)
!
§
ca
m
;q
!
!r.
j
k§
\
§�
�
#
J
\
;
2
(
}}E}§(})°z(:`f!:)
/
(
k
}
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
ƒ
(
k
K})
k k]
|
|!
--I z
}a(�)
!
cmn
/
;m
w
¥
a[
\
k)
\
§-
J
J
\
»
03
�
I
W
W
W
A
A
LP
AA
O
p
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
F+
O
r
O
r
O
r
a
3 a
z �
z
z
H
O m
O
O m
'
N
..
..
r
k
O
O
o
0
F
N
O
y
a
o
f
a
v
O
r
O
w
0
1
O
o
�
0
0!
0
o
w
as
a
N
O
4!
� m a
n=�
n m m
3 y
y c
A y
0 it's ry
N
�r
as
vs
N
N 0
NV
J
J
J
J
3
�
�
H
Cl) yN AA
y y y 00
mmm��
(n y y mm
cn 3 3 9 cn 1 -q
Z Z Z Z Z
A m D m m
A
3 O A
�mz
m m O
O
O
A
ti m -q
m
a
m
x
x
W
1
D
�OSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session: February 15, 2006
AGENDA ITEM: Transition Residential Property North of
135 th Street
AGENDA SECTION:
PREPARED BY: Kim Lindquist, Community Development
Director
AGENDA NO. ITEM 2B
Andy Brotzler, City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff Direction
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 in 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 staffs 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 entire 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 in 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 in the future, staff would expect
130`h to serve as the dividing line between urban and rural development.