Based on the context provided for the City of Rosemount, here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker names added. [0:00] [Music] [1:00] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** I'd like to call the regular city council meeting for Monday August 5th, 2024 to order. Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Welcome everyone. We'll start out—are there any additions or corrections to the agenda? [1:33] **City Administrator Logan Martin:** Just one item tonight, Mayor. Item 6E, we need to pull from the agenda for action tonight, just due to some changes to that plan. [1:42] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Okay, with that change, I'll move the agenda. Is there a second? [1:46] **Councilmember Tami Klimpel:** I'll second. [1:47] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** All in favor signify by saying aye. **Councilmembers:** Aye. [1:49] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Opposed? We have an agenda. We'll move on to—let's see, we have no presentations, proclamations, or acknowledgments this evening. No response to public comment. So, public comment is the first item up. Anyone wishing to come before Council and speak on a question or comment may do so at this time. Please state your name, your address, and your comment. Podium's open. All right, seeing none at this time, we'll close public comment. [2:33] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** We'll move on to the consent agenda this evening. The consent agenda A through J, with E removed, includes bill listings, minutes of the July 16th regular meeting, subdivision agreement for Amberfield 6, Bigfoot stormwater maintenance agreement, the resolution consent order imposing a civil penalty, Amberfields 20th Edition final plat, Lifetime facility change order number nine, Rosemount Industrial AUAR update, and a donation acceptance from the American Legion Post 65 for community engagement. Council, anyone wishing to pull any item for further discussion? [3:17] **Councilmember Tami Klimpel:** Um, we'd like to pull item I, sir. [3:20] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** I is pulled. Any others? [3:24] **Councilmember Paul Theisen:** Just I. [3:25] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Seeing none, we'll move the consent agenda items A through J with E removed and I for further comment. Is there a second? [3:32] **Councilmember Heidi Freske:** Second. [3:33] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion's been made and seconded. Roll, please, Clerk. [3:37] **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Weisensel? **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Aye. **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Theisen? **Councilmember Paul Theisen:** Aye. **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Freske? **Councilmember Heidi Freske:** Aye. **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Klimpel? **Councilmember Tami Klimpel:** Aye. [3:55] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Consent agenda is approved. Move to item 6I for further discussion. Let's see if I got this one up here... AUAR event. Mr. Kienberger. [4:07] **Community Development Director Adam Kienberger:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I understand you would like to pull this item for some additional discussion. I can provide a brief overview on the item and answer any questions that you may have. So, this is an update to the AUAR—the Alternative Urban Areawide Review update—that was approved back in November of 2023. This is for the parcel—best reference would be west of Blaine, north of the new Meta Data Center that's under construction. [4:38] **Adam Kienberger:** The request is to update that AUAR to add a second development scenario to it. So, as a part of an AUAR process, a developer proposer scopes a number of development scenarios in there. The one that was or is still included in there is for upwards of 1.92 million square feet of industrial development that had been identified for distribution. The proposer's adding an additional scenario upwards of 4 million square feet for data center or technology park use. [5:05] **Adam Kienberger:** One of the things to call to attention within that AUAR update was a letter from Metropolitan Council. Initially, they had some questions or comments on the information that was provided related to the wastewater. Sufficient information has been since provided and published and then included into the AUAR, largely related to how a data center usage would consider water. [5:36] **Adam Kienberger:** I can point your attention to page eight of the actual document that's included in your packet. At the bottom there, it says "3.2.2 Water Use Scenario 2." It just talks a little bit about the size of the use and data center, talking about the types of systems they use. It's prescribed in here that an air-cooled, dry cooling system is anticipated and will use between 10,000 up to 100,000 gallons of water per day. This is a range that is well within the city's capacity to provide, and so that was just updating that, clarifying that as part of that Met Council letter. So, they have withdrawn their objection to it. The action before the City Council tonight is to adopt a resolution authorizing the adoption of the Rosemount Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review, or the AUAR update. I can certainly take any questions Council may have. [6:26] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Thank you. I'll open it up—floor to the Council. [6:30] **Councilmember Paul Essler:** Yeah, I guess the question I have... so, what I thought this was interesting—I think one of the reasons why a couple of us wanted to have this pulled is that, so it's my understanding the Met Council kind of raised a concern or a letter saying that they were concerned about the water. Like it's come up before when we've talked about these data centers is: how much water are they using and is it going to pull away from the residents of Rosemount? What I'm hearing from you is that with further information about this particular data center, they're getting more efficient with their use of water, so it's not as big of a demand. Is that true? [7:12] **Adam Kienberger:** Correct. So typically, when you think about large users and data centers in particular, it's a balance between air-cooled or water-cooled. You're starting to see across—and so the project directly to the south, that was a recalculation that they did throughout their development process. They're using water in this range as well. So that's really kind of a trend in the industry—but more electricity, less water; or more water, less electricity. Met Council's concern or their question was just understanding what that balance looks like, and the AUAR has been updated and it's incorporated into that. I mentioned it's on page eight there if you wanted to read the specifics of it to just address that piece. They are satisfied with that information. [7:53] **Councilmember Paul Essler:** And I guess that's the key takeaway for me, anyway, was that they're satisfied and they withdrawn their letter. [7:56] **Adam Kienberger:** Correct. [7:57] **Councilmember Heidi Freske:** And just as, you know, a lot of people in the community have become much more familiar with the AUAR process, but this truly is just a scenario at this moment. There is not an actual application for development ahead of the city at this time, is there? [8:05] **Adam Kienberger:** Correct. [8:07] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Okay. Anything there? All righty, if there's no other questions, would anyone like to move the recommended motion? [8:12] **Councilmember Paul Theisen:** Yeah, I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the adoption of the Rosemount Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review update. [8:25] **Councilmember Heidi Freske:** I'll second. [8:27] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** All righty. We have a motion by Theisen, second by Freske. Roll, please. [8:30] **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Weisensel? **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Aye. **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Theisen? **Councilmember Paul Theisen:** Aye. **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Freske? **Councilmember Heidi Freske:** Aye. **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Klimpel? **Councilmember Tami Klimpel:** Aye. [8:44] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** 6I approved 4-0 and all the consent agenda items. We'll move on to public hearings, which we have none this evening. Unfinished business, which we have none. And we're up to new business. We have an appeal before us: the Planning Commission's denial of a variance to eliminate side yard setback standards. Miss Hogan. [9:21] **Planner Julia Hogan:** All right. So before you today, you have a variance appeal request by Nick Ritberger, property owner at 3574 152nd Street West. So, a little bit of a summary of the request: the applicant is requesting a variance to eliminate the side yard setback standard for surface parking and driveways, and then to increase the maximum lot coverage standard from 30% to 36% to allow for an existing driveway expansion to remain on the property. [9:51] **Julia Hogan:** The subject property prior to the driveway expansion met the requirement for side yard setback standard but did not meet the maximum impervious coverage standard, with the driveway being set back approximately 10 feet from the side property line and the lot coverage calculated at about 32%. The Planning Commission did review the request and held a public hearing during its meeting on June 25th, 2024, and was unable to make the five findings that support approving a variance. So, the applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's decision. [10:28] **Julia Hogan:** A little bit of overview of the site location: you can see that it's located at 3574 152nd Street West, which is located in the southwest portion of the city, west of Chippendale Avenue and is in the R1 low-density residential zoning district. A little overview with some aerial imagery: staff did become aware of the construction project prior to the driveway expansion being finalized. Staff informed the property owner on site that a driveway permit was needed prior to any work being done on a driveway. The applicant met with city staff to apply for a driveway permit where staff informed the applicant that the expansion would not be approved as it did not meet those setback regulations. [11:08] **Julia Hogan:** A driveway permit for replacing existing driveway footprint was approved, though. Staff did go out to the property to conduct a final inspection on that footprint—the driveway permit—where staff found that the non-approved driveway expansion was completed, which you can kind of see from this aerial imagery. On the left is May 2022 aerial and then on the right is April 2024 aerial, so you can see that difference. Did want to point out that the yellow lines on here are an estimated location of the property lines but aren't a fully accurate depiction of where those property lines are located. [11:51] **Julia Hogan:** A couple more aerial images: along with the 5-foot setback requirement, no accessory or principal structures are allowed within any easement area—that's per 11.5.2, supplementary regulations portion of our zoning code. I'll explain a little bit more: there are 5-foot easements along the side property lines, which means the driveway expansion is located fully within that 5 feet from the property line and is in that area as well. [12:17] **Julia Hogan:** Here are a couple site photos that were taken by staff. The photo on the left is when staff became aware of the driveway expansion; the photo on the right is when it was complete. The applicant did state in his narrative that the neighboring property to the west—which you can see in the photo on the right where that white vehicle is—sits higher elevation than his property and has caused drainage issues in the property, has had water flow issues. He has stated that with this driveway expansion, the drainage issues have improved. [12:53] **Julia Hogan:** Then, wanted to go over the lot coverage a little bit more expansively. The applicant provided a breakdown of the lot coverage of the property which shows 33% on his diagram, which you can see is on the left hand of the screen. Staff also broke down the lot coverage based on the property survey and as well as aerial imagery and found similar numbers from the house, driveway, sidewalk, patio, accessory structure—found similar square footages of what is on the property. But the main difference between the two is that the applicant is showing that the property square footage is 11,600 feet where you can see staff went off the total square footage that is shown on Dakota County's GIS system, which is 10,352 feet. So the applicant found 33% for the lot coverage for the property, but staff found it to be 36%, which is over that maximum lot coverage allowance by the code. [13:48] **Julia Hogan:** And then, going over the findings that were presented in front of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals: according to section 11.1.2G of the code, there are five criteria for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to review when considering a variance request. The five criteria used to assess each request and staff's findings: [14:04] **Julia Hogan:** One: The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. After discussions with the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, it was found that while driveways are allowed within the R1 zoning district, it is staff's interpretation that the intent of the ordinance is to limit the maximum lot coverage allowed on a property and setback standards for side yard areas to ensure that drainage on a property does not become compromised or impact adjacent properties. The variance request could be seen as not being in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance and is not in alignment with the standards that are outlined within the code. [14:46] **Julia Hogan:** Two: Variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The site is designated as low-density residential; the variance request is consistent with that designation. [14:55] **Julia Hogan:** Three: The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Staff finds that given the information received from the applicant, the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. [15:06] **Julia Hogan:** Four: There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Staff does not find that there are unique circumstances related to the variance requests that create practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. The 5-foot easement along with the side property lines are there to maintain the drainage and utility access. The newly added driveway expansion now encroaches and eliminates that easement area which could ultimately impact drainage as it moves water into the adjacent property. There are properties similar to the subject parcels in the area that do not exceed the maximum lot coverage allowed within the R1 zoning district and that meet the surface parking and driveway side yard setback minimum. [15:52] **Julia Hogan:** And then five: Granting the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. The essential character of the locality would not be altered by granting the variance; a single-family home with the driveway is consistent with the character and residential nature of the locality. As discussed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, there is not enough uniqueness to the property that would support a variance approval, and the request could be seen as not being in harmony with the purposes of the criteria. [16:16] **Julia Hogan:** So in front of the Council today, there is a recommended action, which is a motion to adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denying a variance to eliminate the side yard setback standard and to increase maximum lot coverage standard to allow for existing driveway expansion to remain at 3574 152nd Street West. At this time, I can take any questions that the Council may have. [16:34] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Thank you. I'll open it up to Council—any questions for staff? Once, twice... one question. All right. Okay, thank you. At this time would the property owner and applicant like to come forward and state their case? Welcome. [17:01] **Nick Ritberger:** My name is Nick Ritberger, the property owner at 3574 152nd Street West. The facts presented by the city planner at the Planning Commission meeting were skewed and some completely incorrect. In the second paragraph of the background info, it states the city staff became aware of the construction project prior to the driveway expansion being finalized—that's incorrect. The city inspector showed up at 8:30 and asked where the driveway permit was. I was unaware of needing a permit for the driveway replacement expansion; the code was just changed about a year ago, I was informed by a member of the Planning Commission. [17:42] **Nick Ritberger:** The first photo, which I'll go back here and show you... the first photo on the left is taken by the inspector when he showed up at the property and you can see the expansion to the west has already been poured and completed. He stated I would need a permit to complete the rest of the driveway, so I went to City Hall and got a permit then finished the remaining portion of the driveway. [18:07] **Nick Ritberger:** My neighbor's house to the west, 3592, is about 12 inches higher than mine and their third parking stall is too high as well, causing their water onto my property and causing standing water due to my side being graded improperly, which caused water and mold in the garage. Mold is not good for anybody. I had to rip out and redo the garage sheetrock to fix the mold problem. The neighbor to the west has a left swing house and mine is a right swing, causing garages to be on the same side. The elevation from the neighbor's house to mine is a 12-inch difference. Neighbor's driveway is graded wrong and backs up and drains onto my property, which is a unique characteristic out of my control. [18:55] **Nick Ritberger:** I improved drainage by putting in concrete to the property line to get my yard and neighbor's yard to drain properly. I also installed PVC drainage pipe from the backyard to the front yard to help with drainage and also installed PVC sleeves for future utilities if needed. Water will flow more smoothly across concrete versus dirt, mulch, or grass. Groundwater flow was blocked before the concrete was installed. No utilities have been in the easement since the house was built in 1992. I improved the property value by adding concrete to allow for better drainage and not having water back up on my property because of poor grading within the easement. [19:42] **Nick Ritberger:** The neighbor to the west is fine with the concrete being right to the property line. The neighbor would rather see the concrete than a Class 5 rock pad, weeds, anything like that. Flow of stormwater was improved and corrected with concrete. Stormwater backed up on my property and 3592 152nd Street West. A unique characteristic is two driveways/garages that are side by side. The neighbor to the west creates a hardship for me because half of their roof runs to two downspouts and gutters on the side of their garage, which then runs onto my property because of the poor grading and their driveway being graded wrong and too high, which is also a unique characteristic out of my control. [20:24] **Nick Ritberger:** There isn't enough room between my house and the neighbor's driveway to create a swale. Also, there isn't enough elevation change from the back of the garage to the top of the curb, especially with the location of the electrical transformer boxes and cable hubs. With all of the rain this spring, I haven't had any issues or water pooling in the back since the new driveway has been installed. Water still pools by the electrical transformer in the front yard, but I'm not worried about that because it's away from the house. [20:53] **Nick Ritberger:** Looking at other driveways in the neighborhood, I didn't think going to the property line was a problem. I was able to find at least 22 other driveways within the 5-foot drainage and utility easement, and I have a list of those here as well with me tonight if you guys want to see those. In the third paragraph under issue analysis, it states "staff reviewed the list and did confirm that a number of the driveways on the list do meet the setback regulations and are not located within a drainage and utility easement area." A majority of the properties that are on the list that do encroach into the drainage and utility easement areas do not encroach fully into those areas. So, the last sentence means to me that if my driveway doesn't encroach fully or all the way to the easement area, it is fine because that is what the city staff found with the list I provided. [22:04] **Nick Ritberger:** Also looking at new construction development within the city, there's 21 addresses with air conditioner units in the 5-foot drainage and utility easement as well. I have a list of those addresses as well if you guys would like to see those. This was not mentioned in the executive summary put together by the city staff because they know the builder is wrong and are going to do nothing about it. City staff told me they have now told the builder to put the AC units on the backside of the house out of the easement. If the city is going to deny my variance request, then they need to be consistent with every resident and builder in the city and make them remove portions of their driveways, sheds, AC units and other obstructions in the easement as well. You guys have any questions? [22:46] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** If you'd like to take the two lists that you have and turn them into the Clerk, I’d appreciate that. I'll take them right here. Thank you. And then is there anything that you're presenting tonight that wasn't presented to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments? [23:13] **Nick Ritberger:** I don't think so. [23:15] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** I'll open it up to the rest of the Council. Any questions for the applicant? [23:25] **Councilmember Paul Theisen:** I have none. [23:36] **Nick Ritberger:** I also want to state that I was kind of... I invited the city—most of the city council people out to the house and only two of them stopped out to see it, I believe. And only a couple of them had gotten back to my phone call or email as well. [24:08] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Okay. Anything else? All right, thank you. Couple of questions back to staff. There was a comment about an ordinance change. My understanding is that any ordinance changes that we've had recently didn't affect this type of subdivision easement type stuff, am I correct in that? [24:19] **Julia Hogan:** Yeah, so what I believe the applicant is referring to is as of this last year, we've been requiring driveway permits even if you're resurfacing the driveway. Before that, we would only require a driveway permit if you were changing the footprint of it. Due to a lot of issues we've run into with driveways across the city, we made that change about a year ago just so we can identify if there's going to be any issues on the front end instead of getting them on the back end when there already is an issue with it. [24:43] **Councilmember Paul Theisen:** Sure. Yeah, I was just going to say that I drove by this property this weekend and I reached out just to follow up because I did receive your phone call. I mean, once again, like I said, I think it looks great and if it's solving the issue, I appreciate that. I think one of the things that we have to do as City Council, though, is kind of—we're faced with upholding this what the Appeals Commission has really sent to us. When we see it, I mean, the property looks great; like I said, I really think you've added to the neighborhood, but then we go back to the zoning and the requirements that we have to follow with our due diligence and it's kind of a tough situation. [25:12] **Councilmember Heidi Freske:** Yeah, and I know we spoke, Nick, and I did spend some time—you probably saw, your neighbors probably saw me on your property yesterday morning walking around and looking like a strange crazy lady. But I also spent some time driving through the neighborhood, including quite a few of the properties you provided us. What I was really looking for is... you know, I watched the Board of Appeals and Adjustments meeting and you know, number one was a little dicey, they didn't get to full agreement on it. But number four, with that uniqueness... so I was really looking for the uniqueness. [26:01] **Heidi Freske:** You know, we just heard a variance appeal last month and we were looking for: "Is there something unique?" And what I was really struggling with is the lot size and shape, and looking even at the county records, it looked pretty uniform to that neighborhood and other subdivisions nearby. That 1-foot elevation difference really for this town is actually kind of nominal. I think I've got a bigger one between my own house and my neighbors, and I wasn't finding that to be big enough to qualify for, quote-unquote, "unique." A garage-to-garage alignment... my own garage abuts my next-door neighbor's, so I didn't think that that qualified as unique either. I was really looking for it, but in terms of the letter of the regulation, I wasn't finding it. And to Paul's point, the driveway looks like good concrete work, and you know, it's just unfortunate but I don't think we've satisfied number four in order to grant the variance. [27:11] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Okay, anything else? All right. I happen to drive by after this showed up on our agenda this weekend as well. My question to you was was there anything additional to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, and seeing that there wasn't—particularly as it relates to uniqueness—I will be voting to probably uphold the decision of the Board of Appeals. So with that, any other questions or comments for staff or the applicant? Anyone like to move the recommended motion then? [28:05] **Councilmember Tami Klimpel:** Okay, I'll move to adopt a resolution upholding the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments denying a variance to eliminate the side yard setback standard for surface parking and driveways and to increase the maximum lot coverage standard to allow for an existing driveway expansion to remain at 3574 152nd Street West. [28:34] **Councilmember Heidi Freske:** I'll second. [28:36] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** I have a motion by Klimpel, second by Freske. Roll, please. [28:40] **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Theisen? **Councilmember Paul Theisen:** Aye. **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Freske? **Councilmember Heidi Freske:** Nay. **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Klimpel? **Councilmember Tami Klimpel:** Aye. **City Clerk Erin Fasbender:** Weisensel? **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Aye. [28:50] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** So that completes it at 3-1, upholding the decision of the Board. Your next action is to get with staff and determine what needs to be done as it relates to the existing condition and the easement encroachment. Okay... [to Nick Ritberger] It's not the issue before us this evening, you can follow up with staff on that as well. [29:26] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** All right, that completes item 9A. We'll move on to 10 for announcements. City staff updates. [29:32] **City Administrator Logan Martin:** Mayor, I think I don't have anything on my list tonight, so I think I can throw the mic right back to you. [29:34] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Appreciate that. Yeah, thank you. We'll move to any announcements from City Council before I get to the community calendar. Seeing none, then we will start with tomorrow night: Night to Unite. We have—did somebody come up with a number count? 42? I think 42 neighborhood gatherings tomorrow. We will be out in force—Council, our Public Works, police, and some staff as well with Council. That'll be running from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. tomorrow evening in the neighborhoods. [30:21] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** On August 19th, we have the Environmental Sustainability Commission work session. That'll be here at City Hall from 5:30 to 6:00, then that'll be followed by the Sustainability Commission's meeting running from 6:00 to 7:15. On August 20th, Tuesday, we will have the Port Authority meeting running from 6:00 to 7:00 here at City Hall, followed by the next City Council meeting, 7:00 to 8:00. And with that, if there is no other business coming before the Council, I'll move to adjourn. [30:48] **Councilmember Paul Theisen:** Second. [30:50] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Motion and second. All in favor signify by saying aye. **Councilmembers:** Aye. [30:53] **Mayor Jeff Weisensel:** Opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you. [31:07] [Music]