HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Appeal of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments Approval of a Variance for Fence Height for Stephen and Roxane Sipe at 14292 Crofton CourtAGENDA ITEM: Appeal of Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approval of a variance for the fence height from
42" to 6' for the Sipes at14292 Crofton Court
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, Asst. City Planner,
AGENDA NO:
Rick Pearson, City Planner
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Air.
•
ATTACHMENTS Staff memo, Draft Resolution, Site Survey, Appeal
APPROVED BY:
Letter dated 12 /16/03, Council minutes dated
12/16/03, Attorney memo, Board minutes dated
12/9/03, Board packet, Site Survey 14293 Crofton
Ct & Board minutes 10/26/93,- Applicants
Submittal Information
-On December 9, 2003 the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approved on a 3 -2 vote a variance for a fence
height from 42" to 6' to permit construction into the 30' front yard setback. Subsequently staff received an
appeal of the decision. On December 16, 2003 the Council, set the public hearing for the variance. A notice was
published in the paper and property owners notified about the hearing for the appeal.
All information received from the applicant is attached, as part of the Board packet. To date additional
information has not been received. The memo attached clarifies some of the issues raised during the Board
hearing. The major change is that staff is recommending a variance to permit construction of a 48" fence;
requiring a 6" variance from the current zoning standard. Approval is generally based upon the city code
requirement for a 48" fence surrounding peals and the apparent conflict between the two provisions of the city
ordinances. Staff has prepared a resolution of approval for the Council that amends the Boards decision by
approving the lesser variance.
r � _
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor, Council Members
City of Rosemount Planning Commission
FROM: Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P., Assistant City Planner
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Rick Pearson, City Planner
DATE: Revised December 26, 2003
RE: Sipe Fence Height Variance Request
PROPOSAL
Staff has received an appeal of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision to grant a
2.5' fence height variance to permit construction of a 6' fence in the street side yard at
14292 Crofton Court, a corner lot in the R -1 Low Density (single family) Residential
District. Under Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, such appeals shall be heard and
resolved by the City Council within 30 days.
BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2003, the Board of Zoning Appeals and Adjustments granted a 2.5 foot
fence height variance to Stephen and Roxane Sipe of 14292 Crofton Court, a corner lot.
This variance would allow the construction of a six -foot high fence out to the property
line along 143 Street, which is within the required 30 -foot setback of a street side yard
to enclose an existing in- ground swimming pool. The ordinance limits fence heights in
front yards (and street -side yards) to be a maximum of 42 inches. Six -foot high fences are
only allowed in side and rear yards.
The applicants constructed an in- ground swimming pool in their rear yard. The City
Code requires pools to be enclosed by a 48 -inch (4 ") minimum height fence. A portion
of the pool apron, patio and extensive landscaping extend into the street -side of the yard
(along 143 Street), which has the same setback requirements as a front yard. The need
for a variance is created by enclosing all of this area (the pool, apron, patio and
landscaping) by the six -foot high fence.
Sipe Fence Height Variance
January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting
Page 2 of 7
There are two standards to weigh while considering this application. First, Section
7.2.C.2, establishes the front yard standards for this property. It states where a side yard
abuts a street, which is adjacent to the front yard of one or more residential lots on the
same block, such side yards shall meet the front yard setback requirements of the district.
As a result, the applicant's street -side yard is required to meet the front yard fence
standard that limits fences to 42 inches or 3.5 feet in height. Second, because the
applicants have an in- ground swimming pool, they are required to surround their pool
with a fence that is at least 48 inches or four feet in height (City Code Section 5- 3 -1.11).
DISCUSSION
Staff recommended to both the applicants and the Board of Appeals and Adjustments that
a 4' fence could be supported. That would require a variance of 6" but would permit the
fence to be in compliance with the City Code requirement for fence height surrounding a
pool. The 4' high fence requirement was initially based upon the building code
requirement for a minimum of 4' nonclimbable barrier completely enclosing a pool. The
applicant indicated that the 4' did not afford enough privacy and would prefer a 6' fence.
Staff continues to believe that a variance to permit construction of a 4' fence is a
reasonable compromise, and is consistent with the City Code requirement.
Applicants Hardship Comments
The applicants state their hardship is that they are being denied use and enjoyment of a
portion of their property. The Zoning Ordinance permits fences in residential districts up
to six feet in height, as long as they do not encroach into a required front yard setback.
Fences within a front yard may not exceed 42 inches (3.5 feet). In this case, the subject
property is zoned R -1, Low Density Residential and because it is a corner lot and has the
"second front" abutting other single family front yards, a 30' setback is required.
Therefore, there is one option available to the applicant that would not require the need
for vari ance; construct a 6'fence but maintain the 30'setback. Because of the applicants'
desired placement, and the desire for more privacy, they applied for the current variance
request. At a minimum a 4' fence must be installed around the pool to provide the
appropriate barrier consistent with the City Code requirements.
Furthermore, the applicants felt that they were misled by City Staff. The initial meeting
for this project occurred between the Water Resources Engineer and the applicants'
contractor. It focused on the swimming pool and the adjacent retaining wall. During this
meeting, the Water Resource Engineer advised the applicants' contractor that the fence
associated with the pool must be located within the applicants' property and could not be
constructed within the adjacent right -of -way as illustrated on their plans. He also
explained that the fence would require a separate permit. Staff believes the applicants
and their contractors interpreted these comments as an indication that the permit was only
a formality and a fence, regardless of height, would be acceptable as long as it was
located within the applicant property. The fence - height issue was identified only after the
Sipe Fence Height Variance
January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting
Page 3 of 7
contractor returned to City Hall for the fence permit. Various handouts explaining
requirements related to these permits are available in the lobby of City Hall.
To support their variance request, the applicants cite support from their neighbors and
examples of other fences around town. The applicants provided a petition with 21
signatures in support of the variance. In addition, seven of these property owners also
wrote letters indicating their support. Second, the applicants provided ten examples of
other fences around town that encroach into the front yard setback. Of these ten
examples, two are on properties that are not adjacent to another front yard and therefore
are not comparable. Three more were built without a city permit. The remaining five
appear to be issued incorrectly between June of 1992 and November of 1999. While
eight of these examples illustrate properties with fences higher then 42" in side yards
adjacent to other front yards, staff can find no evidence that any of them received a
variance. Moreover, staff finds that examples of fences constructed without benefit of
permit or that were erroneously approved, would not warrant granting of a variance in
this situation.
ISSUE ANALYSIS
Variance. According to Section 14.2.G, there are five criteria to review when
considering a variance request. While weighing a variance request against these criteria,
_ there are two key issues for the City Council and Board of Appeals_ and Adjustments to
consider. The first is whether the applicant has reasonable use of their property without
the variance. The second is whether the project can be redesigned to eliminate or reduce
the need for a variance. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments must approve or deny
each request based on findings related to each of the five standards. The City Council
shall have the power to decide any appeals. The five criteria used to weigh each variance
request, along with staff's findings for each, are listed below.
1. Granting a variance will not adversely affect the public health, welfare and
safety and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements
in the neighborhood.
Finding: The applicant states that this variance request will not affect the public
health, welfare and safety of properties in the immediate area because the
surrounding neighbors have endorsed the proposal. In fact, they feel it will
enhance the health, welfare and safety by providing a large barrier around their
swimming pool.
While this may be true, the standard applies to the broader neighborhood and R -1
Zoning District, not just the subject property. If approved, the variance would
grant this property a higher fence than allowed on other corner properties where
the side yard abuts a front yard within the R -1 District. One reason for the
restriction on fence height in front yards is the desire to maintain visibility to the
front of the house and to maintain visibility along public roads. Another reason
Sipe Fence Height Variance
January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting
Page 4 of 7
for the fence restriction is aesthetic so that the tall fencing does not occur on
major thoroughfares.
Staff's recommendation to approve a variance for a 4' fence addresses health and
safety issues by allowing a fence consistent with the city code requirements for
in- ground pool fencing. Anything above that height is based more upon the
applicant's desires and is less related to health or safety issues.
2. Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in a practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the intent of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Finding: Strict interpretation of the 3.5 foot fence requirement will not result in a
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the fence height standard is to preserve the
density and visibility of the R -1 District setback standards. Placement of a six
foot high fence at a property line would have the similar effect of placing a
structure at the property line.
Further, the ordinance specifically mentions the required setback for side yards on
corner lots that abut other front yards. Therefore within the ordinance, there is the
express desire to restrict structures and structures heights for these types .of
situations.
3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the subject property, use or facilities that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same district.
Finding: The applicant claims that their exceptional or extraordinary circumstance
is that their property is located on a corner lot. While this situation is unfortunate,
it does not represent a unique circumstance or condition that does not apply
generally to other properties in the same district. In fact, staff finds that the 3.5
foot fence height standard was specifically designed to limit the height of fences
in front yards and the ordinance also is intended to restrict structures on the
second "front yard" on corner lots.
4. Strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the use and
enjoyment of his property in a manner similar to other owners in the same
district.
Finding: The applicants feel that strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance deprives them of use and enjoyment of a portion of their property. By
contrast staff finds that literal interpretation of the ordinance will not deprive the
applicant of the use and enjoyment of their property in a manner similar to other
owners in the R -1 District. The applicant could construct a six foot fence to
Sipe Fence Height Variance
January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting
Page 5 of 7
screen their swimming pool and backyard area. However, this fence may not
encroach into the required 30 foot front yard setback along 143 Street. This
standard applies to all corner residential lots in the same R -1 zoning district.
The applicant has noted that in the past there have been fence permits erroneously
granted to allow a situation similar to that being proposed. Staff, through its
administrative powers, does not have the ability to grant a variance. Therefore,
while a-building permit was granted for the fences, it was an error and the fences
would be considered non - conforming and illegal. The basis for granting a
variance should not be that staff had previously erred in granting of other permits.
A fence variance was granted at 14293 Crofton Court for a 6'fence on the 143
Street side in October of 1993. However, that situation differs from the current
proposal because of the house orientation. The perceived.rear yard of 14293
Crofton Court is in fact considered another front yard based upon the ordinance
criteria. The house orientation at 14293 Crofton clearly directs the backyard to the
south side of the lot, which fronts along 143 Street West. The only area that
could be considered a backyard under the ordinance is the west side, which
frankly functions as a side yard. By ordinance, the lot has three front yards.
Under the current proposal, the house is oriented somewhat differently so that -
there is a usable back yard in the east side of the lot. That means there is the
opportunity to install residential structures without the need of variance, so long
as they are maintained within the back yard. As mentioned above, the variance
approved for 14293 Crofton Court is unique in that the lot functions more like a
triple- fronted lot with the functional back yard along 143 Street. The current
proposal, at 14292 Crofton Court is for a corner lot, which has usable space in a
designated backyard and therefore should be able to accommodate accessory uses
such as a pool with fence within the confines of the ordinance requirements.
5. Granting of the variance will not allow a use that is otherwise not a
permitted use in the zoning district in question.
Finding: In this case, granting the 2.5 foot fence height variance request will not
permit a use which is otherwise prohibited in the R -1 District. However, it would
allow the fence to be located on this property in conflict with the spirit and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance standards for properties the R -1 District.
CONCLUSION
The findings outlined above were presented to the Planning Commission acting in their
role as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. The Board discussed the issues in detail
and received extensive testimony from the applicant, the contractor and a previous
appellant. Three out of five Board members supported a motion to grant the variance
Sipe Fence Height Variance
January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting
Page 6 of 7
apparently because of the previously erroneously permitted fences, and inconsistent
enforcement of the ordinance standards.
There are three options for Council:
I. Uphold the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments.
2. Overturn the decision of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments — to deny the
variance based upon findings of fact.
3. Amend the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments - to modify the
variance based upon findings of fact.
Staff maintains that the applicants have reasonable use of their property without the
requested variance and have not demonstrated a hardship that is unique to the subject
property. In addition, staff finds that the applicants could either construct a six foot fence
at the 30 foot setback requirement or construct a shorter fence with coniferous planting to
add screening. While these options may be less desirable to the applicant, they illustrate
options that would not require a variance.
Given these findings, staff cannot support the variance request as proposed. While there
are situations in the past where permits have been issued for 6'fences in similar locations,
they were erroneously permitted and therefore should not set a precedent for future
applications. While the Board has approved this variance and other fence variances, such
as the one at 14293 Crofton Court, staff believes there are circumstances that make the
latter request unique, whereas this is simply a variance request for a corner lot which has
an in- ground pool. Clearly the ordinance was written with the express intent to address
structures on corner lots because of the specific language written in the ordinance. For
this reason, staff does not believe the applicant has shown adequate hardship or has
illustrated unique circumstances that do not exist on other corner lot properties.
However, staff does support a variance to permit construction of a 4' fence in the same
location as the proposed 6' fence. The reason is that the city code requires a 4' fence for
in- ground pools. Staff believes that when there is conflict between the two codes, the
issue of health, safety and welfare should take precedence. Therefore, construction of a 4'
fence would be consistent with the building code requirements and a 6 variance should
be granted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending an amended variance:
• Motion to amend the Board of Appeals & Adjustments action to grant a 6" height
variance to permit construction of a 4' fence, placement consistent with the
Sipe Fence Height Variance
January 6, 2004 City Council Meeting
Page 7 of 7
applicant site plan for Stephen and Roxane Sipe at 14292 Crofton Court based
upon the following findings - of fact:
1. The presence of an in- ground pool prompts the requirement for a 48" (4')
fence.
2. The building code recommends that a 4' fence is necessary to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the public when an in- ground pool is present.
3. When there are conflicts between two code requirements, staff would
recommend enforcing the building code provision that is the most restrictive.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2004-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BOARD OF APPEALS & ADJUSTMENTS
ACTION TO GRANT A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE TO
STEPHEN AND ROXANE SIPE OF 14292 CROFTON COURT
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department of the City of Rosemount received a
fence height variance application from Stephen and Roxane Sipe of 14292 Crofton Court legally
described as:
Lot 3, Block 1, Shannon Hills 3 r6 Addition
WHEREAS, this variance request would allow the construction of a 6 foot fence within the
street side front yard of this corner lot; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2003, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the City of
Rosemount held a public hearing to review this application and receive public comment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments adopted a motion to approve a 2.5 foot
fence height variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in the street side front yard
of this corner lot; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments decision to grant a 2.5 foot
fence height variance was filed with the City of Rosemount in conformance with the variance
appeal procedure outlined in Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2003, the City Council of the City of Rosemount received the
variance appeal request and set a date of January 6, 2004 to hear this appeal; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing to review the
appeal request and take public comment on January 6, 2004; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
amends the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to approve a fence height variance
from 2.5 feet to six inches to allow the construction of a four foot fence within the street side
front yard of the property located at 14292 Crofton Court based on the following findings of fact:
1. The presence of an in- ground pool prompts the requirement for a 48" (4') fence.
2. The building code recommends that a 4' fence is necessary to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the public when an in- ground pool is present.
3. When there are conflicts between two code requirements, staff would recommend
enforcing the building code provision that is the most restrictive.
Resolution 2004-
ADOPTED this 6 day of January, 2004, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Jentink, City Clerk
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
Member absent:
�rtif.icnto of itouso Location For:
r1 j RrrhA nn Cnnr.truction Ina.
t14Ga Copp6xfi6ld Hay
Invcr 'Orovie Tleighba. HN 5bo7G
. Dr-�MAp H. SCHVV
I" N Z
LAND eUrivEyonti. INC.
. '..:: 7 . •: ! " f' - r I ,, - -, L. � r r:r' .d �
14750 COUTH MOBUIT 1 AIL 71O1MMOUNT, MINNE6oTA f�' O' C191e9� -1740
UVnveyorj's OrnTI F ICAT 6
y
Scalne l inch 30 feet DELMAR F�'�;
q SCHWANZ
O -�, I.sv1t ��1:po mo11um1int. S
t7 Scat 'Lumd huh \ Q
t 4PXfv. O
�r ( — I:x apo r � �-•�� \� � �, ,
.� lrrnix�eed r_lc v_ � n
mrnu�'•
�v
Ol r r w •fl • S
r X I
Oe
n1 �tb
., l •a• tl 1� � i ��` 4
°� 4
proposed garage floor e-lev. ?'
Proposed top of block elev
lowest level elev • I
i
`-1 � " L� � T31crc:k 1, 8Hr1NrUN 13II.I S 3RD yr)DITION
` /' IDesarigtion: IA.) 3♦ —
! I ! according to the recorded plat theroo£,
pokota County —o*� o£ a p e n
, Hinnecotr-
_ sed hous e
I hereby c01111y that I" evr"ey, Plan, or reporlw■► laluo showing 1 ho locp�i
prepared by me or under my direcl eupenrtalon and utnXed thnroon.
1hal 1 em • dvly negtslered Land Surveyor under I �n � 1rfl
the last ol)he Male of Mlnne+ote.
Celmpt 11, Seherant
09 -23 -33 Minnesota negl+trnt)vn NO BIl23
Doled �
December 16, 2003
Attn: Planning Department
According to the zoning ordinance 14.2F. a member of the City Council may
appeal the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. This is to notify
you that I am appealing the decision of the Board relating to the Sipe variance for
a height variance to construct a 6' fence.
Sin erely, nn
Ma ley
City Council Member
ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 16, 2003
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Rosemount City Council was
duly held on Tuesday, December 16, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall,
2875 145 Street West.
Mayor Droste called the meeting to order with Council Members Strayton, Shoe - Corrigan, Riley,
and DeBettignies, present. Also present were City Administrator Verbrugge, Attorney LeFevere,
City Engineer Brotzler, Community Development Director Lindquist, Parks and Recreation
Director Schultz, Human Resources /Communication Coordinator Weitzel, Finance Director
May, and Police Chief Kalstabakken. The Pledge of Allegiance was said.
Staff presented two add -on items: one for the Gambling Premises Permit Renewals with the
Jaycees for Celts and McDivot's, this will be added to the Consent Agenda, Item 6.v; and setting
a public hearing for the Stipe Fence Variance on January 6, 2004, Item 6. w. A correction was
made to Item 6.h., the 2004 Fee Resolution on page 9 which should show the
commercial /industrial park dedication fee at 10 %. Staff requested that Item 61 Irish Dome LLC
Lease Agreement be pulled until more details are determined. Mayor Droste moved to accept the
recommended changes to the agenda and additional information. Second by Riley. Ayes: Five.
Nays: None. Agenda was adopted with the suggested changes.
Consent Agenda
Council Member Shoe- Corrigan requested that Item 6.0. Flint Hills Resources Simple Plat
Request for 14380 Blaine Avenue be pulled for discussion. Council Member Strayton requested
that Item 6. g. Fund Balance Policy be pulled for discussion.
MOTION by Shoe - Corrigan to approve the Consent Agenda with the additions of 6.v. and 6.w;
discussion of 6.g. and 6.0., a correction to 6.h., and removing 61 Second by DeBettignies.
Ayes: Droste; Riley, Strayton, DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan. Nays: None. Motion carried.
a. Minutes of December 2, 2003 Regular City Council Meeting
b. Minutes of November 12, 2003 Committee of the Whole
C. Minutes of December 1,2003 Special Meeting, Truth in Taxation
d. Bills Listing
e. Budget Amendments
f Authorize Financing for Lease /Purchase of Trackless Snowblower /Plow with
Attachments
g. Fund Balance Policy Pull for discussion -, approved
h. 2004 Fee Resolution, with a correction
i. On Sale Liquor Licenses on Public Premise
j. Gambling Premises Permit for Shenanigan's Pub
k. Change Order #1, Connemara Trail Phase II Improvements, City Project #343
1. Receive Quotes /Authorize Contract — Test Well #14, City Project 382
m. Firefighters Relief Association Benefit Adjustment
n. Mineral Extraction Permit Renewal for Shafer Contracting Company Inc.
_R. Fli;nf Hills Resetifees Simple Plat Request for- 14380 Blaine Avenue- Tabled, see discussion
p. Automated Pawn System (APS) Service and Software License Agreement
ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 16, 2003
q. Authorize Recruitment of a Communication Coordinator and Range Adjustment for Parks
& Recreation Supervisor
r. Health Care Savings Contribution (Management)
S. Status Change of Building Inspector Secretary from Part-Time to Full -Time
t. sh Dome LLG Lease ^ e,,.. e te,,.. e t Pulled
mob.
u. Receipt of Donation
V. Add -on Gambling Premises Permit Renewals with Jaycees for Celts and McDivot's
ON+ W. Add -onset Public Hearing for Stipe Fence Variance Appeal for January 6, 2004.
Fund Balance Policy
.Council Member Strayton commented on the importance of the City being fiscally responsible
which is shown by the conservative budget that city staff was able to structure. Strayton thanked
city staff for keeping spending down and for their hard work.
MOTION by Strayton to approve the Fund Balance Policy, F -7: Second by Riley. Ayes: Riley,
Strayton, DeBettignies, Shoe- Corrigan, Droste. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Flint Hills Resources Simple Plat Request for 14380 Blaine Avenue
Council Member Shoe - Corrigan asked about the standards for residential lots below five acres.
She noted that normally the density is averaged out with other lots for a rural residential density
of two units for 10 acres. Community Development Director Lindquist noted that this property
has eight homes on it now and that number would be reduced to three homes and one open lot.
Although this is still not compliant with standards, it is closer to compliance. The property is
owned by Flint Hills but is not contiguous to their larger parcel. Lindquist said this would be a
trade -off to accomplish other goals and it is up to the City Council's discretion. Shoe- Corrigan
requested that additional negotiations be conducted and this item be tabled for their response.
MOTION by Shoe - Corrigan to table the consideration of a resolution for approval for the Flint
Hills Estates plat. Second by Droste. Ayes: Strayton, DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan, Droste,
Riley. Nays: None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued): Drainage & Utility Easement Vacation- Rosewood
Estates Addition, City Project 350
Mayor Droste explained the Public Hearing process. The posted and mailed notice for this
hearing were on file.
City Engineer Brotzler noted that this Public Hearing was delayed due to an incomplete property
description. Brotzler reported that the property description had been updated and that staff was
ready to move forward with this easement vacation. Mayor Droste opened the public hearing.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION by Droste to close the Public Hearing for Drainage & Utility Easement Vacation for
Rosewood Estates Addition, City Project 350. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: DeBettignies,
Shoe- Corrigan, Droste, Riley, Strayton. Nays: None. Motion carried.
2
Received 12/12/03 via email
Jamie,
The Planning Commission recently approved a variance
application for a fence in the front yard of a corner lot.
You have asked whether such a variance can expose the City
to civil liability or create a precedent for future
variance requests.
I understand that the fence will not obstruct the sight
triangle protected by City Code. Although it may impair
visibility of crossing traffic somewhat, it would have no
greater effect than trees or shrubs planted in the same
location. Although the City would not want to create an
unreasonably unsafe condition for public policy reasons, I
do not believe that granting such a variance would expose
the City to any significant risk of civil liability.
Granting a variance does not create a legally binding
precedent for future variance applications. The Council
can legally decline to grant a variance under similar
circumstances in the future. However, granting a variance
can, as a practical matter, have effects that are similar
to precedent in some ways.
If the Council grants one or more variances and later
denies a variance in similar circumstances, the denial may
be challenged as arbitrary and capricious. The granting of
variances in previous cases under the same circumstances
could be presented as evidence that denial was arbitrary
and capricious. Such evidence could cast doubt on the
validity or importance of reasons stated for denial in the
findings or could be used as evidence that denial violated
equal protection guarantees of state and federal
constitutions or was based on impermissible, discriminatory
reasons. Therefore, granting variances could increase the
difficulty of defending the denial of similar variances in
the future.
Other effects of granting such a variance are that it
becomes politically more difficult for present and future
councils to deny later variance applications and more
likely that the public will become more distrustful of
government if an application is denied. Applicants are
often quick to discover and point out situations where the
City has granted variances in the past and it is difficult
for them to understand why they should not be given the
same consideration as people who were granted variances
earlier.
In general, then, although granting a variance does not
create a legally binding precedent for similar applications
in the future, it can become difficult to change course
once a City Council has granted one or more similar
variances.
Charlie
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 9, 2003
PAGE 1
Public Hearing: Sipe Fence Variance Request
Assistant Planner Lindahl reviewed the variance application from Stephen and Roxane Sipe for a
2.5 foot fence height variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in their front yard
along 143rd Street and Crofton Court. The reason for the request is to enclose the existing in-
ground swimming pool.
Discussion ensued regarding fence height limitations, setback areas, front yard setbacks, and
safety issues.
Roxanne Sipe, 14292 Crofton Court, expressed a desire to build a six foot fence on their property
line about 15' from the street. Mrs. Sipe expressed concern with conversations between their
landscaper and the city engineer regarding the location of the fence, and the dollars that have
been expended for this project for landscaping, a retaining wall, and electrical work. This project
is not meeting their envisioned area and they are trying to create a safe space for their children.
Discussion ensued regarding the permit for the pool, the surveying of the property, locations of
property pins, conversations with the hired professionals, and possible compromises for the fence
design/height.
Chairperson Weisensel opened the Public Hearing.
Ken Sipe, hired landscaper, 10033 Pleasant Avenue, Bloomington was present to recap
occurrences relative to the project.
Margaret Jacques, 15130 Dartmoor Court, expressed her empathy for the Sipes and felt that the
6' fence posed no threat or created any visibility problems.
MOTION by Weisensel to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zum. Ayes: Napper,
Weisensel, Messner, Zum, and Anderson. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Discussion ensued regarding setbacks from the curb, explanation of street right -of -way, fencing
for corner lots in street side yards, the current standards and ordinance in place, definitions of
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and exceptional or extraordinary circumstances,
previously granted variances for similar situations, discussion of fence heights during council
work sessions, and enforcement actions against properties that installed fences without permits
or erroneously.
MOTION by Weisensel to grant the variance. Second by Napper.
Discussion continued regarding clarifying the motion to have a 6' foot fence at the property line,
the possibilities for compromise, future applications for fencing, administrative steps to prevent
erroneous permitting of fences, the recommendation that this ordinance be re- looked at, the
specificity of the motion, and the location of the fence.
The restated MOTION by Weisensel to grant the variance based on the specific location
identified on a map the applicant will provide based on our discussion. Seconded by Napper.
Ayes: Weisensel, Zum, and Napper. Nays: Messner, and Anderson. Motion carried.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
Zin_2 Commission Meeting Date: December 9, 2003
AGENDA ITEM: Sipe Fence Height Variance — 14292 Crofton
Court.
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P.,Assistant Planner
AGENDA NO.
ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map, Staff Report dated
APPROVED BY:
December 4, 2003, Applicant's Narrative,
Proposed Plan of Fence, Letter From Ken Sipe
Landscaping, Pictures of Where Proposed
Fence and Line of Sight Would be Located,
Neighborhood Site Map, Neighborhood
Petition, Neighborhood Letters of Approval,
Existing Rosemount Fences.
Applicant:
Location:
Property Owner(s):
Comp. Guide Plan Desig:
Current Zoning:
SUMMARY
Stephen and Roxane Sipe
14292 Crofton Court
Stephen and Roxane Sipe
UR, Urban Residential
R -1, Low Density Residential
The applicants, Stephen and Roxane Sipe, of 14292 Crofton Court request a 2.5 .foot fence height variance to
allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in their front yard along 143` Street. Construction of a fence is
necessary to enclose their in- ground swimming pool.
Section 7.2.C.2 states where a side yard abuts a street which is adjacent to the front yard of one or more
residential lots on the same block, such side yards shall meet the front yard setback requirements of the district.
The Zoning Ordinance permits fences in residential districts up to six feet in height, as long as they do not
encroach into to a required front yard setback as stated above. Fences within a side yards that are adjacent to a
front yard may not exceed 42 inches (3.5 feet). However, the City Code also requires all in- ground swimming
pools to be surrounded by a fence that is at least 48 inches or four feet in height. In this case, the subject
property is zoned R -1, Low Density Residential and has a. required front yard setback of 30 feet.
The applicants state their hardship is that they are being denied use and enjoyment of a portion of their property.
To support their variance request, the applicants cite support from their neighbors and examples of other fences
around town. First, the applicants provide a petition with 21 signatures in support of the variance. In addition,
seven of these property owners also wrote letters indicating their support. Second, the applicants provide ten
examples of other fences around town which encroach into the front yard setback. Of these ten examples, two
are on properties that are not adjacent to another front yard and therefore are not comparable. Three more were
built without a city permit. The remaining five appear to be issued incorrectly between June of 1992 and
November of 1999. While eight of these examples illustrate properties with fences higher then 3.5 feet in side
yards adjacent to other front yards, staff can find no evidence that any of them received a variance. Moreover,
staff finds that examples of fences constructed without benefit of permit or were erroneously approved, would
not warrant granting of a variance in this situation.
Based on the findings included in the staff report dated December 4, 2003, staff concludes that the applicants
have reasonable use of their property without the requested variance and have not demonstrated a hardship that
is unique to the subject property. In addition, staff finds that the applicants could either construct a six foot
fence at the 30 foot setback requirement or construct a shorter fence with coniferous planting to add screening.
While these options may be less desirable to the applicant, they illustrate options that would not require a
variance.
Given these findings, staff cannot support the variance request as proposed. Should the Planning Commission
choose to approve the variance request, staff recommends continuing this item and directing staff to prepare a
resolution with findings of fact supporting the request. If the Planning Commission agrees with the petitioner
that six foot high fences are appropriate in front yards of corner lots, then amending the Zoning Ordinance
would be an appropriate recommendation to the City Council. At this time, staff is not recommending any
change to the fence height standards.
Finally, given the fact that the City Code does require a fence of at least four feet surround all in- ground
swimming pools, the Planning Commission may wish to consider a 6 inch variance as a compromise.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to deny the 2.5 foot fence height variance for Stephen and Roxane
Sipe, of 14292 Crofton Court to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in their front yard along 143
Street. This recommendation is based upon the following findings of fact:
1. The owner has reasonable use of the property based upon the current built nature of the site.
2. There are options for constructing a fence that would meet the height requirements for an in- ground
swimming pool without the need for a variance.
3. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property,
which do not apply generally to other properties in the same district that would warrant granting of the
variance.
4. Strict or literal interpretation would not deprive the applicants of the use and enjoyment of their property
in a manner similar to other owners in the same district.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
PROPERTY 10 NUMBER: 34- 67427 - 030 -01
FEE OWNER:
STEPHEN A & ROXANE R SIPE
1993
14292 CROFTON CT
SPLIT LEVL
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 - 7118
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
14292 CROFTON CT
BEDROOMS
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068
PAYABLE 2003 TAXES
2.75
NET TAX:
WOOD
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS:
0IIIIIIIIIII
TOTAL TAX & SA:
PAYABLE 2004 ASMNT USAGE:RESIDENTIAL
NOTE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot
:�opynght 2003, Dakota County -
SITE MAP
2003 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2004)
LAND: 40000 LOT SIZE (EXCLUDES
BUILDING: 0900 ROAD EASEMENTS)
TOTAL:
14,190 SO FT
SCHOOL DISTRICT: 196 0.33 ACRES
LOCATION: SW1 /4 NE1 14 SECTION 30- 115.19
PAYABLE 2004 HOMESTEAD STATUS: FULL HOMESTEAD
WATERSHED DISTRICT: VERMILLION RIVER
LAST QUALIFIED SALE:
DATE: 10/1993
AMOUNT: 137.117
Fhis drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
phis drawing is a compilation of records, . information and data located in various city, county, and
;fate offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes
)nly. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are
ound, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department.
Jap Date: December 5, 2003 Parceis Updated: 11/13/2003 Aerial Photography: 2000
PLAT NAME: SHANNON HILLS 3RD ADD
TAX DESCRIPTION: 3 1
2003 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 2004)
TYPE
S.FAM.RES
YEAR BUILT
1993
ARCH /STYLE
SPLIT LEVL
FOUNDATION SOFT 1365
FINISHED SO FT
2353
BEDROOMS
3
BATHS
2.75
FRAME
WOOD
GARAGE SO FT
712
OTHER GARAGE
MISC BLDG
Y _ - _._.____. —._.
7
MEMORANDUM
IWO
FROM:
DATE:
RE
PROPOSAL
City of Rosemount Planning Commission
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Rick Pearson, City Planner
Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P., Assistant City Planner
December 4, 2003
Sipe Fence Height Variance Request
The applicants, Stephen and Roxane Sipe, of 14292 Crofton Court request a 2.5 foot
fence height variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in their front yard
along 143 Street. Construction of a fence is necessary to enclose their in- ground
swimming pool. Section 7.2.C.2 states where a side yard abuts a street which is adjacent
to the front yard of one or more residential lots on the same block, such side yards shall
meet the front yard setback requirements of the district. As a result, no fence in a front
yard shall exceed 42 inches (3.5 feet) in height.
BACKGROUND
The applicants state their hardship is that they are being denied use and enjoyment of a
portion of their property. The Zoning Ordinance permits fences in residential districts up
to six feet in height, as long as they do not encroach into to a required front yard setback.
Fences within a front yard may not exceed 42 inches (3.5 feet). However, the City Code
also requires all in- ground swimming pools to be surrounded by a fence that is at least 48
inches or four feet in height. In this case, the subject property is zoned R -1, Low Density
Residential and has a required front yard setback of 30 feet.
To support their variance request, the applicants cite support from their neighbors and
examples of other fences around town. First, the applicants provide a petition with 21
signatures in support of the variance. In addition, seven of these property owners also
wrote letters indicating their support. Second, the applicants provide ten examples of
other fences around town which encroach into the front yard setback. Of these ten
examples, two are on properties that are not adjacent to another front yard and therefore
are not comparable. Three more were built without a city permit. The remaining five
appear to.be issued incorrectly between June of 1992 and November of 1999. While
eight of these examples illustrate properties with fences higher then 3.5 feet in side yards
adjacent to other front yards, staff can find no evidence that any of them received a
variance. Moreover, staff finds that examples of fences constructed without benefit of
permit or were erroneously approved, would not warrant granting of a variance in this
situation.
ISSUE ANALSIS
Variance. According to Section 14.2.G, there are five criteria to review when
considering a variance request. While weighing a variance request against these criteria,
there are two key issues for the Planning Commission to consider. The first is whether
the applicant has reasonable use of their property without the variance. The second is
whether the project can be redesigned to eliminate or reduce the need for a variance. The
Board of Appeals and Adjustments must approve or deny each request based on findings
related to each of the five standards. The City Council shall have the power to decide any
appeals. The five criteria used to weigh each variance request, along with staff's findings
for each, are listed below.
1. Granting a variance will not adversely affect the public health, welfare and safety
- and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood.
Finding: The applicant states that this variance request will not affect the public
health, welfare and safety of properties in the immediate area because the
surrounding neighbors have endorsed the proposal. In fact, they feel it will
enhance the health, welfare and safety by providing a large barrier around their
swimming pool.
While this may be true, the standard applies to the broader neighborhood and R -1
Zoning District, not just the subject property. If approved, the variance would
grant this property a higher fence than allowed on other corner properties within
the R -1 District. One reason for the restriction on fence height in front yards is
the desire to maintain visibility to the front of the house and to maintain visibility
along public roads. Although the case could be made that a six foot fence would
be a more significant barrier to the existing in- ground pool, the City Code only
requires a four foot fence deeming that an acceptable hindrance.
2. Strict interpretation or enforcement would result in a practical difficulty or
unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the intent of this Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Finding: Strict interpretation of the of the 3.5 foot fence requirement will not
result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the intent
of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the fence height standard is to preserve
the density and visibility of the R -1 District`setback standards. Placement of a six
foot high fence at a property line would have the similar effect of placing a
structure at the property line..
3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the subject property, use or facilities that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
Finding: The applicant claims that their exceptional or extraordinary circumstance
is that their property is located on a corner lot. While this situation is unfortunate,
it does not represent a unique circumstance or condition that does not apply
generally to other properties in the same district. In fact, staff finds that the 3.5
foot fence height standard was specifically designed to limit the height of fences
on corner lots.
4. Strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of the use and
enjoyment of his property in a manner similar to other owners in the same district.
Finding: The applicants feel that strict or literal interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance deprives them of use and enjoyment of a portion of their property. By
contrast, staff finds that literal interpretation of the fence height standard will not
deprive the applicant of the use and enjoyment of their property in a manner
similar to other owners in the R -1 District. The applicant could construct a six
foot fence to screen their swimming pool and backyard area. However, this fence
may not encroach into the required 30 foot front yard setback along 143 street.
This standard applies to all comer residential lots.
5. Granting of the variance will not allow a use which is otherwise not a permitted
use in the zoning district in question.
Finding: In this case, granting the 2.5 foot fence height variance request will not
permit a use which is otherwise prohibited in the R -1 District. However, it would
allow the fence to be located on this property in conflict with the spirit and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan standards for properties the R-
1 District.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings outlined above, staff concludes that the applicants have reasonable
use of their property without the requested variance and have not demonstrated a
hardship that is unique to the subject property. In addition, staff finds that the applicants
could either construct a six foot fence at the 30 foot setback requirement or construct a
shorter fence with coniferous planting to add screening. While these options may be less
desirable to the applicant, they illustrate options that would not require a variance.
Given these findings, staff cannot support the variance request as proposed. Should the
Planning Commission choose to approve the variance request, staff recommends
continuing this item and directing staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact
supporting the request. If the Planning Commission agrees with the petitioner that six
foot high fences are appropriate in front yards of corner lots, then amending the Zoning
Ordinance would be an appropriate recommendation to the City Council. At this time,
staff is not recommending any change to the fence height standards.
Finally, given the fact that the City Code does require a fence of at least four feet
surround all in- ground swimming pools, the Planning Commission may wish to consider
a 6 inch variance as a compromise.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the 2.5 foot fence height variance for Stephen and Roxane
Sipe, of 14292 Crofton Court to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in their
front yard along 143 Street. This recommendation is based upon the following findings
of fact:
I. The owner has reasonable use of the property based upon the current built nature of
the site.
2. There are options for constructing a fence that would meet the height requirements
for an in- ground swimming pool without the need for a variance.
3. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the subject property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same
district that would warrant granting of the variance.
4. Strict or literal interpretation would not deprive the applicants of the use and
enjoyment of their property in a manner similar to other owners in the same district.
4 • �� as auuzW ' ;o yq -E4-S au4. 10 sMt2 aq! . aapun aO.KaA=IS pub
pa.xa4,sT29H dTnp z W I q. - etl� pus uoisiAaadns %OaaTp Sat a.!,!D un
�o am Sq pea - edead sum XaAans q v'.{
. - - �N3Mt�t1VQW N4�tr �l1aM3C t
V.L05 IN NI w a�hr/155 b� 5oD�11?16��A " 77�
ol
f Jl llUl70 � tl.l o �I dd
kOr.Lr ao
5771H No1VNVII5
'T 6 1.0 —
d` SSG '-tom - ^�S �.� _ --� £ Et' �.6•���
f/rrl \ 6�
�'b h
v — ' tJ P.*,?
Aj
in
�! d�
K r CL nt •
o
r !
t: Y v •p G b
y
tf
Former Planning Commissioners Al Meyer and Sheila Hathaway were in attendance for a reception
to receive formal recognition for their years of service on the Planning Commission. Director of
Planning Lisa Freese presented each with a plaque and thanked them for their investment of time
and their contribution as Planning Commissioners for the City of Rosemount. Several City staff
members were also in attendance to extend their appreciation. Former Commissioner Gundacker
was unable to attend this reception, however, a plaque has been mailed to his home extending the
City's appreciation of his time and service as commissioner for the City of Rosemount.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duly
held on Tuesday, October 26, 1993 at 5:25 p.m. Chairperson Busho called the meeting to order
with members DeBettignies, Droste, Baago, and Ingram present. Also present was Director of
Planning Lisa Freese and Assistant Planner Rick Pearson. Former Commissioner Meyer was also in
attendance for the regular meeting.
Chairperson Busho recessed the Regular Planning Commission Meeting and opened the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments to hold a public hearing scheduled at 5:30 p.m. The recording secretary
had in her possession Affidavits of Publication, Mailed, and Posted Hearing Notice.
Mr. Wayne Nickson; 14293 Crofton Court, has requested a variance to construct a six -foot high
privacy fence on a double frontage lot along 143rd Street in the Shannon Hills 3rd Addition. The
Zoning Ordinance allows six -foot high fences in side and rear yards only. Front yards are limited
to a 42 -inch maximum height. Mr. Nickson's property has double frontage as well as being a
corner lot. The Zoning Ordinance would view all three street sides as front yards, therefore
restrictin fence height to 42 inches.
The Board discussed the unique features of the property and acknowledged some hardship of the
property. However, discussion was concentrated on the impact of a variance as a visual barrier
inconsistent with the front yard character of the surrounding properties. Various ways of mitigating
the visual impact were discussed.
Mr. Nickson stated his reasons for wanting a six -foot high solid fence were to keep his pets
contained within his backyard and to provide privacy in his backyard.
There were no other comments from the audience.
Chairperson Busho closed the public hearing at 6:25 p.m.
MOTION by Baago to grant a variance to allow the construction of a six -foot high fence on the
street side yard along 143rd Street at 1 Crofton Court, legally described as Lot 9, Block 2,
Shannon Hills 3rd Addition, because of the unique physical characteristics of the lot and positioning
of the existing house, with the condition that. the fence material be chain link to reduce negative
impact to the neighborhood. Second by Droste.
7 r.d e Pr'
Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 26, 1993
Page Two
Boardmember Ingram stated her opinion that Mr. Nickson was entitled to privacy in his back yard
like other homes within the area. In further discussion, the Board suggested that Mr. Nickson may
wish to construct a combination 42 -inch solid wall fence with chain link along the top or blend
decorative privacy landscaping along the chain link fence that would ultimately provide back yard
seclusion at full growth.
A Vote on the MOTION was called. Ayes: DeBettignies, Droste, Busho, Baago, Ingram. Nays:
0.
Chairperson Busho closed the Board of Appeals and Adjustments and reconvened the October 26,
1993 Regular Planning Commission Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
MOTION by Busho to approve the minutes of the September 14, 1993 and September 28, 1993
Regular Planning Commission Meetings and to approve the minutes of the October 7, 1993 Planning
Commission Special Workshop Meeting as presented.. Second by DeBettignies. Ayes: Droste,
Busho, Baago, Ingram, DeBettignies. Nays: 0.
Director of Planning Lisa Freese advised that City Council approved the Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment for "Accessory Appendages" with one minor change that provides for further
clarification of antennae when connected to rooftops. The City Council also set a public hearing on
November 2, 1993 for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment proposed by Carlson Properties
of Rosemount /GTI for a redesignation of land use from High Density Residential to Commercial.
As a result of public testimony, the City Council directed Planning staff to revise the resolution for
the Wensmann Properties, Inc. request for a residential /commercial mixed use development that
eliminates commercial uses on the property and redesignates land use for the whole parcel from
Agricultural to Urban Residential. The comp plan public hearing is scheduled for November 9,
1993.
Director of Planning Freese provided an overview of the recommendations of the Highway 52
Study. This study was conducted by SEH, in a joint request by the Cities of Rosemount and Inver
Grove Heights, the Minnesota Highway Department (MnDOT), and Koch Refining Co., for a
functional analysis of the Highway 52 area. The Study makes specific recommendations regarding
highway access, future interchanges, and other traffic control strategies. The Study must be adopted
by the City and incorporated into the Comprehensive Guide Plan: Update 2000 by reference. Ms.
Freese advised that copies of the Study will be distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the
next regular meeting for formal recommendation from the Planning Commission to City Council
The Planning Commission reviewed general recommendations and identified those recommendations
that the Planning Commission could or should be responsible for with regard to the Downtown
Scoping Committee Document. The Commission discussed the merits of a joint meeting with the
Downtown Scoping Committee for clarification of the policies and wherein lies the responsibilities
for enforcement of the final document. The Commissioners stated their support for the concept of
Downtown Planning, however, further clarification and definition is needed. A joint workshop with
the Scoping Committee could accomplish this goal, however, the Commissioners stated hesitation to
put forth their efforts for drafting of new ordinances that support this document without a
commitment from City Council to adopt the Plan. It was suggested that City Council may wish to
establish a "conference" committee to make this document executable and then forward the
document back to the Planning Commission for implementation recommendations. Director of
%D J
1. We would like to build a 6 fence on our property at 14292 Crofton ourt. &fi&202 �S
would be off 143`d Street and would be 15 feet away from the street. landscaper
a discussion with the City Engineer in September. (See Section 3 — lett er r en Sipe /
Landscaping). Many issues were discussed at that time, including where the fen c uld
be located. Instead of putting it in 3 feet from the curb as our plans at that time showes�
it was noted that the fence would need to be inside the property line. We changed our
landscape plans to build the fence 15 feet from the street instead of 3 feet from the curb.
$4000 worth of lumber was then purchased to cover the cost of the fence. $250 was
spent in moving a mature pine tree to accommodate the fence. ( It needed to be moved in
a timely manner to provide for the winter dormancy season.) $200 was spent for the
variance application. We can prove hardship in the fact that we have purchased materials
based on information obtained from the city and implemented to the best of our abilities.
2. We feel that we are certainly deprived of the use and enjoyment of our property in a
manner similar to other Rosemount property owners. If we are not able to obtain a
variance, we would not able to have a patio of any kind in our backyard, and would have
no seating around our in- ground swimming pool. At 45' from the curb (or 30' from the
property line), our pool fence would be lined up against the south side of our in- ground
swimming pool. This would NOT be safe for swimmers in the pool. With no seating
outside of the pool, it would be an unsafe environment for every swimmer. We believe it
is imperative to have quick access to the swimming pool to be able to come to a
swimmer's aid in a timely manner. We want to provide a safe, recreational activity for
neighborhood children and church members that we know. We paid for our lot, and we
would like to be able to use and enjoy it.
3. It is extremely important that we keep the area private. We will suffer hardship if the
area is not secure and private. We have children, and we need the fence to provide a
barrier and security for them in our own backyard. Since the pool is on a street, we feel it
is especially important to keep our children safe and provide a secure environment for
them.
4. There is no traffic problem or visibility problem as a result of our proposed fence.
The fence would be located in the middle of the block and would not go to the corner of
Crofton Court and 143` Street. It would blend in with the existing landscape on the
corner of the property off 143` Street. (See pictures that depict where the fence would be
located.) Our proposed fence would have a 45 degree angle at the corner to make
visibility even greater. -
5.We have the approval of every neighbor that is in close vicinity and have discussed the
proposed fence with every person. (See letters of approval and attached petition.) Please
note that every neighbor asked to write a letter promptly wrote a letter of support to have
a 6' fence at. the 15' line from our street.
6. Many other fences in Rosemount are not at 30 feet from the street. We would like to
have the same circumstances that the other residents have had. (See attached pictures,
addresses and permit notes.)
t
Variance Application
Table of Contents 41 ol/
ay 9 ,0
0�, ;
Section 1: Variance Application (2 pages)
Section 2: Proposed plan of fence
Section 3: Letter from Ken Sipe Landscaping
Section 4: Pictures of where proposed fence and lines of sight would be located
Section 5: Neighborhood Site Map information, including neighborhood support
Neighborhood petitions (25 signatures)
Neighborhood letters of approval (7 letters of support)
Section 6: Existing Rosemount fence pictures / addresses / permit notes
M1
Section 2:
Proposed plan of fence
lv
L
it
/XY'?Y
?rtificato of lloi.l" Location For:
nins-imann Cnnrtruction Inc_
t3 .1ra 'Copp6rfibld Hay
Invar Oro�t T l e i g hts, mm 5507G �
®E MAR H. SCHWANZ
I� LAND eunvt Mono. ime.
p.,r..:.:. cn S5r.Ax! 7 s+:s n! t!sn Stal. . ^.l 1J!7nnM.ar10
14750 BOUT" noDEnT IPAIL nosEMOUNT, Lt1NNt 0O'tA $9049 4121 -
I evnvrzyms OEprIFICATB
Saalee 1 inch - 30 feet
'n Lsvu ��l,po mottumenl
n - Sat Lnynd hub
- Rxist;ing spot oxgkr_
�) � irrc,pns:ed tslev_
N,
!� r
:! t �• CJ p •
rr i
V 0l
yR1
�
I hereby c -31tlly If nt this aurYey, plan, o► report w■
prepared by me or under my direct euptMalan an
th■l I em • duly Re9h+le►ed Lord Surveyor under
the larn of the date of Minneeole.
09 -23 -93
SCN
—8520-1
--- 8520 -•-•
L{.1
ao
Ck
I? . / proposed garage floor elegy•
a � Proposed top of block
proposed lowest level elev.
escript3on: Lot 3f 73luck 1, BnMmoN 117.7.7..8 3RD ADDITION,
according to the recorded plat theroof,
Aakotet County, Kinnecote. _
AlLso slowing the locol on o f a proposed house an
staked thnxeon_
peen 11. Schwa 1
Mlnne otr Rsvbt r ■ilvn No. 6823 • J f
DGLMAR N
q wANZ
1
r -
I
F
f �,."• ,x «a *mx."i�r�,
I
I
_ u
l ist
_ 1 _
Section 3:
Letter from Ken Sipe Landscaping
November 17,.2003
To Whom It May Concern:
I met with Chad Donnelly at the City of Rosemount in September. At that time, we
discussed the building of an in- ground swimming pool that had been dug at 14292
Crofton Court. We discussed the following points at that meeting.
_1. A proposed retaining wall and how it interacts with the land and watershed drainage
was discussed.
2. We discussed issues with drainage on the overall project.
3. We made note of the sideyard/front setbacks and why there was a 15' boulevard on
this portion of the lot (considered the same as the front yard.)
4_ We discussed the placement of the fence. My initial proposal was near the curb. I was
informed that it had to be inside the property line. I changed my plans and bought
materials to build the fence 15' feet from the curb.
My plans were clearly drawn and discussed at the meeting_ At no time was I informed
that there would be a problem with the fence that I am ready to build. If I had been told
of this problem, I would not have purchased the wood for this project ($4000), would not
have moved a tree ($250); and would not have used countless hours to work on this issue.
Please consider that variance on the fence issue at this property. Thank you for your
consideration.
i rely,it1 ipb in Company
Section 4:
Pictures of where proposed fence and lines of sight
would be located
OPERTY ID NUMBEI
E OWNER:
OPERTY ADDRESS:
YABLE 2003 TAXES
T TAX:
ECIAL ASSESSMEN'
TAL TAX & SA:
YABLE 2004 ASMNT
SITE MAP
eJe sefoueoenslp p 'pewe ;uoo waJe(4 selaeJn=eul nue Jo; elpsuoosaj lou sl ,yuno:) elo�ep
� sasodind souaie;ej jo; pesn aq of sl pue 'umoys eeie eyl Bu=ape 'saoinos jeU10 pue sng;o e
pue 'Alunoo 'AIM snOIJSA ui peteool etep pue uotleuLO {w 'spiooe� ;o uonepdwoo e s 5u
'ouo se pesn aq 01 papuelui lau sl pue Aaans a jou dew pap=as Alle6al a —Aieu si 6uime'p
t
. Aluna0 eto>Ie0 'EOOZ 7Uu�(
6i
t E :NOIldINOS30 Xb'1
N OOH ONE SIIIH NONNVHS :3lNVN. IVld 'loo; Isejeeu of popunoi suolsuawi0 :31
iJ
5 ' 2Y ..
- WO .'e:. • ' c •y` ' - ' � ' �
wy �i.tiy„' y ' .FMS.`#' a •. a k y�'ar�+�4' '.+R' �: � �' � �'
�i
A * ' v � a4 k R•. �""� 4 4t lMA+MS^k ' 7
I
°��
We seoueaerosrp p 'paureluoo uiaJe4 seioeJnaaeui nue Jo} elgisuoasei lou s! nlunoo elo> eo '
sasodrnd souaialsi >ol pasn aq al si pue 'umo4s eaie 941 6uri3a;;e 'saoinos iaglo pue snWo e
pue 'diunoo '/aro sno4en ui pateooj elep pue uopeulioyui 'spjoael to uagelidwoo a st 6ui v Ljp
'auo ce paen aq of popualui )au s! pue Aar ns a jou dew. pepimai ,(lre6al a ja41rau si 6umeip
- Aunoo eloXeQ 'EOOZ 145ul k
i E NOI1drLtOS3o X'dl
N OOV O86 SllrH NONNVHS 3WVN LYId loo{ tsaiesu of popunoi suorsuawio :31
926E ,
l
\ }
-- -, z6 85-- \
4E6Z7t L66E
i. ♦ `' \
1. �\
-
\ F Ts 9T
.....:.......
4T
eLzD
(t+oOZ
OPERTY ID NUMB
E OWNER:
OPERTY ADDRES
YABLE 2D03 TAXE
T TAX:
ECIAL ASSESSME
TAL TAX 8 SA:
YABLE 2D04 ASMI•
2004):
\ 14
FT 0.
,taaa n.T 1
t o o
3997 ' 1
/
14293
!7 \
3874
1 8 9 2 —
i
— 8 1 \
3926
3944 143ST ,
TE: Dimensions rounded to nearest tool PLAT NAME: SHANNON HILLS 3RD ADD N
TAX DESCRIPTION: 3 1
)yright 2003, Dakota County • - I
s drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
;. drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, and
a offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes - -
r. Dakota Countv is not responsible for anv inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are
14228
\
\ 14
FT 0.
,taaa n.T 1
t o o
3997 ' 1
/
14293
!7 \
3874
1 8 9 2 —
i
— 8 1 \
3926
3944 143ST ,
TE: Dimensions rounded to nearest tool PLAT NAME: SHANNON HILLS 3RD ADD N
TAX DESCRIPTION: 3 1
)yright 2003, Dakota County • - I
s drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
;. drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, and
a offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes - -
r. Dakota Countv is not responsible for anv inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are
eie secueoe,oslp p - peuleluoa u!eJay seue,naoew sue Job epsuaase, lou st . elmle0
sesodind eauejelej ,ot pasn eq al sl pue 'UmoUs eeie eql BupaMe 'seo,nos ja4lo pue seagyo s
.r, pue '.Qunm ',Qp snouen ul pateool etep pue uogeuuop 'spjooej }o uopepdwm a st 6w.wejp
C Y QUO ce pass eq of pepuatw tou sl pua As"ns a jou dew pepimer Alle6al a jeytlau el 5ulmelp
-
:NO11dfli0S30 Xtll Atuno0 etoke0 'EOOZ 146uAc
- t E
OOb' IH NONNVH$
- N MiE SII �3WVN lb"1d tooJ ise,eeu of pepuno, sualsuewl0 :31
^ \v
t �.
`\
SIP £6ZtiT I LL66E
to
Z _.._
!' I Fs 0 rT
Mm
eZb� --
°_
_ II
t
ISTd:' SVS(l iNWSV bOOZ 9IGVA
'"0'l99'Z :vs 8XVlIVI
` ru 00'0 :S1N3WSS3SSV IV103
F� .0 XVl1
4 t ` J i t 1 i ! CR
S3XVl EOOZ 3I8VA
Ngsohl
r�10L10 Z6Zbl :SS37j00V Al213d0.
't'. 0 3 S02i
d N3Hd315 a3NMO 3
- LZ4L9-K ?138Wf1N OI Alil3dO'
d Vvi :: I i I S
SITS MAP
,OPERTY 10 NUMBER: 34 -67427 -030-01
E OWNER: STEPHEN A ROXA
14292 ON CT
ROSE 1
ROSEMOUN OUNT MN 55
OPERTY ADDRESS: 14292 CROFTON CT
ROSFMr)i INT MN 55
YABLE 2003 TAXES
T TAX: 2,581.02 _
ECIAL ASSESSMENTS: 0.00
TAL TAX E SA: 2,581.02
YABLE 2004 ASMNT USAGE:RESIDENTIAL
it
.14
)__1_4_13
14
E: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot.. PLAT NAME: SHANNON HILLS 3RD ADD
-
right 2003, Dakota County - TAX DESCRIPTION: 3 1
drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
drawing is a compilation of records, information and data Iodated in various city, county, and
offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes
Dakota County is not responsible for anv inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are
N
fi
8Je s8rJUeCeJ3Sjp )I P8UfqUO0 U1918LI 3913eff=BUI AUe JOJ apsuousoi jou s! Alunco Llo„L(]
sasodUnd souejalej jo,l pasn Gq al sj pue 'waaqs eaje uqj 5uipg;;e 'se3irios joL410 pue sa3gp 6
PUe 'AlUn03 'Alp Sna!JRA U! P91MOM OJBP pue UOjl8LWOjw spicnai yo uapelidwoo e si 5ui seep
- ouo se pesn aq of papu8juj ;cu st due Aanns e jou dew pepi=oj Alle6el e jaL41tau TI 8ulmelp
Aiunco ejo> ea 'E:OOZ jqbuk
L C :NOI.LdftfZ)S30 XVi
OCV ObE SIIIH NONNVHS 3AVN IYId loci Isolaou of popuncj sualsuew!(] :31
976E
Z 6 a
o
— 7
E6 z D T
:6 z I L66E
40
---
eozr=
IS38:3Jvsn.LNLNSV tOOZ 3IeVk
:0
�vs 2 XVI Ivi
00'0 :
SIN3V4SS3SSV IV103
:0 1.99
:Yvi I
saxvi COOF'918VA
now3smi
M10 Z6ZK
:SS9W20V A-UlBdC
novusob
Ouo ZSZK
fN3Hd3IS
:63NAA0 3
o-at 01 AildadO
Section 5:
Neighborhood Site Map information, including
neighborhood support
Neighborhood petitions
Neighborhood letters of approval
SITE MAP
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 34. 67427 -030-01 2003 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2004) 2003 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 2004):
FEE OWNER: STEPHEN A 8 ROXANE R SIPE LAND: 49,500 LOT SIZE (EXCLUDES TYPE S.FAM.RES
14292 CROFTON CT .BUILDING: 185,600 ROAD EASEMENTS) YEAR BUILT 1993
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -7118 TOTAL: 235,100 ARCH /STYLE SPLIT LEVL
14,190 SOFT FOUNDATION SO FT 1365
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 14292 CROFTON CT SCHOOL DISTRICT: 196 0.33 ACRES FINISHED SO FT 2353
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 BEDROOMS 3
LOCATION: SW1 /4 NE1 /4 SECTION 30- 115 -19 BATHS 2.75
PAYABLE 2003 TAXES FRAME WOOD
PAYABLE 2004 HOMESTEAD STATUS: FULL HOMESTEAD GARAGE SO FT 712
NET TAX: 2,581.02 OTHER GARAGE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS '0.00 WATERSHED DISTRICT: VERMILLION RIVER MISC BLDG
TOTAL TAX 8 SA: 2,581.02
LAST QUALIFIED SALE:
PAYABLE 2004 ASMNT USAGE:RESIDENTIAL DATE: 10/1993 � k�� Co ��
AMOUNT: 137,117
14224\ t v r r
L--14. 08 IJ I I /
j 1421 ,
� �` _ _ I , 192Z'8
�h -f a Vbv- 142 8 �h / -fa vc r G�Y61^ 142E
Ste \ ��
1 269 1 �C� h M \ p [ It
42 4280 'k
�\
3933
lessee 14 ��,
t�z4Z O:wr%err
3997 / 14293 \ \ -
3874
--
' �892
- -
--
.
_ \\ ' �1h `.
926
� � \ 3
i
\ * sc
L/ 3944 'e 14353
+6 se favo h \ h fay. oh
le r�
� � p ��F
NOTE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot, h PLAT NAME. , ` SHANNON HILLS 3RD ADD - N
TAX DESCRIPTION: 3 1
Copyright 2003, Dakota County - - 1
This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
This drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, and
state offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes
only. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are
found, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department.
Map Date: November 17, 2003 Parcels Updated: 1 0/2 312 00 3 Aerial Photography: 2000
Fence Variance at 14292 Crofton Court
Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
In Favor
(Check)
�'� � • L J
_
S4
6S1 ya3-�30
6l
`57 ZL ; 2
--
X39
-�3 a87�
t�I�
"3�tII i H3rd Sf !�•
(v 32�- -
i/
C J ,� r d G..
/f•2 3 G.- Fto f
3•� .z S'� �"�
[/
<2 3 -2-31S
n
✓ O IV ✓/
Fence Variance at 14292 Crofton Court
Name:
Address:
Phone Number:
Tn Favor
( Check)
ns
�✓ �s��
�9G� 143ri f'f.�J
CfS/ 3�S'.�g
.�
Al 10 Aj A
/Yi cJlS l (U rr
i t
L i
A
City of Rosemount Jim &Kris S e We
3933 143" Street West
Rosemount, hAinnesoia 55068
Planning Commission
November 1x,1003
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter in support of Steve & Roxane Sipe's variance request for the fence
rJ E :_:..
dl ou U tCll POOL 1 - 4 T i is %VUC as t iii ivci siai iii it, cNFiiics ci .Su ct vain i uic w u Ic siuc Of t r l eir cn ivr t icr Ivy. i t Ic
variance request is to allow construction of the fence on the side of their corner lot -15' back from the
Aa = t as...a aca:. - !•.Ir, s ..t;,:..,, s1,.,a ;a •n >...,,.,. + —
jUCCI. i 1VO1 UIQ+ UIIJ IJ G rGajlA IOUIU I=LjUGJI C2 U 1JG11cVC alai it- VY/fH i +avc� i lcyailVC L V1 lily
visibility while backing from our driveway.
I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Jtl I t U[ 1 V /.7 JLI IGIIiJGI lJ.
To: City Planning Commission
Rosemount, MN
November 17, 2003
To Whom it May Concern:
We understand that.a variance is needed for our neighbors, Roxane and Steve Sipe, to be
able to install a 6 -foot fence on their property. We understand that the only way to fence
in their backyard would require that the fence to be installed along the street side of their
property. We are located on the opposite side of 143 Street West and have no
opposition to this fence.
143' Street has become very busy, and a 6 -foot fence would provide the Sipe family with
greater privacy and safety. There is no traffic safety issue for cars based on the fact that
the area that the Sipe's want to build their fence on is in the middle of the block and
would not inhibit the views of people wanting to turn.
Thank you for your consideration of the Sipe's request. We support their petition and are
willing to provide the Commission with any further information or comments if needed.
Sincerely,
Randy & Brenda ger
3944 W. 143 Street
651/322 -7999
To: City Planning Commission
Rosemount, MN
November, 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
We do not oppose a 6 foot fence on Steve and Roxane Sipe's lot. We realize that the
fence does need a variance from the Planning Commission. The only way to fence in
their back yard would require that the fence be installed along the street side of their
property.
143` Street has become very busy, and a six foot fence would provide the Sipe family
with greater privacy and safety. There is no traffic safety issue for cars based on the fact
that the area that the Sipes want to build their fence on is in the middle of the block and
not where cars are turning.
We are neighbors of the property and support their request of the variance.
Sincerely,
November 17, 2003
Rosemount City Planning Commission
2875 145th Street W
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Pool Fence Variance
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in support of the fence variance that Steve and Roxane Sipe are requesting
in regards to their pool.
My wife and family are in favor of their request that the fence be built half way or 14 feet
between 143 Ave. W and their newly constructed pool. We are of the opinion that this
will not pose any additional concerns to our neighborhood.
If there are any further questions, we can be reached at 651/423 -5384.
Dav' ohns & F y
3962 14' Str. W
Rosemount, MN 55068
k
a�
� o � c�a c o � �y • c� u - y /
November 18, 2003
City Planning Commission
Rosemount, MN 55068
To Whom It May Concern:
My wife and I live directly across the street from the Sipe's who are proposing to install
a fence to enclose their new swimming pool. Upon careful consideration we do not
object to the city granting them a variance on this fence. We do not feel that where they
are planning to put it is a safety concern in any way. We respectfully ask the Commission
to grant the Sipe's the necessary variance to build their fence.
Sincerely,
Steve and Debra Warweg
143 Street West
Rosemount, Mn 55068
651 -423 -7363
November 18, 2003
Planning Commission
City of Rosemount
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Fence Variance — Sipe Property
14292 Crofton Court
Rosemount Planning Commission:
I am writing to express my support for the fence variance requested by Steve and Roxane
Sipe on the 143 Street West side of their property. As neighbors, we do not feel that the
construction of this fence would pose any traffic safety issues, pedestrian safety issues or
appearance concerns to the neighborhood.
We support their petition for a fence variance on their property.
Sincerely,
Mike & Lisa Glaus
Section 6:
Existing Rosemount fence pictures / addresses / permit
notes
ROPERTY ID NUMBER: 34- 64700 -610-03
' -E OWNER:
STEVEN M & LEE F f
3215 LOWER 147TH
ROSEMOUNT MN 55
ROPERTY ADDRESS:
3215 LOWER 147TH
ROSEMOUNT MN 55
SYABLE 2003 TAXES
ET TAX:
1,807.36
�ECIAL ASSESSMENTS:
309.54
DTAL TAX 8 SA:
2,116.90
4YABLE 2004 ASMNT USAGE: RESIDENTIAL
14635
1464
SITE MAC
,1_?
T{
r
r.
3195
•
)TE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot. T
TAX C
pyright 2003, Dakota County -
Is drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
's drawing is a compilation of records, information arid data located in various city, county, and
to offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes
y. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are
nd, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department.
p Date: November 17, 2002 Parcels Updated: 10/23/2003 Aerial Photography: 1990
%5�;L MI-
V d H IM
7ad
f >10 0 79 fSl J. Q ? -'
rA
7(,A L
h 4A
\
` A
C aS d �� f f aSna W O r
/� /• :fir � � � �
p l Vi
w
�
� •- -- ._. .,.,... ..rte, —.
V
C Svat�a717 31, /,^7 '?.7C-)K av /7 ooOv�
V C1 1
Sirv�y For:
Uc „u,a 6 Tom -4wd
30 - 145th Street west &C(
Ro- remount, MN 55068
'423 -5212 98/48
DELMAR H. SCHWANZ
t�,+fl at e,YErOwf1 ua(
14750 SOUTH ROBERT TRAIL ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 53bss PHONE 612 422 -77N
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
PH
Ex /s71�✓G 10 Ur r
- h� µ� ' � ,•s, * ' O //0 &ts r�e0 • . Q � ` 111 ` LLL
hn (
_ 1 n
5ca ! e . s ri }
(i x Lot 40 I
ci
5USU1 Viblum nv l l;� ;� -.._ _ �•77 l0�✓�iC� �.
A).§,o .showing the iocetion of an existing till -644 r -
house thereon.
A:z surveyed by me this 29th day of September, 1986.
MINNESOTA REGISTRATIO NO 8625
WAP-VSV (0 '_ —
ROPERTY ID NUMBER: 34 -64
EE OWNER:
RICH
3215
ROSE
'ROPERTY ADDRESS:
3215
ROSE
'AYABLE 2003 TAXES
IET TAX:
1,
PECIAL ASSESSMENTS:
0.
OTAL TAX & SA
1,
'AYABLE 2004 ASMNT USAGE
........... . . .......... .. ..... .....
i 22 2 22 22 2 22 22_
TE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot PLAT NAME. ROSE PARK ADDITION
TAX DESCRIPTION: ALL OF LOTS 20 THRU
)yright 2003, Dakota County - 26 1
s drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
s drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, and
e offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes
,. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are
id, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department.
Date: November 17, 2003 Parcels Updated: 10/23/2003 Aerial Photography: 1990
i
SITE MAP
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 34- 83606 -090 -02 2001 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2002) 2001 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 2002):
FEE OWNER: JEFFREY J JACQUES LAND: LOT SIZE (EXCLUDES TYPE S.FAM.RES
15130 DARTMAR CT BUILDING: ROAD EASEMENTS) YEAR BUILT 1996
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 -5526 TOTAL: ARCH/STYLE SPLIT LEVL
PROPERTY ADDRESS: ROSE 196 DARTMOOR CT SCHOOL DISTRICT: 11,963 SO FT FOUNDATION SO FT 1280
0.27 ACRES FINISHED SO FT 2072
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 BEDROOMS 3
LOCATION: SWIM NW 1/4 SECTION 31. 115-19 BATHS 1,78
PAYABLE 2001 TAXES FRAME WOOD
PAYABLE 2002 HOMESTEAD STATUS: FULL HOMESTEAD GARAGE SO FT 440
NET TAX: 2,086.34 OTHER GARAGE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: 0.00 WATERSHED DISTRICT: VERMILLION RIVER MISC BLDG
TOTAL TAX 8 SA: 2,086.34
NEW CONSTRUCTION SALE:
PAYABLE 2002 ASMNT USAGE:RESIDENTIAL DATE: 6/1996 AMOUNT: 125,900
DECEMBER TRL
I \ G�
NOTE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot.. PLAT NAME: WENSMANN 7TH ADDITION N
Copyright 2001, Dakota County - TAX DESCRIPTION: 9 2
.I his drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intenued to be used as one.
This drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county. and
state offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes -
only. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are
found, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department
Map Date: August 8, 2001 Parcels Updated: 61212001 Aerial Photography: 1996
ami
i92 __7
. ..... ....
.........
A W t
I
i7
ami
i92 __7
. ..... ....
.........
�tf r�t
1
MR t,7
5� e
say- .
E.170, El v r
MA! wimp 0 7
aid —2
all
•�' ���i � _ � ..r fi.; - - �u2Pk� , cct?fi� +cam
r x
� a+;l �1 � i � � � , yr'Ft $�' 2 ar_ >r � � t v y +e- �. - pa•, �.
" 6
k y� a 4 ,� # �' � �, ' g "- "�'.`�'. 3' r. ♦ 4 ' •^
2 -mot
mot
bat
V YOU
IBM �w > �, ���`'°° � -mss i � `� .. �- �, y �"�.rsF • �� 'a'r > f+` -w:: -. �' -
s
'„g 5:.�. 'e E 1 ° a ,SJ273mro- K3. F$
.. e .- a _
NOW
§ A M,
,
N
MEMS
O EM
m;e'r�- "'a � 9� 5 k`i�' =�k�x� ` -- • 1� :� ...._.. `. i � �: �° `'
axs, er aw)�`'#
�`'�+.€'a: 1� ,£` `` }.?3tw�w� k +w� '� _ ' •�w"�Jf �25''���, s �" - B^ .
�' - i.��'�.�+r3 �# � r ��"` ` `_ �,► is .:.
r E„��s
�- ti, �• kY 3e Y/ �' �g� �'�
"�R1 • � ��� °. `ice �s �� � � r �
ct µ ks , - f ,,s. -� dY . . FSx _. -. ..........
'.� �.. f T.. "- j„ - - ?z tti 3 5,•e � r � v3 �'- •�.3��=sS � �k.�
gge
Me
wy
— 05, , ,$ °�� 1+5"rr`'', a �* : r s
w 9 S .
it
NN
x x 7 � m �
.� tsr � a .� r "� ° r5 t' "f °� +z, - �s+a y -' i a^ •, g
r y`�- !cii�zh L tY ` 4a1WK� ,
k t y r._ 4• ,k w �."�' '
,`' � rte. ,. - . s .., 7 &A ;1 •r. ..°i -..^w 4 a'� ;:k�''��'..r�.ry '� Y�� ... ,.'�Y
TI ac
is �:
O EM
m;e'r�- "'a � 9� 5 k`i�' =�k�x� ` -- • 1� :� ...._.. `. i � �: �° `'
axs, er aw)�`'#
�`'�+.€'a: 1� ,£` `` }.?3tw�w� k +w� '� _ ' •�w"�Jf �25''���, s �" - B^ .
�' - i.��'�.�+r3 �# � r ��"` ` `_ �,► is .:.
r E„��s
�- ti, �• kY 3e Y/ �' �g� �'�
"�R1 • � ��� °. `ice �s �� � � r �
ct µ ks , - f ,,s. -� dY . . FSx _. -. ..........
'.� �.. f T.. "- j„ - - ?z tti 3 5,•e � r � v3 �'- •�.3��=sS � �k.�
gge
Me
wy
— 05, , ,$ °�� 1+5"rr`'', a �* : r s
w 9 S .
it
NN
x x 7 � m �
.� tsr � a .� r "� ° r5 t' "f °� +z, - �s+a y -' i a^ •, g
r y`�- !cii�zh L tY ` 4a1WK� ,
k t y r._ 4• ,k w �."�' '
,`' � rte. ,. - . s .., 7 &A ;1 •r. ..°i -..^w 4 a'� ;:k�''��'..r�.ry '� Y�� ... ,.'�Y
is �:
MAI
1 zg w,y - - , % ;' • i' 3 '`� .. `�'� mow,.
gm
il k'.§
"nn
- zap l t
T�
i
suE
f 3
k
P
a v a
µ
3
r _ w
wr �.
�i
y.
�A
G
f
S
C
s
�
s.
.9
N
3
r _ w
wr �.
�i
y.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 9, 2003
PAGE 1
Public Hearing: Sipe Fence Variance Request
Assistant Planner Lindahl reviewed the variance application from Stephen and Roxane Sipe for a
2.5 foot fence height variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence in their front yard
along 143 Street and Crofton Court. The reason for the request is to enclose the existing in-
ground swimming pool.
Discussion ensued regarding fence height limitations, setback areas, front yard setbacks, and
safety issues.
Roxanne Sipe, 14292 Crofton Court, expressed a desire to build a six foot fence on their property
line about 15' from the street. Mrs. Sipe expressed concern with conversations between their
landscaper and the city engineer regarding the location of the fence, and the dollars that have
been expended for this project for landscaping, a retaining wall, and electrical work. This project
is not meeting their envisioned area and they are trying to create a safe space for their children.
Discussion ensued regarding the permit for the pool, the surveying of the property, locations of
property pins, conversations with the hired professionals, and possible compromises for the fence
design/height.
Chairperson Weisensel opened the Public Hearing.
Ken Sipe, hired landscaper, 10033 Pleasant Avenue, Bloomington was present to recap
occurrences relative to the project.
Margaret Jacques, 15130 Dartmoor Court, expressed her empathy for the Sipes and felt that the
6' fence posed no threat or created any visibility problems.
MOTION by Weisensel to close the Public Hearing. Second by Zum. Ayes: Napper,
Weisensel, Messner, Zum, and Anderson. Nays: None. Motion carried.
Discussion ensued regarding setbacks from the curb, explanation of street right -of -way, fencing
for corner lots in street side yards, the current standards and ordinance in place, definitions of
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and exceptional or extraordinary circumstances,
previously granted variances for similar situations, discussion of fence heights during council
work sessions, and enforcement actions against properties that installed fences without permits
or erroneously.
MOTION by Weisensel to grant the variance. Second by Napper.
Discussion continued regarding clarifying the motion to have a 6' foot fence at the property line,
the possibilities for compromise, future applications for fencing, administrative steps to prevent
erroneous permitting of fences, the recommendation that this ordinance be re- looked at, the
specificity of the motion, and the location of the fence.
The restated MOTION by Weisensel to grant the variance based on the specific location
identified on a map the applicant will provide based on our discussion. Seconded by Napper.
Ayes: Weisensel, Zum, and Napper. Nays: Messner, and Anderson. Motion carried.