Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Minutes of January 6, 2004 Regular City Council Meeting1� ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS 17EM t REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Rosemount City Council was duly held on Tuesday, January 6, 2004, 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 Shoe - Corrigan, Riley, DeBettignies, and Strayton present. Also present were City Administrator Verbrugge, Attorney LeFevere, City Engineer Brotzler, Community Development Director Lindquist, and Parks and Recreation Director Schultz. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. Staff presented one add -on item, Receive Donation for Fire Department for $46.25; and additional information for Item 6.1. Uitenbogerd Addition Final Plat and Item 9.a. Brockway Site Redevelopment - DPDC. A Subdivision Agreement was submitted for Item 6.1. and a resolution change was submitted for Item 9.a. Mayor Droste moved to accept the recommended changes to the agenda with the Consent Agenda Add -On, Item 6.n. and additional information for Uitenbogerd Addition Final Plat Items and Brockway Site Redevelopment - DPDC. Second by Riley. Ayes: Five. Nays: None. The Agenda was adopted with the suggested changes. Consent Agenda MOTION by DeBettignies to approve the Consent Agenda with the additions of 6.n. Receive Donation for Fire Department and a Subdivision Agreement for Item 6.1. Second by Riley. Ayes: Riley, Strayton, DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan, Droste. Nays: None. Motion carried. a. Minutes of December 16, 2001 Regular City Council b. Bills Listing c. Expenditure Approval from Donation Account for Parks & Recreation Dept. d. Naming Depositories and Financial Institutions e. Appointment of Weed Inspector f. Designation of Official Newspaper g. Appointment of Acting Mayor h. Appoint Richard Daniels to the Downtown Redevelopment Committee i. Transfer / Loan for Flexible Spending Account J. Approve Joint Powers Agreement for 2004 Traffic Markings, Cracksealing, and Sealcoating k. Hiring Building Maintenance Worker 1. Uitenbogerd Addition Final Plat —14676 Dodd Boulevard m. Approval of the 2004 CDBG Application n. Add -On Receive Donation for Fire Department PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments Approval of a Variance for Fence Height for Stephen and Roxane Sipe at 14292 Crofton Court Mayor Droste explained the Public Hearing process. The posted and published notice for this hearing were on file. Community Development Director Lindquist reviewed the variance request of Stephen and Roxane Sipe at 14292 Crofton Court for a 6' fence in the frontyard setback on their corner lot. ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 Staff recommended a 6 -inch variance, making the fence a maximum of 48 inches on the property line mainly due to the requirement that pools need a 48 -inch fence. The side -yard is considered the same as the frontyard on this corner lot. On December 9, 2003, the Planning Commission approved this variance for the 6' fence. City Council appealed the decision believing further consideration should be given to changing the ordinances to apply more fairly to corner lots and to supply findings of fact. Lindquist noted that hardship could not be proven and that city staff had given inaccurate information for fence permits. Sipe's had submitted ten photos of other corner lots that had higher than 42 -inch fences. Staff found that three had not obtained fence permits, five had approved fence permits in error, and two were corner lots that did not abut another residential lot. Staff has changed the permit process so that when a pool permit is applied for, then a fence permit must be applied for at the same time. Lindquist discussed the five criteria for permitting a variance. Lindquist noted that Council could uphold the variance, deny it, or amend the request. Council indicated that those non - conforming fences sited in the discussion would require enforcement by our Code Enforcement Officer since we are now aware of them. Council did indicate that the enforcement should be a consistent process. Roxane Sipe, 14292 Crofton Court, presented photos of several fences on corner lots showing acceptance of the fences. Ms. Sipe also sited the example of an approved variance for a pool fence at 15130 Dartmoor Court on September 18, 2001. After the Planning Commission had approved the variance request for Sipes on December 9, 2003, she was told by staff that the fence permit could be issued in the same day. On this information her contractor ordered the material and placed the poles in the ground. The electrical permit in the setback area was approved as well. Ms. Sipe sited hardship due to the purchase of materials and based on what city staff had told her. Ms. Sipe noted she did not receive the informational fence handout. The fact that they did not receive correct information from city staff also proves this is a unique situation. Mr. and Mrs. Sipe also agree that a 42 -inch high fence will not keep children out of the pool area and therefore, it would not be safe. Sipes maintained that a six -foot fence is the best solution, especially since there are no traffic or visibility issues. Ms. Sipe reported another example from October 1993 when Wayne Nixon received a variance for a fence on a corner lot, although the fence that was granted was a chain link fence. Ms. Sipe asked City Council to reconsider approving the six -foot fence variance. Mayor Droste opened the hearing for public comment. Droste requested that the comments be limited to three minutes. Jim Schellberg, 3933 143 Street West, said Sipes' backyard is in full view from his frontyard. Shelberg would support a six -foot fence variance stating it would be more pleasant to look at a nice fence than Sipe's camper and other property. Ken Sipe, yard contractor and brother -in -law, stated he had been to the City to gather information. Mr. Sipe had purchase the material before the permit was issued because the supplier said that materials were getting low and he understood that the fence permit would only take fifteen minutes to get. Mr. Sipe noted that a corner lot is larger, but the usable yard space is much less. Mr. Sipe also presented photos of corner lots that had used trees for privacy, pointing out that the mature trees blocked sight lines much more than fences would. Mr. Sipes also Pj ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 contended that having an alley next to your lot line unfairly exempts owners from the 30 -foot frontyard setback. Mr. Sipe stated that the City has conflicting ideas and exceptions to rules and that review of the ordinances should be conducted to remove the frontyard setback standards within the sideyard. Jan Matulka, 13431 Daffodil Path, said he would like City Council to up hold the fence variance. Millkilka stated that the Sipes had come to the City first to be honest and straightforward. She also shared safety concerns that children may go over the fence to get in the pool. Margaret Jacques, 15130 Dartmore Court, was granted a fence variance on September 18, 2001, with a pool and corner lot. Ms. Jacques felt a precedent had been set at that time. She felt it would be fair and just to grant this fence variance. Randy Kruger, 3944 143 Street West, noted he supports the fence variance. Mr. Kruger has two children, a sixteen year old and a twelve year old and feels the pool is a danger with only a 48- inch fence. MOTION by Droste to close the Public Hearing for the Appeal of the Board of Appeals and Adjustment Approval of a Variance for Fence Height for Stephen and Roxane Sipe at 14292 Crofton Court. No second. Motion withdrawn for further comments. Council Member Shoe - Corrigan responded to the applicant's attorney's written comment that this appeal was a political issue. Shoe - Corrigan noted that this appeal was in response to a variance request that could not satisfy the criteria of granting a variance. It is City Council job to create policy on how lots should be treated. City Attorney LeFevere acknowledged that this has been a frustrating process for the Sipes. LeFevere noted that City staff cannot grant variances, only the Board of Appeals can with Council approval. LeFevere confirmed the criteria needed for the City Council to grant a variance. A variance cannot be granted on the grounds that the neighbors support it or that it is fair. The worse case scenario might include receiving a building permit, finding out that it was issued in error, and then the owner would be required to remove the structure. Staff errors are not cause to issue a variance. Mayor Droste reviewed the International Building Code which requires a minimum of a 48 -inch fence around pools. The City was negligent by not requiring the fence permit with the pool permit. This policy has now been changed and this issue should not reoccur. Droste agreed with City Attorney LeFevere that you don't issue a variance on the basis of fault or fairness. Corner lots are required to be a minimum of 200 square feet larger than a normal lot to compensate for easement issues. Droste stated he was willing to look at that point of the Zoning Ordinance to see if there is an alternative. Droste pointed out that the City hired a Code Enforcement Officer in order to uphold the regulations in the City Code and Zoning Ordinance. Many issues have been improved due to the City's commitment to improving living conditions. Droste stated that Codes are laws and variances are exceptions to the rule. 3 ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 Council Member Riley stated for the record that she had contacted former City Administrator Burt and went to see the lot at 14292 Crofton Court. Riley noted that the Planning Commission did not approve any "findings of fact" that would backup their decision. The variance was not granted on the five criteria set forth. Riley also said that this was not a political issue for her or a personal one. Further she noted that the Ordinance needed to be upheld in order to have consistency for the neighborhoods. She supported review of the language in the Ordinance. Council Member DeBettignies asked Ken Sipe about his application for a building permit. He confirmed there was a concept drawing for the retaining wall which he adjusted after talking to Water Resource Coordinator Donnelly. Staff at that time did not identify that the sideyard would need to be treated as a frontyard. Mr. Sipe indicated that he had sunk the support poles prior to having a signed building permit. DeBettignies also noted that because there were no "facts of findings" from the Board of Appeals the Ordinances should be looked at. Attorney LeFevere noted that who said what when, is not the issue here, only the need to approve or deny the variance. If hardship is not shown, fault and fairness is not a reason to grant the variance either. Roxane Sipe said she still felt that the decision to appeal the Board of Appeals was arbitrary and capricious by the City Council. Council Member Strayton said his main concern is safety for the community and he did not feel that a 48 -inch fence was sufficient to keep children out of a pool. Strayton noted it was unfortunate that the Sipes went through such an emotionally charged permitting process. The job of the City Council is to re -write ordinances when a need is noted. Strayton said he would like this issue addressed quickly. MOTION by Droste to close the Public Hearing for the Appeal of the Board of Appeals and Adjustment Approval of a Variance for Fence Height for Stephen and Roxane Sipe at 14292 Crofton Court. Second by Shoe - Corrigan. Ayes: Strayton, DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan, Droste, Riley, Strayton. Nays: None. Motion carried. MOTION by Riley to adopt A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS TO GRANT A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FROM 2.5 FEET TO SIX - INCHES TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 -INCH (four foot) FENCE FOR STEPHEN AND ROXANE SIPE OF 14292 CROFTON COURT as the approved site plan subject to three conditions outlined by the Community Development Director. Second by Shoe - Corrigan. Ayes: DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan, Droste, Riley, Strayton. Nays: None. Motion carried. Discussion by City staff and City Council clarified to Roxane Sipes that the fence must be six inches within the property line and be a maximum of 48 inches. City staff was directed to bring additional information and examples to a work session for review. 4 ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 Flint Hills Resources Simple Plat Request for 14380 Blaine Avenue Community Development Director Lindquist reviewed Flint Hills' request to combine eight home lots that had been built in the 1950's into four lots in the agricultural district. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 1 unit per 40 -acre density in the agricultural district. Staff recommends placing a deed restriction on other property Flint Hills owns prohibiting additional residential units. If the property is rezoned, then the density requirement is moot and the deed restriction would no longer be necessary. This was discussed with Flint Hills. They would also be required to conform to the Dakota County ISTS standards for the septic systems. Council Member Strayton thanked Lindquist for addressing the issues with Flint Hills. MOTION by Strayton to adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FLINT HILLS ESTATES PLAT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. Second by Riley. Ayes: Shoe - Corrigan, Droste, Riley, Strayton, DeBettignies. Nays: None. Motion carried. Brockway Site Redevelopment - CPDC Community Development Director Lindquist presented the request by Homer Tompkins of Contractor Property Developers Company (CPDC) to amend the Comprehensive Plan on the 120 -acre site east of Highway 3 and south of 132 Street West. It is zoned PI (Public Institutional) and BP -2 (Business Park 2) and would be changed to R1 /R2 /R3 /R4 for 612 units of various types of housing. This site now hosts the Brockway Glass Co. buildings and Brockway Golf Club. Staff looked at the amount of Business Park (BP) land that was available and concluded that the tax base would not be affected greatly because there are still 294 acres available that are zoned BP and 1057 acres in the GI (General Industrial). The proposed single family and multi - family housing was not envisioned. The concept plan would provide about 13 acres of green space and about $6 million for park dedication fees. They do propose to have a commercial site on the southeast corner. The developer has a clear understanding that this property does have some difficult issues such as pipeline easement, ponding, and possible environmental contamination. Chuck Rickart, Associate Project Engineer, WSB Engineering, conducted a traffic study and met with Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). MNDOT was encouraging in that cooperative agreements for improvements of Highway 3 could provide a maximum of $500,000. Signals would be recommended at McAndrews and Connemara on Highway 3 and turn lanes at 132 Street West. Projections show 45% of traffic going north and 25% going into town. City Engineer Brotzler discussed the stormwater ponding issues which are very flexible at this point. If off -site stormwater storage is needed the developer would be required to fund it. Tim Whiten, Rotlund Homes Executive Vice - President, presented drawings of the housing types. Council was concerned with the 12 -unit townhomes and asked if they would consider 6 to 8 unit buildings. Whiten indicated they could look at that. 5 ROSEMOUNT CITY PROCEEDINGS '. REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 Council Member Strayton had concerns about the Comprehensive Plan amendment and if Tax Increment Financing was necessary. More information will become available as the concept plan moves forward. MOTION by DeBettignies to adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 ROSEMOUNT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROVING A CONCEPT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BROCKWAY SITE and authorizing staff to forward the amendment to the Metropolitan Council and to add a condition - u., "The twelve (12) unit townhouse buildings may have to be reduced to six (6) or eight (8) unit townhouse buildings." Second by Riley. Ayes: Droste, Riley, DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan. Nays: Strayton. Motion carried. MOTION by DeBettignies to continue the rezoning requests for the Brockway Site by CDPC. Second by Riley. Ayes: Riley, Strayton, DeBettignies, Shoe - Corrigan, Droste. Nays: None. Motion carried. Announcements City Administrator Verbrugge noted a change of location for the Downtown Redevelopment Committee. It will be held at the Community Center, Room 215, on Thursday, January 8, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. There is a public informational meeting scheduled at City Hall for the pending street improvements for 2004 on January 81h at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Droste reviewed the upcoming meetings noting the following special meeting: Trails and Pedestrian Improvements Informational Meeting on January 29, 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. Mayor Droste moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:38. p.m. Second by Strayton. Ayes: Five. Respectfully submitted, Linda Jentink, City Clerk Recording Secretary The City Council Agenda Packet is Clerk's File 2004 -1. rol