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