HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. JAC Co. Fence Height Variance AppealCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
Citv Council Meeting Date: April 18, 2000
AGENDA ITEM: JAC Company (Gent -Ryan) Variance Petition
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Rick Pearson, City Planner
AGENDA <
ATTACHMENTS: Board of Appeals & Adjustments minutes
APPROVED BY:
(March 28, 2000); Findings, Resolution 2000-
25; Section 7.2.C.2.e excerpted from the
Zoning Ordinance; Correspondence.
Applicant & Property Owner: John Ryan
Location: 14785 S. Robert Trail
Current Zoning (Gent -Ryan): C -2, Community Commercial (14745, 14755 S. Robert Trail)
Extreme Motor Sports: C -4, General Commercial (14785 S. Robert Trail)
Board of Appeals & Adjustments: Variance granted with conditions (3 -1)
SUMMARY
Mr. Ryan is requested a variance to construct a fence along the perimeter of the former Extreme Motor Sports
property along South Robert Trail, effectively expanding the Genz -Ryan site. The issue is that the fence would
be six feet high to match the existing fence on the adjacent property on the north side. Mr. Ryan indicated at
the March 14 meeting that barbed wire was not being requested. Fence heights are restricted to 42" in front
yards. The current fence on the Genz Ryan property is considered to be non - conforming as are most of the
other fences in the South Robert Trail area.
Fence variances are typically difficult subjects to apply hardship criteria. The reasons provided by the
Petitioner, safety, security and property congruence are all good reasons, but they are usually addressed through
good site design. It appears that one of the primary reasons for the fence in the first place is to secure the
outside storage areas. Outdoor storage of unfinished materials is not a permitted use in the Commercial
Districts. The driveways could be consolidated with cross - access easements and removal of the fencing
between the sites.
PLANNING COMMISSION / BOARD OF APPEALS & ADJUSTMENTS PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Commission/Board of Appeals & Adjustments granted the variance with conditions based upon
the length of time that the business had been established in Rosemount and that there currently were no plans to
relocate elsewhere in the city. Staff is concerned that the variance granted was not based upon the findings
required for variances (Section 14.2G), or applicable state statutes, and therefore may be viewed as an arbitrary
decision which creates a precedent.
The Council is requested to consider wether the variance should be overturned, by directing staff to prepare
findings in support of overturning the Board of Appeals & Adjustments decision.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to direct staff to prepare findings in support of overturning the decision of the Board of Appeals &
Adiustments.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
4�
planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes March 28, 2000
Pursuan to due call and notice thereof, the Regular Meeting of the Pi g Commission
was duly h on Tuesday, March 28, 2000. Chairperson Bill D e called the meeting
to order at 6:0 m. with members Jay Tentinger, Kim Sh - orrigan and Jeffery
Weisensel present. Also in attendance were Counci ber Sheila Klassen, City
Planner Rick Pearson, ater Resource Coordinat yson Morris, Acting City Engineer
Bret Weiss, and Parks & reation Director an Schultz.
There were no additions or correc to the agenda.
MOTION by Droste to a ve the March 2000 Regular Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes. Se ded by Weisensel. Aye • Tentinger,'Droste, Shoe - Corrigan and
Weisensel. Nays- . Motion carried.
e n Droste recessed the regular Planning Commission'meeting and opened the
of Appeals & Adjustments.
Public Hearin:?: JAC Company Variance Request
Chairperson Droste opened the public hearing on the application by JAC Company (Genz
& Ryan) for a variance to fence height requirements concerning a fence along the
perimeter of the former Extreme Motor Sports property. This public hearing is continued
from March 14, 2000. The recording secretary has placed the Affidavit of Publication,
Affidavit of Mailing and Posting of a Public Hearing Notice on file with the City.
John Ryan was present to answer questions. Discussions continued addressing issues
related to the variance request. Chairperson Droste noted the existing property is
completely fenced and no vandalism has been reported. Additionally, there is lighting on
the site, a 24 -hour business directly across the street, and high visibility, which are all
adverse to the applicant's claim of safety and hardship issues. Outside storage is not
allowed in the downtown commercial district, however, there is an excessive amount of
storage on the site, including approximately 30 vehicles, trash; and a junked automobile.
Commissioner Shoe - Corrigan confirmed that Genz -Ryan has been located at this site
since January 2, 1950. Since that time, city standards have changed. She indicated her
support of the Downtown Scoping Committee, however, because this area is not a
priority in the redevelopment stages, she feels it is important to support this long - standing
business.
Chairperson Droste opened the pubic hearing. There were no comments.
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Minutes
March 28, 2000
Page 2
MOTION by Tentinger to close the public hearing. Seconded by Shoe - Corrigan. Ayes:
Droste, Shoe - Corrigan, Weisensel, and Tentinger. Nays: 0. Motion carried.
MOTION by Droste to deny the variance to fence height regulations because of the
inability to apply the findings required for variances specified in Section 14.2G of the
Zoning Ordinance. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Weisensel and Droste. Nays: Shoe -
Corrigan and Tentinger. Motion failed.
Discussion continued. Commissioners clarified with Mr. Ryan his intent to remove the
existing fence separating the two properties. Mr. Ryan indicated the second access to
Hwy. 3 will not be closed. Commissioner Tentinger recommended a gate at the second
driveway access.
MOTION by Shoe - Corrigan to grant the variance to fence height regulations, subject to
1) removal of the non - conforming barbed wire; 2) installation of a gate at one entrance;
3) removal of the existing fence separating the two properties; and 4) consolidation of
driveway access. Seconded by Tentinger. Ayes: Tentinger, Droste, and Shoe - Corrigan.
Nay: Weisensel. Motion carried.
Chairperson Droste adjourned the Board of Appeals & Adjustments and reconvened the
regular Planning Commission meeting.
ng: Basic Builders - Comprehensive Guide Plan
Chairpe on Droste opened the public hearing on the application by Basic uilders for a
Comprehe 've Guide Plan Amendment, Rezoning and PUD Concep or a 36 lot single
family develo ent. This public hearing is continued from Marc 4, 2000. The
recording secret has placed the Affidavit of Publication, davit of Mailing and
Posting of a Public aring Notice on file with the City.
Mr. Pearson presented the oposal for a residentia evelopment on 17%2 acres located
west of Biscayne Ave., north the National G d maintenance facility, and east of
Rosemount Woods. Because thi roperty i ided Public/Institutional, the land use
designation needs to be changed to b esidential. Additionally, the property would
have to be rezoned from Agriculture -1 Low Density Residential. The Concept PUD
is for 36 single - family lots. One ' ue ide ified pertains to the availability of services,
which would be addressed by e city counc at a later date.
Commissioners review setback requirements fro the railroad tracks. The history of
this site was also di ssed, which included a zoning ange from Urban Residential to
Public/Institutio to accommodate another proposal tha idn't occur.
Cha/of Droste opened the floor to the applicant. Reid H n appeared on behalf of
the a. Mr. Hansen provided additional background history n the property and
pla record the following attachments: #1 -Letter to Planning mmission, dated
FINDINGS
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments and the City Council, upon appeal, must find as follows
in the granting of a variance from this ordinance:
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.
The fence variance may result in additional detrimental impact to the aesthetics of the
neighborhood.
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.
The property is already developed with a building that is capable of supporting uses consistent
with ordinance standards and policies in the comprehensive plan.
3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property, use or facilities that do not apply generally to other properties in the same
district.
The applicant has not shown that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions that are unique to the property at 14785 South Robert Trail that distinguishes it from
other properties in the area.
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.
Other fences in the area with six foot heights in the front yards are non - conforming with
ordinance standards.
5. Granting of the variance will not allow a use which is otherwise not a permitted use in the
zoning district in question.
Anticipated use of the property would have to be considered part of a wholesale business and
supply center, otherwise, if it is a contractor yard with outdoor storage, it may be considered a
non - conforming use which actually would be expanded with the addition of the fenced enclosure.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2000 -2 5
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE
JAC COMPANY FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE PETITION
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals and Adjustments
of the City of Rosemount (the `Board ") considered a variance application (the "Application ")
submitted by JAC Company; and
WHEREAS, there were procedural issues arising from a tie vote on a motion arising from the
Application; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to clarify whether such approval and the conditions imposed upon
such approval are lawful, enforceable, and binding on the City and JAC Company; and
WHEREAS, the City Code permits review of certain Board decisions if there is an allegation of
error in fact, procedure, or finding; and
WHEREAS, the City's Zoning Administrator may appeal Board decisions under the City Code;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to review the Board decision regarding the Application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount,
Minnesota, that the City's Zoning Administrator is directed to file with the City's Planning
Department an appeal in substantially the form set forth at Exhibit A hereto, such filing to take
place no later than April 10, 2000.
ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 2000, by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
Cathy Busho, ayor
ATTEST:
Rx s► -�!
Motion by: Caspar Seconded by: Klassen
Voted in favor: Klassen. Cisewski, Busho, Caspar, Edwards
Voted against: None.
Member Absent:: None
501 a2Ed
junowasoy Jo r{jr,'
1g2is glim aja3jglui T rgs ajnlonjls ou IMP NplAoid `spjug luoj3 ui WgOui od
Zti poaoxa lou IIEgs 1nq `spnK jew jo opts oql ut IOu1sTQ AM ui pallFO
Oiv 1Ig2iaq ui 1003 (9) xis 2uipaaOxa 10u s1 rm puE saouo3 'a
•aniloulsaj
aiow si janagOigm Iurtuz a XIT In E Olui goEOjoua
Jo auil 101E 01 (, S) laa3 anij ump jasolo ou lnq vam PIES
apis p=nb= E olui (,S) laa3 ani3 :spnX apiS ((D
'OnTlOUlsaj ajow
sT janagOigm `luauiasn j�lililn 72 oluT goEOjoua jo auil lol
jEOj E Ol (.SI)1aa3 uoal3lj uEgl jasolo ou lnq mm pRA XMJ
p=nbaj E olui (.ST) laa3 uzzTJ :spjEX jEag (3)
•aniloulsaj
ajow ST janogoigm `luouiom farpin E olui go-MMO
jo ouq jolt 01(.S) laa3 anti uug1 josolo aq gojod pajanooun
jo Aoap `hoolEq kue 1pgs asEO ou ul -(.g) laa3 anti Sq
spnA apis halls ponnbaj olul gOEOjoua Sluo AEw (,Z) 1003
oml u p jagaiq wgojod pajanooun puE goap `saw001Eg
'(.ST) 1003 uaal3T'J rz-m PRA apis l0ajls pannbaj aql
oluT g0E0jouo Sma 11 `.ajnlonjls Fdiouud oql 3o ooE3 agl It
A1iEOiljan pajnsvaw (s2uT11Ej aaipnloui lou) apEj� pagsiuT3
anogE lggiaq u? (.Z) 1003 0m1 uEgl ssal sT gojod pajanooun
jo Aoop Xuooleq oql 3I :spjE,�, apiS IaajlS (a)
'aAT10IIISOJ OJOUT sT janag0Tgm `1UawaSEa t�lOn
E Olui g0Eoj0Ua jo auT[ 101 E 01 (.g) 1003 anT} UEgl JOSO10
oq gojod pajanooun jo �joap `Xuooleq XuE t1Egs ONO ou
uI • (. S) Iaa3 anTj Xq sp-wX Iuoj3 IOags pannb0i olw gOEOjoua
Slao AEw (,Z) Iaa3 oral uagl jag2iq sagojod pajanooun
pUE saloap `saiuoOlEg 'Cgi) Iaa3 uaalig van Piux luoj31=m
pajinbaj zqi olui goEmuo A= 1! `ajnlo=s lEdiouud oqi 30
00E3 aql It X11EOiljan painmiu (sauifm 2uipnloui lou) app
pagsiuTJ anogE Ig2iaq ui (.Z) laa3 om1 uugl ssol sT gojod
pajanooun jo `loop XuoOleq agl 3I :spjET, Iucaa (d)
:smoilo3 se uzm pjEK pwinbaj E oluT
goEojoua Arm sagojod pajanooun puE `sXoap `saiuoOleg (Z)
anpoulsaj glow si
janagoigm `jua aam Alililn E olui gOEOjoua jo auil 101 E 01
distances for vehicles approaching intersections. Fences not exceeding
eight (8) feet in height are permitted in all Commercial Districts except
along property lines adjacent to Residential Districts. All fences located in
recorded easements are the sole risk of the property owner; and the cost of
any removal, relocation, or placement of said structures caused by any
activity permitted in said easements is the sole responsibility of the property
owner. Link fences shall be constructed in a manner that no barbed ends
shall be at the top. Barbed wire and electric boundary fences not exceeding
sic (6) feet in height shall only be permitted in the AG, AG -P, and RR
Districts when related to agricultural or permitted uses relative to animal
husbandry. (Ord. B -21, 6- 16 -92)
f. Picnic shelters, gazebos, pool houses, stairs, fire escapes and
recreation equipment may be placed only in side or rear yard areas and
shall conform to the requirements of subsection 7.2.A.6. Accessory
Buildings.
g. Satellite Dishes in "R" Districts shall not be closer than ten feet
(10') from a side or rear lot line and shall not be placed in front or street
front yards. (Ord. B -33, 10- 19 -93)
h. Security fences not exceeding eight feet (8`) in height are
permitted in the IG and Wlvl Districts. Barbed wire, not exceeding three (3)
strands, may be permitted on top of the fence, providing the arms do not
project over the public right of way or any adjacent public or private
property. The minimum height of the bottom strand of barbed wire shall
not be less than six feet (6') from finished grade. In all cases where a
barbed wire security fence is requested, an application shall be made to the
Building Official. A Certificate of Insurance indemnifying the City shall be
submitted with the application subject to the approval of the City Attorney
as to form and in an amount as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section
566.04. (Ord. B -21, 6- 16-92)
2. Required Side and Rear Yard Enlargement:
a. Comer Lots: 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 requirement of the district. The
same yard dimension determined for such a side yard shall apply to
structures in the rear yard.
b. Through lots shall provide the required front yard on both streets.
City of Rosemount
Page 106
a
REASONS FOR VARIANCE REQUEST:
1. SAFETY: The primary reason that we are requesting a variance, which would
allow Genz -Ryan to fence in the property at 14785, would be the issue of safety.
Genz -Ryan has a vast amount of company traffic to and from their different
buildings from 6:00am until after 8:00pm, Monday through Saturday. Genz -Ryan
has so many semi - trailers making material deliveries, and their own vehicles are
constantly loading materials for jobs onto their vehicles. Without a fence, which
would join the properties, Genz -Ryan would be making frequent short trips onto,
and off of, Highway 3.
The trips onto and off of Highway 3 would be a safety concern for Genz -Ryan
drivers, the vendors making deliveries, and most certainly for the motorist who
would be traveling on Highway 3. By fencing in the property at 14785 South
Robert Trail, and joining it ,,A ith the existing fence at 14755 South Robert Trail,
the risk to drivers on the road, and the employees of Genz -Ryan Plumbing and
Heating will greatly be reduced.
2. SECURITY: The issue of security is a concern of all businesses; Genz -Ryan has
a concern regarding the security of an un- protected yard and building. Since
purchasing the property at 14785 South Robert Trail, two windows have been
broken, and parties other than the gas company have shut off the gas meters.
Also, there will not be a permanent presence in the building at 14785 South
Robert Trail during the day to monitor the activities that take place there. Our
tenants will be storing tens of thousands of dollars of inventory there, which has
to be accessed during business hours.
To protect their investment, they will need to lock the doors, if a variance is not
allowed. Our tenant has over 160 employees, and to give them all a key to the
building is not feasible, nor is it advisable because material in an unguarded
facility has a way of walking away after business hours.
3. PROPERTY CONGRUENCE AND A CLEAN YARD: The existence of a fence,
which would enclose the properties at 14785 and 14755 South Robert Trail,
would allow the tenant to make full use of their facilities. Inventory items that
have been left out in the yard of 14755 South Robert Trail could be stored inside
of the building at 14785 South Robert Trail; end result: a cleaner yard, free from
clutter.
Highway 3 is such a high traffic area, and so many people from outside of
Rosemount see the properties on the stretch of road that goes by the properties
occupied by our tenant. Allowing a variance for a property fence would reduce
the yard clutter that is currently visible as one drives by.
CITY OF RO S E M O U N T
2875 C145thiStreet West
Rosemount, MN
55068 -4997
68493-4411
Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!!
Phone:
Hearing Impaired 651 - 423 -6219
Fax: 651 - 423 -5203
March 31, 2000
Mr. John Ryan
JAC Company
3465 143rd Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Variance Petition for fence
Dear Mr. Ryan:
As you know, the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals & Adjustments has
granted a variance for a six -foot high fence for the former Extreme Motor Sports property 14785
South Robert Trail, with conditions. Upon expiration of a ten working day appeal period, a
building permit can be issued for the fence.
The ten day appeal period specified by the zoning ordinance is intended for the applicant,
affected property owners (within 350' of the property), City Council members, or the Zoning
Administrator to appeal the decision made by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. If
someone does appeal, a public hearing would be scheduled for the City Council to consider the
appeal. That meeting could be scheduled for April 18, or May 2, 2000; starting at 8:00 pm.
The appeal period will expire on April 12, 2000.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at (651) 322 -2052.
Sincerely,
C 24� 4 �%..
Rick Pearson
City Planner
cc Tom Burt
.4
ROSEMOU NT
Everything's Coming Up Rosemount!!
February 8, 2000
Mr. John F. Ryan
JAC Company
3465 143rd Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Variance Petition for fence
Dear Mr. Ryan:
CITY HALL
2875 — 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN
55068 -4997
Phone: 651 -423 -4411
Hearing Impaired 651A23 -6219
Fax: 651- 423 -5203
Please accept these comments as a follow- -up to your variance petition received last week. I have
discussed your petition with other staff members of the development review committee, which is
the normal procedure for forming the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission. The
information you provided did not mention any details about the fence. Therefore, for the basis of
discussion, I am assuming that your variance request is for a six foot high chain -link fence
around the perimeter of the property at 14785 South Robert Trail as we have previously
discussed. That being the case, I regret to inform you that staff will be unable to support the
variance request. Your reasons concerning safety, security and property cleanliness are all good
reasons, but they do not qualify as hardships.
If you intend to proceed with the variance petition, the Planning Commission will conduct the
public hearing on March 14 starting at 7:00 pm. as we have discussed. At this time, if you would
choose to withdraw the petition, your application fee will be refunded in full. This option is
available to you up until February 23. At that time, the process of setting up the public hearing
will begin and cost will be incurred. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (651) 322-
2052.
Sincerely,
626 �.e--
Rick Pearson
City Planner
cc Tom Burt
Ad cl --fo T-lem 8, a--
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2000-
A RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL OF
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND CONCEPT
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
REQESTED BY BASIC BUILDERS
BASED UPON FINDINGS OF FACT
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received applications for a
comprehensive plan amendment and concept planned unit development for residential
development involving single family housing types as identified in attached Exhibit A from
Basic Builders to be located on a 17 acre unplatted parcel west of Biscayne Avenue ' /z mile north
of 145th Street West in Rosemount; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing as required by the zoning
ordinance on March 28, 2000; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission failed to adopt a motion to recommend that the City
Council amend the Comprehensive Plan from Public / Institutional to Urban Residential; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission failed to adopt a motion to recommend that the City
Council approve the concept planned unit development for single family use; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the comprehensive plan amendment and planned unit
development on April 4, 2000 and adopted a motion to deny the comprehensive plan
amendment; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council directed city staff to prepare findings of fact for denial of the
requested comprehensive plan amendment and concept planned unit development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
denies the concept for a residential planned unit development requested by Basic Builders based
upon findings of fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is currently guided for Public / Insitutional (PI) land use in the City
of Rosemount 2020 Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Concept Plan as identified in Exhibit A is not consistent with the current
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The current land use designation of Public/Institutional in combination with the National
Guard property to the south creates a transitional land use area which allows uses of a
governmental, educational, cultural, recreational, public service or healthcare nature that
provides a non - residential buffer to the developing properties east of Biscayne Avenue.
The various land uses west of the property include an athletic park with high intensity
lighting and an industrial use with smoke stacks and metal warehouses. The residential
uses west of the property are limited to manufactured housing.
4. The only land adjacent to the property which is not separated by a collector street or
railroad is designated for Public / Institutional use.
5. The applicant has not shown that residential use is the most appropriate use for the
property given its relative isolation and potential land use incompatibility with the
adjacent land owned by the National Guard.
6. Urban Services are not currently available to serve the entire site for sanitary sewer and
city water.
7. With respect to the findings required for planned unit development approval, the City
Council finds that:
a) The Plan does not provide sufficient useable open space or justifications for
variances.
b) The Plan does not comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
C) No evidence has been provided that the Plan is more creative and will provide a
better living, working, or shopping environment than is possible under strict
ordinance requirements.
8. The proposed housing is not adjacent to permanent open space. The undeveloped land to
the south is owned by the Minnesota National Guard which has previously indicated to
the city that the property may be used for training which could be incompatible with
residential uses.
9. The proposed housing would be isolated from similar land uses by collector streets, and
no park facilities are anticipated to serve the area.
10. The proposed land use is is adjacent to a railroad line which requires additional lot depth
and buffering to mitigate the potentially harmful effects of the rail traffic, and the subject
property has severe limitations of depth necessary to provide the additional lot depth.
ADOPTED this 18th day of April, 2000 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
Cathy Busho, Mayor