HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.c. Petition Against Krech Landscaping �
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COIJNCIL MEETING DATE: June 3, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Petition Against Krech Landscaping AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Dan Rogness, Community Development Director AGENDA NO:
� �
ATTACHMENTS: Petition and Letters APPROVED BY:
l
The City of Rosemount received a petition from residents surrounding property at 12050 Dodd Boulevard
owned by Jay and Theresa Krech. After much research, I sent the Krechs a letter on Apri19, 1997 explaining
my interpretation of the situation. The petition was subsequently received on April 20, 1997. As of this date, I
have not received any response from the Krechs, either verbal or written.
Two separate site visits this week during late morning and early afternoon revealed no visible outside activities
taking place. However, the site include two heavy equipment trucks, six private vehicles and a laxge landscape
material storage area. The home occupation requirements, if accurately applicable to this site, are quite
restrictive to the outside equipment and activities noted.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION to Accept the Petition from Seven Property Owners
Surrounding 12050 Dodd Blvd. and to Direct City Staffto Take
Appropriate Actions toward Zoning Code Compliance of the Property.
COUNCIL ACTION:
C1Tf HALI
CITY OF ROSEMOu�T Za'S- ,�5`hs`��`��est
Rosemount.UiN
55068--�997
Rosemount!! Phone:612-�Z3•��1�
Everything�S CO(1"1�11g uP , Hearing Impairea�23-oZ�9
Fax:612•�+23-iZ03
May 29, 1997
Jay&Therese Kre�h
12050 Dodd Blvd.
Rosemount,MN 55068
Re: Landscape Business
Dear Mr. &Mrs. Krech:
The Petition that was sent to the City of Rosemount regarding y
our business operations at the ablace
ddress will be accepted and discussed by the City Cos�e tingea.nd P ov d nlput�e p
mentioned a
on Tuesday, June 3rd, at 7:30 p.m_ You are invited to attend t� ril 20, and to my previous letter,
regarding your operations and a response to theP eof t e Sand dp from the City Zoning 4rdinance
dated Apri19, 1997. I am again enclosing a co y
related to Home Occupations.
You can contact me at 322-2020 to discuss this issue further.
Sincerely,
Dan Rogness
Community Develop• ent ' or
DR/dgq
Enc.
cc: Thomas Burt, City Administrator
_ .. i""
a. ,
1 of 5
Apri120, 1997
Mr. Dan Rogness, Community Development Director
City of Rosemount
City Hall
2875 West 145th Street
Rosemount, MN 55068-0510
Dear Mr. Rogness:
�E: Krech Landscaping business located at 12050 Dodd Blvd., Rosemount, owned b
Tay and T'herese Kre�h y
We, the residents of 120th Street and Dodd Boulevard area of Rosemount, would
like to bring the City's attention to the violation of city ordinances by Jay and
Therese.Krech.
We request that you correct the following four violations:
1• The permit issued by the City of Rosemount in March 1986 does not appear
to be in complia�ce with the city zoning ordinance, dated October 19, 1972
which was in effect at that time.
2• The permit holder, Jay and Therese Krech are obviously violating the
permit given March 1986, which was based on Krech's request before the
Planning Commission on March 19, 1986. The permit request was for a
family landscape/lawn care business, but primarily resideniiai and
described as suFpl�mental to their West St. Paul business.
3. jay and Therese Krech are also violating the home occupation definition.
4. No permit to do snowplowing business from this location.
JaY and 'rherese Krech -,�side at this business location. It is well known that their
business has grown exponentially in the past few years. Along with the Krech
intensified business expansion have come numerous issues for surrounding
neighbors, including the following:
2 of 5
NOISE POLLUTION:
During the landscaping season, the business has loud, noisy equipment
moving rocks, soil, wood chips, etc., onto the prope��e snowp o��g the
materials for resale in landscaping contract use• D g and other
season, noisy payloaders are usedl�o le Sd�e now�e o al contracts• Industrial
equipmen t i s p r e p a r e d f o r u s e i n g
e ui ment is loaded onto large flatbed trailers Yaaz'o°�' �'o dawn et° dusk;�r
q P
the times that the business operates. Activity � Y �e �nter, diesel
any time, 24 hours .3 day, and seven days a week• Dux'u�g
equipment is started to warm up for operation and begins rumbling at all
hours of the day and night.
AIR POLLUTION:
Diesel fumes and white fog dense enou�h�f�es carry into neighbors yards
generated by tz'u�s W��ng �P' and
and homes.
INCREASED TRAFFIC:
Bquipment and supnlies are coming an eS�a g a dozen employees on the
Observations indicate that there are mo
P
remises during the summer months and a�m��'�uip��t and park
the winter months. These employes operate
their personal vehicles at the Krech�s residence.
BLOCKI�D RQADV��AYS:
C
Traffic is forced to stop and wait on Dodd B f�ee�e�S�o driveways, and
being maneuvered :o and from either one o
there is loading anc: unloading of large equipment from large flatbed trailers.
UNSIGHTI.Y STOI�iGE:
There is exterior storage of rocks, wood chiplOW att���ta�p�and'
bobcats, front-end loaders, flat-bed trailers, p
fertilizer tanks, larg� g2lbage dumpsters and various other equipment. This is
inappropriate in a residential setting•
'
� .
3 of 5
SAFETY HAZARllS:
Potentially dangerous conditions for pedestrians, runners , bicyclists and
horseback riders are present when large equipment is being maneuvered on
residential streets by operators that often have difficulty seeing chiidren and
others in harm's way.
OVERUSE OF LOCAL ROADS:
There is a potential risk of deterioration of residential roads, with heavy
use of weighty industrial equipment on Dodd Boulevard both Norfih and
South and on 120th Sfreet heading East.
PROPERTY DEVALUATION:
Values of neighbors' real estate is negatively impacted by the existence of
unsightly, noisy, industrial-appearing business in a residential setting. We
purchased our pr�Ferties vith the expectation that this was to be a tranquii
rural residential setting and that the City of Rosemount's Staff,
Administration, Planning Commission and Council would adhere to the City
, Ordinances, which are designed to protect property values and prevent non-
� compliant development.
,
UNDESIRABLE PRECEDENT•
Ongoing, unchecked operation of any non-compliant bus�ness sets an
unacceptable precedent, leaving our residential area open for further
inappropriate and unv�anted development of industrial-commercial sites.
DIMINISHED QUALITY OF LIVING ENVIRONMENT?
This area of Rosemount offers its inhabitants a peaceful country setting in
which to live and raise families . Krech's business is a visual and auditory
intrusion into the a�sfihetic tranquility of the neighborhood. The unacceptable
noise and business activity diminishes the quality of our living environment , �
and is in total disregard for the neighborhood, and unacceptable to us.
,. 4of5
The Krech property is zoned agriculture. Home occupation, commercial
greenhouses and landscape nurseries are permitted uses. Please note that the word
"landscape"relates to nurseries and not to "business". It is obvious that the
magnitude of the activiti�s f�r exceed the propert�s permitted use, and the business
has cleazly gone beyond the "family" definition. Krech's property is clearly no
longer rimaril used as a residence. It is obvious that the business, at its current
size, is no longer supplemental to their �e�e Landscape business s li ed atce
that a West St. Paul business exists at all
the Dodd Boulevard address in the telephone book. If the Planning Commission,
City of Rosemount had given us the opportunity to comment on Krech's permit
request in March 1986, t�1is complaint woune be u�nn�e�n 198be1 We°vou�ld like to
informed about the ICrech Landscape Bus p p
draw your attention to the fact that the Planning Commission,
City of Rosemount,
notified neighbors about the request for "Rosecliff L�ed to infor usss City Staff d d
1988, even though, as they wrote, they were not eq
recommend approval of the Roseciiff Landscape Business. Jay and Therese Krech
and other neighbors obje�ted to permitting Rosecliff Landscape business, which
resulted in denial by both the Planning Commission and the City Council.
W e do not believe that i.+. is in the best interest of city government to have a
business in an area where it clearly does no ab`ehe e i e era es tax dollars for the e
for neighbors and it is best located in an are v g
city, like any other business does in the City of Rosemount.
W e are asking you to give this problem your imme b ete P ease notify us � l�e
this nuisance and violation stopped as soon as poss
communications betwee::� Staff and the Krechs and the city's plan of action in tlus
matter.
Thank you for your prompt attention in resolving this matter.
Contact person and correspondance please send to� 14 90 S. Robert T sen
Rosemount, MN• 5506$
Sincerely,
CC: City Council Members.
./.- "'•-
h� � ~
I .
5of5
C �'
,
xay ling • y , g
2835 -120th Sireet Rosemount Re dents since 59
Date: -� �
sr�� .-_ � ,e� �4�-e�1
an-���` - ����
ar edtel J Goedtel
2980-120th Street, Rosemount Residents since 1983
Date: -a-(�- 9
L --- � ^,� .
Ted Hammond H d' H ond
12375 Dodd Boulevard, Rosemount Residents since 1990
Date: � - z o��
� �
Gloria Linkert
12165 Dodd Boulevard, Rosemount
Resident since 1971
Date:
.�J �/�c� ,��
Dick Opatrny Carol Opatrny
12255 Dodd Boulevard, Rosemount Resident since 1967
Date:�•-�2 02 -9 7
.1�� � _
� �� �������
David Senechal Sheila Senechal
12125 Dodd Boulevard, Rosemount Residents since 1992
Date: �-.,2 D -Y 7
�`-`'1���4-c..`, �i(/!�Cr�. �
Dr. Kurt Walter-Hansen Ur. Patricla Walter
1210I Dodd Boulevard, Rosemount Residents since 1985
Date:�—.Zo -9 7
�,.. . • -
' � C1TY HALL
p F RO S E M O�N� �9�5 ' ��5�h Street`�lest
C I TY Rasemo�n�.MN
;;oea•»997
Rosemount!! ?hone:��:.•�Z3•��i>
Everything'S COm�n9 Up �e>�,�o�moa�rea;23-o2i9
=ax:31�•123•iZo3
Apri19, 1997
Jay &Therese Kre�h
12050 Dodd Blvd.
Rosemount, MN �5068
Re: LandscaQe Business
Dear NIr. & Vlrs. Krech:
On October 4, 1996 I sent you
a letter re�ardinQ complaints from neiQhbors about of the Plannin�
your landscaping business. In response, you inceethatkime�I havec eceived addi eonal complaints,
Commission meetm; on August 19, 198b. S
ajasn abo
ut excessive noise, equipment, outside storaje and traffic at 12050 Dodd Boulevard.
Based on furt
her research, I have concluded from the most recent d�tion of al home�o cupat on?
Commission was of the belief that��a�on prese teed otth m, and it included the followin� facts:
Ttus conclusion was based on mf ,
a Commission as a"family
• In 1986 you described your proposal to the Plannin� use. Your business, as
landscape/lawn care" business with residential as the primary e�tted use in the
described to the Planning Commission, was then approved as a p
Agricultural (AG) District.
� At that time, related permitted uses in the AG Di�tn� `ds for�the sale of a�ric utu alions:
(1) commercial greenhouses and tree nurseries, (_) stan
, home
P
roducts provided said products are at least in P�Don Linkert by the Ptannin(^)
occupations. Based on a similar interpretation o
Commission in 1983, I would conclude that your permitted use was related to K1.
our attorney stated to the Plannin�Commission that you operate a
• In 1989, however, y the Ptannin�
landscapin�business"out of your homCo�arison to thenRaymond Sachter proposal).
Commission as a home occ�pation (in p
• The definition of home occupation is a�ainful occu�pthe nrinc pa! residentiat use tial
building which is clearly secondary and incidental t p
f home occupation was quite similar now and in 1986. Home occupations must
The definitton o _
_ . , _ � � /�. "
Jay & Z'herese Krech
A}�rii 9, 1997
Page Two
also follow the standards as identifieri in Section 4.16 of the City's Zonin� Ordinance (see E.Yhibit
A)• As you can see, these are quite restrictive in relationstup to visuaUnoise impacts and
employeelsales factors. To the e�ctent that your business operations do not fit these standards, it
must conform.
Another supporting issue relates to the Comprehensive Land Use Guide P(an for this area. The
current plan designates this area as most appropriate for Rural Residentia! rather than :��riculture,
which was the same designation in 1986. Rural Residential also allows home occupations as
permitted uses, but it does not allow Commercial Greenhouses or Landscape Nurseries.
Finally, your recent letter to the Rosemount Public Utilities Commission a.lso appears to shed
some light on this interpretation. A,lthouQh you conciude on the last pa�e that, �`our landscape
business ... was approved as an Agricultural use of the property in 1986", you were actually
� approved as a lanCl$�e busine� in the :��ricultural District. In other words, numerous uses in
that same District (e.g., �olf courses and sin�e family homes) are not agricultural uses, but rather,
allowable uses that meet the purpose of the A�ricultural District.
Again, my interpretation after reviewing all available information, including 1986 photos that you
submitted to the Utilities Commission, is that your"business" best fits the definition of a home
occupation. Therefore, it must foilow the correspondin� restrictions for that use. If necessary,
the Zonin�Board of Appeals is the board that acts on appeals to staf�interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance. Please contact me at 322-2020 if you have further questions or concerns re4ardin�
my conciusions.
S incerely,
�-
Dan Rogness
Community Deve me irector
DR/d�q
Enclosures
cc: Thomas Burt, City Administrator
Bud Osmundson, Public WQrks Director
Rick Pearson, City Planner
Chariie LeFevere, City Attorney
- EXHIBIT B
1, The Rosemount Planning Commission reviewed a request from yourself onT e P s�rig 986
to operate a family landscape/lawncaze business on Agriculturai property
Commission was interpreting whether this was a permitted use in the Agricultural zone. A
motion was carried by the Planning Commission to approve your request for a landscape
business with retail sales prohibited and appropriate screening required for outside storage.
2. The decision of the Planning Commission on August 19, 1986 referreC�o�ssion. On Mazch
interpretation that had been made earlier by the Rosemount Planning
17, 1983, the Planning Commission reviewed a request by Don Linkert for a landscape
business located at 120th Street and TH#3 in the Agricultural District. A motion was
approved by the Planning Commission to interpret landscaping business with no retail sales as
a permitted use in the Aaricultural District.
3. The Pianning Commission met on October 10, 1989, to discuss an upcoming request from
Ray Sachter to develop a landscape nursery within the Agricultural District. Staffwas
concerned that there was no clear understanding of what associated retail sales may be
allowed as a component of that landscaping use. The Sachters told the Planning Commission
that their proposal included less than 10% of the total square footage of space to be
designated for sale of related products other than plants grown on the site. The Commission
directed Staff to notify residents in the area of the Sachter proposal.
4. The Planning Commission met on October 24, 1989, to review a request from Ray and
Sanford Sachter regarding site plan approval for their tandscape nursery on a 10 acre parcel
at the intersection of 120th St. & TH#3. Sta.ff interpreted this as a legal use in the
Agricultural District (Landscape Nursery and Commercial Greenhouse)with 90% of the
retail sales consisting of products grown on site. There was testimony from surrounding
property owners, including yourselves, Gloria Linkert, and Dr. Kurt Hanson, all voicing
objections to the retail use on the property. The retail commercial use in the Agricultural
District was viewed as inconsistent with previous Planning Commission actions. City Planner
Wozniak testified at that meeting that the previous approvals for landscaping operations were
secondary to the principal use of the property as a residence, and therefore, defined as home
occupations. In fact, a transcript from this meeting shows that a Planning Commissioner
clarified, "neighbors are being allowed to run landscape businesses and install landscape
designs because they live there and that is a home occupation." Furthermore, the previous
request for sales did not involve sale of materials grown on the site. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously to deny the Ro�he zonin u ord ance for t ese uses.hters and
asked that Wozniak develop new defirutions m S
5. Subsequent definitions were approved for"Commercial Greenhouse" and"Landscape
Nursery", which in general, allow sales at wholesale to retailers and jobbers with no exterior
storage and accessory sales.
� .
,
/'"
tXH181T A .
4.13
' 4.16
C. There shall be at least one month between sales on•the same premises. -��
(Ord. B, 9-19-89)
4.14: TEiVIPOR�Ry DWELLINGS: The use and occupancy of a
., manufacturerl home, tent, RV or other temporary dwelling for '
the purpose of living quarters is not permitted in any district. (Ord.
B, 9-19-89)
4.15: SINGLE-F:�MIII,JY DWELLING REQUIREMENTS: All
single-family detached dwellings shall be constructed according to
the following minimum standards:
A. All dwellinas shall have a minimum width of twenty-four feet (24').
B. All dwellings shall have a permanent frost-free foundation as defined by the "
appIicable building code. Split level, split entry and earth sheltered homes �'"�
shall be considered to comply with this requirement.
C. Main roofs shall have a minimum pitch of 3:12 per definition of the ���A
applicable buildin� code. -
��_
D. Roofs shall be shingled with asphalt, wood, tiles, sod or other comparable �
materials as approved by the appIicabie buildin�code. �
°'=�:
�...
:;�.
E- Metal siding, with exposed panels exceeding sixteen inches (16"} in width,
shall not be permitted. ~�
��:{ -
F. Earth sheltered homes wiil be permitted on the basis of site conditions, ;4=r,
which are conducive to such housing, or in areas where changes to e�cisting �`
site conditions are com liment �
p ary to the site and adjacent properties and
the existing character of property and structures in the area. (Ord. B, 9-19- �"
89) . �
f.
:S
A"
4.16: HOME OCCUPATIONS:
A. Home occupations shall be conducted solely by persons residing in the
�
residence.
�
B. A11 business activity and stocage shall take piace within structures.
�
�
City of Rosemou�rt
1
l
5.1
� 4.16
�
,-�,�,..
-� There shall be no alteration to the e:cterior �teTs their�esiden ial cha acter of
C• ard that in any�aY
accessory building or y
the premises.
' la or device identifyinS the occupation shall be used.
D, No sign, disp y
� ccu ation shall not be visible or audible from any Pi°Pem'line.
g_ The o p
ion shall not involve the retail sale or rental of products on the
F. Said occupat
premises.
losed within an aPProved structure, no ve�c Seused
G. Un1ess completely enc arked, stored or othe
in the conduct of the occupation shall be p used for domestic
present at the premises other than an o t�e�quarter�(;4�ton truck.
or household purposes such as a
�}unQ facilities normal for a residential use shall be
H On1y on-site off-strest p � ,�
;,
used. �r.,
occu ation or the use of substances which may be
e conduct of an P the health, safe�}' or welfare of �'•,
I. T� in any w a y j e o p a r d i z e 9-1 9- j i
ha,zardous to or may Q ro e� 5��1 not be permitted. (Or d. B, ;
nei�hbors and nei g h barin� p P
� 89� i
�
t ,
� j
` 5: ZONING DISTRICTS:
�1 �I,IggyIENT OF DIS'TRICTS: For the purpose of this
EST i of Rosemount,Minnesota, is hereby divided
- 5.1: the C ty �
� Ordinance, a distri�ts: '�
: into the followin� zomn�
,
�
� AG A�cultural District
� AG-P Agricultural Preserve District
; � Rural Residential District ;
" Low Density Single-Family Residential District
� �- '
R-1 Singie-Family Detached Residence District
Single-Family Attached Residence District
R"2 Residence District
R_� Multiple-Family
R-4
1Viultiple-Family Residence District
C-1 Convenience Commercial District
CommunitY Commercial District
C-2 Service Commercial District
C-3 Hi�hway
"- C�ry of Rosemount
i
�
::�.
�
. --�
� —__ .. _„ :.�-�
�..
.�.
- 3.2 ."� :
3.2
'�
.
HOME OCCUPATION: A gainful o�cupation conducted iri a residential
•` ,�: building which �s ciearly secondary and incidental to
-��` the principal residentia! use of said building and
Y
w�` generates no appreciable increase in traf�ic at any
y � time over that customarily associated with a
„ ` residentia! use. This occupation shall be carried on
` '��� only by the dwelling's occupants. There shall be no
<�:;,
- - stock in trade stored on the premises or over-tfie-
counter retail sales.
HOMEpW1VERs A community association, other than a condominium
ASSOCIATIplV: association, which is or�anized in a development in
which individual owners share common interests in
open space or facilities.
HOTEL: A building containing eight (8) or more�uest rooms
in which lodging is provided with or urithout meals
for compensation and which is open to transient or
Permanent juests or both, and where no provision is
made for cooking in any guest room, and in wiuch
ingress and egress to and from all rooms is made
through an inside lobby or office supervised by a
person in char�e.
INIPERVIOUS A surface that allows very little or no penetration
SLIRFACE: of water or moisture into the soil or ground.
Examples include concrete, asphalt, and various
compacted materials includin�a��egate, limestone
and recycied bituminous. Buildings, rooftops, decks,
patios and driveways and any other structure shall
be inciuded for the purpose of calculatin� maximum
lot coverage.
�NTER.IM USE: A temporary use of property until a particular date,
until the occurrence of a particular event, or until
zoning regulations no lon�er permit it.
NNKED `/EHICLE: Any vehicle, as defined in this Section, which does
not have lawfully affixed or attached thereto an
unexpired State re?istration or license plat or plates,
or the condition of which is wrecked, dismantled,
Ciry of Rosemoun�