Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.22.02 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR January 22, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Acting Mayor Verch at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting Mayor Verch led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Audience: Verch, Cordes, Soderberg~ Strachan Ristow Joel Jamnik, City Attorney; Ed Shukle~ City Administrator; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Kevin Carroll, Community Development Director; Dan Siebenaler, Police Chief; Lee Mann, City Engineer; Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Manager; Mike Schultz, Associate Planner; Cynthia Muller, Executive Assistant Glenn and Kim Friedrich~ Terry Mahoney, David Adams, John Hill~ Michelle Leonard, Robert Kirk 4. APPROPEAGENDA Councilmember Strachan pulled the Special Minutes of 1/12/02 to abstain from voting as he was absent from that meeting. City Administrator Shukle added Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg to approve Council Minutes (1/12/02 Special). Voting for: Verch, Cordes Soderberg. Abstain: Strachan. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (1/7/02 Regular) b) Approved Appointments Boards and Commissions - Administration c) Approved Quit Claim Deed Presbyterian Cemetery - Administration d) Received Annual Report - Boards and Commissions - Administration e) Received Information Capital Outlay - Public Works t) Adopted RESOLUTION R02-02 Approving CDBG Application - Community Development g) Adopted RESOLUTION R03-02 Accepting Private Development Project Closeout - Engineering h) Received Information School and Conference - Police Council Minutes (Regular) January 22, 2002 Page 2 i) Received Information School and Conference - Fire Department j) Approved Bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Customer Service Response Report -Administration The quarterly Customer Service Response Report was presented to Council, which shows the results of citizen requests, how staff responded, and if the residents were satisfied. Councilmember Soderberg stated Courteous and Helpful is consistent at 100% and that is commendable. b) Consider Ordinance - Approve Rezoning Landscape Depot Property - Community Development Mr. Colin Garvey has applied to rezone the property located along 5th Street (Block 30) from R-2 (Medium Density) to B-3 (Heavy Business). This is consistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is seeking to rezone the parcels to allow for future expansion of the Landscape Depot operation. He would be required to install screening along the south side of the property. MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting ORDINANCE 002-468 rezoning the subject property from R-2 (Medium Density) to B-3 (Heavy Business) following the designated land use indicated within the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) Hometown Sign Appeal- Community Development Ms. Kim Friedrich of Hometown, Inc. has filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on January 8, 2002 in support of Planning staffs decision in the denial of appellant's sign permit application for a proposed wall sign for the business located at 331 3rd Street. A denial letter dated November 14,2001 was sent informing the applicant that the permit application was denied based on the following guidelines outlined in the City's Sign Ordinance: 1. Under Section 4-3-1: Definitions, wall signage is defined as a sign affixed directly to an exterior wall and may project from the wall no more than 15 inches from all points of the sign. 2. Under Section 4-3-3 (B)la: Signs in the B and I Districts do not allow for more than two wall signs on one building face. Ms. Friedrich applied for a sign in a "V" shape extending out 15 inches, having two cabinet signs on the face of the front wall. The language states at all points the sign cannot extend out more than 15 inches. Staff interpreted that to mean all portions of the sign must be equal, the sign cannot protrude out from the building. The second part of the ordinance states no more than two wall signs on one building face. Separate cabinet signs are shown that would be attached to the "V" frame. As the signs are exactly the same, staff viewed them as two separate signs. Council Minutes (Regular) January 22, 2002 Page 3 Ms. Friedrich requested the City's development committee review the sign permit application. The committee agreed the Planning stairs interpretation of the sign ordinance was correct. The sign plans were also forwarded to the City Attorney for review. The City Attorney agreed that the Planning stairs interpretation of the City's sign ordinance was supportable. The appellant requested that staff review existing commercial signage (photos were presented to Council) within the downtown inquiring why other businesses were permitted two or more cabinet signs. Staff explained even though there appears to be more than one cabinet sign in the photos, they were just assembled that way and they are seen as one sign. If she wanted to put her two signs together, it would be viewed as one sign. Staff also suggested placing one of the signs on the rear of the store. Some of the signs on existing downtown businesses predated the sign ordinance. On January 8,2002, the Planning Commission heard Ms. Friedrich's appeal of the decision of Planning staff to deny her sign permit applications. The Planning Commission voted in support of staffs decision for denial. Councilmember Soderberg noticed that in Ms. Friedrich's letter of January I}, 2002, she stated approximately September 5 a gentleman from Signtronixs went to the City to get preliminary approval. Councilmember Soderberg asked what the preliminary approval was. Associate Planner Schultz stated he did not recall. He vaguely remembered a gentleman came in regarding erecting a sign on the property. It is usually requested documentation be submitted and reviewed before approval is given. Councilmember Soderberg stated he could see where the language in the ordinance could be confusing. Staff is in the process of redoing the sign ordinance with the Zoning Code Update. Councilmember Cordes asked when the permit was submitted. Associate Planner Schultz stated the complete application was submitted in early November. Councilmember Strachan stated the last thing he wants to do is create hurdles. He wants them to have a good business. However, staffhas been reasonable in terms of offering a solution. Councilmember Strachan asked Ms. Friedrich what her opinion is of Signtronixs as far as their responsibility. Ms. Kim Friedrich, Hometown Inc, stated the contractor came and they walked up and down the street and there was no indication she could not have a sign like this. She stated the sign would not have to protrude out 15 inches. She would prefer it not to be flat. She has been in that location for six years and still gets people every week that do not know the business is there. Associate Planner Schultz stated the other issue is still the two cabinet signs. The other possibility was to replace the faceplate of one of the cabinet signs to something different so that it would appear to be two separate signs. Ms. Friedrich stated she has a problem with that also. She feels none of the other businesses have one cabinet signs. Councilmember Strachan stated the ordinance reads no more than two signs, so two signs are allowed. Councilmember Soderberg stated the problem is going from a protruding sign to a flat sign. According to staff, even one or two inches are not acceptable according to the ordinance. He can see where there is some ambiguity in the ordinance. He has no problem with the sign; the problem Council Minutes (Regular) January 22, 2002 Page 4 is how to interpret the ordinance. Ms. Friedrich stated there were people on the Planning Commission that did not want to vote that way and they said it. Councilmember Strachan stated the Planning Commission is saying this is how we interpret the ordinance. Personal feelings should not enter into it. Ms. Friedrich stated the ordinance is not clear enough for her to let this go for that much money. Councilmember Soderberg asked when the new ordinance would be done. Staff replied March or April. Councilmember Soderberg stated Ms. Friedrich's letter stated Mr. Adams came to the City to get preliminary approval. What did that amount to? Mr. Dave Adams, Signtronixs, replied he did not meet Mr. Friedrich. He came to City Hall and obtained the sign ordinance. This is the same ordinance he sees in every City except for a few changes. He reviewed the ordinance and this sign was designed specifically for this ordinance. As far as the I5-inch projection, no other City considers that to mean parallel. The wall sign definition does not fit that sign. This is a sign you do not have defined. If the definition of a wall sign is that it has to be parallel, that is not a wall sign. It therefore, is a sign outside of the ordinance. It has to be allowed, because you do not disallow it. Councilmember Soderberg asked City Attorney Jamnik if that is defensible? Attorney Jamnik stated yes. The definition of wall sign is a sign fixed directly to the exterior wall or screening surface and confined within the limits thereof and which projects from that surface less than 15 inches at all points, would lend itself to different interpretations. It could mean flat and uniform, or less than 15 inches at all points. Councilmember Strachan stated he sees a hardship in the fact that money has been invested for a small business in our downtown. With respect to the Planning Commission's decision, which was correct in terms of the technical violation of the ordinance, he would suggest an 8 or 10 inch allowable protrusion. Mr. Adams stated that would not work, as the frame alone is 6 inches thick. Councilmember Soderberg stated he has no problem with 15 inches. It is not that intrusive. It would provide a little variety in the downtown. Associate Planner Schultz asked for Council's interpretation if this is considered as one cabinet sign or one principal sign? Councilmember Cordes stated she would consider it a principal sign. Associate Planner Schultz stated there would be a precedent set in place. Two signs are being erected on one wall frontage. It is a single frame, with two cabinets. Councilmember Cordes stated according to other signs, they are considered as one sign with different cabinets. She would view it as one principal sign. Councilmember Soderberg agreed. Attorney Jamnik stated there is a provision in the code stating if there are multiple occupants in the building, each tenant gets one sign. The first interpretation of no more than 15 inches from any point is rational. The way it is being proposed, it looks more like one sign. Councilmember Soderberg asked what kind of Findings of Fact would be needed to overturn the Planning Commission's decision? Attorney Jamnik stated it is probably best to direct the Planning division in the Attorney's office to develop Findings of Fact consistent with the Council's determination and return those at a future Council Meeting. We will also look at revising the ordinance. Council Minutes (Regular) January 22, 2002 Page 5 Councilmember Soderberg stated as the ordinance can be interpreted either way, he would rule in favor of the appellant and allow installation of the sign. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to overturn the Planning Commission's decision and allow installation of the sign. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. d) Building Permit Report - Community Development During the fourth quarter of the 2001 building construction season, the City issued 76 new single-family housing permits and 71 new multi-family permits. The year-end numbers are 227 new single-family units and 259 new townhome units for a total of 486 new building permits issued. This is an increase of 13.6% over last year's total of 427 residential units. The City also issued four new commercial permits, for new public/institutional permits, and two new industrial building permits. e) Cable Commission Press Release -Administration The Cable Commission is creating a second government access channel. This will provide coverage for Rosemount Council Meetings and Dakota County Board taped replays. Rosemount Council Meetings will be broadcast live beginning February 5, 2002. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Authorize Use of Eminent Domain - Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Extension Project - Engineering This item was continued from the January 7, 2002 Council Meeting in which Council directed staff to arrange a meeting with the Donnelly's and the school. That meeting did occur and went well. Discussions between the Donnelly's and the school are ongoing and are positive in nature. However, the City and the Donnelly's are still negotiating for the easements. Therefore, staff recommended Council authorization to start the 90-day quick take process to ensure the project will be done in time for the school to open in the fall. Attorney Jamnik stated under the statute legal mailed notice has to be provided to the property owner and interested parties. Then staff has to wait 90 days before paying in the amount estimated to compensate the owner for the quick take. No action can be taken for 90 days. Unless staff takes the first step, the City is precluded from following through on the condemnation until authorization is received from Council and notice is served. It is recommended the notice be served and start the clock running on the condemnation procedures to make sure the City has the property in time to do the public improvements. This would give the City 90 days to negotiate with the property owner to seek an agreeable solution or settlement without having to go through a legal procedure. Councilmember Strachan asked if the time line was just to ensure the school can open in time. Staff replied that is correct. Councilmember Soderberg stated it sounds like progress is being made. He is not in favor of eminent domain, however in some circumstances it is necessary. This is a purely public project for purely public purposes. That was the intent for eminent domain. Because we are up against a timeline, he would agree with staffs recommendation. Council Minutes (Regular) January 22, 2002 Page 6 Councilmember Cordes stated two weeks ago they agreed in good faith to give the Donnelly's time to meet with the school, but said Council would also continue with the process. Mr. Bob Donnelly stated things are going positively, they just ran out of time. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes adopting RESOLUTION R04-02 to commence with eminent domain proceedings for the necessary easements for the Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Extension Project. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Council member Strachan: The Fire Department held their Annual Meeting last week. ALF Ambulance was invited and stated they had a great time. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to recess the Regular Council Meeting at 7:57 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Labor Negotiations The regular Council Meeting resumed at 8:51 p.m. City Administrator Shukle introduced the City's Labor Relations Attorney, Annette Margarit to report the results of the Executive Session regarding labor negotiation strategy. Annette stated staff updated Council on the status of negotiations with AFSCME. Staff asked Council if they were moving in the right direction. They discussed current affairs and the market level. Council concurred staff should continue on the current path. Staff will proceed to continue with negotiations. 15. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 8:53 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, ~~ed- P7~ t/ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant