Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12.06.99 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR December 6,1999 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch None City Administrator Erar, City Attorney Jarnnik, City Management Team 4. APPROVE A GENDA MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Staff Introduction - Police Department Police Officer James Constantineau was sworn in by City Administrator Erar. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Ken Chin, 19066 Estate Avenue, was an objector to the CSAH 31 Assessment. He contacted the County and they have not made a decision regarding lowering his property value. The County told him typically it is 10%, they are trying to get it done by the end of the year. His land is valued at $31,500. Over the last three years, his house value has gone up $300. He stated he does not see where his value will go up that much more to cover the assessment. His value would have to go up over $300 in one year. As the County will not have the information ready until the end of the year, he does not know what to do. It was determined if Mr. Chin receives the information by the December 20, 1999 Council Meeting, he should give it to City Administrator Erar or Finance Director Roland. Mr. Chin did not think this was fair as the County already knows it will be going down, but the County will not have it ready until the end of the year. Mr. Chin's next option would be to appeal to District Court. a) Seasonal Parking Restrictions - Resident Concerns Mr. Dan Miller, 515 Elm Street, stated he received a response from staff regarding concerns about the parking ordinance. There are 18 units in the apartment building. There are 20 parking spots for 18 units, however most of the people are multiple occupants which leaves very little option for parking. Some of the parking spots are designated for people who work the night shift. From his perspective if you live there, you have a right to a parking space. He does not feel it is relevant that two of the units do not have vehicles. If there are 18 units and the City is going to dictate he cannot park on the street, then if it is an issue that needs to be addressed with the landlord, he does not know if it can be, as he Council Minutes (Regular) December 6, 1999 Page 2 thinks the building was built before the statutes took place. He was of the understanding there has to be two off-street parking spots per unit. There is not any available parking space. Other people are also concerned about holiday guests, funerals, parties, etc. He did not recall reading notices, and wondered how informed the public was. Mr. John Gage, 18493 Echo Drive, owns property at 400 Elm Street, he is also concerned about the parking ordinance. Many of the houses are old, and built before there were 3-4 cars per family. Does the City want front yards paved? He appreciated the fact the City was trying to reduce snow plowing costs. He does not have room for off-street parking as he has multiple tenants. When he purchased the property, he asked the City if parking on the street was ok. He was told it was, and then the City passed the parking ordinance. He has not had time to prepare for this. He is not being affected, but his tenants are. He asked if the Council would change to odd-even parking, or if the driveway is full, allow parking on the street. He also asked if he could have a personal exemption to this ordinance for this year until he can work out a solution. b) Street Name Change - Resident Concerns Mr. Ed Stober, 18529 Endeavor Avenue, was also representing his neighbors Harvey Wright, 18543 Endeavor Avenue, and Rick Goedde regarding the name of their street being changed. He stated he was here two weeks ago and has heard nothing except for a letter he received from Community Development Director Olson. It appears the decision to change the street name has been made without input from the residents. He requested some information from Mr. Olson 30 days ago regarding statutes governing name changes and has not received anything. The process started with the County being responsible for naming streets, and then a developer changed it, and then the City staff became aware of the situation and notified the County to change it back to Euclid Street. Apparently the . developer did not comply. Mr. Stober feels that is an issue between the City and the County, not his. When an issue is discovered that was not done properly, the City should take it up with the County. The City owns that issue. If it was not followed up, it is not his issue. The County did not act on the request until after homes were constructed on the three lots. By the time the property owners were notified of the need for a name change, the City had assumed responsibility for the assigning of street names in the City. The residents have not received any notification from the City, but they did receive a request from the County that if they did not agree with the street name change and there was an occupancy of less than six, they could petition and given a forum to discuss it. The response he received from staff stated the street name should be changed to Euclid Street for public safety. Mr. Stober then asked Police Chief Siebenaler ifhe calls 911 from his home, does he know where he lives? Chief Siebenaler replied yes, but he cannot guarantee there will not be any hesitation in locating a street that is three lots long. That makes it a public safety concern. Local police and fire are not the only issue involved in public safety. The City also uses ambulance service that covers three cities, which relies on maps to find the location. Mr. Stober then asked if Euclid Avenue, Euclid Street, Euclid Path, Euclid Court is a safety issue. Chief Siebenaler replied all of them line up and are connected in some way. They Council Minutes (Regular) December 6, 1999 Page 3 are alphabetical. Mr. Stober had several questions as follows, which will be responded to by staff: 1. What is the City definition of an intersection and would like a response from the City Engineer or whoever takes care of the roads. 2. It is stated Endeavor Avenue or Euclid Street in Cameron Woods will be private driveways, how many private driveways have a stop sign at the end of them in Farmington? 3. What statutes address, from the letter sent out on October 29, 1999 from Mr. Olson, that only one street name can be used? 4. What are standard operating procedures in the City for changing a street name in Farmington, what statutes apply? 5. How do you define change of direction? We have the approximate same change of direction and the approximate same direction itself on that street that matches Pilot Knob up to 190th and Akin Road. 6. How many streets have been renamed by the City under the current jurisdiction? 7. What are the present requirements for plot description at the point of sale of real estate? Are they overridden by the County or State? 8. What are postal issues? 9. When will my mailbox be moved to my property? Right now it is on Euclid Path. I have to walk across the street to get to my mail, so every house on Euclid Street has a mailbox in front of their house or across the street. If it is a postal issue it should be moved closer to my residence. 10. Between the last two weeks, a discussion must have taken place between Mr. Olson and the Council relative to naming the street. We received a letter that states too bad, we're changing the name of the street, that is basically the tone of the letter. Who participated in that meeting, what date it was held and I would like to see the minutes from the meeting. I don't feel has if! had any input. Community Development Director Olson replied there was no meeting. This is an administrative task assigned to staff. It is not a legislative decision, but an administrative decision. Mr. Stober stated so then an administrative decision can cost the taxpayer money. In the letter he received it is stated the requirement for a plot plan typically is a requirement of lenders at the time a property is being purchased. Property abstracts are also typically updated only at the time of a property being sold. In most cases the description of a property in a deed or abstract is done by legal description rather than street address. He would like further clarification as to what most cases are. He does not plan on living in his house for the next 25 years. Ifhe does not pay now, he will pay later. And ifhe pays later, it is inflation. Councilmember Strachan stated he does not have to have the plot redone. Mr. Stober stated he is not here to disrupt he is seeking to understand. It is a very frustrating process. How these decisions are made will affect taxpayers. He does not feel as a taxpayer he has had a fair response or fair representation. Personally, he does not care if the name is changed. Ifwe go through this process it is strictly to ensure we are heard. Council Minutes (Regular) December 6, 1999 Page 4 City Administrator Erar stated in reviewing the Minutes prepared for Council for this meeting, with the exception of the state statutes which can be downloaded off the internet and provided to Mr. Stober, every single question he asked at the last meeting was responded to in very clear detail in the letter by Mr. Olson. He is not disagreeing with Mr. Stober, he is just reviewing the Minutes. He reviewed the letter prepared by Mr. Olson and he did a very fair job of responding to it. We can certainly provide him with copies of statutes and attempt to answer his additional questions, some of which are quite detailed, within the next two weeks. c) Traffic Concerns - Akin Road A response was sent to the resident. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes (11115/99) (Regular) and (11116/99) (Special) b) Approved Various City License Renewals c) Adopted RESOLUTION RI02-99 - Approve Tree City USA Application d) Approved Appointment Recommendation - Police Department e) Received Information Capital Outlay - Fire Department f) Approved Autumn Glen Plat Extension g) Approved Meals-On- Wheels Contract - CAP h) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Truth in Taxation Hearing This is the 2000 Truth in Taxation Hearing required by state statute. On September 7, 1999 the Council passed Resolution R84-99 establishing the Truth in Taxation Hearing and adopted a preliminary budget and preliminary tax levy for the year 2000. Residents have received property specific notices outlining the proposed effect of the 2000 tax levy on their individual property taxes compared to the taxes levied against their property in 1999. These notices showed a 30.545 tax rate. Presentations were given by Finance Director Roland and City Administrator Erar showing the highlights ofthe City's proposed 2000 Revenue and Expenditure Budget and the 2000 Proposed Tax Levy. Mr. Henry Iwerks, 1105 Sunnyside Drive, stated in his opinion citizens have received some very good information tonight. That is important because general citizens in Farmington do not think too highly of City employees and City Council. They are getting information off the streets, etc. He would like to see this information condensed and put in the paper. Many people do not know the difference between the tax for the school, the City, and the County. They see the big figure and blame the City for the whole thing. Mayor Ristow thanked Mr. Iwerks for his compliment. MOTION by Verch, second by Soderberg to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. The formal resolution adopting the 2000 budget and tax levy will be presented to Council at the December 20, 1999 Council Meeting. Council Minutes (Regular) December 6, 1999 Page 5 b) Adopt Resolution - Cameron Woods Easement Vacation Wensman Homes seeks to vacate an existing drainage and utility easement on the easterly property line of Block 1 Lot 1 in the Cameron Woods Development. The developer is requesting that the existing 5' drainage and utility easement be vacated due to the existing blanket easements that are located within all of the common areas of the site. Block 1 Lot 1 was not sized appropriately to encompass the proposed building on the site and the building would encroach into the easement by 0.61 feet. The vacation allows for a clearer legal description of the property. Ms. Kelly Murray, Wensmann Homes, stated there was a misunderstanding with the engineer. He thought the building setback was from the private drive to the front of the building, rather than from Euclid to the building. They do not want an encroachment easement on the title work. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to adopt RESOLUTION RI03-99 approving vacating an existing 5' drainage and utility easement along the easterly property line of Block 1 Lot 1 Cameron Woods. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. c) John Tschohl- Planning Commission Decision Appeal Mr. Tschohl has filed an appeal to the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a conditional use permit to allow commercial recreation and equipment and maintenance storage in the A-I District. Mr. Tschohl and his son Matthew proposed to construct a 42' x 60' building at the northwest intersection of Fairgreen Avenue and 21 Oth Street. The applicants propose to use the building for the storage and repair of cars and the construction of a rock -climbing wall for recreation. The City Attorney determined car storage is a permitted use in an A-I district and falls under the Travel Trailer and Boat Storage requirements. The City Attorney also determined that the applicants were required to seek a conditional use permit for the commercial recreational use, which is the climbing wall, and the equipment and maintenance storage which is the car repair use. The climbing wall was considered a commercial recreation use because monthly dues would be required for non-owner participants included in a cooperative to use and maintain the facility. The owner may repair cars that he owns within the facility, but the repair of cars not personally owned by him for a profit is not allowed in an A-I district. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on October 26, 1999. Since the number of issues could not be answered at the October 26, 1999 meeting, the Planning Commission was forced to continue the review of the conditional use permit to the November 9, 1999 meeting. The commission voted to deny the conditional use permit for a commercial recreation and equipment and maintenance storage use in an A-I zoning district because of the following facts: 1. Conditional use permits should not be placed on a building that may be moved in ten years. 2. A business use should not be approved in an agricultural district. Council Minutes (Regular) December 6, 1999 Page 6 3. The minimum 50-foot building setback is not adequate to allow the possible extension of Fairgreen Avenue to the north and 210th Street to the west. 4. There are no plans for a parking lot and the plan to park vehicles on the street is not adequate. 5. The lighting of the property is not to City standards. 6. The equipment repair use typically moves to the outside of a building causing unsightly views. The basis of the appeal as explained in the letter from Mr. Tschohl on November 18, 1999 is that the Planning Commission's vote was "flawed with conflicts of interest and a lack of understanding of a very simple request." The Development Committee reviewed the project again on November 30, 1999 and found the Building Official and Fire Marshal discovered new information which would have to be adhered to. This included requirements for the construction of the proposed building which is typically done at the building permit stage of the approval process rather than the zoning stage. However, occupancy separation issues became apparent at the Development Committee meeting. Mr. Tschohl will have to comply with these requirements. Mr. David Sletten, 6040 212th Street, stated he has no objection to the project, but he understood the Fire Marshal, Mr. Brad Schmoll sent an original letter calling for the building to be sprinklered. He understood City Administrator Erar told Mr. Schmoll no, he did not want this sprinklered and to do a different letter. Mr. Sletten understood projects are governed by the Uniform Building Code and wondered how this could happen. If Mr. Schmoll is the Fire Marshal, why was his recommendation shelved? Mayor Ristow asked if Mr. Sletten was saying there are two letters? Mr. Sletten stated he does not have the original letter, but there was a letter calling for the building to be sprinklered. He does not think this is unrealistic especially when there will be 20 people climbing a wall and in the next adjoining space there is going to be storage of cars, gas, ignition and fire. Right now the street is gravel, if this will go from agriculture to commercial he felt it should be paved and have street lights. Mayor Ristow stated in the past a commercial building is required to be sprinklered, but there is not City water out there. Community Development Director Olson stated Mr. Schmoll was asked to document some of the issues relative to fire code and fire safety. Mr. Schmoll is fairly new to the City and is not familiar with where water mains exist in the City. It was at Mr. Olson's direction the verbage regarding sprinkling be removed as the water main is at least a half mile away. There are other issues in the memo that still apply. City Administrator Erar stated he is not aware of any letter that was going to go out and then turned back from his office. Councilmember Verch stated he has the original letter from the Fire Marshal. Not from him, but it is an original letter dated December 1, 1999. Comparing it to the letter of December 6, 1999 there are some changes. There are requirements under state statutes that are crossed out that are supposed to be in there. Mayor Ristow stated Councilmember Verch provided a letter dated December 1, 1999 addressed to Lee Smick. He asked if Council Minutes (Regular) December 6, 1999 Page 7 Ms. Smick remembered this letter. Ms. Smick stated she did. When the Planning Division writes letters, Mr. Olson reviews them, and makes changes. City Administrator Erar stated it would have been nice to see the letter prior to the meeting, so it could have been discussed. Councilmember Verch stated he thought Mr. Erar would have seen it, as it went across Mr. Olson's desk, he thought Mr. Erar had also seen it. Mr. Erar stated it is an internal memo that is reviewed to make sure the items are accurate. Mr. Olson stated on the versions of the memo, the process is that whatever Community Development Department staff person is preparing the memo, has to have it reviewed by him before it goes to Mr. Erar and Mr. Olson makes any changes he feels are appropriate from his position as department head. Mr. Erar did not see the earlier memo. It only made it as far as Mr. Olson. Mr. David Sletten stated if we have a Fire Marshal employed by the City and he recommends something, why isn't his recommendation followed? Why is he on the payroll? Councilmember Strachan stated he is a Police Officer. Ifhe writes a memo and gives to the police chief, and he makes changes, it does not mean that Officer Strachan is useless. It means his supervisor has information he may not have or may choose to change something. That is his job. That does not negate the value or the voracity of the Fire Marshal. Mr. Sletten then asked if there was adequate water supply out there since he lives a half mile away. Councilmember Strachan replied that is the issue. That is not the issue of the memo. Mr. Sletten then asked if a precedence would be set allowing the building to come out there. Councilmember Strachan replied that has not been determined yet. City Administrator Erar stated the letter was encouraged to be written by Mr. Schmoll to provide the property owner some guidance relative to the requirements he would have to look at if the land use was approved. That letter was merely advisory. Councilmember Verch stated that for Mr. Olson to say Mr. Schmoll does not know the codes or is new at this, it is his job and what is crossed out is required by law. If Mr. Schmoll does not know his job, he is the Fire Marshal. Ifhe is not experienced, why did we hire him? All he has to do is look in the book and say ok this is required. He does not make his own rules. Councilmember Strachan stated we are making statements that these decisions have been made and they have not been. Mr. Olson stated there is not a water main and Mr. Schmoll can say I feel strongly about it, but that is a conversation yet to be had. That does not mean that the rules have not been followed or Mr. Schmoll does not know what he is doing. Councilmember Cordes stated she has not had the opportunity to read the memo, the first she heard of it was tonight. She did read the current memo and it is more of an overview to give the Tschohl's some things they will have to look at. To indicate that Mr. Olson was either trying to hide or cover up or something or Brad does not know his job, is a complete inaccuracy. Councilmember Verch replied he is not the one that said that, he thought Mr. Olson said that. (During the transcription of the Minutes, it was found Mr. Olson did not make that statement). Councilmember Cordes stated what was deleted in this letter would be covered at Council Minutes (Regular) December 6, 1999 Page 8 a different time. Councilmember Verch stated it could be, but you might as well have everything out front from the beginning. Mr. Matthew Tschohl, 4650 Nine Oaks Circle, Bloomington, MN, stated the climbing area will be a bouldering area because the current place is going out of business. There is a group of 10 people, but will keep it open to select people. It will not be for the public. All the money will be spent on the climbing wall. There is time restriction from 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. Right now, they climb until midnight on Fridays and would like an extension of the time. Mr. John Tschohl, 4650 Nine Oaks Circle, Bloomington, MN, thanked the Planning staff for their assistance over the last several months. He stated the building will be 42' x 60', it will be a very attractive metal building. It is in an isolated area, with two mining pits close to it. There are three questions: His son wants a place to charge people money to store expensive cars in a heated garage. They want a climbing wall for trained athletes. He likes to work on his cars, not other people's cars. As far as the concerns of the Planning Commission, Mr. Tschohl owns the property, Babe Murphy probably will buy the building, and in 10-20 years there will be development and the building will be moved. Mr. Tschohl is concerned there was a conflict of interest with two people that complained about the building. The Hubers and Elaine Donnelly. The Hubers should not throw stones at a glass house if you have a glass house of your own. Next door to the proposed building is a mining pit that looks like trash. It is an absolute dump and he has a very attractive building and Mr. Huber does not appreciate that. When Mr. Tschohl received the records, he noticed the person who supported the mining pit in 1994, who was on the Council and chaired that was also related to Elaine Donnelly who is the other person with this conflict. Mr. Tschohl feels this is a tremendous conflict of interest. Here is a person that promoted the Huber mining in 1994, who was related to the other person who was opposed to the building. Mr. Tschohl stated this is a very serious, questionable absence of ethics. Mr. Dirk Rotty (Planning Commission member) should not have voted, should have abstained, should never have been involved. Mr. Tschohl hoped 4 out of 5 Councilmembers would be considerate enough to override the Planning Commission. Mr. Marv Wier, 808 3rd Street, stated he recalled the Council has a policy as to where commercial development can occur and was wondering if this falls under that policy. Staff replied for the 2020 Comp Plan, this area will be urban reserve which states no development will take place until after 2020. Mayor Ristow asked how many buildings could be built in that area. Mr. Tschohl replied he is selling the property to Babe and he has 147' x 147' which is enough for one building. Mr. Dirk Rotty stated for the record he is not related to Elaine Donnelly. Mr. Tschohl thanked Mr. Rotty for the clarification. Mayor Ristow stated at that time he was on the Council in 1994 and it was a unanimous vote to grant the Huber permit. There was no personal preference by Mr. Rotty. The purpose was to downsize the land and level off the hills. Council Minutes (Regular) December 6, 1999 Page 9 MOTION by Verch, second by Cordes to close the Public Hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Verch to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the conditional use permit for a commercial recreation and equipment and maintenance storage use in an A-I zoning district. It should be added to the Findings of Fact that it is not in the Comprehensive Plan to have a commercial use in an agriculture district. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Ordinance - Rezoning Property for Farmington Lutheran Church Mr. Bernard Murphy and Farmington Lutheran Church are seeking to rezone 16.25 acres of property from the current C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to an R-l (Low Density-Residential) zoning designation for the purpose of a future church site for Farmington Lutheran. The property is located northwest of the Riverside development and southeast of the Pine Knoll neighborhood, both zoned R -1. The south portion of the property is currently zoned R-l, while the east portion of the property is zoned A-I. The north half of the property is zoned C-l (which extends northward into undeveloped land). MOTION by Cordes, second by Soderberg adopting ORDINANCE 099-443 rezoning the property legally described from C-l (Conservation) and A-I (Agriculture) to R-l (Low Density Residential). APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Water Use Restrictions - Water Board Communication Council received information on a Water Use Restrictions Policy adopted by the Water Board. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Acknowledge Interim Maintenance Services - Akin Road Staff has received information from the Dakota County Highway Department regarding their desire to have the City accept jurisdictional responsibility for Akin Road. The City's responsibility for Akin Road would begin at 190th Street, just east of the CSAH 31 intersection, traveling south to the CSAH 50 intersection, but not including the intersection of CSAH 50 and Akin Road. Maintenance services would include providing basic snow plowing, sanding and street cleaning services. Council acknowledged the City's intent to provide limited and interim maintenance services on Akin Road. 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Councilmember Verch: A resident wants English Avenue closed at 190th Street. He is obtaining a petition and will be at the next Council Meeting. City Administrator Erar: A letter has been received from a law firm handling a claim by Joseph and Brenda Oeth regarding an accident on Flagstaff Avenue. Questions should be referred to City Attorney Jamnik or Risk Manager Roland. Council Minutes (Regular) December 6, 1999 Page 10 Finance Director Roland: The Budget Award plaque has been received and is displayed in the reception area. Community Development Director Olson: He attended a Liveable Communities Act Sub-Committee meeting. A clean-up grant application had been submitted and the committee granted funding in the amount of $85,000. Staff is waiting to hear regarding submittal of a larger grant. Mayor Ristow: A garbage truck entrance sign request was received from Mr. Moench. Mr. Moench had given the City permission to enter his driveway to service the other residents along the alley. He would like something in Writing from the City regarding adverse possession. A resident has asked when the Council Meetings will be broadcast on T.V. City Administrator Erar replied the City of Apple Valley will be hiring an individual to run the cable T.V. equipment this week. This employee will be working for the cities of Apple Valley, Rosemount, and Farmington. Council adjourned to Executive Session at 9:30 p.m. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Progress Land Company 15. ADJOURN Executive Session adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, c;,~vd~- ?77~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant