Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-106 Variance RESOLUTION 98-24PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A 6 INCH FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 INCH HEIGHT FENCE IN THE FRONT LOT SETBACK AREA IN PLACE OF THE 42 INCH HEIGHT ALLOWED. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment ofthe City of Prior Lake, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. John & Jeri Trulson applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a forty eight inch height fence on property located in the Suburban Residential District (R-l) and the Shoreland District (S-D) at the following location, to wit; 14296 Rutgers Street, legally described as That part of Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows; (see attached metes and bounds description). 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #98-106 and held hearings thereon September 14, 1998. 3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The applicant has control over the fence design and height, such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists within the requirements of the City Code Section 5-5-11(E) Screening. 1:\98files\98var\98-106\re9824pc.doc 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . 6. There are no justifiable hardship circumstances unique to the property that requires the granting of a variance. 7. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed above allow for an alternative fence structure to be permitted without the variance. 8. The applicant has submitted copies of a written petition by the residents in the neighborhood stating their approval of the fence and support for the granting of the VarIance. 9. The contents of Planning Case 98-106 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following fence variance, as shown in attached Exhibit A (survey); 1. A six inch (6") variance to permit construction of a forty eight inch (48") height fence in the front setback area in place of the maximum forty two inch (42") height requirement. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 14, 1998. ~~ Mho y Stamson, Chair ~~ Donald R. Rye, PI 1:\98files\98var\98-106\re9824pc.doc 2 STAFF REPORTS AND MINUTES ..- 10. > ~~ ID/I'l~~ ~ Kedrowski: When would this take place? Rye: 6 months for it to be completed. Kedrowski: Will there be a controlled intersection at Pike Lake Trail? Ilkka: Long term, in 5-10 years. The County would have to evaluate. Kedrowski: What type of screening would the building have? Kansier: We would evaluate site conditions which have to be met. Kedrowski: Support rezoning. Rve: The study will focus on density of housing, not senior in particular. MOTION KEDROWSKI SECOND PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-120 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR 33 ACRES LOCATED AT PIKE LAKE TRAIL AND CSAH 42. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. Mader: Clarification on the resolution and ordinance: One changes the Comprehensive Plan, one changes the ordinance? Rve: Comprehensive plan provides overall direction and guidance; it does not regulate land use. The zoning ordinance regulates land use. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 98-15 APPROVING THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST TO B-3 BY WENSMANN REALTY AND PRIOR LAKE, LLC FOR 33 ACRES LOCATED AT PIKE TRAIL AND CSAH 42. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-121 DENYING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 7.4 ACRES LOCATED AT PIKE LAKE TRAIL AND CSAH 42. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: A. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-122 to Uphold a Decision of the Planning Commission Denying a Variance to Waive the Forty Two Inch (42'') Maximum Fence Height in the Front Lot Setback Area for Mr. & Mrs. John Trulson on Property Located at 14296 Rutgers Street. Boyles: Introduced the item. Trulson's began installation of a fence. The City received and investigated a complaint about fence height and found that the fence exceeds front yard fence standards. The Planning Commission considered a variance and found that the hardship criteria has not been met. They are appealing the decision to the Council. 101998.DOC 7 Bryce Huemoeller of 16670 Franklin Trail addressed the Council on behalf of the petitioner. He read ordinance provisions in addition to the height requirement. Provisions should be given equal consideration. Described property and fence line. Uniform elevation throughout the boundaries is the most aesthetic way to have a fence. This is a reasonable use, unique to the property, which will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Reasonable use should be the property owner using the property in a reasonable manner. Reasonable use exists to give flexibility to ordinances. Cost can be one factor in the determination for reasonableness. He cited some cases where "practical consideration" was the deciding factor. Wuellner: Were the property owners aware ofthe ordinance when the fence was put up? Huemoeller: Not certain. Wuellner: If they had researched the ordinance, would we be here? They should have looked for a manufacturer who could provide a product that met the standards. What value is a zoning ordinance if "reasonable use" makes it so flexible? Brokl: The cases cited by Mr. Huemoeller stand for the proposition they are being offered for. Aberrational cases do not stand for a general rule. That is why it is up to the policy making body to meet provisions of the ordinance. Comments from Councilmembers: Wuellner: Would be willing to compromise, how about a raised flower bed. Table to the first meeting after the zoning ordinance is approved and then apply the new ordinance. Schenck: Concur. If property owners would have done their homework, it would not be a problem. That fence in fact adds value to the neighborhood. There are many fences on Rutgers that should not be approved. Petersen: Concur with Pete. Still faced with ordinance that is here. Perhaps hold it until zoning ordinance is approved. Cannot go against planning and zoning. Kedrowski: Look at fence height issue in relation to zoning issue. Boyles: Suggested Council could adopt a resolution denying the variance requested. Once the zoning ordinance is revised, construct a fence according to the new ordinance. Mader: Applicants would have found another acceptable solution if they had researched the ordinance. Concerned with overturning a decision of the Planning Commission. That applies to all ordinances. Purpose is to set a standard that does not meet all property owner needs. If we arbitrarily waive it, then we do not have to have an ordinance. Variances should be the exception not the rule. The Planning Commission and Planning Department have done a good job in applying the ordinances. Encourage applicants to looking at reasons it should be changed. MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO APPROVE 98-XX UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE FORTY TWO INCH MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT LOT 101998.DOC 8 SETBACK AREA FOR MR. AND MRS. JOHN TRULSON ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14296 RUTGERS. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, and Wuellner, nay Schenck, the motion carried. B. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-123 Calling for the Redemption of the Outstanding General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1991. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY SCHENCK TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98- 123 CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF THE OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1991. Bovles: Introduced the item and indicated that this will save $10 - $12,000 in taxpayer dollars. Mattson: Outstanding bonds are at over 6% and should be defeased. Mader: Questioned statement in staff report about refunding bond issue. Mattson: If the balance of the bonds due had been larger, the City did not have money on hand, and they would have been refinancing. Mader: Noted three corrections in the resolution. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. C. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-125 Authorizing Public Sale of $1,275,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1998. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-125 AUTHORIZING PUBLIC SALE OF $1,275,000 FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1998. Mattson: Proposing to sell bonds at a Special Meeting on Wednesday, November 18th. Kedrowski: Amended the motion to include a special meeting on November 18th at 5:00 p.m. Mattson: Securities have changed rules about public sales of bonds. Under current rules, the firm has to have in evidence a written contract. The fee remains the same as a year ago. Kedrowski: Amended motion to authorize Mayor and City Manager to enter into such an agreement as approved by the City Attorney. Mader: Contract will reflect same services and costs as presently provided? Mattson: Yes and it spells out what the firm will do for the City. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. I01998.DOC 9 MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT OCTOBER 19, 1998 lOA STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98-XX TO UPHOLD A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE FORTY TWO INCH (42") MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT LOT SETBACK AREA FOR MR. & MRS. JOHN TRULSON ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14296 RUTGERS STREET. History: This item was originally scheduled for review at the October 5, 1998 City Council meeting. The Council deferred this item until the October 19, 1998 meeting at the request ofthe applicants' attorney. On August 6, 1998, the City received a complaint from a resident regarding the construction of a fence that exceeded forty two inches in height in the front yard setback area at 14296 Rutgers Street. Upon inspection it was determined that the fence posts were already installed and the picket sections to be installed were over forty two inches and in violation of City Code 5-5-11(E): Screening. On August 17, 1998, Mr. & Mrs. Trulson submitted an application for a six inch variance to complete construction of an ornamental iron fence on their property. The fence posts are forty eight inches (48") in height and alternating fence pickets are forty six inches (46") and forty two and three quarters inches (42 & 3/4") in height. The current city code for residential districts does not allow fence height to exceed forty two inches (42") in the front lot setback area, requiring a six inch (6") variance. City Code Section 5-5-11 (E): Screening; (states in part) In residential districts, afence not exceedingforty two inches (42'J in height and having an opacity of not more than twenty five percent (25%) may be erected on the front lot line and side lot lines forward of a line drawn across the front line of the principal building (see attached Code 5-5-11-E). In this case, the principal structure is setback approximately one hundred and eighty three feet (183') from the front lot line (see attached site survey copy Exhibit A). Therefore, the district's 1:\98files\98var\98-1 06\981 06cc.doc 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER minimum setback of twenty five feet (25') shall be considered the required front setback for this variance request (see attached City Code 5-4-1: Lot and Yard Requirements). In addition, Mr. Trulson submitted fourteen (14) copies of a petition letter composed by the applicant and distributed to their neighbors for response and opinions on the fence. All fourteen (14) letters submitted to the City are in favor of the fence at the existing height. On September 14, 1998, Mr. Trulson presented his request for the variance at the scheduled Planning Commission meeting. He argued that the manufacturer's standard for ornamental fence height is forty eight inches (48") and that a forty two inch (42") fence required a custom order. Also, the Commission should take into account that the top railing of the fence is thirty nine inches (39") and only the pickets and posts exceed the forty two inch height. The Planning Staff reviewed the variance application and determined that all four of the required variance hardship standards with respect to property had not been met. Upon reviewing the four hardship criteria, the Planning Commission concurred with staff s recommendation that there were no hardships or unique circumstances with respect to the property that warranted the granting of a variance. The Planning Commission denied the variance requests. On September 15, 1998, Mr. Trulson's Attorney, Bryce Huemoeller, submitted a notice to Planning Director Donald Rye appealing this decision to the City Council. Current Conditions: The fence is near completion but the owner has stopped construction on the remaining picket sections until a final determination is made regarding the variance request. The portion of fence at issue follows along the front lot line dimension of one hundred thirty nine point forty eight feet (139.48') and continues back along the side lot lines for twenty five feet (25'). The fence posts have already been installed in this area but the picket sections have not. The fence opacity is approximately fifteen percent (15%) which is less than the maximum allowed opacity of twenty five percent (25%). The portions offence completed along the remaining side and rear lot lines are in code compliance. The property is riparian and located within the Suburban Residential (R-l) and Shoreland District (SD). The Issues: The applicants have appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. The Council must now determine if it concurs with the Planning Commission's judgment to approve Resolution #98-24PC and deny the variance because the fence does not meet the four hardship criteria required to grant a variance. 1:\98files\98var\98-1 06\981 06cc.doc 2 FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: 1:\98files\98var\98-1 06\981 06cc.doc While the proposed zoning ordinance has amendments to address fence height interpretation, the granting of variances based on future ordinance changes is not justifiable under the hardship criteria as stated in the City Code. In addition, the proposed screening amendment addresses fence height as the average height of sections between the posts but the maximum fence height allowed remains at forty two inches (42"). The average height of picket sections for the ornamental iron fence is approximately forty four point thirty seven inches (44.37"). Conclusion: The petitioner argues that the ordinance is not practical because the manufacturers standard height for ornamental iron fence is 48 inches for posts and 42 3/4 inches to 46 inches for pickets. The top railing is only 39 inches with just the pickets above 42 inches. Also, to custom order the front section at a different height from the existing fence would be expensive and distracting in appearance. Although the fence provisions in the proposed zoning ordinance will address some of Mr. Trulson's concerns, we cannot issue a variance for a fence that does not meet current ordinances on the basis it will meet future ordinances. Mr. Trulson was not aware of the ordinance requirements in effect at the time he contracted to have the fence constructed. The PlarIning Commission and staff recommend denial of the variance on the basis the request does not meet all four of the hardship criteria required and the variance is unjustified with respect to he property. The granting of variances based on speculation of the proposed zoning ordinance does not comply with the current hardship criteria as set forth in City Code. There is no known fiscal impact ifthe variance is approved or denied. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Resolution 98-XX upholding the decision of the PlarIning Commission to deny the variances requested by the applicants. 2. Deny Resolution 98-XX and direct the staffto prepare a resolution overturning the decision of the PlarIning Commission and grant the requested variance, and direct the staff to modify the proposed Zoning Ordinance to provide for more liberal front yard fence height requirements. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. 3 RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: 1:\98fi1es\98var\98-1 06\981 06cc.doc The staff recommends Alternative #1, adoption of Resolution 98-XX upholding a decision the Planning Commission denying the v . ce r t to w ve the 42 inch fence height requirement. 4 RESOLUTION 98-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE FORTY TWO INCH (42") MAXIMUM ALLOWED FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT IN THE FRONT LOT SETBACK AREA FOR JOHN & JERILYNN TRULSON ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14296 RUTGERS STREET MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on September 14, 1998, considered and denied a variance request by John & Jerilynn Trulson to waive the forty two inch (42") maximum allowed fence height requirement in the front lot setback area. WHEREAS, on October 19, 1998, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal, by John & Jerilynn Trulson, of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a variance to waive the forty two inch (42") maximum allowed fence height requirement in the front lot setback area for the property legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variances do not meet the standards for granting variances set forth in Section 5-6-6 (C, 1-4) of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. John & Jerilynn Trulson have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance, Code Section 5-5-11(E), in order to waive the requirement for a fence not to exceed forty two inches (42") in the front lot setback area, under construction on the property located at 14296 Rutgers Street, legally described on attached Exhibit A. 2. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #98-106 and held hearings thereon, and denied the request on September 14, 1998. 3. Mr. & Mrs. Trulson appealed the decision ofthe Planning Commission in accordance with Section 5-6-3 (A) ofthe City Code. 1:\98files\98var\98-106\rs98xxcc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4. The Prior Lake City Council considered this appeal on October 19, 1998. 5. The Prior Lake City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The City Council has determined the request does not meet all four of the variance hardship criteria. There are no unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was caused by the actions of the applicant through the design of the fence. There are no unique characteristics to the property, which would constitute a hardship. 7. The denial of the requested variance does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances. 8. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 9. The contents of Planning Case 98-106 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby: 1. Upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying a variance to waive the fence height requirements for John & Jerilynn Trulson on the property located at 14296 Rutgers Street, legally described in Exhibit A, which exhibit is attached to this resolution. Passed and adopted this 19th day of October, 1998. YES NO Mader Kedrowski Petersen Schenck Wuellner Mader Kedrowski Petersen Schenck Wuellner {Seal} City Manager, City of Prior Lake 1:\98files\98var\98-106\rs98xxcc.doc Page 2 EXH'IBIT A LEGAL ! ~~~~~-~TIO~o~ ~"I 7' "" "" ,.,"\ DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED, ; ~ That part of Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott Count~ ' l1innesota described ae follo~IS: .;:- , _. i Beginning at a point on the northerly line of Lot 48, BOUDIN'S MANOR, accor~ to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County and State, said point being 26.6 feet easterly from tlte - ,.,w CC northwest corner of said Lot 48; thence northwesterly at right angles to ';:~~~'1.0T'" north line of said Lot 48, a distance of 33 feet to the northerly i~~ of I'" ,'." foot road to the point of beginning of the land herein to be described; th, . . " North 9 degrees 46 minutes West. a distance of ~D3-5 .t:eet.; - :tbel:iQe" : Sou~' _ . degrees 40 minutes West a 4s~ce _ of~ 81.~6 feet; thenpe ~ui:i(.~"~~~~-".. ... minutes West a distance of.' %.5' feet 'to the shore of. Prior: ~e;:-': i;h. .' southwesterly along said . shore' of Prior Lake, to' its interseci;ioii~"~l;'th a' l~' '. . drawn North 45 degrees 38 minutes West from a point on the northerly ..lioei:' said 33 foot road in BOUDIN'S MANOR diStant 41.1 feet; southwesterly .1'rom,: ' point of beginnL"lg;"'thence Sout~ 45 degrees 38 minutis ~st to a .p~~t. o~. ,', northerly line of said 33 foot road in BOUDIN' S ~ MABOR distant 41.1' f . t southwesterly from the poin-t of beginning; thence NOfth' 79 degrees 45 minu'-~., East along said line a distance of 41.1 feet to the point of beginniJ:?,g. hce t. that part of said tract lying southerly of a line drawn from a ,p01Di; 'on;:. e' easterly line of said tract 151.75 feet northerly from the southeast corn r .._.:.;:=,.......:~~=-t.c,_..A.~i"t~..Q,Q..... ti).e_..scw.t,h~R~~17._ J j n~ oi ~$'li rl +..rl'!(!+". northwesterly from the southwesterly corner thereof. And 'except southwesterly 25 feet measured at right angles to said southwesterly line i said tract. Together with an easement for road purposes over the easterly 8 fe~t of the first described exception. 40 ~. """ l '''''' AND That part of said Governruent Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, County, MirL~esota des~ribed as follows: Scc~t. i Eeginning at a point on' the northerly lin~ of Lot 48, 30UDIN'S ~~NOR, accordi~b . to the plat on file in the office of the Register of Deeds, Scott Count.!, Mirillesota, said point being 26.6 feet easterly of the northwest corner of sa~d Lot 48; thence northwesterly at right ~~gles to the north line, of Lot no. 48,;= distance of 33.0 feet to the northerly line of a 33.0 foot road to the point of beginning of the land herein to be described; thence North OS degrees 46 minut~~ West. a distance of 303.5 feet; thence North 65 degrees 40 minutes East ,C:. distance of 140.0 feet; thence South 10 degrees 24 ~inutes East a distance ~f 333.9 feet to the northerly line of the 33.0 foot road of said BOUDIN'S ~~NO'; thence South 79 degrees 45 minutes West along said northerly line a distance ~f 140.0 feet to "the point of beginning. ,,-, ,... 80 I '- ., "- :i:~ ....- 5 ; <t ~ 01"" o III S"~ c:>.o " ..., lr. C ~ "I 0 ....< 0''' Q ., c:>.j5 III " Ii: :I ...,C+ o t"" 1-0 l;'"" ::Vl III - ~0'55~"""" ..,0"" OQ ;tc+~;t~!:!~ 1.O:J....~c:>.r.5 CD....t:aI-)"C~ o.c.~ ("to.....OQ ell " "II> ::l S' 0 Q <i" II> ~ ....g~<i""" ,,~ ~.....:rc II> Q 01 " c:>. r.l e." ~"" J:>o'tl c:>. 0 ("'l0 C "'e. ....g....~ .. :I b :I 0 ..... ~c+c+0I~::> ::> III 0 ~g,~~!!!~:I li 0'. bl5.~g: ..DI c+C/l1ll " s;Q:l <i" ::> ::> Cl ~ c:>. J:>olt c:>. 0 ~~:;.?s"o~ ::> S" . ,",::r lI>oq::>C+Ill"~ Q ::r III '" .... c:>.g,Ill~""()'< :; oQc:>.g.... <i" g: .... '" '0 c:>. .... 5\1)V'5g.~; () V'.., ~ - C1l~....g:C+..g, o5.~.co:r~t"" ....::r<T~;0~ Vl~c+S"(ji:::- eQo::!, ,..a, v. 5" g:'< S!. ~ . c+CIlClo..O~ ;;>0::>""........:; oag.,CD<i".... !!"ellg:~~i== c+g-~ ~QIll:OC/l ::r0l.... ell:J: GlO'<lII~Cll> g ;1....cs ~ b"S Gli"5"~....S".:' W C/lQ.olll..... 0 g..O<i"....o~ ~ g:g:....o:J....g n Cll 1>>"= 0'"' 0 "'~wol!.c+:::: g VI III \.H It'"r~.g.---.-~.- \\ . .;/ )\ \L ~~~g-- , \ " "\ .\ \ fj. C'"> ::> .... ~ .... o z > c.~ ;g o < .... e t'l c C/l III Q "" .... o ::> \.01 c .... c ~ r.; ::r .... '0 ... ... VI :0 g oq <t N ... ....l' ~ m z n m Cl m C/) ~ o z ./ ...o~ t ~ m "/0 ~ >< <4. ~. J: ~ - +~ OJ ~ - ..... )> / / / / .../ "'4",,, // q,"'. .,,'4.' / ">' ,,' "..; "q q"".o #,,>../ .,0 UlUl ,~~ ~'i': _ ,CIl en, ~. :{'Q.. . 3:1 l, !a. .., . //,. / .// % I ~ ,~. ~ \~, \ ..~ ~ \:~~:~ ~ ' ~ . . .. ,~I"\ '\ \ ~\ . -:.' ~ 00 '-' t" \ ~ 0", ;. ~..\~.. . ,-:~ -:;:~:;;~"":, \ \. \ . \ \ \ ' \ \ .. \"2- "2- \.~~. -S\. ..... o-c:..P. '0\';'1"\ 0.... eo ':~\.. , '?l 'l> .. //:-1-"> /' ~..,~">") ~O ; / / .... a2fD7 .LO~.Jd jo ,(~~:J 96B :II :II :II =!> 0 r- W '" I Cij. 0 o 3: -I -HI) o 3:-1-1 en -" )>O:II -" - -I - O=E-. -c:o=E-. CO-CD )> .... ::T~=Eoc5 3: ::T;:;=Eoc5 e en ::!. ~ en o. )> CD -. =' ' _ c: CD -. =' ' _ .... c: (') -. - z .... I 11 CD a: .... I 11 CD CT CT c: .... 0- .... ell6t1l ' ell6t1l I tIl c: -eCD o. 0 en~c:3~ en~c:3~ =' .... C:en;a c: CD CT ;:; -< ~ ==~~3 CD en- :II tIl .... CD -. c: :II en~CD-<3 CD =' ~en~ .... )> '<en == en == en -0 ~ :D o 0'< CD 0 0'< 0: :II 0 en =E .... =E =EO 0: =E 0 CD CD CD :II CD ~=E ~=E en en CD CD =' 0: CD m == 5"~ =CD - =' ~ CD .... 0 - =' =' - < =' CO= ii). CO CO= . =' CD e ~ en c5 en =' . - en -; en <C ~ :II en . en en . m . 3: m .- z -I en )> .... ~~-" CD 3: ...... ...... ...... ..... -"(..)1\:)-" ......"'............ 000 tIl - ;5. ? (..)(..)1\:)1\:) OOC1lI\:)O) c.ntll ?I\:) tIl tIl tIl en -. 0"0"0"0"0 "0"0"0"0"0 - (') 00 (') (') (') ~ 3 0.... .... .... .... 00000 00000 OCD 00 CD CD CD c: 00000 00000 oen 00 en en en :=3 - r- 0 -" -" -" I\:) (..) :iE- c.n ""'0"'" (XI ...., 00"'" 0) (XI c.n (XI (XI (..) -. en 0. - 0 c.noc.n 0) c.n ooc.n 0 c.n 0 c.n 0) 0 _N ::rCD --, 1\:)1\:)1\:)1\:)1\:) I\:) I\:) 1\:)1\:)1\:) I\:) I\:) ~ c.nc.n p' -< "' } c.nc.nC1lc.nc.n c.n c.n C1Ic.nc.n c.n c.n 00 '., - ;atll .... 0- en :II~ I\:) I\:) 1\:)1\:) I\:) 1\:)1\:)1\:)1\:) I\:) 1\:)1\:) 1\:)1\:) (..) (..) CD CT c.n c.n c.nc.n c.n c.nc.nc.nc.n c.n c.nc.n c.nc.n 0 0 tIl tIl .... (') A . -" ..... ..... ...... ..... -" -" -" -" -" -" I\:) -" -" I\:) I\:) en? c.n c.nOOO c.n c.nc.no 0 c.n c.n 00 0 0 0:- CD (..)1\:)1\:) 001\:) ~~~ (..)1\:)1\:)1\:) 001\:)1\:) ~~~~ -"I\:) (XII\:) ~~ (')3: o tIl < )( CD -. .... 3 tIl c: cg 3 ...... ...... ...... ...... ~~~~ 0000 c.n~~~ c.nc.nc.nc.n (..)!JJ(..) c.nc.nc.n o I\:) c.n -" Z G> o .... 3 ~ ~ en -00 CD =E .... CD )>= (') =' -oCi)co e o e =' ;:;: en - ...... ...... ...... ...... ~~~~ 1\:)1\:)1\:)1\:) ....,....,....,...., 0000 ~~~ c.nc.nc.n ~ -17-9 ~ -17-9 5-5-11 . , G~-1Y (A) ) 5-5-11 SCREENING: Screening shall be required in residential zones where any off-street parking area contains more than six (6) parking spaces and is within thirty feet (30') of an adjoining residential lot line. (B) Where any business or industrial use (structure, parking or storage) is adjacent to property zoned or developed for residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a business or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but not on that side of a business or industry considered to be the front as determined by the Zoning Officer. (C) The screening required herein shall consist of a solid fence or wall not less than five feet (5') nor more than six feet (6') in height but shall not extend within fifteen feet (15') of any street or driveway opening into a street. The screening shall be placed along the property lines or in case of screening along a street, fifteen feet (15') from the street right of way with landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass and other plantings) between the screening and the pavement. Planting of a type approved by the Zoning Officer may also be required in addition to or in lieu of fencing. (D) Where planting is required a landscape plan shall be prepared including complete specifications for plant materials and other features. The Zoning Officer may issue a temporary zoning certificate for the principal building on a project before full completion of planting or fencing, if such items cannot be furnished at the same time as the building. Temporary zoning certificates shall be good for one year and shall not be renewable. As soon as the screening is completed, the temporary certificate may be cancelled and a permanent zoning certificate issued. If any portion of the required planting and fencing is not complete within one year, the Zoning Officer shall cause all use of the premises to be stopped. -, , ~ 1. '" J jo f :: , {-~ t l. J; .. ; . 1- .. . @ 695 ! t , J { In all districts, a fence six feet (6') high or shorter may be erected on the rear lot line, the side lot lines and return to the nearest front corner of the principal building. In residential districts, a fence not exceeding forty two inches (42") in height and having an opacity of not more than twenty five percent (25%) may be erected on the front lot line and the side lot lines forward of a line drawn across the front line of the principal building. Fences shall not be permitted in any right of way. Fences shall be constructed in a professional, aesthetically pleasing manner, be of substantial material and City of Prior Lake . , I I. j -, " 5-5-11 5-5-12 reasonably suited for the intended purpose. Every fence shall be maintained on both sides in a condition of good repair and shall not remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. (F) In all zoning districts, waste material, debris, refuse or garbage shall be kept in a container enclosed by a wall which is visually compatible with the principal building it serves. (G) Roof-mounted mechanical equipment installed on buildings shall be. screened from ground level observation at all points on adjacent streets or property. The screening must be visually compatible with the building it serves. (H) In all situations where fences are utilized, either optional or required that side of the fence considered to be the face (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face abutting property. (I) On corner lots in residential districts, no structure or planting in excess of one foot (1') above street centerline grade, except fences that meet the requirements of subsection 5-5-10(E) for front yard fences, shall be permitted within a triangular area defined as follows: beginning at the intersection of the projected property lines of two (2) intersecting streets, thence forty feet (40') along one property line, thence diagonally to a point forty feet (40') from the point of beginning on the other property line thence to the point of beginning. (Ord. 95-05, 3-20-95) } 1 . ~ ,. .i t j ~ * i 1 .. . .~ { \ \ ~~ ~.o/5'-t)r J~ B. Consider Approval of Request to Extend the Deadline for Submittal of a Final PUD Plan for the Eagle Creek Villas Assisted Living Facility Project in the Priorview PUD. Boyles: Current ordinance provides that a final plan must be submitted 120 days following approval to assure plats move forward. They already had one extension to final plan by May of 1998. Still working with them. Zoning ordinance would impact this. Staff recommends not granting an additional 120 day extension. Kedrowski: Is the petitioner aware of the staff opinion? He has to come back and resubmit either way? Kansier: Yes. The work he did was for storm water improvement. MOTION BY WUELLNER SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98- 117 DENYING EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTAL OF A FINAL PUD PLAN FOR THE EAGLE CREEK VILLAS ASSISTED LNING FACILITY PROJECT IN THE PRlORVIEW PUD. Kedrowski: How will the new zoning ordinance affect it? Kansier: They will need to do another PUD application. City concern is whether it will keep going. Rye: If something is in process and not approved it must get approval under the new ordinance. Schenck: If an application comes in tomorrow with a new PUD under the old ordinance, it must comply with new ordinance? R ve: If it were extended tonight his risk is whether he gets into the ground before the new ordinance takes effect. Kedrowski: There will be a fee regardless of zoning ordinance? Kansier: He is not ready to submit PUD. Mader: Does not serve a purpose to keep extending the deadline. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. 10. I NEW BUSINESS: A. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-XX Upholding a Decision of the Planning Commission Denying a Variance to Fence Height for John and Jeri Trulson on Property located at 14296 Rutgers Street. Bovles: The petitioner requested through his attorney a deferral to the October 19 Council meeting, given the lateness of the hour. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY PETERSEN TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 98-XX UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO FENCE HEIGHT FOR JOHN AND mRl MNI0S98.DOC 7 TRULSON ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14296 RUTGERS STREET TO OCTOBER 19 MEETING. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. B. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-113 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Car Wash at the Holiday Station Store. MOTION BY KEDROWSKI SECOND BY PETERSEN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98-113 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CAR WASH AT THE HOLIDAY STATION STORE. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. C. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-114 Approving the Preliminary Plat to be Known as Hillsbury Townhomes. MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98- 114 APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS HILLSBURY TOWNHOMES. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. D. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-115 Approving the Final Plat and Development Contractfor Hillsbury Townhomes. MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98- 115 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR HILLSBURY TOWNHOMES. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, Petersen, Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. E. Consider Approval of Resolution 98-116 Approving Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing on 1999 Improvement Projects. MOTION BY SCHENCK SECOND BY WUELLNER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 98- 116 APPROVING A FEASffiILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON 1999 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. MNIOS98.DOC 8 '. MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT OCTOBER 5, 1998 lOA STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98-XX TO UPHOLD A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE FORTY TWO INCH (42") MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT IN THE FRONT LOT SETBACK AREA FOR MR. & MRS. JOHN TRULSON ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14296 RUTGERS STREET. History: On August 6, 1998, the City received a complaint from a resident regarding the construction of a fence that exceeded forty two inches in height in the front yard setback area at 14296 Rutgers Street. Upon. inspection it was determined that the fence posts were already installed and the picket sections to be installed were over forty two inches and in violation of City Code 5-5-11(E): Screening. On August 17, 1998, Mr. & Mrs. Trulson submitted an application for a six inch variance to complete construction of an ornamental iron fence on their property. The fence posts are forty eight inches (48") in height and alternating fence pickets are forty six inches (46") and forty two and three quarters inches (42 & 3/4") in height. The current city code for residential districts does not allow fence height to exceed forty two inches (42") in the front lot setback area, requiring a six inch (6") variance. City Code Section 5-5-11 (E): Screening; (states in part) In residential districts, a fence not exceeding forty two inches (42'') in height and having an opacity of not more than twenty five percent (25%) may be erected on the front lot line and side lot lines forward of . a line drawn across the front line of the principal building (see attached Code 5-5-11-E). In this case, the principal structure is setback approximately one hundred and eighty three feet (183') from the front lot line (see attached site survey copy Exhibit A). Therefore, the district's minimum setback of twenty five feet (25') shall be considered the required front setback for this variance request (see attached City Code 5-4-1: Lot and Yard Requirements). 1:\98files\98var\98-1 06\981 06cc.doc 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER In addition, Mr. Trulson submitted fourteen (14) copies ofa petition letter composed by the applicant and distributed to their neighbors for response and opinions on the fence. All fourteen (14) letters submitted to the City are in favor of the fence at the existing height. On September 14, 1998, Mr. Trulson presented his request for the variance at the scheduled Planning Commission meeting. He argued that the industry standard for ornamental fence height is forty eight inches (48") and that a forty two inch (42") fence required a custom order. Also, the Commission should take into account that the top railing of the fence is thirty nine inches (39") and only the pickets and posts exceed the forty two inch height. The Planning Staff reviewed the variance application and determined that all four of the required variance hardship standards with respect to property had not been met. Upon reviewing the four hardship criteria, the Planning Commission concurred with staff s recommendation that there were no hardships or unique circumstances with respect to the property that warranted the granting of a variance. The Planning Commission denied the variance requests. On September 15, 1998, Mr. Trulson's Attorney, Bryce Huemoeller, submitted a notice to Planning Director Donald Rye appealing this decision to the City Council. Current Conditions: The fence is near completion but the owner has stopped construction on the remaining picket sections until a final determination is made regarding the variance request. The portion of fence at issue follows along the front lot line dimension of one hundred thirty nine point forty eight feet (139.48') and continues back along the side lot lines for twenty five feet (25'). The fence posts have already been installed in this area but the picket sections have not. The fence opacity is approximately fifteen percent (15%) which is less than the maximum allowed opacity of twenty five percent (25%). The portions offence completed along the remaining side and rear lot lines are in code compliance. The property is riparian and located within the Suburban Residential (R-l) and Shoreland District (SD). The Issues: The applicants have appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. The Council must now determine if it concurs with the Planning Commission's judgment to approve Resolution #98-24PC and deny the variance because the fence does not meet the four hardship criteria required to grant a variance. While the proposed zoning ordinance has amendments to address fence height interpretation, the granting of variances based on future ordinance changes is not justifiable under the hardship criteria as stated in the City Code. In addition, the proposed screening amendment 1:\98files\98var\98-1 06\981 06cc.doc 2 FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: 1:\98files\98var\98-1 06\981 06cc.doc addresses fence height as the average height of sections between the posts but the maximum fence height allowed remains at forty two inches (42"). The average height of picket sections for the ornamental iron fence is approximately forty four point thirty seven inches (44.37"). Conclusion: The petitioner argues that the ordinance is not practical because the manufacturers standard height for ornamental iron fence is 48 inches for posts and 423/4 inches to 46 inches for pickets. The top railing is only 39 inches with just the pickets above 42 inches. Also, to custom order the front section at a different height from the existing fence would be expensive and distracting in appearance. Although the fence provisions in the proposed zoning ordinance will address some of Mr. Trulson's concerns, we cannot issue a variance for a fence that does not meet current ordinances on the basis it will meet future ordinances. Mr. Trulson was not aware of the ordinance requirements in effect at the time he contracted to have the fence constructed. The Planning Commission and staff recommend denial of the variance on the basis the request does not meet all four of the hardship criteria required and the variance is unjustified with respect to he property. The granting of variances based on speculation of the proposed zoning ordinance does not comply with the current hardship criteria as set forth in City Code. There is no known fiscal impact if the variance is approved or denied. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Resolution 98-XX upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variances requested by the applicants. 2. Deny Resolution 98-XX and direct the staffto prepare a resolution overturning the decision of the Planning Commission and grant the requested variance. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. ernative #1, adoption of Resolution 98-XX t e Planning Commission denying the the 42 inch fence height requirement. 3 RESOLUTION 98-XX RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE FORTY TWO INCH (42") MAXIMUM ALLOWED FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT IN THE FRONT LOT SETBACK AREA FOR JOHN & JERIL YNN TRULSON ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14296 RUTGERS STREET MOTION BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on September 14, 1998, considered and denied a variance request by John & Jeri1ynn Trulson to waive the forty two inch (42") maximum allowed fence height requirement in the front lot setback area. WHEREAS, on October 5, 1998, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal, by John & Jeri1ynn Trulson, of the Planning Commission's denial of a request for a variance to waive the forty two inch (42") maximum allowed fence height requirement in the front lot setback area for the property legally described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the requested variances do not meet the standards for granting variances set forth in Section 5-6-6 (C, 1-4) of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE: FINDINGS 1. John & J erilynn Trulson have applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance, Code Section 5-5-11(E), in order to waive the requirement for a fence not to exceed forty two inches (42") in the front lot setback area, under construction on the property located at 14296 Rutgers Street, legally described on attached Exhibit A. 2. The Board of Adjustment reviewed the application for variances as contained in Case #98-106 and held hearings thereon, and denied the request on September 14, 1998. 3. Mr. & Mrs. Trulson appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 5-6-3 (A) of the City Code. 1:\98files\98var\98-106\rs98xxcc.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 4. The Prior Lake City Council considered this appeal on October 5, 1998. 5. The Prior Lake City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive Plan. 6. The City Council has determined the request does not meet all four of the variance hardship criteria. There are no unique circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was caused by the actions of the applicant through the design of the fence. There are no unique characteristics to the property, which would constitute a hardship. 7. The denial of the requested variance does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the ordinance as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances. 8. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. 9. The contents of Planning Case 98-106 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the City Council hereby: 1. Upholds the decision of the Planning Commission denying a variance to waive the fence height requirements for John & Jerilynn Trulson on the property located at 14296 Rutgers Street, legally described in Exhibit A, which exhibit is attached to this resolution. Passed and adopted this 5th day of October, 1998. YES NO Mader Kedrowski Petersen Schenck Wuellner Mader Kedrowski Petersen Schenck Wuellner {Seal} City Manager, City of Prior Lake 1:\98fi1es\98var\98-106\rs98xxcc.doc Page 2 P~~~~1iiY\ ~ CJ -t'f-Cllf Comments from the Public: Larry Gleason, operates a gymnastic school in Eagan where he resides. Mr. Gleason has many students from Prior Lake who would like to see a program in Prior Lake. He feels it is an excellent program for kids and sees no problem with traffic or parking. Stamson questioned the location of the Eagan school. Gleason said he has been in Eagan for about 22 years. The last five years the 20,000 square foot school has been in a warehouse. All gymnastic schools need a minimum of 18 feet for the apparatus used. Bev Rutz, 15691 Santee Circle, stated she totally supports Gleason's Gymnastic School program. She appreciates the Commissioners support for the youth of Prior Lake. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: Cramer: . Supported the original ordinance. . Agreed with the conditions in the staff report. V onhof: . Agreed with Cramer. . Is the building protected for fire? Tovar responded it was. . How many participants in the program at one time? Gleason said it is a class program. The bulk of the children are between the ages 5 to 10 with the maximum number at one time around 18. Stamson: . Concurred with Commissioners. MOTION BY YONHOF, SECOND BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Yote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. Kansier noted this item will go before the City Council on September 21, 1998. "7 D. Case #98-106 John and Jeri Trulson - requesting a variance to construct an ornamental iron fence at 48 inches on the property located at 14296 Rutgers Street. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated September 14, 1998 on file in the office of the City Planner. 1:\98fi1cs\98plcomm\pcmin\mn091498.doc 4 Staff concluded all the hardship criteria had not been met and the variance request for fence height is not substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot which the applicant has no control over. Comments from the Public: John Trulson, 14296 Rutgers Street, gave back ground on improving the fence. A fence has been in place for over 25 years and he is improving his yard. He received numerous comments and approval from his neighbors. Trulson explained the fencing is standard factory made and cut at a standard 4 foot length. The difference with a custom made fence is $60,000. It would be costly and inefficient to cut and repaint. The difference is 6 inches and if reduced will not look consistent with the rest of the fencing. He also pointed out the City has a solid 7 foot fence surrounding a lift station across the road. Trulson feels the fence is attractive, it doesn't hurt anyone, the neighborhood thinks it looks fine, the minor variance should be granted. He also explained the setbacks and setting. Liz Kapahn, 14329 Rutgers Street, has a 6 foot fence around the city sewer easement. She is supportive of the fence and felt it is attractive. Comments from the Commissioners: V onhof: . The fence is well below the standards. The request is only 4 inches. This seems pretty minor. Does not agree with the staff report. . The variance hardship criteria are met. . Another related issue is the platting of this lot. The nature of the neighborhood, particularly this street is substandard. Cramer: . Question to staff - What is the top of a fence definition? Kansier explained. . The top of the fence is 39 inches (the top bar) not the fence posts. . Does have a problem approving the variance with the hardship criteria. . The fence is appropriate but explained why he felt there are no hardships. Stamson: . Concurs with Cramer, it is an attractive fence. . It does not meet the ordinance or the State hardship criteria. . Height requirement is difficult to look at. A variance is not the way to solve the problem. V onhof: . Agreed it is a difficult standard. All variance situations are unique and one cannot compare. This situation is one that gets down to an issue of what is the top of the fence. . Does this situation fit the ordinance? It is a matter of interpretation. . The first hardship would be met. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm091498.doc s . A manufactured fence does not meet City requirements. . There was no intention to violate ordinance. . The fourth variance has also been met. . Question to staff - What powers does the Commissioners have with the interpretation? . Rye explained they have the authority to interpret the ordinance. . Suggest to deny the request and define what the top of a fence is. Cramer: . Agreed with V onhof. This is a very unique situation. . Why are the main posts not considered the top of fence? . Horsman explained the interpretation. Stamson: . It will be difficult to write an interpretation to make this fence qualify. Would the horizontal bars be the top of the fence or the ornamental part? Rye read the proposed fencing language in the new zoning ordinance. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY STAMSON, APPROVING RESOLUTION 98- 24PC DENYING A 6 INCH FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 INCH HEIGHT FENCE IN THE FRONT LOT SETBACK AREA IN PLACE OF THE 42 INCH HEIGHT ALLOWED. Vote taken signified ayes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND BY STAMSON, DIRECTING STAFF TO ADDRESS THE FENCE LANGUAGE INCLUDING ORNAMENTAL AND A DEFINITION OF FENCE HEIGHT. Mr. Trulson felt he met all the hardship criteria. An ordinance cannot be written for every situation in the City. He feels the government has this process to address issues that do not meet the ordinance and this is one of them. He pointed out numerous lake variances granted, where are the hardships? Trulson said he wants to be legal and do the right thing. Common sense is, this is a little variance. One way or the other, the fence will not get done this year. He will be patient and do nothing illegal. Cramer explained they agreed with Trulson, the fence issue is ridiculous but the Commission is bound to prove hardship to grant the variances. It is State Statute. Stamson said in the end they will find a way to construct the fence, a variance is not the way to do it. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1:\98filcs\98plcomm\pcmin\rrm091498.doc 6 PLANNING REPORT PRESENTER: REVIEWED BY: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 50 TO CONSIDER A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR JOHN & JERI TRULSON, CASE FILE #98-106 14296 RUTGERS STREET, PRIOR LAKE, SCOTT COUNTY, MN STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR YES -1L NO SEPTEMBER 14,1998 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: SITE: INTRODUCTION: The Planning Department received a variance application from John & Jeri Trulson proposing to complete construction of an ornamental iron fence at 14296 Rutgers Street. The fence posts are forty eight inches (48") high and alternating fence pickets are forty six (46") and forty two and three quarter inches (42 & 3/4") in height. The current City Code does not allow a fence to exceed forty two inches (42") in height along the front lot line or side lot lines in the front setback area. Therefore, the fence posts and alternating pickets exceed the maximum forty two inch (42") fence height ordinance, requiring a variance. Attached are pictures of the existing fence. The fence height along the remaining side and rear lot lines is in compliance with the City Code. DISCUSSION: The City Code for Screening: Sec. 5-5-11 (E); in part, In residential districts, a fence not exceeding forty two inches (42" in height and having an opacity of not more than twenty five percent (25%) may be erected on the front lot line and side lot lines forward of a line drawn across the front line of the principle building. Because of the unusual setback distance of approximately one hundred and eighty three feet (183') to the principle structure, the minimum setback of twenty five feet (25') for this district shall be considered the required front setback area (see attached City Code 5-4-1: Lot and Yard Requirements). L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-1 06\98-1 06PC.DOC 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The portion of fence at issue runs along the front lot line dimension of one hundred thirty nine point four eight feet (139.48') and continues back along the side lot lines to a minimum setback point of twenty five feet (25'). The fence posts are forty eight inches high (48") and the fence pickets alternate between forty six (46") and forty two and three quarter inches (42 & 3/4") in height. Therefore, a variance of six inches (6") is requested. The fence opacity is approximately fifteen percent (15%) which is less than the maximum allowable opacity of twenty five percent. The applicant does not own any of the adjacent parcels. The property is riparian and located within the Suburban Residential (R- 1) and the Shoreland District (SO). The legal description for the property at 14296 Rutgers Street, Prior Lake, MN : That part of Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows: (see attached lengthy metes and bounds description). Included with this report are fourteen (14) copies of a petition letter composed by the applicants and mailed to their neighbors for response and opinions on the fence. All fourteen (14) responses submitted to the Planning Dept. are in favor of the applicants fence as is and they feel the variance should be granted. VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship with respect to the property. This criteria applies to whether reasonable use can be made of the property if the Ordinance is literally enforced. The fence height requirement is not a condition of undue hardship with respect to the property. The construction of a forty two inch fence height is possible in this front setback area. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. There are no known circumstances unique to the property that apply to the fence height. L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-1 06\98-1 06PC.DOC Page 2 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions by persons presently having an interest in the property. Ordinance provisions do not appear to have caused a hardship in this case. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. The intent of the ordinance restricting fence height is to provide open space and to ensure that traffic views are unobstructive. The requested variance may not be contrary to this intent because the required opacity will be adhered to and the fence does not obstruct traffic view. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff has concluded that all of the hardship criteria have not been met and the variance request for fence height is not substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot which the applicant has no control over. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the variance requested by the applicant, or approve a variance the Planning Commission deems appropriate under the circumstances. 2. Table or continue discussion of the item for specific purpose. 3. Deny the application because the Planning Commission finds a lack of demonstrated hardship under the zoning code criteria. ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of the attached Resolution #98-24PC, denying the variance to fence height. L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-1 06\98-1 06PC.DOC Page 3 RESOLUTION 98-24PC A RESOLUTION DENYING A 6 INCH FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 INCH HEIGHT FENCE IN THE FRONT LOT SETBACK AREA IN PLACE OF THE 42 INCH HEIGHT ALLOWED. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Adjustment of the City of Prior Lake, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. John & Jeri Trulson applied for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the construction of a forty eight inch height fence on property located in the Suburban Residential District (R-l) and the Shoreland District (S-D) at the following location, to wit; 14296 Rutgers Street, legally described as That part of Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott County, Minnesota, described as follows; (see attached metes and bounds description). 2. The Board of Adjustment has reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case #98-106 and held hearings thereon September 14, 1998. 3. The Board of Adjustment has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variance on the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and on the surrounding property, it is possible to use the subject property in such a way that the proposed variance will not result in the impairment of an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, unreasonably increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, and danger to the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 5. The applicant has control over the fence design and height, such that the hardship created has been created by the applicant. Reasonable use of the property exists within the requirements of the City Code Section 5-5-11(E) Screening. \ \ 1:\98files\98var\98-106\re9824pc.doc 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 6. There are no justifiable hardship circumstances unique to the property that requires the granting of a variance. 7. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance will not serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship. The factors listed above allow for an alternative fence structure to be permitted without the variance. 8. The applicant has submitted copies of a written petition by the residents in the neighborhood stating their approval of the fence and support for the granting of the variance. 9. The contents of Planning Case 98-106 are hereby entered into and made a part of the public record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION Based upon the Findings set forth above, the Board of Adjustment hereby denies the following fence variance, as shown in attached Exhibit A (survey); 1. A six inch (6") variance to permit construction of a forty eight inch (48") height fence in the front setback area in place of the maximum forty two inch (42") height requirement. Adopted by the Board of Adjustment on September 14, 1998. Anthony Stamson, Chair ATTEST: Donald R. Rye, Planning Director 1:\98fiIes\98var\98-106\re9824pc.doc 2 ~~ .... - g 5i <t <'" "''C C III S-~ 0.0 <t ..., lr. C ~ " 0 ..... < crro (tl " 0.5 Dl <t rr. ::> ...,"" o '" ....0 ~.... ::1.>1 Cl . ?~~55~~tD ~~OP1f'1_o~ ":TC+S:~~r1""'" ~\.Od'-~&.~S ::- ~...... to ....-c ~ :;:0. icTot;~ <ll.... 0""" -: C':l 0 0 0 I' ~.~ t-)~~~C+ -=(DC+ _.....:r<<: ;.m;~~o.~ ~ .t-'O b: 0 r.. ~ 15 0\0 ...,g""~ ,f::)E"b" =2~ ;'............~~~o ~0.t-b:1ll::::> "....""CC ::....c+ ;l.~tT- b"o.<ng ;::c~"'....;:;:~::> c+",!:'"o..t-l"o.o ~~~r;.?~o~ ~ :3 ~ .. ~;- '" OIl ::> ;: III " " o 0 ft) I:D CD t-" l""I)o.~Cb:3.....Qc.c; .,.... ooo.g ,~CD("t'....,ft) o.t: ~e~ ~"g.....~ Cf'..... \>'01-- ~.....~~;.-o ~ ~~iO'";;:1-4) it 0 0. ro <t ro .0 '" """"::rC+lll!:;'O~ I.>I~C+~~:::- :;:~Q 0 ~N~'~ <':l . ..... c+~ 0',.0 ;:l\J1::>::r . t%l ~ ....CIlIOC7'OO :;>06.......,....5 S' g:~g~;l~~;:;1 ::> ~-p.ii~....mcn ~ ::r~g~....:~::;: ~ CCGlo,<llt~CQ> "'5 :1....~ ~ r;~ en Q.~cr.....-~~:::c 0 .0 e::>" .... .... . 0 ",cno.mlll III c+ ~g.'oc+::;'O() c+ (tl....~....oo.....g C':l m::rfDlltlDa:?2. g is "'-i ~ III .... co ,.... ::> \J1 ~r@,1i'---'-:;:'- i7. Cl ::::> .... ~ ":; ..; H tT.l 0 :z Z > c" n ":; tT.l ;%J c < 0 ..... 0 trl tT.l 0 r/:J ~ 0 Z en t:l " c+ .... o ;:l v c ..., ~ r.; ::r ..... '0 ...J, ... \J1 ,.// .-z o~ t'i --' //. // / //'+~ , ~'l / ,/' 0' ~ , / ,/ ... '" //; /, / , /' '/ ...} / / / ..... / /' '" ,()~ /0 ~ " s:< /../'0.. - ~ .9.1 / / / / G,'J\" ./~ (bG,. .\;'4.' / ~'''''G,' ,1</ ",G,:.o Q ..,.' / ~Q;; .,/ /00 .o~ 1. ~ ~o\~ ~~('\\ ",/ . .....'" ~.,. .... .- - /' ._ 333 34 :e~~S.,., 333 9, 3I"e: n1eos, 511048, d ed 510024 e: e <<l +~ UlUl CIlCll , '" '" ... . . "'~.. . .CIl en. :e' :f'e.. ' ~ Z I ;S ,'" \ot I \ '\, '" '-- ~ --", '0 i ~ ~. <: ~ m >< ::J: - tD - -I )> ... ... o . .. ;; , ~ i I I tI' ~ ~ .r"e0661~' " :t \J 9 ~ a~~ l ,~ s 1 0 0lltf001 3llS ~ .4- :;) -p GI ~ '"' -- ~ 3H.l ..-' ---- Z7 a'i10~ 00.:9 1q1'. ~ ,""I'" I..LL9 _ -'\ ~ ',- . !, - '"", '~ DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED, ~ That part of Government Lot 3. Section 30. Township 115. Range 21. Scott countJ. - Minnesota described as follows: t' t - . l Beginning at a point on the northerly line of Lot 48, BOUDIN'S MANOR, accord~ to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of DeedS in and for said County and State, said point being 26.6 feet easterly from tlle northwest corner of ~id Lot 48; thenoe northwesterly at right angl~s to .It: . north line of saidLcit 48, a distance of 33 feet -to the northerlyi'41e of'l.t,'-' , foot road to the point of ~ginning of the land herein to be dasol:'i:bed; th,,' . North 9 degrees 46 minuteaWea1k a distance ofi303-5.reet:i~~,.,S()'-1tn.:" degrees 40 minutes West a d).s'tance 0(- 81.6 feet; thenc;eSQ~~"'8?;':a&gi:~;.-' minutes. West a distanoe of' 9Q.5' -feet. 'to the shore ,of Pt-IO.eJ!!'-xei;' tl)" . southwesterly along said shore of Prior Lake, to its intersection."~tth a ie' drawn North 45 degrees 38 minutes West from a point on the northerly liner';, said 33 foot road in BOUDIN'S MANOR distant 41.1 fert.~ so. u. thwest.er.ly from.... '; point of beginning; thence South 45 degrees 38 minut,~ East to a po~t' on northerly line of said 33 foot road in BOUDIN'S 'i MAkJOR distant 41.1' f t J - .~ southwester 1.1 from the point of beginning; thence North' 79 degrees 45 minu. ",.. East along said line a distance of 41.1 feet to the point of beg1nniq.g. Exae t. that part of said tract lying southerly of a line drawn Crom a ,potntont easterly line of said tract 151.75 feet northerly from the southeast corn r 7",-,=-"",-,'~~";...to.A. -~~_ _OA-. tb..Ek -5QUtp~tR.rly. line_ of SF! in i:rFlni: ,:16.3...,5 northwesterly from the southwesterly corner thereof. And except southwesterly 25 feet measured at right angles to said southwesterly line r said tract. Together with an easement for road purposes over the easterly 8 fe~t of the first described exception. ~---- 40 !!!_" ~ ~+ ---------_____________ _. _ _.___ ____.______ __ C'~ LEGAL DESGRIPTIO~o" ~'" '. ~- i ,.,IN ~, I-O.T .- AND That part of said Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott 1 County, Mirmesota described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northerly line of Lot 48, 30UDIN'S ~illNOR, accordi~~ ,to the plat on file in the office of the Register of Deeds, Scott Counti, f1innesota, said point being 26.6 feet easterly of the northwest corner of sa~d Lot 48; thence northwesterly at right angles to the north line, of Lot no. 48, i~ distance of 33.0 feet to the northerly line of a 33.0 foot road to the point ~f beginning of the land herein to be described; thence North 09 degrees 46 minut~s West, a distance of 303.5 feet; thence North 65 degrees 40 minutes East:a distance of 140.0 feet; thence South 10 degrees 24 ~inutes East a distanceif 333.9 feet to the northerly line of the 33.0 foot road of said BOUDIN'S MAN ; thence South '19 degrees 45 minutes West along said northerly line a distance 'f , , 140.0 feet to the point of beginning. ~; . . 80 ~ I f 5-5-11 G~-1Y (A) 5-5-11 -SCREENING: Screening shall be required in residential zones where any off-street parking area contains more than six (6) parking spaces and is within thirty feet (30') of an adjoining residential lot line. (8) Where any business or industrial use (structure, parking or storage) is adjacent to property zoned or developed for residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a business or industry is across the street from a residential zone, but not on that side of a business or industry considered to be the front as determined by the Zoning Officer. (C) The screening required herein shall consist of a solid fence or wall not less than five feet (5') nor more than six feet (6') in height but shall not extend within fifteen feet (15') of any street or driveway opening into a street. The screening shall be placed along the property lines or in case of screening along a street, fifteen feet (15') from the street right of way with landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass and other plantings) between the screening and the pavement. Planting of a type approved by the Zoning Officer may also be required in addition to or in lieu of fencing. ~. ~' ~ ;; I i" i- t ;f ,.., ~, ~ i ~ i . 1 . ; (0) Where planting is required a landscape plan shall be prepared including complete specifications for plant materials and other features. The Zoning Officer may issue a temporary zoning certificate for the principal building on a project before full completion of planting or fencing, if such items cannot be furnished at the same time as the building. Temporary zoning certificates shall be good for one year and shall not be renewable. As soon as the screening is completed, the temporary certificate may be cancelled and a permanent zoning certificate issued. If any portion of the required planting and fencing is not complete within one year, the Zoning Officer shall cause all use of the premises to be stopped. @ 695 In all districts, a fence six feet (6') high or shorter may be erected on the rear lot line, the side lot lines and return to the nearest front corner of the principal building. In residential districts, a fence not exceeding forty two inches (42") in height and having an opacity of not more than twenty five percent (25%) may be erected on the front lot line and the side lot lines forward of a line drawn across the front line of the principal building. Fences shall not be permitted in any right of way. Fences shall be constructed in a professional, aesthetically pleasing manner, be of substantial material and City of Prior Lake 5-5-11 5-5-12 reasonably suited for the intended purpose. Every fence shall be maintained on both sides in a condition of good repair andshaUnot remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. (F) In all zoning districts, waste material, debris, refuse or garbage shall be kept in a container enclosed by a wall which is visually compatible with the principal building it serves. (G) Roof-mounted mechanical equipment installed on buildings shall be screened from ground level observation at all points on adjacent streets or property. The screening must be visually compatible with the building it serves. (H) In all situations where fences are utilized, either optional or required that side of the fence considered to be the face (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face abutting property. (I) On corner lots in residential districts, no structure or planting in excess of one foot (1') above street centerline grade, except fences that meet the requirements of subsection 5-5-10(E) for front yard fences, shall be permitted within a triangular area defined as follows: beginning at the intersection of the projected property lines of two (2) intersecting streets, thence forty feet (40') along one property line, thence diagonally to a point forty feet (40') from the point of beginning on the other property line thence to the point of beginning. (Ord. 95-05, 3-20-95) 5-5-12: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: " , ! (A) Intent: The provisions of this Section are intended to provide residential areas which can be developed with some modifications of the strict application of regulations of the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Residential Districts in accordance with the provisions and regulations contained herein. (8) Density: PUDs can be developed within a Residential District 'l!ith the overall population density or number of living units permitted to be constructed in general conformance with the provisions of the basic zoning district in which it is located. Higher density may be allowed than those permitted in each zoning district with the specific density determined by the Planning Commission and Council. Rather than strictly enforcing the concept of uniformity of housing types in each district, this provision will encourage: 695 City of Prior Lake 5-4-1 5-4-1 0 ~ c: 0 LOLOLO 0000 C\IC\IC\I C\I :J :J .,;.,;.,; ,...:,...:,...:,...: cxicxicxi IX) ClQ) a.. ..- ..- ..- ..- c: .... ._ 0 =< Q) .... 3: Q) Oil. (ij LO ---- 0 C\I 0 E r: 0 LO LOLO LO LO LO LO 0 0 0 0 a .... C') MM LO to to LO .,; -i .,; 'V .... a (!:) Z ..- ..- ..- ..- E Q) :] C) E ~ .x ~ as a ~O Q) -:2 ~en .. .lJJ:. o .... as as .c Q) (j)0: en ~ -\ >- 5 .... u. Q).s:::; N.:o Ci5~ - a -' E::- :]- E C- .- 0 c: - ~ as Q) < en I-- Z w ~ w 0: :J o w 0: o 0: <C >- o z < I-- o ....J - o .;:: - o o 896 t!-t!- t!-t!-t!-t!- t!-?ft.?ft. C\l1X) C\lC\IOO C\l00 C\I..- C\lC\IC\IC') C\lC\IC') ; 0 0 0 0 LO LO 0 OLO LO LO 0 OOLO LO C\I C\I ..- ..- C\I ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- 0 0 LOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLO LOLOLO LO LO C') C') C\IC\IC\IC\I C\IC\IC\IC\IC\I C\IC\IC\I C\I C\I 00 ~ LO LO LOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLO -~ LOLO C\I C\I C\IC\IC\IC\IC\I C\IC\IC\IC\IC\I CJ . opO''' 0 co LO 0 LO 0 LOOO LO co LOO LO 0 C') IX) IX) LO IX) co ""00 "" IX) ,,"0 "" LO C') C\I ..- ..- ..- 0 0 0 00 0 0 00000 00000 Q) Q) Q) 00 Q) 0 00000 00000 .... .... .... 00 .... 0 00000 00000 0 0 0 0 as as as N'LO as LO <oN'LOOO N'N'cr)cr)LO 0 0 0 "-"-C\I ..- ..-C\lC')..- ~,-,... ,... ..- 'V 'V --- (ij .... :] :: :] o 0;:: o Q) c: Q) o Q) .... a.. ~~~ - 0 :] ~:J:: -0....:] .0 Q) .2 Q) -E C, 0:0< .. .. (ij :;::; c: Q) -0 00 Q) 0: c: l\3 .c .... :] .c :] en .... o .. .. (ij :;::; c: Q) -0 00 Q) 0: Q) o g' 0 0 0- Cl g' =a5 oS 3:= Q) o ~ 3: >-0 0 = 0>- E~~= 0 as .- VI E Q) u.E:]as0 I as au.:J ~ LI; ~ .2.. .... Cla3:::~ oS 3: a ~ 0- enl--I--...::: o Cl 0 .S ~ Cl =a5 .S c: 3:= Q) o ~ 3: >-0 0 = 0>- E~:g= ~ ~E:]~0 . as~u.:J Q)u._. .... 0,0....:;::;Q) .S 3: ~ "3 -E enl--I--~O o Q) .. .. (ij :;::; c: Q) -0 .0 Q) 0: c: l\3 .c .... :J C\I ri: E :] ~ C? 0: < ..- <I: ..- . 0: City of Prior Lake PETITION LETTERS Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest ofthe fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46"). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & Jeri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can ::fu~d 1~ Signature 1%/6 If tf;rd~1Yl Address ~505 ~r~' ,Aa~l'J, 15/O?S-/7 ~ / / Date Comments; !i/lC'C ~{)ts !/Yd T ,iJ~~n )/MrlS #/M Tj~,.foI('S€ /J /4 /fd'5{1~/"1 "I-- /lfJ(J'Atr/;oa::( Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46"). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 1 SOlo. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because ofthe unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & Jeri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the plarming commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. From r T. 13~()j,JArJ Address ~~Gy 1If/f{fJoK V/lEw ~R./fll. (Y1jV.I Signature 13 ~ Date J>jZZ/'l.5' Comments; ilL) f~.. ol-{\-:X.. ci4 ~ ~~ II~, -r ~ ~ w<iA ~ ~ ~ a-JAA"'~~+ 1:&.~ -r~ II:) ~ ~..&; ~~~;'11Q;;~.-:i ~~'uiAJ~~.~~~~ I ~ ~'" .<Wl~ a.~.~'~~.-J;[~ ~~~~k~~(J~~, ~~) ~~ Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46"). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is finally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & Jeri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. From (Y1 /K€- oJ (ttv 0 I V 0 Y\. A r)l. Address J 43 LJ 10 R. t.) ./-o-ev ~ j Signature~~ 1/"", A~ <- (/~ Date f- ;;1.0-yg Comments; Yo lJ v fence I YoUV' era.. I-e , 4.ft d <jtPuv fJ yoperl-y a.re. a1"uf. &he. dYlly k u Cf, 0 ~ ItC/4-~~ /( t'/l lJ,Js ehttre netg-hbo.rhood. even. bttoucrh. '-foc.J d.v€h..'6 Y--"'"fht- ne'xt- clOoV to us) W<L- ?€'€..I /1: e~h4YtceS ~Uv pvopevfy vGLlt.le. COl1sf'delr,'rtif OVv llet'a-)l);JCV skresc:5c{)...-bQq-e teh,'rtJ ct J - J J , S-I t:'enc.e. /e~s- l-h.c~11 Js-/ 4arYl {)UV Pron~. elooV; 1/1. cuv ~o" 4- Y~hd a/le:r~II'1 J, w€ ,p/l J U. 4. ~"<tl/",Iy ,,/" \/tJ~ /-/ce ,....r: a...Vl~h..e ~vce:~ you 1;0 <:!-hancre 6hcc-/- beC<..u6-//vl h/lce ffla..JL-e rove evev,-/oYl€J SeeS" fl'-c-I-uves ot wl-ta.t Y6U h~ve -;/:-s- he4-Uf:l{v I ! Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46"). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & Jeri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. F= ~~lj~lLJ~ Signature ~ ~~k~~ Address )1-/359 ___foh/LJ i~--' ..)l- g jig /qg . Date Comments; I ~Ylct:~~~. {ljw , 7kVfiJ J-o m 1 ruuv yJw-pvzr<p ~ ?I7U/ a juQ. cu~~ og j/ b ~ X2etme ,c//lL --/v a-tUG oCtJ-U37lJ -+ )J - ~d. Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46"). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18010. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is finally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & Jeri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. ~ I From ':f6 (~e.l .{..., K i{Y 0' k.a-f'f Address 19 J--f/ j/-z:t (j() r SignatureCj.R-~ ~#~Date 2-;;.O-fJ If eft. fl.C:;. Comments; (hvc ~ ~.~. :zt ~ /Jo ~ 72> jkrH~ -ro ~. Lv--e ~ cnZ:r Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46"). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & JOO Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. From I<o~ &EJ<5:ct-f Address /t./-336 ~~S ST. Signa Date 9- Z~- 78" Comments; Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall ) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46"). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 184'10. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is finally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & Jeri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. From))(CIe~ J,4CK(6 !/tJ0t5/({~7e:-r1l Address S~~ff- DaW Coonn....; U ~ P- a- C Ah I- . ~... '-I;;. ..~~ ~~ ,,~tJ (/tJ ~ () J.Jf.36c; RUIfG~~ J7; IlJr ~. /?-tf6 - ~,:.::...<-,.....,., Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46"). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18<<'10. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & Jeri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. From I-.A 2... ~ s~_ecf)~ Address 143;}.. 9' ~t!A"S.9- fl~ Date 8" - I K -Cf3 '--- Comments; ~ --& r ~ ~.r pb wn-LL h~ ':'> fv;.:t '-fL ~ &cU IS" W ~ ~ ~ t;k; td ~ ~I.- ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ () ~ ~ OAL tN/sA. ~ Th har-. :Buf ~ ~ ~ oj. J",,~(h I !rfuD ill ~ @ O~ [g rR\' ;.:1 III II i '~ ( ~, I i I [\\ I AlJG 2 '1998 ; I i !: ". \ I .1 ; :111' V' ,U'uL : lJ ~n L___ Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than ISOla. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & Jeri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. h~c..m From Hc.~~. // Address 6S9 7 ff/9RR~~ f/i';t; A CH Sign Date A LO.~ I~J I ~ ~ F Corom ts; 'r/ ,-co _ r l\ / I-J ~ '1 ~ ce.... ,:s. 0......01 d- ~~~~-I- To 6 u..r 1> fi{ c::. p e.r--I1 . 7}f~ ::S 6- ffC.c:d (~OJ()~ ~~o\ rR~-r~t~"~/1 1J1s.f""-II~~ -R" c:.~ I't s,(~~~ .1 ~ _/~~~~ ~~\ ~ au, ~.sS~i- T~ "ft~ ~~/~~h~rt~~J _ u.3~- -S I.......~ '/ r~ c~..,., ~Y ti <>-1- "'f-t. "'- p )<>Jo" "+ G ~""-->..s ,...,) ~.l"\~ C7J - S7-/"I-i=f:' oJ""? A.t..;:...c;:. I' " t\ 'T iJ., ~IC~ ~Cl::::.""""'~"'<f ~f>p-.~~~l CS{:' +A~ \1 4 I?\ , ~ ~f!.. - 'J cs... r-, a....,.., C:.. -e [....II~ rn @ ~ 0 \\7 rn J~ 'Ii ! i I 11 r it j' i l/ } I .1 1 i '~/ t I i I!!\ I AUG 2 11998 JI \; :'. ~ ! i ~ '" :.\.\ :..' i! : ; ,",'! 1;! 1 l,,,) \~\ L_---.--.--J 0/ Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & JOO Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. From A Address 1~3~~ ~ ,d/?i Date dr /i/9;;/ Signature Comments; ,~,~.D, rn@~DW@,rN,f)\ I, "II ill I 'i i' :, ~ I ! i :\ \ i AUG 2 I 1998 ! I ; , ] \~\ L.h.... ' . Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than lSOIo. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & JOO Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. "om ,00 4~ Si_e !Ja~'^' Address / ~ 3;yq tJA tER.'5eci1e. ~~ A),e. Date A J? 18/ /qq<6 Comments; I. /I'VE.. d,RE(!..-!!t,/ I1f:B1O~ t:hE.. R.oAd r I~orn t.h ~ J::Rt..JJS()~"s And I u..JA~ J b I mpr~ssea '1 houJ 900d -t ~E f"€AJCE looks,. :r nAVE. no -Pre b ]e-rI\ C0: ~ k -t he. -fE-NeE. A r-. d l J ) " "T:..h;nk i-c Adds ~() ~he.- 1Je.,~hbo~kcod 0 rr'" r~::J (~>> r== fl !f D\ L5 ~"? L=; [! II ) r----.....- I~! ~ 2 11998 Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46"). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & leri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. From Y;~c;'L /l/~f/Vf r)(J Address IY;; 7 Y t(UWEI<. s Sr. Signmme J 1J ~ Date ~~II~7'f Comments; JLIP': ,A/c-Xr Dodi'- T= Tlf=~i..Sdr</5 01r5/ AI'--' D AM fL Elt5c-!::l L-t) f-rrl ~- /fP;fJ&M~~( ,.::- of 5 (1) c ') ~ ~ E-C--J H:-,vC~f) ~ J-- S,(2e:J;J c: (. Y tf ;;.-~- 04YI /"., 2 I'--f) ,-uIt 7 '1/~ l/fIJ< ( AtVC C-: ~(:~ .A pP(l"n~, t/;; ~ AUG 2 11998 Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46"). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is finally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & Jeri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. Fmm t:>A V lD SI rl,rR s~_eb~ ~ Address jL.\ 'Z I.R. 8 ~u.tje~ S + {..Ie Date 8 - LS -era Comments; AUG 2 I /998 ; August 19, 1998 We feel the fence on your property (14296 Rutgers Street) has been built in a very pleasing manner and will add property value to all of us in the neighborhood. We also feel the City of Prior Lake has very poor judgement as to what looks good, what looks bad and what is in the best interest of all parties involved. Any fence of any height can be appealing ifbuilt professionally and in good taste to your property and to your neighbors. A prime example of a fence of poor taste, and that degrades all of our property values and neighborhood is the fence installed at 14375 Waters edge Trail. The City of Prior Lake has accepted the fence constructed between 14375 Waters edge Trail and 14279 Rutgers Street. The fence is in poor condition, mismatched, broken and is an eye sore to our neighborhood. Another example of the city using poor judgment and allowing the disrepair is the fence and sheds of 14375 Watersedge lake property and~ La ~ violation of city ordinances, by being located within 3 feet of Waters edge Trail, also belonging to the same owner of 14375 Waters edge Trail. We all need to be responsible Citizens and follow city guidelines. However, the Prior Lake City ordinances are not the best possible solution... they are the worst solution that is still in their mind fair for everyone. The City of Prior Lake would be doing themselves a big favor if they would try to treat each case individually and with the respect of everyone and everything in mind. Maybe the city would be more inviting and more appealing as well as our neighborhood to future homeowners. Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 W' and the tallest is 46" ). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18%. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of thewlUsual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & Jeri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. From Address /'-1;). )<( R.J-t-e.o $" [1- 1(1- Cjv Signature Date Comments; Miscellaneous L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC Planning Case File No. -.J.j,. JOb Property Identification No. 33-Q30 -O'1S"-o City of Prior Lake LAND USE APPLICATION 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. / Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Phone (612) 447-4230, Fax (612) 447-4245 Type of Application: Brief description of proposed project (attach additional o Rezoning, from (present zonine;) to (proposed zoning) o Amendment to City Code, Compo Plan or City Ordinance o Subdivision of Land o Administrative Subdivision o Conditional Use Permit sheets/~at~ if d~~) -1 I ~/I/5 It 'h/lHfeAtTd.. 9- e JVt!.P I/lOIU ISZI Variance o Other: Applicable Ordinance Section(s): (!..,-f-y (ode $- S' ..../1 f -rRU/S()N Sf- Work Phone: 9/-0 5. Applicant(s): Johrv t JeR.; Address: 11.f~ q, (R ui-!- e~ 5- Home Phone: .tj. L./S -- ~ lf3/ Property Owner(s) [If different from Applicants]: Address: Home Phone: Work Phone: Type of Ownership: Fee ~ Contract for Deed _ Purchase Agreement Le;al Description of Property (Attach a copy ifthere is not enough space on this sheet): ff(re~lv 1:0 tr;;S'93t1t>7/tl ANL I?OlS9..:?o07StJ / To the best of my knowledge the information provided in this application and other material submitted is correct. In addition, I have re the relevant sections of the Prior Lake Ordinance and procedural guidelines, and understand that 'ons will e processed until deemed complete by the Planning Director or assignee. ~-/3-?rs Date "1s --13-9g Date THIS SPACE TO BE FILLED IN BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL APPROVED APPROVED DENIED DENIED DATE OF HEARING DATE OF HEARING CONDITIONS: Signature of Planning Director or Designee lu-app2.doc Date Dear neighbors, The city of Prior Lake received a complaint from one of our neighbors about our new fence. According to the city code, our fence is a little too tall across out frontage on Rutgers Street. The code says it can't be over 42" tall in the front 30 feet of our lot. We meet all the other requirements (the rest of the fence can be 72" tall) Our fence is considered a 48" fence (the upright pickets are staggered, the short ones are 42 %" and the tallest is 46"). The front part of our fence can't be over 25% opacity, the fence is less than 18610. ' We ordered this fence on May 18th 1998 and it is fmally all made and portions are installed. The way the fence is built, it can't be cut down, so we would have to have the part of the fence in question all remade and the posts redone. Because of the unusual shape and size of our property' we feel we must try to get this variance to make the fence look proper from all directions. We hope you will agree with us. We will be going on vacation so we are mailing this to you rather than visiting you in person because time is essential. We have enclosed a letter of petition and a return envelope. We hope you will fill it out for us and mail it back with your comments and signatures. Sincerely, John & Jeri Trulson To the City of Prior Lake, I have seen John and Jeri Trulson's fence at 14296 Rutgers Street and have no problem with the looks or height of the fence and feel the planning commission should approve the variance so that the fence can be all the same height. From Address Signature Date Comments; ".~, RECEIPT# 32486 DATE: ~I 1/- CJD' --- dollars $ 15Z),tJ'> &K-W ~J2w1-- Receipt Clerk for the City of Prior Lake BUILDING PERMIT # BUILDING PERMIT # .~ JOHN W. OR JERI TRULSON ! ___ _ fl 14296 RUTGERS ST. PH. 445-8431 PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 75;1~050 &. ~ In j ~i' 2091957 ~ ~ ..n-9? $/SO~ ~ &'I~''''''' ~s::e~:~:'~- LlJ O$lSonbad<. il 01 '\ ~ !I eposit Fee :.Jl(!5T!fJi ?~ // t'i (' ~'" \~~ ~\ t, ,- , ... .---.,-.- ~ ~\ -- '" ~ ,/'/ ~ -- ~\ -< ~ r" r-<")...... , p, ill f-'. "g,~<+ o :0- <+ Cil ill ro <+ ::> ::> fu~P'g (j) 0 <+ ... "',,;::r g: Ul r; ~ <1l ill ro i-' 5 :=;: g "" ro r; i-' 1 10 0.. 1-" J P S. 1-" ~ J g ;:l ::; <+<+<+0 ,.::J ::r t-+J ~gro" -~~. ~ ~ - ~ Otl ~:-l'- :t~\g'"CD ill 0', 0 g; ('"t t-IJ c:: f1~c+i=:: ~J;j' ~ g "= 1;:1: (l) ::c (fJ ~!\)~Jgs; 'p c+ \oJ. 2: ~_-tr4- ~ m 0 ;~~l:'g-? > OJ ~ r; po )<+~g,o ~ 0 0 g I'W S I:J r; Iii}" <+,~ if. >l~mFft'€a ' . ~~. ~~~~"E' <i 8~ .~ , "'4(( .o~~(( J ' ,0 Q \ ___,~(...~ Y',t \ ~O~t... Ou> ~.I- -t- <, ?~~~(f' "'",-" -<\ :',,) \ "'.~ \ r~~'. 01(~ "'~ '" ';). ,-,\\, ~O'e-;;' ..i \\ ,!-, ... .. ~ " y/ .. . .. ' iI'-'" .-.." .~. i.o~'76\...'?-J Il' ~.:"'~:. ~ " ."-> i" -, · I j~ ,'~p, i\; " 'I 1,1' ,,". ~:. I ' ",,' i I....'" " (<\1- ! ? _ .~~<\o" ~ ~:' '~ \ 1. 0. i, ~ I - . ~:; .&' (' - c.' , , ! ;2.2',"~':if7~:'t:j,'" "'~l'-\-Y \: .'" zO' ..'~ .' .J--"< . c-----, ,/r-- 0 ,Y, 0,''''''''_ _ ,,Jo ,., ,... /' "f" ",,,,, "". ---- ~ ,., \ 't' ~ ",' /._ .........-_ __ -;o.~. , _' ,0'" ....'_ / ____ Je--, ____ ." '0' ,. . ....."",,- /--_. _ . ~ ' ,.- " __--~\911.20'Z6''W"'ebs. // ~":. '%. ~ \ '\ ", \-~ ~,~-' " ,,/ ',' . . \ -, '~ " .' . '" 0 \ ' " \ \ ':,i't \ \ t \ 'r.'ll-. cQ'~' ~:T" ~ 'I _z ~~&..-' _----- -o~~- _ '01J,,1" If --;Z"" ~ ~~~\ ,,\ ~ ~ II'" " '?> 0. \"p\ 'il ~v1.\ \j'l' \ ~.\U " " (' .\ yC;o '", r 0' r-- 1-'0 r<+ :;:: \>l m .... (fJ ill () <+ f-" o ::> v c H ~' (;j :0- f-'. "" '-'" x 8 cS IT N -' en () o <+ <+ (') o 5 (,. '" --'" - / ..90 '9 -:;:-"), - 'S S"y Y-1-: ~ // / / / (J)Ul "'''' ",:N c;\'j;i .,. __(t) "',i' ::-I,Cl. ~I~ i "" V> g / z / / I g 1,-" I 1'--'--1 \ ... ," '. '0 '---- '- \" 3: co U'iVl-',-' o ~......(Jl ~;l~~t \8:::i~\ A11l~ (, \\1II~ \\ i~\ \ \tT\tT\ -\:xl 1 U) / -- _ _- 333 34 ;~~S 333,9, 31"" oleOS, 511048 0- 510.24' e: deed t NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE: A VARIANCE TO ERECT A 48 INCH HEIGHT ORNAMENTAL IRON FENCE IN THE FRONT LOT SETBACK AREA WHERE FENCES SHALL NOT EXCEED 42 INCH HEIGHT. ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-1 (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT AND THE S-D (SHORELAND) DISTRICT, AT 14296 RUTGERS STREET, PRIOR LAKE, SCOTT COUNTY, MN, 55372. You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a hearing at Prior Lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE (Southwest of the intersection ofC.R. 21 and Fish Point Road), on: Monday, SEPTEMBER 14, 1998, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. APPLICANTS: JOHN & JERI TRULSON 14296 RUTGERS STREET PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 PROPERTY OWNERS: Same SUBJECT SITE: Legally described as that part of Government Lot 3, Sec. 30, TWP 115, Range 21, Scott County, MN (see attached metes & bounds description). REQUEST: The applicant is intending to construct an ornamental iron fence at a 48" height, verses the allowed 42 inch height, in the front lot setback area. The proposed fence will meet all other setbacks and ordinances. The Planning Commission will review the proposed construction and requested variance against the following criteria found in the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would result iu undue hardship with respect to the property. 2. Such unnecessary hardship results because of circumstances unique to the property. 3. The hardship is caused by provisions of the Ordinance and is not the result of actions of persons presently having an interest in the property. 4. The variance observes the spirit and intent of this Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest. 16200 b~~~~h~~~~~~~FW3r\i~~e~9t1~~<t&a 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER If you are interested in this issue, you should attend the hearing. Questions related to this hearing should be directed to the Prior Lake Planning Department by calling 447-4230 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Planning Commission will accept oral and/or written comments. Oral or written comments should relate to how the proposed construction and requested variances are or are not consistent with the above-listed criteria. Prior Lake Planning Commission Date Mailed: August 11, 1998 L:\98FILES\98V AR\98-1 06\98-1 06PN .DOC 2 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL COUNTY OF SCOTT ) )ss STATE OF MlNNESOTA) ~ M~ of the Ci~fP,riorLake Minnesota, being duly sworn, says on the n.et day of 1998, she serv~ the attached list of persons to have an interest in the ~ n '-tR --:f..ruJ fiJY\ V CUll ~ , by mailing to them a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope, postage prepaid, and be depositing same in the post office at Prior Lake, Minnesota, the last known address of the parties. r Subscribed and sworn to be this day of . 1998. NOTARYPUBLIC ",. MAILAFFD.DOC PAGS N //2 COUNTY SEC. 30 T. //5 R 2/ ~o. THE HARBOR 6TH 42 THE HARBOR 4TH ,. ST. ROAO ;{ j- Cj 30 ~ / / i.P - 0 >0029' F/ 0 ~ fj {JrI'rf' ttLk'r f'10 LLt- \...01 \..f:I.\C..~ ~ 11 . BO~DrN's MANOR LOT OAK AND .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * >-:3 01Il 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * III (Xl~ f-I W W f-I tv 0 tv f-I 0 tv f-I f-I tv tv 0 0 * ~ .......(1 f-I W W I W -J 0 -J I W 0 -JI II> II> I -J -J I (Xl (Xl * f-I II> -J -J I 1.11 W 0 W I 1.11 0 WI f-I f-I I -J -J I 1.11 1.11* III f-I>-:3 (Xl W W I f-I tv 10 tv I f-I 10 tvl II> II> I (Xl (Xl I f-I f-I* '< .......Ill W II> II> I tv f-I 0 f-I I tv 0 f-I -J -J I <7\ <7\ I 0 0* Cll f-I>< I I I I * Ii 10 'tJ II:: 'tJ I (1 II:: l.>:l 'tJ1 (1 l.>:l 'tJ II:: 'tJ I II:: 'tJ I II:: 'tJ* 1Off.l ~ ff.l ~ I ~ ff.l ff.l ~I ~ C/l ~ ff.l ~ I ff.l ~ I ff.l ~* (Xl'< H >-:3 H I >-:3 (1 HI (1 H >-:3 H I >-:3 H I >-:3 H* 1JI I I I I * rt 'tJ<7\~ 'tJf-I~'tJf-I~1 ~'tJH'tJf-Il.>:lff.lff.l'tJf-Il.>:l1 ~'tJHff.lff.l'tJf-Il.>:l 'tJf-I~'tJf-I~1 'tJf-Ig'tJf-Itl I 'tJf-I~'tJf-Il.>:l* Z f-ICll ~1J1 ~II>:J>'~II>:J>'I :J>'0~~1I>~l.>:ll.>:l~1I>~1:J>'0~l.>:ll.>:l~1I>~ ~1I>0~1I>01 ~II> ~II>O I ~II> ~II>~* III wS HIO~ HW~HW~' ~ <:HWHl.>:l~HWHI~ <:l.>:l~HWH HWIIlHwlIl1 HwClHWCl I Htv Htv * S Of-l Otv Otv I ~IIlHOtv~ Otv~I~IIlH Otv~ 01J1l.>:l01J1l.>:l1 011> GlOII>Gl I O-J~O-J~* Cll f-I ~ 0 ~1J1l.>:l~IJ1l.>:l1 :J>'OZ~IO~~ ~IO~':J>'OZ~ ~IO~ ~IO~~IO~I ~IO~~IO~ I ~IO ~IO * 1.11 ~~~ I >-:3~ H>-:3 I >-:3~ H>-:3 >-:3 >-:31 :J>' :J>' I ~ ~ * R'> ~~(1~~(11 :J>' l.>:l~~l.>:l~0~~l.>:l1:J>' l.>:l~0~~l.>:l ~~ ~~ I~~ff.l~~ff.l I ~~ ~~ * 0 :J>'~ :J>'~ I f-I :J>'~>-:3l.>:l ~~>-:31 f-I l.>:l :J>'~>-:3 :J>':J>'~~:J>'~I:J>':J>' :J>':J>' I ~~tl~~tl: 5: II> ~1Il:J>' ~ R'>~ R'>I ~II>R'>~ II:::J>' II::I~II>R'>:J>'~ 1I::1~>-:3 >-:3 1~>-:3:J>'~>-:3:J>' I l.>:l0 l.>:lGl l.>:lGl I 10 l.>:lGl l.>:lGl I \0 l.>:lGl 1l.>:ll.>:lR'>l.>:ll.>:lR'>Il.>:ll.>:l l.>:ll.>:l I l.>:lGl~l.>:lGl~* P. ~R'> l.>:l1Il l.>:l1Il1 ~ l.>:l~ tl l.>:l~ I ~ tl l.>:l~ I ~ ~ I ~~ ~~ I l.>:l l.>:l * Ii ~1Ill:..i ~~l.>:l~~l.>:ll I ~~Gl~~Gl* Cll ff.l<: ff.l<:1 1.11 ~~'tJ ~~~'tJ:1J1 ~~~'tJ:~~~~~~:~~~~~~ I ff.lff.l ff.lff.l* 1JI l.>:l0 l.>:l l.>:ll 1.11 H :J>' ~ :J>'11J1 H ~ :J>'I tl tl I tl tl I :J>'~ :J>'~: 1JI :J>'~ C/l~ C/l~1 W l.>:l ff.l@ l.>:l C/l@ I W l.>:l l.>:l C/l@ I Gl~ Gl~ I GlGl GlGl I 1J1(1l.>:l 1J1>-:3~IJ1>-:3~1 10 ~1J1>-:3 ~1J1>-:3 110 ~ ~1J1>-:3 11J1l.>:l 1J1l.>:l 11J1l.>:l~IJ1l.>:l~ I 1J1<:l.>:lIJ1<:l.>:l* ~II::~ 1.11 ~1J1 ~I f-I 1.11 l.>:l1J1 I f-I l.>:l1J1 11.11 IIlIJ1 IIlIIJ1 l.>:l1J1 l.>:l I IJ1l.>:lHIJ1l.>:lH* wZ wZ I ~wZ ~WZ I ~ ~WZ W>-:3 W>-:3 W>-:3ZW>-:3Z I W >-:3W >-:3* -J -Jl.>:lIIl-Jl.>:l1Il1 -Jl.>:l -Jl.>:l I -Jl.>:l -J~:S:-J~:S: -J~ -J~ I -JZ -JZ * tv :s: tv tv I IIltv tv I III tv tv Htv H tv~ tv~ I tvl.>:l tvl.>:l * ~ ~I l.>:l ~ I l.>:l ~ H~ H~ I * ff.l ~ ~: ~ I ~ ~~ ~~ Z Z I * ~ Gl tl I Gl tl l.>:l l.>:l l.>:l l.>:l I * C/l ~ I ff.l ~ Z~ Z~ I * Gl GlI ~ l.>:l I ~ l.>:l l.>:l l.>:l I * 'tJ ~ ~ ff.l I ff.l I * l.>:l l.>:l l.>:l ff.l I l.>:l ff.l I * Z Z ~ I ~ I * I I I I I I tv tv tv I tv tv tv I tv tl 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 I 0 f-'- f-I f-I f-I I f-I f-I f-I I f-I 1JI W W W I W W W I W rt I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 Z (Xl (Xl (Xl (Xl (Xl (Xl I (Xl >-:3 III 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 ....... i3 0 0 0 0 01 0 I 0 (1 11l I I I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 ff.l 5: -J -J I -J -J I -J -J I -J ('l f-I f-I I f-I f-I I f-I f-I I f-I =r P- 10 10 I 10 10 I 10 10 I 10 Ii I I I 11l I I I 1JI 1.11 1.111 1.11 1.111 1.11 1.11 I 1.11 ff.l 1JI 0 01 0 01 0 0 I 0 'tl 10 10 10 101 10 10 I 10 f-I ~ I I 11l 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 ff.l LQ WI W W W I W W I W 'tl III tv tv tv tv I tvl tv I tv tv I-' I I I f-I f-I f-I f-I I f-II f-I I f-I ff.l :s: <7\ <7\ <7\1 <7\ I <7\1 <7\ I <7\ 'tl 0 II> II> 11>1 II> I 11>1 II> I II> W P- I I I I 11l 1.11 1.11 1.111 1.111 1.111 1.11 1.11 ff.l I-' 0 0 01 01 01 0 0 'tl 11l 1.11 1.111 1.111 1.111 1.111 1.11 1.11 II> Ii I I I 1.11 1.11 1.111 1.111 1.11 I 1.11 1.11 ff.l 0 0 01 01 0 I 0 0 'tl -J -J -JI -JI -J I -J -J 1.11 I I I I I I ff.l I I I 'tl I I I <7\ I I I I I I ff.l I I I 'tl I I I -J I I I I I I ff.l I I 'tl I I (Xl I I I I ff.l I I 'tl I I 10 f-I f-I f-I f-I f-I f-I f-I ~ 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Cll 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 III 101 10 \0 10 10 10 10 Ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~tv ~lIltv ~lIltv ~lIltv ~lIltv ~lIltv ~lIltv 'tJ o 1.11 001.11 001.11 001.11 001.11 001.11 001.11 III >-:3C/l >-:3 tv >-:3@f-I >-:3@f-I >-:3@f-I >-:3@f-I >-:3@f-I >-:3@f-I Ii :J>'(1 I <7\ I f-I I f-I I f-II I f-I I f-I I f-I 0 100 oOW OHIO OHIO OH\D1 OHIO OHIO OHIO Cll ~~ f-I~O IJ1Z0 II>ZOI II>ZOI II>ZO II>ZO II>ZO I-' tv f-I 0-11> 10 - II> I (Xl - II> I IJ1-W -J -W II> - f-I ~ IIltv ff.lW ff.ltvl ff.lf-ll ff.l(Xl ff.l(Xl ff.ltv '**' (1 ~~O 0 01 01 f-I 0 tv ~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ 0(1 I I (1 II:: I I ~ ~~ I I 0 Cll ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ LQ I I I III 'tJ otl I I I-' 0 f-IZ I I ff.l I I >-:3 .., I I I II:: I I (1 l.>:l I I 0 I I ~~ I I I I Gll.>:l I I l.>:l~ I I C/l C/l I I rt H I I III ~ I I rt I I ~ f-I I I 1JI o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~I W WI tv tv o 0 I W WI In In ~ ~I 10 101 W W a\ a\1 W WI 0 0 I I :I: I'd I :I: I'd I :I: I'd 00 ::0 I 00 ::0 I 00 ::0 1-3 HI 1-3 HI 1-3 H I 1 I'da\~I'da\~'I'da\~I'da\~1I'da\0l'da\0 ~ln ::Oln l::Olnl~lnl'::OlnO::OlnO H~ H~ IHIO HIO IHIOZHIOZ Oln~Oln~IO~ O~ 10ln~Oln~ ::0 ~::o ~I::O ::0 1::0 t<::o t<1 ~~::O~~::O:~~ ~~ :~~O~~O: ~!ii ~!ii 1~!ii::e:~!ii::e:I~!iiR'>~!iiR'>1 ~~Q~~Q ~~ ~~ I~~ ~~ I ~O::o~O::o ~OR'>~OR'> ~OOO~OOOI ::00::00 ::0 ::0 ::o~ ::O~I ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~e~~e: ~~ ~~ ~Z ~Z ~~ ~~' ln~ ln~ lnnQln~Q lnn ln~ : In:I: In:I: In:I: In:I: In:I:~ln:I:~1 W W W ~W ~ W OW 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~I tv tv tv Ztv Z tv ~tv ~I H H ~ ~I n n 1-3 1-31 :I: :I: 8 1-31 o 0 I ~ ~ 1-3 1-31 00 001 ~ ~: 00 001 8 81 o o tv ~ ~ ~ tv 0100 o W 0 tv In tv ~ 0 ~I ~ tv ~I ~ In ~I 10 ~ 101 I :I: ~ I'd I 00 00 ::01 1-3 n HI I I'da\8OOa\8QI'da\8 ::OlnOl-3tv~. ~lnO H~~' In ~H~~ O~ . O~ ::0 ::e:~~oon::o ::e: ~~~2!ii~~~~~ ~!ii~H><~H~!ii~ ~~HOO<:::OI-3~~H ~O HH~~O ::0 ~~nt< ::0 ~~ Of;;~ ~~ ~ 1-3 ~ ~ a\n~ ~ lnn W~:x: lnn In::C: ~ In:I: W ~ 00 W ~ ~~~ ~ tv ::0::0 tv <: OH ::on .~ I'd ::0 H a\Coj lnO ~~ ~: ~~ 0<: ~~ ::0 ~~ ~>< n~1 ::c: I'd :I: H ~ ~ H ~ ~ Z tv o ~ W o ~I o o o ~ ~ 10 In o 10 o W tv I ~I a\1 ~I I lnl 01 lnl I lnl 01 ~I ~ 10 10 10 ::0 ~~ ~a\ OW ::00 ~ ~~ ~o ~ n :I: ::0 ~~tv o In 1-3 tv I~a\ oOW ~::OO ~ ~ ~~ ~~o ~~ on n:I: ~~ 00 ~Z 8 :I: ~ ~ ~ 8 :I: ~ tv o ~ W o ~ o o tv o ~ W o ~ 01 01 I 01 ~I ~I 101 I I lnl 01 101 I 01 WI tvl I ~I a\1 ~I I lnl 01 lnl I lnl 01 ~I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I ~I 101 101 101 I ::01 S~~: 8!iitvl 1~a\1 OOWI ~::OOI a\ ~I ~a\1 ~l.>l01 ~~ I on I n:I: I ~ I I ~ I 00 I 00 I ~Z I - I 1-3 1 :I: I ~ I I I I I I I I 1 I I o ~ ~ 10 In o 10 o W tv ~ a\ ~ In o In In o ~ ~ 10 10 10 tv o ~ W o ~ o o o ~ ~ 10 In o 10 o W tv ~ a\ ~ In' 01 lnl I lnl 01 ~I I I 1 , I I I I I I I I I ~ 10 10 10 ::0 ~~tv o In 8 tv I~a\ oOW ~::OO In ~ ~ln ~~Ol on n:I: ~~ 00 ~Z 1-3 :I: ~ ::0 ~~tv o In 1-3 tv I~a\ oOW ~::OO ~ ~ ~~ ~~O ~~ on n:I: ~~ 00 ~Z 8 :I: ~ 0... 1-3 0... ~ ~: ~ tv... ~ 0... '< ~... 11l ... ti :I: ~ I'd ... 00 00 ::0'" 1-3 n H'" ... ~::e:Z~~::OO~I'd~Z~::e:Z~~::O'" ZH::OH 0~1-3' ~OZH::OH 0... Q~ 001-3000080 ::OQ~ 00800'" ~8OO:I::I:OO Z. ::e:~8OO:I::I:OO'" ~oo~O~ ~.. ..~~oo~O~ ... :I:t<I'd 000 ~ 00 :I:t<I'd 00... HHoon H 0 8 HHoon ... ::OOOI-3::OR'>Z~:X:~ ::OOOI-3::OR'>'" ~~OO ~H ~~ ~~Oo ... qZ~~to~108~ qZ~~'" ::O~8 t"W::c:~ ::O~I-3'" >< H o~n >< ... ><~::C:IO~1-3 ><... o ~::o ... to n ~ ZO 00 n... I'd OlnO Z I'd 0'" In ~OH CojH In ~... ~ ::e:wZq. n ~ ::e:... o HOQZ 0 H'" ~ t"a\ H::08 ~ ~... t"101-3~~ ~... IO~ OO:X: ... a\I'd~H ... o~~ZOO ... 1O::Oa\O~ ... 80::e:::o ... ~ H<: ... ~ nH ... ~ :I:~ o o o tv tv o ~ 10 ~ In o o o tv tv o ~ W o ~ o o o ~ ~ 10 In o 10 o W tv ~ a\ ~ In o In In o ~I I I I I I I I I , , I I I I I I 1 ~, 10 10 10 ::0 t"~tv o In 1-3 tv I ~.a\ oo.w ~~.O W ~ ~W ~~b ~~ on n:I: ~~ 00: ~Z 8' :I: ~ tv o ~ W o ~ o o o ~ ~ 10 In o 10 o W tv ~ a\ ~ In o In In o ~ ~ 10 10 10 .;: Z ~ 11l O~ ~::o ___n ~ ~1-3 ---~ ~>< 10 1000 ~'< III rt ~11l we ~ In o ~ . . R'> ~ P. ti 11l III III o ..... III rt Z 8 ~ --- e n 11l 00 () ::r ~ p. p.. ti 11l III III 00 'tl ~ ~ 11l 00 ~ 'tl ~ tv i-' 00 ~ "C 0 W p.. 11l 00 i-' "C 11l ~ ti to "C In 00 "C a\ 00 "C ~ 00 "C ~ 00 "C 10 >< 11l ~ ti ~ I'd ~ ti () 11l i-' =II: 1-300 ~n 100 01-3 ~1-3 ~ ; 1 I'd o 00 1-3 I n o ~~ Q~ ~::o 00 H ~ tv ~ 11l ~ ~ i-' 00 rt ~ rt r:: III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID ... ~ otc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I\) ... llJ 0>::0 aI aI aI 0 0 W W I\) I\) W W W I\) \11 ... ~ -.....() 0 0 0 0 0 ID ID -..J -..J II> II> II> 0> 0 ... I-' 0 0 0 0> 0> -..J -..J W W ID ID ID I-' II> ... llJ I-'~ aI aI aI 0 0 \11 \11 -..J -..J lJ1 \11 lJ1 0> I-' ... '< -""'llJ . . 0> I\) I\) -..J -..J aI aI 0> 0> 0 0 0 I\) \11 ... ro 1-'>< ... Ii ID '0 :z:: '0 :z:: '0 :z:: '0 :z:: '0 '0 '0 '0 :z:: tl-:! ... IDOO ::0 00 ::0 00 ::0 00 ::0 00 ::0 ::0 ::0 ::0 00 00 ... 0>'< H ~ H ~ H ~ H ~ H H H H ~ () ... III ... rt 'OI\)C-i 'tI1-'0'tl1-' 0 '01-'<'01-'< 'OI-'::O'tll-'::O '01-'t"'OI-'t" 'OaI~ 'OaI~ 'tIaI~ 'tIalC-i"l-..J"lZ'tI... Z I-'ro 000 ::Oll>:t>'::Oll>:t>' ::Oll>H::OII>H ::011>0::011>0 ::011>0::011>0 ::0\11 ::OlJ1 ::0\11 ::O\110::Oll>HO::O'" llJ Wa 3:0~ HI\)<HI\)< HI\)::OHI\)::O HW(j)HW(j) HW::OHW::O HII> HII> HII> HO>~tl-:!ID::O::OH'" a .. '01-' OalHOalH 0-..J(j)0-..J(j) o Wtl-:! OWtl-:! OI-'HOI-'H oo>tc OO>tc OO>tc OlD 0\1100::;:0'" ro I-' ~Z::;: ::00>0::00>01 ;:tlll>H;:tlll>H ::00::0::00::0 ::oO>;:tlo> ::0 0 ::0 0 ::0 0 ;:tl tl-:! ~tl-:!::O'" lJ1 I t" t" I t"::o:t>'t";:tl:t>' ~~::o ~~~ ~~~ ~R"::OZ 00 ... R" 0 ~::ot"~::ot"It"::o t"::o t"::ooo~::ooo I t" Htl-:!~~~... 0 ::OR" ~ ~ 1:t>'~R":t>'~R" ~~R"?<l~R" I ~~~~~~I?<ltc8 :t>' tc()::;: ... :t>' II> tcH ?<l R"?<l R"1?<l ?<l I ?<ltcO ?<l 0 ?<ltctl-:!?<l tl-:!3:?<l'" p.. tl-:!<C-i tl-:!(j) tl-:!(j) 1tl-:!(j)C-itl-:!(j)C-i tl-:!(j) tl-:!(j) I tl-:!(j) tl-:!(j) tl-:!O~ tl-:!~~ tl-:!~~ tl-:!O< :Z::::OOtl-:!... p.. :t>'tl-:!tl-:! tl-:!() tl-:!()I tl-:!O tl-:!O tl-:!t" tl-:!t" I tl-:!OO tl-:!oo ::0 ::Otl-:!3:0H::O ... Ii ();:tl;:tl ~fg~~fg~'~fg~~fg~ ~fg~~fg~: ~fg~~fg~ ~'O ~'O '~'tI ~ ::OO::O()~~'" ro :Z::OOH tct" H~(j) ... III Ht" o 0 t"HI t"H ~H tl-:!>< t<I :t>' ... III "l0~ oot" oot" OOZ OOZ OOH OOHI 00 00 \11~~ \11~~ \11()~ :t>' 1\)0 (j) ... t"tl-:! '~~~~~~ \11~tl-:!\11~tl-:! lJ1~tl-:!lJ1~tl-:! \11~ \11~ \11()::OI-'Z~tl-:!lJ1'" \11 HlJ1 H lJ1 \11 lJ1 \11 \11tl-:! \11tl-:! \11tl-:! \11:Z:: -..J ~ \11'" 0 wZ wZ WZ~WZ~ wZC-iwZC-i wZ wZ W :t>' W :t>' W :t>' W 'tI0::;: w... W;:tl;:tl -..Jtl-:!3:-..Jtl-:!3: -..Jtl-:! -..Jtl-:! -..Jtl-:! -..Jtl-:! -..Jtl-:! -..Jtl-:! -..J 00 -..J 00 -..J 00 -..J :Z::I-':t>' -..J'" W I\) I\) I\) I\) I\) tcl\) tc I\) I\) I\) 00 I\) 00 I\) 00 I\) H ><00 1\)", 0 ~ 00 00 ::0 ::0 Z Z Z t" tl-:! ... aI ~ H H tl-:! tl-:! t" ::0 ... I\) ~ ~ H H H < ... 00 00 tc H ... 00 tl-:! tl-:! () () L>:l () ... ~ ::0 ::0 :z:: :z:: Z L>:l ... ... ... I I N I\) I\) N I\) N I\) I I\) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 ..... I-' I-' I-' I-' I-' I-' I-' I I-' III W W W W W W W I W rt I 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 I 0 Z 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> I 0> ~ llJ 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 I 0 '- a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 () ro I 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 I 00 :t>' -..J -..J -..J -..J -..J -..J -..JI -..J I () p.. I-' I-' I-' I-' I-' I-' 1-'1 I-' I ::r p.. ID ID ID ID ID ID IDI ID I Ii I I ro I I III lJ1 \11 \11 lJ1 \11 lJ1 \11 I \11 I 00 III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 01 'tl ID ID ID ID ID ID ID I IDI I-' t" I I I ro 0 0 01 0 0 I 0 01 0 I 00 \!l W W W W W I W WI W I 'tl llJ I\) N N N N I N 1\)1 I\) I N i-' I I I I-' I-' I-' I-' I-' I I-' I-' I-' I 00 3: aI all aI aI aI I aI aI aI I 'tl 0 II> II> II> II> II> I II> II> II> I W p.. I I ro \11 \11 \11 \111 \11 I \11 \11 \111 00 i-' 0 0 0 01 0 I 0 0 01 'tl ro \11 \11 \11 lJ11 \11 I \11 \11 lJ11 II> Ii I I I \11 \11 \11 lJ1 I lJ11 \11 lJ1 \11 00 0 0 0 0 I 01 0 0 0 'tl -..J -..J -..J -..J I -..JI -..J -..J -..J \11 I I I I 00 I I 'tl I I aI I I I 00 I 'tl I -..J I I 00 I 'tl I 0> I I 00 I 'tl I ID I I-' I-' I-' I-' I-' I-' 1-'1 I-' >< ID ID ID ID ID ID IDI ID ro ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID llJ IDI ID ID ID ID IDI ID ID Ii I ::0 ::0 ::0 ::01 ::0 ::01 ::0 ::0 ::0 wOON WOON WOON WOONI OON t"~NI t"~N t"~N t" '0 0tl-:!\11 0tl-:!\11 0tl-:!\11 0tl-:!lJ11 tl-:!\11 o lJ11 o lJ1 o \11 0 llJ ~oo ()ID ()ID ()ID ()IDI ()ID ~ N I ~ I\) ~ I\) ~ Ii :t>'() I-'~W I-'~W I-'~W I-'~WI ~W I tc aI I Itcal Itcal I () IDO 1-'10 1-'10 1-'10 1-'101 10 oOW oOW oOW 0 ro ~~ \11WO \11WO \11WO \11WOI wo 1\)::00 1\)::00 N::OO I-' i-' O-..J Oal Oal Oall Oal II> N W I\) I\) N 0> t" N I-' N ID N ID N 11>1 W tcll> tcw tcN :#: () I-'~O I-'~I-' I-'~O I-'~O: ~O tctl-:!O tctl-:!O tctl-:!O tc ~ t":t>' t":t>' t":t>' t" '0 'tI 'tI 'tI I 'tI O() O() O() 0 I I I I I I ():z:: ():z:: ()::r:l () t" 1-'1-' I-' I-' I-' I-' ~~ ~~ ~~ ?<l ro 'I-' 0>1-' 1\)1-' 11>1-' I-' I \!l I 0\11 aI\11 1OlJ1 lJ1lJ1 lJ1 0 llJ '0 N 00 00 00 0 i-' 0 ~~ S~ S~ ~~ ~ I-'Z I-'Z I-'Z I-' 00 ~ :a ~ :a I o(j) (j) (j) (j) :z:: () I\)tl-:! ()tl-:! ()tl-:! :t>'tl-:! tl-:! tl-:! tl-:! tl-:! 0 :t>'1 01 01 I I ~~ 0 3:0 3:0 HO 0 (j)I\) I\) N ZI\) N (j)tl-:! t"1-' 1-'1-' 1-'1-' I-' I-' tl-:!;:tl W aI aI (j) \11 00 00 t" \11 rt H aI aI W llJ ~ :t>' rt R" () t:: W III .. 0 0 0* t-;l olIl 0 0 0* ~ oo::tl aI aI aI* ~ '-() 0 0 0* f-' 0 0 0* ~ f-'t-;l tv aI aI aI* '< '-~ . , w 00 -..J -..J* Cll f-'>< * t'j 10 ::tl 'tl II: 'tl* 10 to tl::I ::tl to ::tl* 00'< () H t-;l H* Ul 0 * rt ::tl 'tltv~ 'tlf-'t"'tlf-'t"* Z f-'Cll tj 000 ::tlll>o>::tlll>o>* ~ wS to :3:0~ HW~HW~* S 'tlf-' 00 00 * Cll f-' 'tl ~Z::E: ::tlIl>oH::tlIl>oH* 1.11 ::tl tl::I tl::I* It> H 0 ~::tl t"::tl * 0 ~ ::tllt> ~'rj>::rl:j* 5: Il>o lIlH :><l ::tl:><l ::tl* tl::I ~~~ tl::IG1Htl::IG1H* 0.. tj tl::Itl::I tl::Itl::I* t'j ()::tl::tl ~::tltj~::tltj* Cll II:toH to to * Ul Ht" * Ul 'rjtj~ to to * t"tl::I U1t-;l U1t-;l * 1.11 1.11 * tj W W * w::tl::tl -..J -..J * W tv tv * 0 ~ * aI * tv * * to * 0 * Z * * tv tv tj 0 0 ..... f-' f-' Ul W w rt 0 0 Z 00 00 t-;l ~ 0 0 '- S 0 0 () Cll 0 0 to 6: -..J -..J Q f-' f-' ::r 0.. 10 10 t'j Cll Ul 1.11 1.11 to Ul 0 0 'tl 10 10 f-' t" Cll 0 0 to l!l w w 'tl ~ tv tv tv i-' f-' f-' to :3: aI aI 'tl 0 Il>o Il>o W 0.. Cll 1.11 1.11 to i-' 0 0 'tl Cll 1.11 1.11 Il>o t'j 1.11 1.11 to 0 0 'tl -..J -..J 1.11 to 'tl aI to 'tl -..J to 'tl 00 to 'tl 10 f-' f-' >< 10 10 Cll 10 10 ~ 10 10 t'j ::tl ::tl ::tl wtotv wtotv 'tl Otl::lU1 0t'lU1 ~ t-;lto ()IO ()IO t'j >() f-'t-;lW f-'t-;lW Q 100 f-'IO f-'IO Cll ot-;l U1WO U1WO i-' f-'..;J O-..J O-..J t" tv 1.11 tv Il>o '**' () I f-'~O f-'~O ~ 1 I 'tl 'tl 1 1 1 t" I f-' f-' Cll I U1f-' Il>of-' l!l 1 1 01.11 alU1 ~ 'tl 1 i-' 0 1 8~ ~~ to 1 t-;l 1 1 1 G1 >G1 () I Otl::l tl::I 0 1 01 HI ~~ 1 :3:0 ZO I tv tv G1tl::1 I tvf-' G1f-' tl::I::tl 1 aI t" to to I W rt H I aI ~ ~ I ~ rt I s:: Il>o I Ul Douglas Lundgren 14349 Watersedge Trail Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Robert Miller 14359 Watersedge Trail Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Irvin Bergsagel P.O. Box 149 Wayzata, Mn. 55391 Wayne Lundgren 14325 Rutgers st. Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Raymond Sharp 6591 Harbor Beach Prior Lake, Mn 55372 Donald Moffatt Trust 6595 Harbor Beach Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Farnum Nichols 6597 Harbor Beach Prior Lake, Mn 55372 Marla Grodem 6585 HaDbor.~each Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Tom Lai 6587 Harbor Beach Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 John Philliben 6589 Harbor Beach Prior Lake, Mn 55372 Harbor Community AssN. 6548 Harbor Place Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Elizabeth Kapaun 14329 Rutgers St. N.E. Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Jo h w T~ tJlsON 1'-I().9~ U(l.It(j€RS S+ ?ftIOR Lake)'YIW..sS37" Lori A. Hanson 14318 Rutgers St. N.E. Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Roger Breisch 14330 Rutgers St.N.E. Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Virgil Neiman 14274 Rutgers St.N.E. Prior Lake, MN.55372 David Singer 14268 Rutgers St.N.E. Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Laurie Fried 14304 Rutgers St.N.E. Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Earl Drangstveit 14279 Rutgers St. N.E. Prior Lake, Mn. 55372 Ross Colwill 7 The Croft Bishopstone Wiltshire England SP54DF l,- 6TH ~1/1 , 10. ~' 42 ,. .- ROAD 6700 . - o :: w 21S,63 as 7' 154 -45 ~g 7- 216.08 - 166249 !g T- 212.53 - ~ ~ II 'III A :;;~ ..... ::T g Ol '" r- Cll"O o Ol S-~ 0.0 <t "" tr. C '"' "I 0 ..... < O'<t ro "I 0.5 ll> ro tr. ;:l "".... o I:"" l-O r.... "'''' tll - ~ " ;::J ...... '" t-i ...... o :z > GO g-~~555"gt:O ~ ;s.. 0 t'1 .., ~ '" :T....~g:p; ......... ~"'3l-~g.~g p. ~~~...,-c5' log- '" gt;O'l 3~S"ogm<:+~ 5' al .... ..., 9 Ol g: 'C ro:Ttll "'.....mOl !~Cll"'e."lo.2'O i c:: ~'g 0. 0 ~ g, e. I:>: .....1:""""5 ;:l '" " ::s 0 & 0 c+' ~5'''''&~'<::> 0 c:0.c-~0l~;:l Ill>&""(l) ;::l-& ,o.~O'. bo.ro~ ~:>:~Ol&~~;:l '...."'.....o..c-sro.o ~ llJ e" 5 ..... (l) .... "I ,g & ~ ~ .. ~ g, g: itCDD>OQg&ml'1~ :0 og~ll>~~ li"'t)o..M ='~o rot; o~ l'"1~ 0>........"" '00...... II- ~ C) ::r 0::1 ). ~roVJgl-t:(D (j'\~I-\..J4l'1~""o r';;> g""g: g:"" ctoo.",:o;<:r<tl:"" &'"" ~~~. 0 I .. :T & ;:: 0 r- :r \.>l(t) <:+ CD (Jl:a M...... ~ .... 0 "I 0 '1 '"" - i ~~~o....~N~oJ' ::>V';:l:T ;r'''' ~g &,"ClC7'Og5 r ;;;'o::>&...,.....g en a> 0 "I Cl> .... H ?0&g'~.....~:T:z: ~<=.. :TC/l"m- og:....It"';;:'" ~en ::T0l~ llJll>::;: (l)Cl>0,<1lO~~> ~Ng;l 6im(A~ ~o."'cr::""~~~ g> ,. '" ~ i ~ ~ "I . 0 ~CQ (I).. ll>.... ..,0 0&""00 & ~;;.g:.....08...,g (") ~Cll:TtD"'..3~a g f" """"E ~...."'..... ::> ~ (l) VI ill t: ........'"-.;1 r c'D. tn r:o .....--~-r.- ~ trl Z n trl t:' trl r./:J ~ ~ ;:g c <: ...... t:l M C en '" o .... ..... o ;:l '-" C >-3 o ;; C;; ::T ..... '0 -'" .... V1 ~ I' ;:l CQ '" N -'" // ..// ..- ! . r"Z ( o~ t.'i \'" \l N \ Go ':. \: \~:.-~.~~. . .0 I \~ I \~:~,: ." . ~;. ,~~ 5' . '. . "''''.-- q,.......s.... ",CD~'" ~i~8~ \'6- .;oi~'.. . = ~ .a.! . .\.[< '" . \: l . ,. ~ \ \ U) ";1J \ -'.c. . --- ,()~ /0 ~ / s~< - 9 /" 0". -9 9.,J //. / / / /"" . ~">') / 0'" '" , , i o /" ./ ./ .--./ //\ / ;./ ./ " ,. , ./ '/ 4-- / / ./ ./ ./ "33 34 ",eO"--' _,_ -' 9 deed 333 '31"1:: rrleOs, 5i1.4~, " deed 510. ,- .. ('<1. +-~ VlVl CD", , U\ N ... . . ....".. ~ _ '" m.i :f'~ ' ;! . '. <S 'Q, \l'l \ '" '---- .. '- o i ~ ~. ~ ~ m >< :J: - to - -I )> ... '" o . \ ~-::~ Correspondence L:\TEMPLA TE\FILEINFO.DOC ( October 14, 1998 Bryce Huemoeller Huemoeller & Bates 16670 Franklin Trail Post Office Box 67 Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: City Council Agenda and Agenda Report Dear Mr. Huemoeller: Attached is a City Council Agenda and Agenda Report for the October 19, 1998, meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at 447-4230. SinCerelY,. 1)^..' _ , a.~ ~nSier, AICP Planning Coordinator Enclosure ..l:\98fi1es\98\1ar\98-10S\acdlet.doc . Page. 1 16200 cagle ueeK Ave. ::':E., Prior Lake, Mmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61ZJ lt47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER September 29, 1998 Huemoeller & Bates Attorneys at Law Bryce Huemoller 16670 Franklin Trail P.O. Box 67 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Huemoeller: In regards to your notice of appeal dated September 15, 1998, to Planning Director Donald Rye and the Prior Lake City Council from the Planning Commission's denial of the Trulson's variance application # 98-106 on September 14,1998. As you requested I have enclosed copies of the Planning Commission's minutes and the staff report for the Council meeting scheduled for October 5, 1998. Should you have any questions please call my direct phone number at 447-9854. Sincerely, S-tw-~~ Steven Horsman Zoning Administrator SH:jmy c: John & Jerilynn Trulson 16200 ~Gmek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Comments from the Public: Larry Gleason, operates a gymnastic school in Eagan where he resides. Mr. Gleason has many students from Prior Lake who would like to see a program in Prior Lake. He feels it is an excellent program for kids and sees no problem with traffic or parking. Stamson questioned the location of the Eagan school. Gleason said he has :b~ in Eagan for about 22 years. The last five years the 20,000 square foot school h~.J.6fi:::frHa warehouse. All gymnastic schools need a minimum of 18 feet for th~dmp':~atus used. ..:::l~~i~::::.:.::::;~tt~t::::.. Bev Rutz, 15691 Santee Circle, stated she totally supports Gleas&iIIJ"G~n2 School "::jj~iii1i~~::::.. ;;::::::::::::::::'. Comments from the Commissioners: ..,,::::::::::::t::tt::::::::. Cramer: ..:::::::ttt::::::::.. S d th .. al d- ":::;:;:;=;=;=;=;=;::" .". . upporte. e ongm . o. r m.ance.:::.::.::.::..:..:.:..:.:..:.:..:.:..:.:..:.:..:.:..:.::.:..:.:..:.:....:................ ..::t:::t::::::::::::::::t}- ".::;:::;:::;:;:;:;:;::::.' :o~:ed WIth the condibons m the ~ ' : ~~:::'~=~TovarrXndedit~. . How many participWits in the prgit'am at one::~e? Gleason said it is a class ~=~;~eb~e~ges 5 to 10 with the maximnm ~a~~ MQIIQN BY VONHOPf:SECON'b BY CRAMER, RECOMMENDING CITY dO~mlk APPROVE T~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDtTtli1l:~ PRESE~ED IN THE STAFF REPORT. "ox':':':':':':':':', :.:.:.:.:.~ "::::~:~:~:~:~:~:;:j::::.. ..::::;:;:~::::., Vote taken sl-~i2:::ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. ";:~:j:;:;:~::::" Kansier noted thf~:"item will go before the City Council on September 21, 1998. D. Case #98-106 John and Jeri Trulson - requesting a variance to construct an ornamental iron fence at 48 inches on the property located at 14296 Rutgers Street. Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated September 14, 1998 on file in the office ofthe City Planner. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm091498.doc 4 Staff concluded all the hardship criteria had not been met and the variance request for fence height is not substantiated with hardships pertaining to the lot which the applicant has no control over. Comments from the Public: John Trulson, 14296 Rutgers Street, gave back ground on improving the fe.AStt::::....A fence has been in place for over 25 years and he is improving his yard. He reS:$yed':=fitiherous comments and approval from his neighbors. Trulson explained the f~Rti$ is standard factory made and cut at a standard 4 foot length. The difference wiUr::a..:.tQm made fence is $60,000. It would be costly and inefficient to cut and reP..t. ThgUerence is 6 inches and if reduced will not look consistent with the rest of:,~ll~ing. H~::ijl~~t pointed out the City has a solid 7 foot fence surrounding Ih,FMi'Ha'ii across the:::_::::::::::,,~J:' Trulson feels the fence is attractive, it doesn't hurt anY9si;:"the l.1~ighborhood thin~::Br:?' looks fine, the minor variance should be granted. l!:iii:lie explailid:..the setbacks and setting. .::::;:::.... ..::::"tiiiii:iillllllllj:::iit~i!~!!!i~ii:~i!f~~~~r{iii!}:. Liz Kapahn, 14329 Rutgers Street, has a 6 foot fence aroundlUib::city sewer easement. "::::::::::::::::::" :::=:::~;::::::::t~ ~ V onhof: ..::::::::~:ttlt::,::.. \l,iij;:~l~!!f;::::" .:;iljjiJi?:;" . The fence is well bel~:w1iimg:~t.ds. ThJ:ii~.quest is only 4 inches. This seems ~re~:::~~eo:~~I~~t~~ll~~~f repoJlli:::ir:f::' ;arti-:~~~ ~~~~ The nature of the neighborhood, ..,:::::=::;:;:;:;:;:;=::::::::;:;=;:;=;:;:;:;:;:;::.;.. .......... C rame~;:::::~ir~~~:::::,::::::.:.:.:.:.::::;:,:::,:~:~;:r:::::::::!iii~::\:.:.. ";~:~::::::::ii!iii::!::::~:t~i(f:::' . QYJ~Sfion to staff :::::~~t is th~J9P" of a fence definition? Kansier explained. . ..::::~~!:!W'ttop of the fence;:ll:i:~9 inchbs (the top bar) not the fence posts. .::::::::.. I56:ii::p:~ve a problem::ii'proving the variance with the hardship criteria. . The'::r'='iii'~:~ appro~,i,H~ but explained why he felt there are no hardships. S tams on : ..:;::\t:::iiii::::::t~:::::.::::~::'ii~::Iiir:'::" . Concurs with::~f~er, it is an attractive fence. . It does not rii~et the ordinance or the State hardship criteria. . Height requirement is difficult to look at. A variance is not the way to solve the problem. V onhof: . Agreed it is a difficult standard. All variance situations are unique and one cannot compare. This situation is one that gets down to an issue of what is the top of the fence. . Does this situation fit the ordinance? It is a matter of interpretation. . The first hardship would be met. 1:\98files\98plcomm\pcmin\nm091498.doc 5 , -----~._- . A manufactured fence does not meet City requirements. . There was no intention to violate ordinance. . The fourth variance has also been met. . Question to staff - What powers does the Commissioners have with the interpretation? . Rye explained they have the authority to interpret the ordinance. . Suggest to deny the request and define what the top of a fence is. :':':':':':';-.. ..::::~~t~~~Iff~l;;:~::::: ..:.:.:.:.:.... .....;.: ..;:::~~~~;;::::.. ,,::;:::;:;:;:; C.,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,. ramer: ..::::~~::::::r:::::~tIi::~:t::;;.. : ~~!;~:~:::::::~~e~n:rti~ ~ ~m~. ~ ~ 0/ . It will be difficult to write an interpretation to _~iJJ.u.s fen~:::q'lmlify. Would the horizontal bars be the top of the fence or the omamentar.tJ)i~!::ff::::"""';:;;::~:f::' "::::;i~tjiji1i~::::.. Rye read the proposed fencing language ip4;p.~ new zoning or<m1liAfe~..::::::: MOTION BY CRAMER, SECOND By~1~'I"~::~gRO~"::~SOLUTION 98- 24PC DENYING A 6 INCH FENCE HEIGliT V ~.:::WP PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 :r.N:GlI HEIGH'1i::tpN'CE IN .DiE FRONT LOT SETBACK AREA IN PLACE OF THE::424NmH HEIGH1tiALLOwED. ::::;;U~DIRECTINGSTAFFTO ADDRESS THE.FENCE :CAlWYAGE INCLUDING ORNAMENTAL AND A DEF~;~i~wtl.:i__)~:~ HEI.i:i==:~::::t~::. Mr. ..T#iI:;~n felt he ~:f::!lj:::the haJ~~p criteria. An ordinance cannot be written for every s~~~Q:in the City. H~::i-lls thegovemment has this process to address issues that do not nie~::th~ ordinance a4ihhis is one of them. He pointed out numerous lake variances granted,"\vlin~ are the h'dships? Trulson said he wants to be legal and do the right thing. Con:iliie::~en~!::Jg: this is a little variance. One way or the other, the fence will not get done this ye'f::::::f.ff will be patient and do nothing illegal. .::::::::::.' Cramer explain~~"they agreed with Trulson, the fence issue is ridiculous but the Commission is bound to prove hardship to grant the variances. It is State Statute. Stamson said in the end they will fmd a way to construct the fence, a variance is not the way to do it. Vote taken signified ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. 1:\98fi1es\98plconnn\pcmin\nm091498.doc 6 ~ p , ,- " HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKUN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, M1NNESOT^ S5372 JMiES D. B^TES BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER Telephone (612)447-2131 Telecopier (612)447-5628 September 28, 1998 Prior Lake City Council 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: Appeal of John and Jerri Trulson from Decision of Planning Commission Denying Variance for Construction of Fence Dear Council Members: We would ask that this letter be made part of the record for this appeal which again deals with the unwillingness of City Staff and the Planning Commission to accept the current status of State law regarding the meaning of "undue hardship" in the review of an application for a variance under the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance. The Trulsons' own a single family home at 14296 Rutgers Street in Prior Lake. The Trulsons' propose to construct an ornamental iron fence along the side and front lot lines of their property with a top horizontal rail approximately 39 inches high, but containing posts that will be 48 inches high and alternating pickets of 46 inches and 42.75 inches in height. The fence will have, according to City Staff, not more than 15 percent opacity, which is 40 percent less than the allowed opacity of 25 percent. The fence sections were constructed and finished off site by the manufacturer. The fence will be finished with a "polyester powder coat" over galvanized steel, and is very rust resistant and virtually maintenance free. This manufacturer makes fences in three sizes - 48", 60" and 72"; and the Trulsons have purchased the shortest fence available in the desired style. A comparable custom built fence would cost approximately $60,000 more than the manufactured fence, according to a quotation received by the Trulsons" from Anchor Iron. . '> ~ Prior Lake City Council Page 2 September 28, 1998 It is impractical, and extremely expensive, to individually cut and reslot the posts and pickets to a conforming size. Such modifications would also result in premature rusting of the fence. It was also noted that the City maintains a solid seven foot fence surrounding the lift station across the road from the Trulson property. The Planning Commission clearly struggled with the appropriate method for determining the height of the fence. Is the height measured to the top of the road, the top of the pickets, or the top of the posts? The fence ordinance is not clear. The Planning Commission's minutes reflect 15 written comments from neighbors indicating that the proposed fence will be a significant enhancement to the entire neighborhood. Section 5-5-11 (E) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance deals with the construction and maintenance of fences and provides as follows: "In all districts, a fence (6') high or shorter may be erected on the rear lot line, the side lot lines and return to the nearest front corner of the principal building. In residential districts, a fence not exceeding forty two inches (42") in height and having an opacity of not more than twenty five percent (25 %) may be erected on the front lot line and the side lot lines forward of a line drawn across the front line of the principal building. Fences shall not be permitted in any right of way. Fences shall be constructed in a professional, aesthetically pleasing manner, be of substantial material and reasonably suited for the intended purpose. Every fence shall be maintained on both sides in a condition of good repair and shall not remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private." City Staff and the Planning Commission have determined that the part of the fence within the front yard setback of the Trulson property will exceed the maximum allowed height. Specifically, the Planning Commission found in Resolution 98-24 PC that no undue hardship existed to support a variance from the stated height limitations , ! Prior Lake City Council Page 3 September 28, 1998 in Section 5-5-11 (E) because the applicants could make reasonable use of their property without the variance by installing a shorter fence (see Finding 5). It is the position of the applicants that the view of City staff and the Planning Commission with respect to "reasonable use" is simply wrong; and there are 3 Minnesota Court of Appeals cases since 1989 that give the City Council authority to evaluate the proposed use and grant the variances if the proposed use is determined to be reasonable, even if the land has other possible uses without the variances. Minnesota cities have authority to grant variances in cases of "undue hardship" , which under Minn. Stat. ~462.357, Subd. 6(2), exists where: "[T]he property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." The Minnesota Court of Appeals has stated 3 times, in Rowell v. City of Moorhead, 446 N.W. 2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989), Minnesota DNR v. Cottonwood Board of Adjustment, 1992 WL 333585 (Minn. App.), and Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N. W. 2d 488 (Minn. App. 1995), that the reference in the state statutes to "cannot be put to a reasonable use" should be construed to mean that the landowner would like to put the land to a reasonable use but that the proposed reasonable use is prohibited under the strict provisions of the zoning code. The Sagstetter and DNR cases show how the statute is applied. In Sagstetter, St. Paul wanted to build domed softball fields in a city park and needed a variance from the maximum allowed height under the zoning ordinance. Although the park could have been used for other public and recreational purposes without issuance of a variance, the court found that the domed softball fields were a reasonable use and upheld the variance. In the DNR case, a landowner owned a lake shore lot with a house and boathouse. The owner wanted a building permit to construct a second floor storage area on his boathouse, but needed a variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback. The Prior Lake City Council Page 4 September 28, 1998 owner could have constructed the storage area within the house without a variance. The court upheld the grant of the variance on the basis that the proposed improvement was a reasonable use stating: "The provision defining "hardship", which requires that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use, does not mean the property cannot be put to [any] reasonable use without the variance. The intention of the statute is to give local governing boards flexibility." [Emphasis added] Based upon the principles set forth in the Rowell, Sagstetter and DNR cases, we . believe that the City Council should find as follows: 1. Literal enforcement of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance will result in undue hardship with respect to the Trulson property because it will preclude construction of the proposed fence, even though the proposed fence is a reasonable use of the property. 2. The undue hardship results from circumstances unique to the property because conforming fence components less than 48 inches in height of a quality and durability desired by the owners are not available except on a custom-made basis at an excessive cost. 3. The undue hardship is caused by the provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance and is not the result of actions of the owner, because the owner's proposed use of the land is reasonable and the literal application of the ordinance would preclude such reasonable use. 4. The variance preserves the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance, produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest, because the proposed fence is consistent in all respects with the existing and proposed land use in the neighborhood, and provides an enhancement to the neighborhood as a whole. In previous discussions on this "reasonable use" issue, the City Council has expressed concern over the administrative burden of making the subjective evaluation of each such reasonable use. The Rowell, Sagstetter and DNR cases say that City Staff . , ' '.1 Prior Lake City Council Page 5 September 28, 1998 Variances should not necessarily be easy to obtain. But when citizens propose to make a reasonable use of their property, the Planning Commission is obligated to determine whether the proposed use is in fact reasonable rather than deny it simply because it results from "a design decision of the owner". It is only in this context that the flexibility in administration of local zoning codes that is contemplated by the state zoning statute and the cited cases can be achieved. In conclusion, if the City Council determines that the proposed fence is a reasonable use of the Trulson property, it has the authority to approve the requested 6 inch variance to permit construction of the fence. Sincerely yours, \ Bryce D. Huemoeller BDH:dw cc: John and Jerri Trulson Sues an Lea Pace, Esq. Frank Boyles HUEMOELLER & BATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW 16670 FRANKLIN TRAIL POST OFFICE BOX 67 PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 SEP I 5 1998 L_---..-------.-. JAMES D. BATES BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER September 15, 1998 Telephone (612) 447-2131 Telecopier (612) 447-5628 Donald R. Rye Prior Lake Planning Director 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 Re: John and Jerilynn Trulson - Application for Variance No. 98-106 Dear Mr. Rye: This letter is a notice of appeal to the Prior Lake City Council from the September 14, 1998 action by the Planning Commission denying the Trulson's variance application for construction of an ornamental iron fence at 14296 Rutgers Street. Please send me copies of the Planning Commission's minutes and the staff report for the City Council meeting as they become available. Sincerely yours, ~h~\l\~L_ Bryce D. Huemoeller BDH:jd cc: John and Jerilynn Trulson August 10, 1998 John Trulson 14296 Rutgers St. Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Mr. Trulson: The City of Prior Lake received a complaint regarding your property located at 14296 Rutgers Street. On August 7, 1998, an inspection of your property revealed an apparent violation of the Prior Lake City Code. Specifically, I noted the following: Screening, front yard fence over 42" inches, City Code 5-5-11. This office would like to solicit your cooperation and community spirit in correcting the violation on or before August 21, 1998. If this date is inconvenient or should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and I will be happy to assist you. Please find enclosed a copy of our City Code pertaining to your violation. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ~'^~ Steve Horsman Zoning Administrator SH:jmy 16200 ~~k Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I -..~*' \~ I ~ ,~ '~, -'$~.... ""'" 3 <) t3 ~ 5 o <l " ~ 3RD o 6 ~ ~ . ~ 7 \s 2. IS' ~ =: \OUTlOT ,~ ~ 21990a,/ ~ '7Iz '" A \ '0. ' '\."'.. ~~t"'!O ~~,o .d"'::.'~ ,--- ~' .,- "" '" \0 ~ \ ~~\" \ , , ,.' ". / ,~." ' '... ~o" "~ " '/ / ,-" ",,'-:" " -- -- ~-- " . 0." / . ",,;, ..",';-~ _ . ~t' -,.~' " ,.0 '- _~"-r' --- ~",~,,'''''''' " \ \\ . ., __ __ J /" , ' , \ "i' __ ___ "." U",,. '.;" , / ~., ~. ~.. .. ,,4"''-'" . ,.',~:', 0 ~ ~ ~ ~" -,",,,, .>,,0""" , ,,"'", .' -r: ::::.-G "." ",,~ L--- 0 .. \--, -3'" ~:~;' '~'~'!'".d-<>;z{:- ,,'. 1 ". .. ,," .... 'I ... ~ "i....'~. ~~ I r,' -:~.., , .~' ~ ':< I' ."" "'" ," I' ,. .- "0"....'\ '0. '7,.1. I Ii.. 1- ~~ -: ~~o;. ..,/ /-''' . o~ .~,,, ,'-'C Ob ..~.. '-- ' ..- ,- , '~ \C\ <~.:~, " ~~". 'J C' ; ',~ ','.\ ;.~) \ 1~~ ~~ . "tJ :;: ...~ ..~.~~ ~ ~:~~ ~ -; ~ .,,~,~.. t'I,j. "> ~ '" 'g . "'.,,;-{o. V'l U') o-..,,,~... ""0 "'", ., ~ r f,.~" '.~' ......":i1' ".. ~ ~.._" 'J <t I- - CO - ::I: X LLI pO.P 3 ,vZ .015 so'l" 3,,1' 'r~i~ ..,," .::."!' v.... -,' ~ l I.................... o. ~ " , _-I r::-:' .. f' ~\ ~ ~ c'\o., ", 0 \~ ~ 'i. ",\':s,', ~ ~ ~ \-1 '" \;;r-- -:> _--- Gt9\, / \ /'" ~ /~, 00 .. ,," 1'0' .-..~ b c,:";,'o b" ,~<I..~ / ,'..: ";,'?J . c,~ .; c,1J. / ~ ,~ ~ rJj ~ / ">>4' t>-> .- ~o / c::Y- 0' / , / / ~.. ,// ; -j / /~ :/ / , -- ... / 1 '" ,,/ ,-,0 / ~/" v(,.; . ",+ . :/ / / / ./ \~~\\ ~\ ..~ . ..E-i'b \ .. ',:1> ~ao 'il-:'~~ 'l::~- 0 ~S~~~ \ ;~~~\\ ";'\\ \ f~ 1 0: \ . ". \ ---- . . \{~.~~_. \ \\ '1 \\ ~ ;"' .~ i~ ~'O 7.... .j / . , ... __j_'___?~~'~~ C> If' 5 ~:""d ~ o \.,cstQIJC,I.c. u g<-looc....~~ ~ got... 0 ._ g 8 _~~~ ~~CIl (/) =~""'......-l'O~ o ~ <D ~.....4.... 0 z;-'~:: ,.,c <t.:)QCi>'O~ ~:~~~~Z CIl ,C"'''' z~~~:5CJ';; ~~~s..,~.cg =>~ ~C:O"'-i 20~C:"'" ..~.~ ~:5.S~ en ..-4 1: t.J f'C"\ ~:::~J5.s~g c;o.~~~.I:t-I ...J~.c:k~-go ~::;..,:5~~3> =.5~rr\ ~ ~ ~ 0 c: rt"\ c: (2 ....-t "=' 0.. ~.:5 ~ ~ LI Q) 0 c;: o "d () ...... >.o-t~tJd-o ~E~~g to ~ ..,- co bO .c ':0-4" .,j.) C +>oQJ."co-1"" w +.l <:) ..... C t:,j o "'0 ~..: "0 :: Ql c c.;.) ~~ III III UJ ";;; III Cl> :5~-g..J ...0 ~ ...-t C5 "0 to <-I +> c'-4 ......:ro= o::~:il"'''''~ ~o~.....3..s~ ~ 'd 8 0 -c ~~ ::>.1Il ..... ..~~.....~~~co ....... _ ~ ir ~z~~c... ~ (Q...., ,,0 ~ ~ CD ~ ~ OJ bO-iO~! "'0 ~~'-r.1.:i-g '-':J"QI-toO\ ;::I _ _ 2 w ~;3i:5:S~:i C,)o_~;Ow a:.~~cC~~ , ,/ ,,-- ...- -- / / z c - CI) u..J Cl u..J U Z u..J ~ => t.l => ..... :>- o g:; 01 < 2: o ..... ~ ::; c:: u ~ \ ...... N III ~ a c:: "" ...- ...- 0. ..... .c g 5 !-< ::> ""\ c o .... ...., tl CI Ul - '" 1<"\ - ....,~ 0..... ....l 0 .... ...., c ,~ III Cl 2." <. CI Ill'" >..... o <. '-' " :Il .... III 0'0 t, g,g -' ~ CD c: ::,..... i-t~ . ~~ OJ ;=-: ...- ,5.~<+- o ::r <+- en PJ '" c+ := ~ -c- It p. 0 . <X c+ IJ '00 .? f?o; g: g: to " ~ r; ~. ~ t" go.g~ 'C Q, 1-'- ....... 0 ::. J 0 1-'- t:;. (j) J 1'1 ~ ..... )g:M-g8.: ~gror- o ~ t;. 0 ~ " - ...., . ~ Otl ~: +: :~~, g ~o:. ~ 0' 0 r5 c:+ 1-<) c: I-S ~l & ~ ~~. ~t E ~ ; ~ CD ~ [j} ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~. g ;.~ ~ ~? ) Cll c..; t1 )c+~g,g ~ 0 Q g , tIl = c'" >lE;,e:*e )J p; ~"fk'r; -/$'0 '9 ".... -.9 .9.3 y~ ~ ,-/~ . \~, ',~,s"" --._~~;.,~ .... to( 8;;>"... r:>;s, ...." ""(/6~/; J " 0'1; iJ) (f1 . ~ (JJ , N c:.'j;;~ ... _('1) ! U-,_~- <" ,C ~!~ \ ~, g ." o CO C I " b...J" \ .~ \ r-z. c:." ~'6 / ~ COt- ~~' \\L ~ ~\ i\ ,----' .// '\;~~ :\.. \Lc- '>\ / / \~\\\\ i - / / \,. ~'t~~ '" \ :l),&i 0 ~ \ 00..3 ~ \ \\ ~ \~ \~\ Ul :xl \ \ \\W,~\\ \tT\tT\ -\:xl (j) C'L f-O t<+- :: vi (;; - en '" () <+- i-"' !2 c-/'c, ",' 'v>fJ <c ' '? 'v' c-,' 70~ C?JCv'...0, 'I.' '? .' ,..,'lI.:Y . ~ " "v " 00 \ \ \ t \ qi}?.-::\ - -- .;. ....z.. \ r\ " ~ ~ \ ~\ ~ ~ ~\I]\~\ '" ''''0\\ ";. \ <a.:. \\~) \ \\ <:) \ ~ \ .z .-J r/ " \ ~. c / .. '" ,m o >- '"- >--' ~o u; ::r .~. / "'-. '-" ,.333 34 :eot 333. 9, 3e,,~f. ",eOs 5\\048, 5100 24 f. deed 0 :2:.. -rJ ..,. n ~ "G- '- 1 ~ ,,~ ~ ~ ('> I CO ;J 4- ~ I '1 ~ I -+- ~ I ~ I ~ I / ::c 5 ~ I ~~", ",-' J' ,'y "co ~ c' o <+- <+- :-:>. '\ " l_ ! '-- o c E ,? ,;.. '<" \~ " -; / NII020' 26""'! 0:' 0 'ooo _..151.75"- . wood ~oil fen"" --------------- / ..-' ..-' ,,/ ./ / ,,/ / / / / , _--.J .. I . _<><1 -"s. 0'. f.. df.' i 11'V" I .c5O~ l' ~'!l_ .' tl'::,o\ --0' ---.. ;.___:::.:;wfk\AO-O. ~ ~:J ~ /,,' , .. . ;...\_~~,""'" L . i:, -- -- . deed 0,..1..: ~ ,~ ,ell" ....ki O'f.. ,,~cfl'._,.,J , '0.... ,,~..,' \ ,I .A,"""'~"'~~l 0'"'''' I son. NI H2 ~,65....\1 0'" ~ --f6. ,. , " " --. \ / t'-~" e6~" '. +- ' . \ J _... ~ ...... 'de ..1\1' \.. ' :., .. 00 \ - -, ,.g 11'- .... \' SO" . 9'" . - - --.- ..../0 \9 I ~''''t\... ~ \ ~ S 8204B'WJ!.ee~ - . 0- . - J-\"~' ..0'2.' 9'~ ~'''''~~A. ':'.0 0. ~\~ \ ~-:\ 585004'/s''Wmeas. fd. ... - ~ t."~' , X' ~r, \~ ~"oSEO N\ .... - _ .. ~O pROP. rI - ...73t..- ---. 089 ,r-~4--" \,'" ::",:, . ,,~~~ ...\>'~ ~- \ N "AGE \ ~ ~_~.~O..._. .. _ - I; l .Sl ..~:\~~. :~.. '\''IF' ~~'" ~ \ \. GAl'" ~ -.- l/). /,'", /J ~ ,,:. ~)l ,- ":~' '\"'1' ~ :Y---cfb____~ v1j t~~C ~i'~ tll{b\ ~ ' /'....- ~o ,,,, r;{'J " ~. ~ .../ Of "'i ,," I . -.J ~~4 ",1 4'tP' . "~'''~ \ / 4:/~ ~ ~ ,S' I I UI' .UI ~ c;V ~ €o'I. S€. ';. r. ~ V" I ~, ,,' 0 ~';.:9~ ~ '. \ '. ~.l-.J. ~~. : \:, I / " gO '<',. \~. ~.\ , e; :\~t . Q " . ':\i~" ~~.~\ . \ '., Cll- . 0 l I " . , \: or OJ \ "\ "", {. \ ,i,. \ ':-.:' \ I \ ! \ .'. '\ .. \ I , \ \ ..... 1 \ ,. \ . -.,'r ,,', ~ " / I \ -dE \ I . \\ \i~ \ . \O.Z~.~> '- . 1Cl.~~':' 'j}' '.- \ "?'Ao :::::-.,. !f'l-IO 0\ .' \ --s7(f:J4o' .' ..0 0... N \ \ ~ . \ 1l ~ m =. \ ',\ . . . '!. ''Z Z .\ '~~~""~;\' .... \l' \ \.;>, J'--- ,-. --\"'-"\-. '.:.--r-. . .. ." , \,. I . . . 1 "- ; '. . . ~~" I . "'.. \ ' -10 \, '. \ ~:" . 'i \ NICl , ,:. \ -o~ ,'\ ~~ \ ': , \ :' \ ! \ \ Z\ \ . I \ \ \., I ~ \ "----7 "t ~. ~ \.\ ___ ---ur~ ~.~ES.~'T. . .--....~.'Rl J ~~ \ I 9.5"FT.. .,~9 48'111. ~3~::",',,,,> . ~ :Y'''5'. r - . '. .'r{lc.,.):f~"':""~;;140:0(j'~4~W~~~~> .... .:'. t . . 41.1 .'. .,i.........', .':."'y' .'S19023.I'W deed,';;...., . ~ ! . ,,- . . : 9; - ~'~':;":'/"'::"':."~"':':'~~<'90~: " Road .'. "- of Goverrunent Lot 3, Section 30, To~mship 115, Range 21, .Sc^~tt Count+" . S1904fl,'Wd.~:.6\\'<;-O:.:r.'~.fi;'j>::~tt.r:'~i,~.tl'n:;~f33.<Eff____:::=---- described as follotlS. '.' -~.~. - ..':" ...... 1~., '. ,".; ""I~"O ;'.J'- 4. f ~,.: ',-4 f;~<a.l."Y" ~ .. . .. F:..' -;.......... ".'. :.'.r''''''~ ;'.'...'....'....."'I~W..'.<.~afl...fIl,!]:_...,...,';'i-'-(,'...,.---- --- I .' :,~1.:' ".:' . C'.. . ".:,. '11,:.,,:/';', ltl.\;""'r.,.,:: ;~>t;':'.:i" ..' --- ~ at a point on the northerly line of Lot 48, BOUDIW$ ~ANO~}, a.~?o~~~"",',~ ...:.:,;~:{i,.;....~.,.".....p-r- .at thereof on file and of record in the office of tne":R,egis:ter..'<>f D~c :.... ":.;:;' . ~< I I.f'. said C?,unty- and State, said point being 26.6 ~ee:t ~~8t~~~1..f;:om.'..~. . '. MW'coA'Of.../- ~ \' corner o~ ". ~aid Lot. 4~ L ' thence northwe8~e~ l,y:. a:t .X:f.-sh:~~.:~~t.~f Z,:~C? :c.~r " :~ ~: ~1.9,;r:~ ;,:.-,' re ,of said ..Lot 48, a d~stanoe of 33 feet. to ~he' n~.rt?:~~~r;,:~~~;:~f1~;~,,,,:~:: :"~';:~'.f,.'.'.> ',': . ~<' :l. to. the. point, of beginning of the land here~n to .be,;deso1t:tt;led;; the, .;. .:(.. . ,:'.' '. ~degreeS 46 minutes Wlilst. a distance of '303.5 feet; :~'thE3rl~~,:~<Sc/uttr' ~.r:;" . ., : o minutes West a. distance. of- 81.6 feet; thence SO't~!Y~&1:~~.g#.e~~;{ . ,'. West a distance of. 96.5 . feet to the shore of PrIor" .ULke ;<then e' ~erly along said shore of Prior Lake, to its inters~otiori'l~rth ~'a Ii' e " tth 45 degrees 38 minutes West from a point on the' norttie'rly line,','.' f . foot road in BOUDIN'S 11ANOR distant 41.1 feet I southwea'tet-lYr fr.om,. '. ,e beginning; th.ence South 45 degrees 38 minutds East to a. 1>9,4.rit"on,; ': e line of sa~d 33 foot road in BOUDIN'S I MAlNOR . distant 41.1 fe t I . 'r ' I erly from the point of beginning; thence North' 79 degrees' 45 minut, IS. rg said line a distance of 41.1 feet to the point of beginniIfg. .Exoe t rt of said tract lying f;)outherly of a line dra\in from a poirit on t e " line of said tract 151.75 feet northerly from the southeast corn r _to. a -poJ..ut.. OIl.. tho southw.eut.edy line'OH of._ sa.id..._trac.t__l6.3...5.__ edy from the southwesterly corner thereof. And '~xoept t ez.'ly 25 'feet mea.sured at right anglen to said southwesterly line ;t. Together with an eus~ment for road purposes oveL' the easterly 8 fe lrst des~ribed exception. J l \11\1)+ VI' " ~o...1\ I \ ~ '. ~"i, "''Ou.l~ o Q) ~ ~if) u.l ... (1l-~ <t t<'l. . <t c: ~~=2 !f'lt<)IIl(f) , , , *-lv ~ V 0<<- ~ ~ 0) 'i.' ":> 0)0 ,0) 0- Ivv v <I)' . \S' '. " J' v> '/,s> -....., V,s> 0 0 ""'. o~/~..>I'" '"' (9,.r.' -....., ~ (5'~ '" C7q,.,o- 'q.,o " .s: ,,<0 ~ ~+ C' ---- -"--~J<r. - ',)-. . /0 "t- ,",', ," -. ~~ ON AS PROVIDED: NarES: I Benchmark elevation 915.00 top rim sanitarf 911.6 Denotes existing grade elevations )(, , mbhole I I I (915.00) Denotes proposed finish grade elev~tions -.----. _.- -----..---- -- -.-~.._.....- -"-Y' --. ..~---.-- -"--,-----'--- ,- --,' -. -'.-'- ----'f-... ....... .-..-. ~ Denotes proposed direction of proposed finist Set the proposed garage slab at elevation 91~ r I I f of said Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Hange 21, Scolfl l-1innesota dest.:l:ibed as follows: i I G LIt u point U[I the flUrtheL'ly lille of Lot. /48, ;30UllltJ I S HANOI{, accord iIL~; 'plat 00 n.l.e ill the office of the HcgL;tee of Deedn, Scott CountJ, Total lot area above elevation 904.0 = 68,00~ Impervious cover with all proposed additions Revised 7-25-96 to show proposed garage and i~pervi(