HomeMy WebLinkAbout10A - Trulson Poperty - 14296 Rutgers Street
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.
Historv:
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:\98fi1es\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
1 :\98fi1es\98var\98-1 06\981 06cc.doc
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 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 ofthe required variance hardship standards with respect to
property had not been met. Upon reviewing the four hardship criteria,
the Planning Commission concurred with staffs 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
2
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
1:\98fi1es\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 f01}Y four point thirty seven inches
(44.3 7").
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 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.
The staff recommends ernative #1, adoption of Resolution 98-XX
upholding a decision 0 t e Planning Commission denying the
Vari:"Jst ~ wa the 42 inch fence height requirement.
Prank Boyles 1 Mager
3
RESOLUTION 98-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF
1.tlE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A VARIANCE TO WAIVE T.tlE FORTY
TWO INCH (42") MAXIMUM ALLOWED FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT IN THE
FRONT LOT SETBACK AREA FOR JOHN & JERlLYNN 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 5, 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 of the Planning Commission in accordance
with Section 5-6-3 (A) ofthe City Code.
1:\98fi1es\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:\98files\98var\98-106\rs98xxcc.doc
Page 2
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL
~~~GR~;TIO~~O" ~-J f~
"" -
"
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Scott Count~,
Minnesota described as follows: 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 t~
northwest corner of said Lot 48; thence northwesterly at right angles to .f?a:frl,
north line of said 'LOt 48, a distance of 33 feet to the northerly ii;1~ of I' :,'" "
foot road to the point of beginning of the land herein to be described; th~"',
North 9 deg:r:ees 46 minutes. Wast, a ~stapce of i303-.5 f.ee:t; -: :~e.D~,,:SOU~-,
degrees 40 minutes West a dls'tance of- 81.6 feet; thenpe SOuth .'82.... 'detr~es-. . .'.
minutes West a distance of'" ~'..5' -feet to the shore of. ~d.or' J~e;~: th....' . '
southwesterly along said .shore of Prior Lake, to. its intersectioii:r<.,..i,th a' 1~- -. .
drawn North 45 degrees 38 ininutes West. :from a point on the northerly .1LnetC
said 33 foot road in BOUDIN'S MANOR' distant 41.1 feet: southwesterly from,.:: . e
point of beginnin.gj'" thence Sout~ 4.5 degrees 38 minut~s $;est to a po.4.Dt' o~. :'.
northerly line of said 33 foot road in BOUDIN' S ~ MANOR distaiit 41.1 . f 't
southwesterly from the point of beginning; thence N01:th' 79 degrees 4.5 minu'-" $.
East along said line a distance of 41.1 feet to the point of beginniI;lg. .,Exce't.
that p.art of saio. tract lying southerly of a line drawn from a ,point on~. e
easterly line of said tract 1.51.7.5' :feet northerly from the southeast corn r
..::.~~-.z--=-~~=-tc, ...a.. ~~~~..c.o-.. tl:).e_ ...so.u.+'hW4'>~~:t"l ~._ li.ne_ o:f: ~.CJ ; rl i:rl'l(!t. T.
northwesterly from the southwesterly corner thereof. And except
I:>outhwesterly 25 feet measu=ed at right angles to said southwesterly line .r
.,
said tract. Together with an ~asement for road purposes over the easterly 8 feqt
of the first described exception.
::::::
-I
I
40
~
"'.
j
''''''
DESCRIPTION AS PROVIDED:
.,"'\
:~
NVi C
1.0T
AND
That part of said Gov~rnrJent Lot 3, Section 30, Township 115, Range 21, Sccit
j
County, Mir~~esota des~rib~d as follows:
Eeginning at a point on' the northerly lin~ of Lot 48, 30UDIN'S r~NOR, accordi~~
. to the plat on file in the office of the Register of Deeds, Scott Countj,
Mirmesota, said point being 26.6 f~et easterly of the northwest corner of sald
Lot 40; thence northwesterly at right ~~gleG to the north line. of Lot no. 48, 1=
distance .of 33.0 feet to the northerly line of a 33.0 foot road to the point of
b~ginning of the land herein to be described; thenc~ North 09 degrees 46 minut~~
west, a distance of 303.5 feet; thence North 65 debre~s 40 minutes East;a
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 HANO~;
thence South 79 degrees 45 minutes West along said northerly line a distance ~f
140.0 feet to -.:he point of beginning. "-:
80
!
.... ~.......-
j
.'
\
\
\
\
'''. "" ; \ \\
"~ _ PO.~' \ __ ---
: ~d -, ___9~_r.T.
~ .._ .1. I. -..
I ,~.\-, -~9-"J -,,~-
That pBl.t of Goverlll:1ent Lot 3, Scction 30, TOl/n3hip 115, Range 21, Scott Count,,, p.~&,"'d.'" \ -..;',.. 50133.00'" -::::----
IUnnesota described all fol101/9: f s1 8.\ ,0 all ,..11.. ~ i,. N~ __ :::::::.------
1 ' ~\' .. ~...-:-- ----
Beginning at It point on the northerly line of Lot 1'0, DOUDIN I S MANOR, accot"di~g _-,-__y- e::----
to till.! plat thereof on file and of record in the offic~ of the Regioter of Deeds . ~_Z9_9" .
in and for said County and State, said point being 2b.6 foet eaotorl! from tile ...... of
, tl'" .V-'
northwest cot"ner of said Lot 40; thence not"thwenterly at right angles to 84d \.01<\8
north line of snid Lot 48, s distance of 33 fect to the northerly line of a ~
foot rood to the point of be~l.nning of the Inn,l herein to be dORorlbedj th<!lll 0
"__I.\.., t") ,1.~r"~;-- ',r.... ...t~H''''''''''' ,.,............. ... ,.f'"........."...~. ....r ...."... r; r............ th....n"'ft ~,.,.,..., fa:;
EXHIBIT A
~'
t..""n1 ..rl,e
1o~~ '
, ' 'C ,j~ -"s-
_ _ ..0,,0-" "f- "'.-
'_' _ 6?' ,!>'!>.
~L - ,- ..,tl 60\1~0'"
',' ___ ~' . ~tl6 ,1,,0-0
. I "~J~;"/" .'
clt,,j '-I' 't\ J
son "'HJ o"o',f- "f-""O'~ -' . .~
tl6!>.... 1!>!> J - ..' ...
.' ....lIt> \ _.....- - r' \ .' - - '
_ _ _ "6 d"'" " \
_ /eC 9",00" - \
'cr'--' ..' - "
" ' 'C -- . .", " ", .:;...' .. , '
_ _ _:r':'~',). . i' 0,,'" ~ , J
. 0" 9 ,_ -_ _ t \\~ \ \ -----;ell j'
/. _ ' 1;->ffiC~. t;\ ."" '~~ /\
" / J ,.. ,," ..' ""~,, .
. . -' . " , ' .
/(:~~. .\;\ ~\1 \ o,,\~ .......'B'\'l. o.~.G( \ ,.0
~.../ ~'\. \J r V' .. :'1' N' s' --.......
. ",,__,'''<'' i" ~.",,-
~, .h." ""'\ \ \ __~\J lq\~,o ')
.t -"'Z~' \.t'..... ~ .' ,...'."
/. ,,1. 0 ~~\S1'~, 1 ;\ i ': -/ ~.
_' <1ls~ Vi ,'.. ~\ I
tI r.... : ' ... ... I
/r' ~~09'" , 'Nt' \~ t I
",.. :.:. I
, ,.' 'co' \;;t~:t. \\
..' .. ~ ~\
,,' " . \. \
\ \ \
\ \ \ "\"\
\ . \
~..\\\" \ \
sr.t r ..c.r., ., \\ \
ot!.rt;;.-:: , ~.-a \
\ -d t \
Y. \~ \
--0 -~ ,\
"',~. \
'6~~ \
1"')- . \ \
'. ~~ \ .\
\. \ \
\ \
\ "\
,_ _ ..c___}
" ' ,
, '
.,....
SURVEY
,I
*-<v
v'i?'
S8Z.40'Wd..d
585.0''-16 "wmea;
_..73 t.__
o~
rf"
~
\
"
,
'" '.
J'". v>.'/~o
\S. ....>.1'..
" ~6>..J.~"
~u~
""'" ~o...
", ,~o
'-...,/~.,
,
0-
"
,
,
-""
~+('
'~o.
'"
",
'.
"
'.
"
FENCE DESIGN
llf:SCllll'TlON AS PROVIDED:
..
"
.h
~ ..
O-OW-O
" ,,~
E.~;;;w
~",-.;~
,<t
~~=Q
tt\trIlf'1tn
.
.
I
\
\
\
,
\
/
(Xl LOT AND YARD REQUIREMENTS: 01
co I
(j) ,J::.
I
Gross Dwelling Units ......
District Minimum Lot Size Yard Setback C*ft.) Maximum Per Acre
Area (sq. ft.) Width Front Rear Side Coverage Normal PUD
.
A-1 AQricultural
Residential 10 acres 330 50 30 20 --- .1
Other Uses 40 acres 50 30 20
Agricultural Preserves 40 acres --- .025
R-1 Suburban Residential"
<J .Single-Family Dwellinqs 12,000 86 @ 25 10 _u 3.5 4.5
, .
... Two-Family Dwellings 15,000 85 25 10 22% 3.5 4.5
~
~ Townhouses 2 acres 250 25 25 25 18% 3.5 4.5
"tl Other Uses 15,000 85 25 25 15
'"1
...
e
'"1 R-2 Urban Residential"
t-t
\:l
ill-' Single-Family Dwellings 6,000 60 25 25 10 22% 5.5 7.0
(1l
Two-Family Dwellings 12,000 75 25 25 10 22% 5.5 7.0
Townhouses 25,000 100 25 25 15 20% 5.5 7.0
Multi-Family Dwellings 30,000 100 25 25 15 30% 5.5 7.0
Other Uses 10,000 75 25 25 15
R-3 Multiple Residential"
Single-Family Dwellings 12,000 86 25 25 10 --- 14.0 18.2
Two-Family Dwellings 12,000 75 25 25 10 22% 14,0 18.2
Townhouses 13,000 100 25 25 10 20% 14.0 18.2
Multi-Family Dwellings 13,000 75 25 25 15 30% 14.0 18.2
Other Uses 5,000 50 25 25 15
(J
I
~
I
......
(
r~
'I
.., '.""
)
5-5-11
G~-10
/
5-5-11
-SCREENING:
, .
(A) 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)
~
~
(D)
~l
!
\'
.\
@
695
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.
t
i
"'
4
.,
1
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.
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