Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-13 CPC Packeti • I Water. THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF STILLWATER NOTICE OF MEETING The Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, August 13, 2001 at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street Approval of Minutes of July 9, 2001 Public Hearings - 7 p m AGENDA - t 1 Case No SUP/DR/01-26 A special use permit for the construction of a building housing 29 to 32 condominiums at 501 North Main Street (Domino's Pizza site) in the CBD, Central Business District and the FP, Flood Plain Jeff Wallis, applicant (Continued from the July 9, 2001 Meeting) - - _ 1 _ 2 Case No SUP/01-33 A special use permit for Tom Thumb Food Market to add on to the existing gas pumpcanopy and add another pump island at 2601 West Orleans Street in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District Mike Eichel, Tom Thumb representative, applicant Continued from the July 9, 2001 Meeting) 3 Case No SUP/01-36 A special use permit for a home based sewing business located at 2337 Van Tassel Court North in the RA, Single Family Residential District Joe and Joan Tlustos, applicants 4 Case No V/01-37 A variance to the front (20 feet required, 17 feet requested) and side (5 feet required, 4 9 feet requested) yard setbacks for the construction of a residence at 3213 Summer Fields Court in the TR, Townhouse Residential David Dorn, Senn and Youngdahl, applicant - _ - 5 Case No V/01-38 A vanance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 14 feet requested) for the construction on a 180 square foot deck at 906 Fifth Avenue South m the RB, Two Family Residential District Maurice Stenerson, representing John Prosser, applicant 6 Case No V/01-39 A variance to the height regulations (35 feet required, 80 feet proposed) for the construction of a Memorial to High School Veterans at the corner of West Pine Street and South Third in the Riverview Parking Lot, PA, Public Admimstrative Office Distnct Brian Larson, Larson Brenner Architects, and Memonal to High School Veterans Committee applicants Other Items - Fence Ordinance revisions - Comprehensive Plan Amendment CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651-430-8800 J • • City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Present Russ Hultman, chair Glenna Bealka, Robert Gag, Dave Middleton, Karl Ranum, Paul Teske and Terry Zoller Others Community Development Director Steve Russell Absent Darwin Wald Mr Hultman called the meeting to order at 7 05 p m Approval of minutes Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Middleton, moved approval of the June 11, 2001, minutes as presented, motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/DR/01-26 This case was tabled Case No ZAM/01-03 Zoning Map Amendment rezoning 5 3 acres of land from Townhouse Residential and Agricultural Preservation to Single Family Residential located on the southwest corner of CR5 and Wildpines Lane City of Stillwater, applicant Mr Russell explained that Young Life has purchased a single-family residence from Bethany Church The residence currently is used for church office space and the church -related use would remain the same with the purchase by Young Life Church use is not a permitted use in the Town House Residential zoning district, it is a permitted use in Single Family Residential Vern Hill, director of Young Life and resident of the neighborhood, was present, noting that Young Life desires to have a more permanent presence in the community Mr Middleton, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval of the Zoning Map Amendment, motion passed unammously Case No V/01-28 A variance to the front yard setback (30 feet required, 26 feet requested) for construction of an entry way at 2369 Croixwood Blvd in the RA, Single Family Residential District Michael Bolduc, applicant Mr Bolduc was present He showed pictures of his house and a house several blocks away that has an entry way similar to what he would like to construct The new entry would extend the front of the house by four feet Mr Bolduc stated there are at least three other similar entry ways in the area, all of which were granted variances He also stated his neighbors are not opposed to the plans Mr Gag, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved approval as conditioned Motion passed unammously • • • City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Case No SUP/01-29 A special use permit for construction of an accessory dwelling unit at 711 S First St in the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Jeff and Rita Ross, applicants Mr Ross was present He stated he thought the matter was settled when plans were reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission last August He said he wanted to add a stub -in for a bathroom for possible future use of the structure as an rental unit, current plans are to use the space for a family room Mr Zoller questioned whether neighbors would be opposed if they knew the structure might ultimately be used for rental purposes, noting the notice to property owners didn't say anything about adding a bathroom Mr Russell pointed out the notice to neighboring property owners does state the request is for an accessory dwelling unit Plans submitted by the applicants include height, parking, setback and other requirements Mr Ranum said he would not be in favor of sending the request back through the notification process Mr Ranum, seconded by Mrs Bealka, moved approval as conditioned, motion passed unanimously Case No V/01-30 A variance to the side yard setback (10 feet required, 7 feet requested) for construction of an attached garage at 726 S Seventh St in the RB, Two Family Residential District Daniel and Mana Poliszuk, applicants The applicants were present and explained that they would like to build a two -car attached garaged An existing one -car detached garage would be removed As proposed, the new structure would be five feet from the property line but closer than 10 feet, a little over 9 feet, from the adjacent dwelling The applicants noted the neighbonng residence has an addition that extended the kitchen that may have put that dwelling closer than the allowable five feet from the property line Mr Middleton said he didn't feel that the applicants should suffer because the adjacent dwelling is the cause of the need for a variance Mr Zoller asked if the applicants had considered building the new garage at the location of the old garage or some other location on the property The applicants explained that constructing a new garage elsewhere would require either a removal of a number of trees or paving part of the backyard, which is the only safe place for their kids to play Also, the entry to the house is at the requested location Mr Zoller, moved approval as conditioned Mr Middleton suggested adding a condition that the existing garage be removed, that amendment was agreeable to Mr Zoller Mr Ranum seconded the amended motion, motion passed unanimously Case No V/01-31 A variance to the side yard setback (25 feet required, 2 feet requested) for construction of a four -season porch at 2893 Brewers Lane in the TH, Townhouse Distnct Tim Nolde and John Wooley, applicants • • • City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Mr Wooley was present He provided photos of what he would like to construct He stated he would be willing to plant conifers to provide screening from the adjacent lot as requested The adjacent property owner and her father were present, they stated they were pleased with the plans as long as the tree plan is expanded Mr Zoller cautioned that this request is the first to be heard in a new development and is precedent -setting Mr Middleton, seconded by Mr Ranum, moved approval with the condition that additional jumper trees be planted for screening Motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/01-33 This case was tabled Case No V/01-34 A variance to the Bluffland/Shoreland front yard setback (30 feet required, 24 feet requested) for construction of a 20' x 24' deck and stairs on slopes of over 12 percent at 2310 Boom Road in the RA, Single Family Residential District and the Bluffland Shoreland District Suzanne Dressler, applicant Ms Dressler and her daughter were present The applicant explained the request is to provide access to the front door and provide parking underneath the deck The deck can't be constructed on the side because of the location of the septic/well Speaking in opposition were neighboring property owners, Craig Meissner and Fred and Sue Kress Mr Meissner noted that when he applied for a vanance, he needed Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approval before he could start with forms/fittings, and the applicant has already had some footings constructed Mr Russell noted that DNR comment will be solicited before City Council action Also, Mr Russell stated the City's building official allowed footings with the applicant's full understanding that they might have to be removed During discussion, Mr Russell said there also is an issue with the side yard setback that doesn't show in the plans He pointed out that a deck extending out from the house 14', 19' in width would meet setback requirements Mr Ranum, seconded by Mr Teske, moved to deny the variance request Motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/01-35 A special use permit for a parking lot sign at the Linden Healthcare Center between 303 and 321 N Fourth St in the RB, Two Family Residential District Dana Johnson and Bill Seiberlich, representing Linden Healthcare Center • • • City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 9, 2001 Mr Seiberlich was present and reviewed the request for a single -sided sign designating employee paring, the sign would be facing the street Carol Heighdrickson, 303 N Fourth St , stated she had some initial concerns but had no problem with the plans as presented Mr Ranum moved approval as conditioned with the base of the sign to be landscaped in a reasonable manner Mr Middleton seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously Other items • Consideration of TH 36 Interregional Management Plan resolution Mr Russell said that subsequent to the discussion at the June Commission meeting, he had prepared a resolution for the Commission's consideration He stated letters on the issue had been received from Jeanne Anderson, 1109 S 4th St , and Dawn Bagaas, 1225 S Fourth St , both letters were included in the agenda packet Ms Anderson said she supported Mr Russell's proposed resolution but said she thought the resolution should be more specific, specifically stating the City is opposed to a plan that would close the Greeley Street access, that the City does not agree to a plan that requires a 55 mph speed from County Road 5 to the St Croix River, and that the City agrees to designating 36 from County Road 5 to the St Croix River as a parkway, with a maximum speed of 45 mph Also speaking were Dawn Bagaas, Jim Hainlen, 1206 S Third St , Bill Bengsten, 719 S Third St , and Richard Kilty, Fourth and Oak Streets, all spoke of being more specific and including Ms Anderson's suggested language in the resolution Mr Bengsten also provided additional signatures of neighborhood residents opposed to MnDOT's plan Mr Hainlen asked about membership on the IRC planning committee, Mr Russell stated he thought the Planning Comnussion would serve as the committee, rather than individuals Dunng discussion, Mr Ranum and Mr Middleton both spoke in favor of being more specific in the resolution Mr Gag said he liked the concept of a parkway Mr Zoller agreed that the resolution should address the issue of Greeley access, but cautioned that slowing down traffic for a parkway might result in more traffic in other neighborhoods, suggesting that the wording of the resolution might include the City supports "consideration" of a parkway concept Mr Russell suggested changing the wording regarding not supporting the closure of the Greeley access to not supporting closure of any intersection It was the consensus to change the resolution to indicate the City is opposed to closure of any existing accesses and supports consideration of a parkway with lower speed limits from County Road 5 to the St Croix River Mr Russell was to rework the resolution and get comment from Planning Commission members prior to the Council's consideration of the issue at its July 17 meeting • • • City of Stillwater Planning Commission July 9, 2001 • Comprehensive Plan review Mr Russell noted that the Metropolitan Council has raised six points with the City's Comprehensive Plan He asked whether the Commission wished to have review of the Comp Plan as an on -going discussion item It was agreed to set aside 30 minutes a meeting to view various sections of the Plan • Possible amendment to the Fence Ordinance Mr Russell stated there are a number of issues with the ordinance that come up from time to time, for example the 1 feet setback from the property line It was agreed to have staff research other communities' ordinances and bnng the matter back to the Commission at a later date • Ken LeTourneau appeared regarding a request to market a lot in the Autumn Woods development, the last remaining lot, as Single Family and Town Home, which is the development's zomng designation Mr Russell noted Single Family would be a less intensive use, but Mr LeTourneau would need the Property Owners Association approval It was the consensus of the Commission that allowing Single Family use would be OK as long as the Homeowners Association approves Motion to adjourn at 9 15 p m passed unanimously Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary . Memo To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date August 8, 2001 Subject Continuance of Case SUP/DR/01-26 The applicant called and indicated they do not have the necessary engineenng data available for final review but that it should be available for the August Planning Commission meeting Recommendation Indefinitely continue Case SUP/DR/01-26 (this will require a new public heanng) • • • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO SUP/01-33 - Planning Commission Date August 13, 2001 Project Location 2601 West Orleans Street Comprehensive Plan Distnct Business Park Commercial Zoning District BP-C Applicants Name Mike Eichel, representing Tom Thumb Type of Application Special Use Permit Project Description A special use permit to add to the existing gas pump canopy and to add another pump island History Continued from the July 9, 2001 CPC meeting giving the applicant time to work with city staff addressing safety issues with site design Discussion The applicant has worked with the city engineer since the July 9 meeting, to correct the possible safety issues with the first design that was presented Attached is the revised plan approved by !Clayton Eckles, City Engineer The two major areas of concern were 1 The placement of the curb cut on Market Drive 2 The curb cut that was proposed would interfere with cars backing out of the parking spaces in front of the convenience store The dashed lines on the attached plan show the revised new curb cut off of Market Drive It will be not be as wide and it will be located far enough to the north so it will not interfere with traffic parked for the convenience store The other dashed lines that are in the island area where the proposed canopy would be installed At the 4/12/01 HPC meeting the Hentage Preservation Commission serving as the Design Review Committee approved the design of the proposed sign and canopy Conditions of Approval 1 No additional pumps shall be permitted 2 All changes to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director Recommendation Approval as conditioned W Findings r • • The proposed use will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance Attachments Application Form/Site Plan 06/20/0? 10 _5 PUMR AND METER + 6514308810 QII r 4 si �1 4.Na l CIr/ Ur Si1LLVI.+It'- NO 862 1202 • • Case No SU / i - 33 Date Filed Fbe Paid Recelpt No • PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED Fees CI )h1MU1lI1 Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Cil Y OF Silt LWATER 210 NORTW FOURTH STREET b i Il LWATER, MN 55082 j SpecraI!Condltionel Use Pi,rrrit Vanance _ e8ubdIv sIon —Subdivision` _Comprehensive Pien Amendri -'it' $500 __Zoning Amendment' 6500 _Planning Unit 'Development * $500 __-,Certificate of Compliance $70 Design Fteview $50/2' $7012'.. $100 $1 rlrlf 501; `An E sr•row fee is also required to the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) 7 he applicant is res}. onslbla for the completeness and accuracy of all forms Lind supportlrcg r r Aterlal submitted In connection with any application All supporting material (1 e, photos, sketches, e'c j submitted with application becomes the property of the Cliy o SV1N ater 'ltti plan is required with applications PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Acidresa of Poled 0 1 WM- et, c Ohm s Assessor's Parcel No 3a 000� //1� (GEO Cods) Toning DisirictI L�-! __ Description of Protect *OD el.) To � JXL c ��o—" °-.�' -- �rDO _d o .� 1 hereby state the foregoing statements anti all data, Information and evidence submited herewith In all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true end correct l further (Jiffy l will comply with file permit if it Is granted and used," rom.r of ti Snuff arvp©ty Owner1•"Vies Flea t+t c173 I,Iaitiny AddrosaJ/e_ c �' S City stets - Zip _tJx5Tty4. ` MN Sib 35 roletheneNo (Gsi)'(37 -Sa 3 ,3ignature A G.s Representative m t KE G Meiling Address I! 3e 3_ eiace, 8-t* City. State - Zip ,gip fK(*Fsr rxN Telephone N� f3 3//1�� Signature - - SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot S317e (dimensions) _ X Lund Ared -- Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Accessory Total Building floor area_ w w,.., Square fr Existing . — stalkare feet Proposed _ squar3 feet Paved Irnpetvious Area _ __ _ aqua, 9 `cot No of off-street parking space 3___ _ - --- • I Pump. and Mefe, Senuxce, 9nc Dv_/ -a-7 Pump & Meter Service, Inc 11303 Excelsior Blvd Hopkins, MN Phone (952) 933-4800 Fax (952) 939-0418 MEMO To: City of Stillwater Attn. Susan Fitzgerald Date • July 25, 2001 From: Mike Eicher Pages: (Including this page) Ref. Tom Thumb application Susan, I believe we have worked out everything with Klayton on the enclosed revised plan There will probably be some minor conditions that Klayton and I discussed regarding the actual curbing for the curb cut We would like to be on the agenda for the August 13th meeting Please let me know if that will be a problem Thanks much for your help Mike • Fueling Systems • Inventory Controls • Electronic Gauging • • Fiberglass Tanks & Piping • Self-Sery Equipment • • Compressors • Auto Lifts & Parts • • Service Station Pumps • 1 TOM THUMB #219 2601 WEST ORLEANS STILLWATER, MN 55082 Scale 1 -20 Drawn by Lyuda S Date drawn 7/20/01 DATE mmm REV REVISION BLOCK MORE caTAL8 06/20/07 10 15 PUMP AND METER 6514308810 NO 862 003 • 4 Tom Thumb #219 2601 West. Orleans S4.111wth.er MN 55082 1 Pew 1 or 1 TT219\R7 1 L Pump & Meter Service Inc 0303 Excelsior Blvd Hoppkins MN 55343 Phone (612)933-4800 1 PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO SUP/01-36 Planning Commission Date August 13, 2001 Project Location 2337 Van Tassel Court North Comprehensive Plan Distnct Single Family Residential Zoning Distnct RA Applicants Name Joe and Joan Tlustos Type of Application Special Use Permit Project Descnption A special use permit for a home based sewing business Discussion The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a home sewing business called "Needles and Pins" Business hours will be between 8 00 a m and 7 00 p m , Monday through Fnday The business will occupy a lower level 11 x 17 foot bedroom The applicant does not expect to have business appointment all of the above hours, as time will have to be scheduled to do the sewing and to being a parent of a "busy grade school age child" There will be no exterior signage Off street parking will be on the applicants' driveway There will be no other employees Conditions of Approval 1 Hours are between 8 00 a m and 7 00 p m 2 No additional employees 3 No outside storage or display of any products or merchandise 4 There will be no sign on the property Recommendation Approval as conditioned Findings Special Use Permit The proposed use will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detnmental to the public welfare and will be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance Attachments Application Form/Letter/Photo • Case No J Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No V53/ PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 _Special/Conditional Use Permit P Fees 00 Variance 0/200 Resubdivision $100 Subdivision* $100+50/lot Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 Zoning Amendment* $300 Planning Unit Development * $500 Certificate of Compliance $70 Design Review $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and engineering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any apphcat:on All supporting material (i e , photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete apphcat:on or supporting material will delay the application process % PROPERTYIDENTIFICATION �/ Address of Project ,Q33.7 Van J C(SSC,L C4- ]V Assessor's Parcel No 00 �05-30013 Zoning District 1 ► Description of Project YW OM64. 4i M "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, ►nformat►on and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify I will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner �2Ct II +JOe 1 us-f X Mailing Address 2337 V(h r1 To j19.J C-1- tJ City-State-Zip-t(ujcZip S-h eri o S D &.- Telephone No f �O S I) 1 3Q(p Signature Representative 3.001 r t P 'kk6eVM Mailing Address . ?J A r► T45� l G� • tJ City - State - Zip Telephone No SITE AND PROJECT DESCR - ION Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Accessory Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces H \mcnamara\sheda\PLANAPP FRM June 22 2000 Needles and Pms is a home -based busmess located m our home at 2337 Van Tassel Court North m Stillwater It occupies a lower level forth bedroom. The hours of busmess would be between 8 00 a.m. and 7 00 p m. and the days of operation would be Monday through Fnday Although I offer a wide span of time each day to schedule appomtments, I do not anticipate that each workday will be scheduled sohd with appointments The reason for this is because I try to schedule them m two or three days so as to have two or three days to complete the sewmg We also have a busy grade school age child and I take the opportunity to volunteer for her classroom and Browme troop occasionally and therefore I would not be takmg appointments Our home has a double garage and driveway for parking which can be seen m the attached picture There will be no other employees than myself tqQOm 5,7-e = /7 X 11 • • • • • 4 r E RIDGE TR EAGLE RIDGTRA WALNUT CREEK DRIVE s b-� • To tts, ,.) env , Iw `- ' ��- • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/O1-37 Planning Commission Date August 13, 2001 Project Location 3213 Summerfields Court Comprehensive Plan District Traditional Residential Zoning District TR Applicants Name Senn and Youngdahl Type of Application Variance Project Description A vanance to front and side yard setbacks Discussion The request is for a vanance to the front and side yard setbacks as shown on the plans The required setbacks are 20 feet front yard and 5 feet side yard The request is for 4 9 feet side yard and 17 feet front yard (see application and site plan) The lot is on a cul de sac and a major portion of the front of the house meets the 20 foot setback including the garage Other than setbacks, the house meets the special design standards for the Liberty Project Recommendation Consideration of request Attachments Letter of application and site plan 1 • i i August 7, 2001 Community Development Department City of Stillwater 216 East Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re 3213 Summer Fields Court To The Stillwater Planning Commission Some time ago we received a call from one of the builders in Liberty on the Lake, Senn & Youngdahl, indicating that there had been a mistake made in the placement of the home on the above -referenced property The situation was explained to us and we were asked to view the property in an effort to assess and render an opinion regarding the impact of the improperly placed home The conclusion of our assessment is that due to the fact the home is located in a cul-de- sac, it would naturally be positioned differently than if it were on a straight street and it actually fits in nicely with the home presently under construction to the east While the property to the north has yet to be sold, there are rear yard easements on that particular lot that would likely cause the hone to be positioned as far forward as possible, so we don't foresee,the present position of this home dominating it Due to the surrounding conditions, it would be our opinion that this home fits the intended streetscape in its current location Senn & Youngdahl also indicated they are working with the homeowner to provide additional landscaping that will assist in creating a buffer between the front walk and the front porch It would be our recommendation not to relocate this home Sincerely, 6 Shelly Tompkins Vice President Contractor Property Developers Company SttIlwaters New Smell Town Neighborhood Liberty Land Office 3600 Kinship Green Stillwater MN 5-So82. Phone (6Si)35-i ma Fax (6Si) 3Si 7622 • • August 2, 2001 Cominunity Development Department City of Stillwater 216 East Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re 3213 Summer Fields Court To The Stillwater Planning Commission We are the property owners of Lot 8, Block 1, Phase 4 of Liberty on the Lake, which is at 3207 Summer Fields Court We do -not object to the location of the house bemg constructed next door to ours at 3213 Summer Fields Court In fact, we think its location enhances our view of the woods Sincerely, Sarah Hamel Paul Hamel DEVELOPMENT directions inc / Putman Planning & Design • • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LAND PLANNING • RESIDENTIAL DESIGN • ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATION • GRAPHIC DESIGN • August 7, 2001 Commuruty Development Department City of Stillwater 216 East Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re 3213 Summer Fields Court To The Stillwater Planning Commission • At the request of Senn & Youngdahl, we have reviewed the positioning of the home on the above -referenced property Due to the positioning of the home to the east and likely positioning of the home to the north, it is our opmion that the current positioning of the home at 3213 Summer Fields Court is compatible and consistent with Liberty's design intent It actually allows the neighbor to the east a little better view of the wooded area behind both homes This would not be the only home in the neighborhood with this type of relationship to the sidewalk and curb line to the street There are guidelines m the neighborhood that actually allow this relationship We have recommended to the builder that they work with the landscape designer and homeowner to create additional landscape buffenng As the land planner for this neighborhood, our recommendation would be not to require Senn & Youngdahl to move this home Sincerely, Marc Putman President Registered Landscape Architect NEIGHBORHOODS, BUILDINGS; PARKS & SrACGS: Strdtewies, PIanninu, Design, Critiques, Identities, Marketing _Facilities/ I Dols 724 Riverside Drive, N. Hudson, Wi.• phone: (715) 3817 8291 •, Fax (715) 381- 6829 • E Mail: Tutman@Spacestar.net . • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/O1-37 Plannmg Commission Date August 13, 2001 Project Location 3213 Summerfields Court Comprehensive Plan District Traditional Residential Zoning District TR Applicants Name Senn and Youngdahl Type of Application Variance Project Description A variance to front and side yard setbacks Discussion The request is for a variance to the front and side yard setbacks as shown on the plans The required setbacks are 20 feet front yard and 5 feet side yard The request is for 4 9 feet side yard and 17 feet front yard (see application and site plan) The lot is on a cul de sac and a major portion of the front of the house meets the 20 foot setback including the garage Other than setbacks, the house meets the special design standards for the Liberty Project Recommendation Consideration of request Attachments Letter of application and site plan • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 RCPT # CHECK # m9/1?-12 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED DEPARTMENT _Special/Conditional Use Permit X Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* _Comprehensive Plan Amendment* _Zoning Amendment* _Planning Unit Development * _Certificate of Compliance _Design Review Fees $50/200 $70/200 $100 $100+50/lot $500 $300 $500 $70 $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and eng►neenng fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any appl►cat,on All supporting material 0 e , photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete applicat,on or supporting material will delay the application process Zoning District Description of Project Lay `? , BLoCK /) P/-IASp ¥ Ll, tkT\( r/l t LA Es "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify I will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 3213 atiV ►(OLDS CotA KT Assessor's Parcel No (GEO Code) Property Owner /,)ARol.) 4 PAL( /kJo Mailing Address 2101 'VE So City - State - Zip /KPLS /4\14 Telephone s - g7tc Ib Signature Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area i' I40, EL • Height of Buildings Stories Principal 2 Accessory Representative SEW �' Y°L,tkiGDAHL At7 / bA/C DoIZ�/ Mailing Address 1604 Truck/A-,—I Berl/0 City - State - Zip 7'"/!e--. k A 1 12 i I Telephone No s / -14-SO cXr Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Feet 3! Total Building floor area Existing Proposed 2I9 & Paved Impervious Area No of off-street parking :07s:uare square feet uare feet uare feet feet spaces 2 H \mcnamara\sheda\PLANAPP FRM June 22 2000 y i.� i .--:: �- ! �r..a F .->- ^, '- y l ; - Y+ "f. t 1 .� e«-. 1 3 v •." r•- %i r 4,Y, '- •Fk � �V' —� .� �,4 � - r s " � � �z'�".. �s � t� i s�, j�. � -!` �•I.' f l.�' -}Y 4`- i-~ y x c =y� , `r°- :`sr 3 e- 4�-L.i Ss'.'1 ,-"i . h-: 1,... ` r_�.4{t{ ..k",E c � C!`-,ems-++ jY<-ts .t�.]���W�= �i' . _ l ? •/j >, T c\4 1y,6 r 1 �'.>���� � �w __ i [u\/�� j 1 - it-- ., i ,-"., r= .4f-.t'�iF .-'tr~ } k :. `Yf 1 I tv Y Y �'\ 1F 4't�t c l� pi� r - L} ,��z y�y� f ti, 4-- { �1 � {Jy 4 � r �' �114 � .x -� . v `' t f --- 1 .- y`y t 1" -, r -..t v9-.; f rg y, 1 t t,,J ° ! s Y� yJ i � t�'� " _ i' i } -^t- 7' '."ti *fir tSr y�L � i � a " r ��>< s _ r i t S% -� rr/ice r s _ �M t '4 ^c• �`t u� 1. �t t t �_Lp`1'� 4 - ■/�'/Q .. i A. ; J 1 jx `� r t i� jrr afs y��-y,^ 'Via 4µ..s. a `y'�'�i 5�� { •5� � ' � ".1� Jr. 4. rh. x-, Y f' • / •hs .. . 'j-r714 #, �- r I� 0.''; ,l^A' .t�•" •� 7•/I1 a ,F�5.�'1^'�x�"�tf•'`P'f0 r X� Mrt Air 3• a"- a � ommunrty D�evelop7,...7.4.,ilTs..4_,D epr n#; h ,� k � ��ypF r� S !'� M P a*4't.f c k tF'Y �x-` ` u . J s' f1 '. V „yy▪ i Stillwater4 _. ,f- x �F Y�� f t , yra ' 7 s 216`-LEourtl S reel r C h t 4Lii x A£ a j�s, 2 °t di Lr a h Sl H x �{ sy t .c "'�.Yr � e +�'� " �` a . r t r_ `� i >L`!�, sir`•.? � 1 :'t i �3-t r r ,�t}� fir . �r �+ k' � _Stillwatet, Sf)8 �}�� w • =� p �; te k� �z _ � '` � `� r 1 ♦y\1�S {{`h .r."'�t ✓ j-. a 2� Y .,,p% t� X� �, .h'k x4x--K�s {.� ,.�ti.. 1 'tom, T 4 c '''-=. r'+ ., `j.�q��} P ^} (J �TS i'S <� L..�1 1 ^1R.� � 2R .F' �3 � s, } ,Y"',l-grr, J .�._' 1 3 fti ir7' ysi- s Y'r-_LLLi Yc .� e"' •z • # '`3 -*4'L .r 't- r.Pr, 4- r-i- i�r twy,� -v . . r 'f e` ; �w "'r...r^, L ✓- * i� 7" y`7: IRe Pallaqu4Residence � - �',- -- sa�J� .t t ,c.1.7 l kips. c rh ' _`' ,,, �c, . S t � r1 y R c '1c'' rf? � � � ,�ei.H { C-� JF-'+� .'�aT �_�„r � 4, 1 r 1 ' .�"--n y=.e f ▪ '# tr ""iti �' - V - i rfL v- 's rt r .- -•✓ a HEr- 'x K \ / � ti�,�.. ✓ Nitian_ce fdr,Srte L_bta one I� eY= = �r r f F `� k �; -, �. >> - =+ 'sued ti +� 7�.r .( ,C o w 4'_� -,4 1-` ti c,-rt �' r ,1v- j k -4 ay -:A � t F.' 'h i s#+RMFt$ 41' ). ,#,,.'-t^a wa .irC"4 1� r > Za -./ .+1 1"ii r 1 t .q1 � t y r �� '; - �.. e- / '' ,� jy-�.i.-.�v Jk..s ^y� tp� �� 1 ' � ,. - -- .�•'� .Y To e lv�rat r Pl mnuasi n y- s r ',r �'� T �'., • i G ,, T\ * s Pi". ; r 1. ,h 4"d f .`2` t } •w.> i `'Sc 3"l rf ���" t.. �` 3, ^?' GrzC{ .p • h ` 1 Please Consldei' thf pp t for >r .. ro u �` r� -,� _ s 1 a o r_ an e:torrtheprope#y,r, y4eestlon'at-3213 iSummert .- . " c� Y���3-t-.�'r a -''� '�,n l`w�j" 1 '{ tsl Y �� � � ,?s? �, s *+�y*},.,,\'s` �y yr .,-� a`7. t! � i �1 l ��-t�` �'� y �,.. '--ti - 3� X �-� Fields Courtll e Lo 9, Bldc'k� � y th " ` ` ,:., t F Phase l if -on a 1.ak 4_ ,' �, - `- -,4 -- 7:1 � t4r tr1.► ���� �TJ .ar`` f .� 7' 3 y (S "`E m�� j"' `S if�vr��-',� a rS*.�� `�� ..x -. a �- j��--v+l �'1 -s.,,. E j _? r , ,." si vt �y 1$ s�kF-3 '�`'- A r� H ,.r { � %t'-rt `�.,,`/ � � - � l� c+ •s�J >l k 7 ii /Z�! \ k' -y,. { ,t / .�-�� � Y4. y t',-' �,� 5.. � N + � � t..cLy \ s tt -Z*' x We regdest v ance tij 1e ont yardy8r.� i P�y�v,�rd.��.ys-et isack 'solely for the purpose of� �. tom=- H� ;CAI s / s Z s�'PA :r`f�'` t. x+ n.. > a r,L , ht4 ,.. ac. i , €_ r"--. 4j-47,-,, � w r .�ii , P4 h ,� 1 g.nur the t reliq f fromthe extraordllnar`y eircumstan'oeof laying thseir house ,�4 , � h - } � ; -.. � t a''.r i- -r. Y r� z ^f-i� r tea-. r, /'a t _,,ems ^ —�4_ fv _, 1,-- ° A 4 ,, k incorrectly tec4 by ur bt idu�gteam 4Our che-'h the'Pallarmos, zhro�,gh zoo fault affihelr ' ;�.r- f 4�+ u�}G�r� t t� s .0 A `K ' + vart r ✓xr -v ✓ zrrr3 A- 1 --- �c -,,.1,..:_, '/t t ,Zi.,. o ate,seeki g�this-vanan'elso that -we` Senn.&-`Youh Bahl-can'd'�hv'er their pro ecFuiba"fr ."� <�, -+ r Y .e•t4= T�1 .S"' ) \ ..- - Y '1's 't.�' r- - �,�'r" ...Its 1` -r'�' g' r y �-4 Y J `, 3`3-,-i : , , , , Yt _ ,R-� }n?, �t s _q typo sable given the ircumsta ces ofour iiuscne �� �* � t -.� < j F " „tea f ei mannera ' in thg Ile uali _-' �'' r 1 r � a� Y r� .cam �Tl 7 r +-a � J = d Y err y � _r �r ,. { c r s „C -nC h - r .1..f +,+t t ,S F -[ rr'5 -- F ,:; t i i'"� "Si`+ - r to do s ai3�� ii ` -t "x �', r=5 ^ Y� $f ',IA," F H}1�P'W�� j � � `~� Jf4' 7 }u S r - e- �. a:,. . A \+i ,-�ti}- r ,�{.r , TE �a. 1 . 9-,, ...F�4- ` ` t.-`�T a neighbor shoo q e ad_ve sela�ffected since therbpeityrin questio s bna y, y �y� }{,�, �n] g /may i 1...,---_,,,,.. �d R S b![•' �F 4�� ski i�r � � i fi W� j ray S Y d' r' _ .wry,, 'f cul-de-sac which does no accenivate`t$emistal�`e At�17 feet from the,front sidewalk 4t is. .� =-y `V '4� i a-- �• �4 �+l�i `^ �k .it+„Y � ` '.� f � M � i f v� t ` "rI� p 1 `?� A� t °"!"'. �<< �Y `ef",sS" .T t �.�i. .r'�fh .'_s' 1 s �4 t 'ati. i ;{� „ i �� aiWi her li ck th i Y � ',, �_ �A r ,-1-^ k i � � $ � j r3' �." p,,� ��,, � �U��g�� o�f�ouses.lnf{..��er� on fh�e Lake�� � :� -� .�,, �,c�ry t "N fii s!gil ,� r�- T Q -Y kr - y- �� - � . .Ft2},�' , t p'YA y .+ cr , ,,t -,A , •%-t- L i "< �..� _ , 1 ' t 'y e '{ >� h e " w�� Z� ' t { r ,-hh�i . t r s 3" X 4'R ' ""' •vr --rt.44, 't l:;'/ „� /4'1, • r`-W )ry j ,F��c>.. 5..'.t_., -;--.' / ..� sX 4. +%� 'f-r ,,,,te. ,. � :e4,, �" �� .,`.� �•�f � i �+'+ � tT �� �. �t " `} 7`�-� ��h-� '7 '�'r✓'�J�'�.���..f«�!' Y�j'r �'.� �i�. �-.'�h�' ?J A'Yj•.�.�lY" jS �.�i addition,` he neigh or oo co benefit because -,the bac arli s b e can po�v b/e� w t�; -, y��(�3 4 ▪ } r u.,,i- rt 'a5sr^ :c�` =,Ft'r ri' 7 rix'Y'F.` •e�iC -t ,< r� r ` - "i §0 q t _ . -rr i. i a t �'r t'fi�4�'r s.i �1�. • "' ' .`' A « mnumized to lessen he im et of the ouse n�the existingtrees,-& Sumac A ditionall �-` - -5 .,''' �,--�r L ' 4" t " � IpT ' '" '� -'*r �'-�" ,- _ r; r i �, y, r;, Cr f � _ -V4 � &- we can aunimlze e uhpac�t of the eloseness'to a sidewalk byr f nag appropriate �^`, ',- ,r . - Y �., r a+. x a .ram! St -. •.,�'tij r +fit h i ) Y ,* t:`r�r . L y e.`* '-ya` rf ems, yfs r p -4alld aping-c& &alnitkgr al � �K _4 i4r"2..t R=r-'�� )`,, r`- '-----i t L ,_r am �+f6 1 L Fes, R4 ,r. ar 7 ^.` -fyi� �� bad .r r444$ F �}"? i`i.. r-. .rw ..R. x w� e- r 41. f? r. C ''q s.,. • y,1 q - 1 i 1.b x.A elok 'r• + *-T1- •Cy7 �, awl ---- f' - -T- l e - pprd ;.-� �- --- r-a-- v S * ., irc \-' r.G } r �, l� ` 4.t` 3 �i.� ^a.+ l" ti ,x �..� +rs Sr '� 'S �� , o g tna-loeahQn bfkytl e h'&i e.as c s ict&1 ITnaaddttio vie would like t'b meet with 't`,5.-:-.4,.:.,'% }f �� y1X-4 (a'y'a i, Ira----5# "f --r%?k'r ° `S. :, - AL'T0.:i -r y'Yt,# •ram .--..!'t._x 11,.,. • *. eac x ou to $ ova • i e site t• uestio ''a�nd,answer Anyquetionsyou gh have' 45 ncemtn th arlance �lc ti T�` CYO x ,fir W� 0' ,''T4C .. ,r',- 'ter- Kt' - A -�, r 1 r -ea -4 Ha,<<r{'f Ya-n..c-r$ . kl",A.V "? "'Sa^f, 'r ms, `1{ k.} 4./,. J k N.. '"y 'let 11 -- 4'1 .0-i.—; -a-, 1t., —{J` a�3.rveyA"� ^kt 2.1 i _,A -"''; ,,,` - i . n i i- I, V t , \-; " `�._..._(.,._ N� ' 'r: ,' 3 ...'. r .'' ''' i! - .4'` i i ~ C , -Y „E it d -} M1i - way ae� w.VAbem so ny wan wb OenY V P+le�elw NMryv�Can1I a rNpmvrY b � �N.vs Baru wrn.9b^fvnYe..+N o^r+ V1vr� and Vti 04 mtlmA9m Narmsm a+m ma4 W ]W �n Nc Ju 20 no CERTIFICATE of SURVEY SURVEY FOR Senn And Youngdahl 4606 Stillwater Boulevard Stillwater, MN 55082 i LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 9, Block 1, LIBERTY ON THE LAKE 4TH ADDITION, accordmg to the Plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washmgton County, Minnesota Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc. LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING 1815 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 (651) 439-8833 NOTES • DENOTES 1 /2 INCH REBAR MONUMENT FOUND (MARKED WITH A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED "WEBER RLS 12043") UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE DENOTES EXISTING DRAINAGE DIRECTION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION CDDENOTES EXISTING GROUND SPOT ELEVATION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION \1 T ELEVATIONS ARE NGVD MEAN SEA -LEVEL 1929 ADJ DENOTES OPEN SPACE AS PER WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE RECORDED PLAT OF LIBERTY ON THE LAKE 4TH ADDITION LIBERTY ON THE LAKE 4TH ADDITION 77t=i=0 60 \ �\ 10 ti 1 1 1 TrO am ti 2 1 NOTE This survey is not an AS —Built Survey The house and garage were field located as they were being constructed Siding will change the offset dimensions slightly when Installed / 21.06 NE9°02'07'1'W h i 3 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (Per Builder) Garage Floor Top Block = Lowest Floor AVID L DUP TIMOTHY J F SCALE: 1 Inch = 30 Feet W SUMMER FIELDS :�✓ COURT s `.10 '35 Co 15 5 4 ��re{e Curb Sidewalk I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DUL' LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE uF MINNESO iA i MI ESOTA LICENSE NO 17252 DA N MINNESOTA LICENSE NO 16989 Q/ NOTE OFFICIAL COPIES OF THIS MAP ARE CRIMP SEALED Map No 01-147A © 2001 — Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc — All Rights Reserved • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/01 0 Planning Commission Date August 13, 2001 Project Location 906 Fifth Avenue South Comprehensive Plan Distnct Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Applicants Name John Prosser Type of Application Variance Project Description A variance to the front yard setback (20 feet required, 14 feet requested) for the construction of a 180 square foot deck History On July 13, 1998, Mr Prosser applied for a Variance approval from the Planning Commission The request was for a variance to the front yard setback (20 feet required, 6 feet requested) for the construction of first and second floor decks The Planning Commission approved the first floor deck and denied the second floor deck (minutes attached) The applicant appealed to City Council on August 4, 1998 The Council upheld the Commissions decision (minutes attached) Discussion The applicant is proposing to construct a 9 foot by 20 foot deck on the second floor off on the east side of the residence As in the staff report of July 13, 1998, it is staffs recommendation that a deck could be constructed on the north side of the house, and have a view of the river without requesting a vanance (see attached staff report) Conditions of Approval Should the Commission approve the requested vanance, staff suggests the following conditions of approval 1 Building plans be approved by the Building Official 2 All materials be compatible with the existing structure Recommendation Denial Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a vanance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a vanance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the vanance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form/Letter/Site Plan/Photos • • • • r-- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED ._Special/Conditional Use Permit ✓Variance ._Resubdivision _Subdivision* Fees 50/200 00 00 $100+50/lot _Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 _Zoning Amendment* $300 _Planning Unit Development * $500 _Certificate of Compliance $70 _Design Review $25 *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and eng►neering fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted ►n connection with any application All supporting material (i e , photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with apphcat►on becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with appl:cat►ons Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the apphcat,on process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 9'D6 5171 4 De-, Sa Assessor's Parcel No 31 D 3vW 19,a cD 17 Zoning(GEO Code) District R 13 Description of Project l So S4 Poor p o oP NASTA2ti f• r700vOM - 7- h►DE OF t D&SE/pry,9,,,r- Yore- am/ 20=•12 pc.002. "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, informaton and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify I will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner JD H hi A PR.D.55ER Representative /4/ Wif-e ST ilJr f2e->c2A) Mailing Address 9. 0 S n` A L E SD Mailing Address 145 F_ w/-i-1(4r- City - State - Zip STI L LLuA TER. 1Y 5 Z City - State - Zip STjt..1tiv(-1- , M/v 5-G2232-- Telephone No 40 51- 6 7 Telephone No i 5 37yj S►gnatur r . S►gnature,��,?�, SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) 111 x (772 Land Area "y 4' -4 Pr Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal 2. Accessory ►/y `0TVcE*WI H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM June 22 2000 Total Building floor area 42A-* square feet Existing 42, 4io square feet 400 d�51�R Proposed I b d square feet pev Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces 4 chrl,`, Z 4pftt/6v 2fr e 1 N'27)dW b ) ftran-sr4No CMCsitil (LtWad — M 0 /`rdwJ rn - e7I ('10 11I.4 - cs.O2 S-zt7Pile i 1s 1; j.doom ,7:si yd 71? da O,ODd N 41031-7 — 1211n37 <PO np,02 4 • 1 I I� I I 1 • • • • • 30 July 2001 Planning Commission/City Council City of Stillwater, Minnesota Re A deck addition to the Prosser residence 906 5th Avenue South Stillwater, Minnesota The existing smgle family residence is a two story wood frame structure The first floor is 2100 square feet and houses a hvmg room, duung room, kitchen, entry hall, guest bedroom/den, full bath and two car garage The second floor is 2100 square feet and has a master bedroom with walk-m closet and bathroom, two additional bedrooms with a shared bath, a sitting room/hall, and family room This proposal is to add a 180 square foot deck to the east facade of the home at 906 5th Avenue South, that would be for the exclusive use of the master bedroom The existing facade is 22 8 feet from the property line The proposed deck would extend mto the setback by 6 2 feet lithe 20 foot set back were to be honored The neighboring homes on each side of Fifth Avenue South all in some way violate the 20 foot set back, The three housed directly south of 906 appear to be a maximum of 6 5 feet from the property tine The attached photographs help explain the positions of all the existmg homes The photograph with the overlay showing the proposed deck was taken from in front of the window at 910 5th Avenue South In our opuuon, it shows there would be no economic loss to the property at 910 because of the construction of the deck Considering all of the above, to approve this vanance would not be grantmg special nghts to 906 5th Avenue South that the neighbors do not presently enjoy • • 2g.p..sT -_,t,ei/Alrl 0 • • • SURVEY MADE FOR Mr John Prosser 906 So Fifth Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 Mr David Hartung 910 So Fifth Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 NOTES CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prosser Parcel Desc Supplied (Doc No 900980) Lots 1 and 2, Block 16, Hersey, Staples and Co's Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota Hartung Parcel Description (Doc No 381871) Lot 3, Block 16, Hersey, Staples and Co's Addition to Stillwater, Washington Co , Minn Prosser Parcel Hudson Street Vacation Note Orientation of this bearing system is assumed datum o Indicates 1/2" I D iron pipe set marked with a plastic plug inscribed STACK RLS 13774 • Indicates survey point set or found as noted hereon "M " Indicates measured value "R " Indicates record value Note visible encroachments as shown Underground or over- head public or private utilities on or adjacent the above desc parcels were not located in conjunction with the survey Offsets shown to existing buildings are measured to the outside building wall line Any projections from said wall lines such as eaves, sills, decks, etc , will impact these offsets Hersey, Staples and Co's Add is Rec as Doc No 416049 Offsets shown to fence lines are meas to the fe centerlines "P F " Indicates the location of a wood Privacy Fence 8't high "E S " Ind elec sery into house "G M " Ind nat gas meter Aro L/NE .% /G feet BST "1 P v7 /26+ v • cove 1(17 .\. \ \ \\\ yvvso.7� - - //89'SG '2/' E .So /G FEEr 'ONO/r/ M/4LL !� //' Tt O .4'r5OLd r/o v /PEc /N floor /44 of OEEof, AC 6/.2 2/ZD sy Fr, Sz — Stack Land Surveying 9090 North Fairy Falls Rd Stillwater, MN 55082 (651) 439-5630 Pursuant to a Resolution of the City of Stillwater, passed February 5, 1946, Certified copy recorded March 1, 1946 in Book 146 of Deeds, Page 612, the South 16 00 feet of East Hudson Street abutting Lot 1, Block 16, Hersey, Staples and Co's Add was conditionally vacated See this instrument specific details of this street vacation for artung encroachments on neighboring properties Property line setbacks $ L/Ns E //.voso v Sr 7. y_- \--N89'S62/"E M/3.?47 .e /3Z - - \ 8tvice \ 4-A,egdE k \ C we \ e-'I Aiaa \ V \\'\\\\ \\\\\ o6Y — Lor/ r.t kk• f,rcot.' 26'+NJ \ o ae ofCbe Lail t) N v`1 PF W000 ales --;-)AS Na a4+1 . >APU 7`� 1.Ril a.Foty Lorlr / poi 6698Sefr2 P.eossE.e PAlResE,G I74/7 9/NS /53:29 43, (Eric gs Sr, Ne L,rO- - - /v89 :SG Z / E `/rl /3.Z 4 9//''// .P /3Z — - Pe } to L.va i ,CDT 2 677/ fe Fr f Pets ifRNYCt 10.4.414- 40/.4 4'.QL //Arl./e/NOr .IN0/49rEs OGTS/DE ^� eiRo WALL L/NEyTrf) —k , e 'ssE.e Divia /,vim No 74' doe //oMNo LOT/,NE fE eo e Z rNo / 9 *w of 4e 8L. rw412 Lor 3 /6 of GP/ \\\A ENrer BLOLC /f/Ara p / * 400e d7 AMP#.5.4 ,z/"E M /AZ 49 Lor" SNSD ,e /32 oN dor L/NA'+ 2/ t 'or" 6 orf / / / / Lora 677/sy /er* r/NF?lj—_ 2 r} 6M / / // a6rLtior-/ fNrM • Come y/J,e7w,vw D/vEtj //✓ur ,4/0 9/6, tUrt¢1 B 4,e DESK 4 8 * / 8/T D,PivEi SE' /vr3 / / ;rag+ - - 589 C$ :Z/"Gi/ /'f /3.2 4t9 /e /3Z ='I / LgNOlLqPer T/a/a kr4 Q 4444 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota /— /^ A Oac /14, 4/4O¢9 - 4 ,0-4, Co, "eecoeos Date March 19, 1999 Reg No 13774 : N,-iTq ColwrYwNlss( on Mlrus s i July 13,1998 notched in an area behind the garage, would be "relatively non -intrusive" and provided a letter from neighbors stating they had no objections Mr Rhemberger moved approval as conditioned, Mr Fontame seconded the motion for discussion purposes Mr Rhemberger said the proposal is about the only option to construct a deck without ruining the beauty of the apphcant's backyard Mr Weidner said landscaping does not represent a hardslup Mr Fontaine said he though a small backyard is a hardship Motion of approval passed 4-2, with Mr Roetman and Mr Weidner votmg no Case No V/98-43 A vanance to the fence ordmance for construction of a 6-foot high cedar fence at 716 W Laurel St m the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Bnan and Michelle Gohl, applicants Mr Gohl was present for the discussion Mr Fontaine noted the request seemed to be prompted by a desire to provide a sight and sound bamer from nearby businesses and traffic_ Mr Russell pointed out the fence would not affect any views from the south, and the height requirement is not as relevant due to an existing garage _ Mrs Bealka, seconded by Mr Rhemberger, moved approval Motion passed 5-1, with Mr Weidner voting no Case No. V/98-44 A variance to the accessory structure (1,000 sq ft allowed, 1040 sq ft requested) at 301 Darrell Court m the RA, Single Farmly Residential Distnct Bnan Palmer, representing Steve and Nancy Glaser, apphcants Mr Palmer and the applicants were present for the discussion Mr Palmer explamed the structure would not encroach mto the side or backyard setbacks He said the variance is bemg requested in order to keep existmg roof lines and soffit and fascia lured up so the structure doesn't look like an addition Mr Roetman asked why the applicants couldn't just shorten the structure in order to meet requirements Mr Palmer said that could be done, but it might add to construction costs in order to keep existing roof lines Attorney Karl Ranum, representmg Pat and Arthur Gill, 302 Darrell Court, spoke against the variance, he stated there was no hardship mvolved and asked the Commission to deny the request Mrs Gill explained her primary objection is drainage problems m the area, she provided photos of the properties Mr Glaser responded that the proposal would not change the drainage, and, m fact, the water drams to their property, Mr Roetman, seconded by Mr Hultman, moved to deny the requested variance Motion passed 5-1, with Mrs Bealka voting no Case No. V/98-45 A vanance to the front yard setback (20 ft required, 6 ft requested) for construction of first and second floor decks at 906 Fifth Ave S m the RB, Two Family Residential Distnct Maunce Stenerson, representing John A Prosser, applicant 4 • • • Planning Commission July 13, 1998 Mr Stenerson was present Also present were David and Julie Hartung, 910 Fifth Ave S , and their attorney, Karl Ranum Mr Ranum stated the Hartungs' objection is that any extension of Mr Prosser's residence to the east impmges on the Hartungs view of the nver to the northeast, even a first floor deck would unpmge on the view, he stated Mr Ranum stated the proposal would have a substantial negative effect on the value of the Hartungs' property Mr Ranum further stated there is plenty of room to construct the desired decks elsewhere on Mr Prosser's property Mr Stenerson explained that Mr Prosser is planning on havmg his elderly parents hve with him and would like the deck at the same level as the house and garage He said the house directly south of Mr Prosser is at a higher elevation and a first floor deck likely would not affect their view Mr Hartung provided photos showmg the potential negative affect on their view and stated he had told Mr Prosser his plans would be a disaster and destroy their view to the north He also noted that Mr Prosser has two lots which offer plenty of opportunity for him to expand m a different location Mrs Hartung also spoke against the proposal In the discussion, it was noted that there are other alternatives for Mr Prosser to construct a garage/deck on lus property and that the applicant currently has a garage and access off the rear of the property from Hudson Street, which is a paved/mamtamed street Mr Roetman, seconded by Mr Hultman, moved to deny the request, all m favor Case No. V/98-46 A vanance to the rear yard setback (25 ft required, 5 ft requested) for construction of a 24 x 31 addition, mcludmg an attached 2-car garage, full bath and laundry room at 904 S Fifth St ui the RB, Two Family Residential District Maunce Stenerson, representing Thomas C Pugh, apphcant Mr Stenerson and Mr and Mrs Pugh were present Mr and Mrs Pugh stated that they currently share a driveway with three houses and are forced to park on the street The addition also would include a bath and laundry, currently there is no bath on the main level of the house The proposal as presented would result m an 11-foot dnveway Members expressed concern about the length of the dnve as creatmg a potential safety hazard Mr Stenerson suggested a possible alternative for correctmg the dnveway situation would be to lower the garage floor and construct a two-story garage, a backyard vanance would still be required The Pughs agreed that would be a viable alternative if a vanance is granted for the backyard Mr Hultman, seconded by Mr Rhemberger, moved approval as conditioned, with the additional condition that a 20-foot long dnveway ( from the sidewalk to the inside edge of the garage) be provided Vote was 5-1, with Mr Weidner voting no i • • City Council Meeting 98-17 August 4, 1998 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 Case No V/98-45 This is the day and time for the pubhc hearmg to consider an appeal from the Planning Commission for a request from John A Prosser for a variance request to the front yard setback (20 ft required, 6 ft requested) for the construction of first and second floor decks at 906 5th Avenue South m the RB Two Family Residential District Notice of the heanng was pubhshed m the Stillwater Gazette on July 24, 1998, and notices mailed to affected property owners Community Development Director Russell reported that the Planning Commission demed the request from John Prosser at their July 13, 1998 meeting with a vote of 6-0 The request is for a vanance to the front yard setback for a first and second floor deck Future plans are to add an attached garage to the west side of the house Site restrictions and a steep slope to the north mean that the dnveway would have to be along the side of the house David and Julie Hartung, 910 South Fifth Avenue, have submitted a statement m opposition to the request pnmanly because of the view impact to their property Gerald Fontaine explained the Planning Commission determined a lower deck could be built, with some modifications, without a vanance They did feel the upper deck impacted the view from the Hartung property It would also be possible to build an upper deck on the north side of the property It was determmed there was no hardship and therefore no basis for granting a vanance The Mayor opened the public hearmg James Lammers, representing Mr Prosser, presented their request for the vanance He stated it was not feasible to build a deck on the north side The proposed upper deck would have one deck support and would not block the view In addition, the Hudson road topography was too steep for access The neighbonng properties have closer setbacks, Mr Prosser is not asking for special privileges To deny the vanance would be to depnve him of nghts neighbors currently enjoy Karl Ranum, representing David and Juhe Hartung, stated no hardship existed The Council should have no option but to uphold the demal of vanance by the Planning Commmssion Mr Hartung stated they have enjoyed a view of the river for twenty years He asked to correct Mr Lammer's statement that high shrubs blocked their view until the time Mr Prosser removed them Mr Hartung stated the shrubs had always been mamtamed and trimmed to a level to provide a nver view They were not mamtamed for a short penod after the house sold and before Mr Prosser took possession of the property, thus allowing them to grow to a level that may have given Mr Prosser the mistaken impression the shrubs had been that tall for an extended penod The Mayor closed the pubhc hearing Motion by Councilmember Thole, seconded by Councilmember Beallca directmg staff to prepare 4 • • • City Council Meetmg 98-17 August 4,1998 extemporaneous findings for the approval of the vanance for a first floor deck and denial of a vanance for a second floor deck at 906 5th Ave S and present findings at the August 18, 1998, meeting All in favor 2 Case No SUB/98-40 This is the day and time for the pubhc hearing to consider a request from Lloyd I Zieske for a resubdivision of 1412 West Ohve Street (three lots) mto two lots of 10,350 and 8,050 square feet (10,000 square feet required) m the RA, Single Family Residential District Notice of the hearing was pubhshed m the Stillwater Gazette on July 24, 1998, and notices mailed to affected property owners A memo from Community Development Director Russell explained the request is to create two lots, one on Ramsey street and one on Olive Street An existing house is located at 1412 Ohve Street The new Ramsey Street lot contains 10,350 square feet (10,000 square feet minimum lot area m the RA District) Staff recommends approval of the resubdivision on the condition that drainage easements shall be recorded along the property lines as required by the City Engmeer The Mayor opened the public hearing There were no requests to be heard The Mayor closed the pubhc hearing Motion by Councilmember Bealka, seconded by Councilmember Thole, adopting Resolution 98-203 approving the resubdivision of 1412 W Ohve Street (three lots) mto two lots of 10,350 and 8,050 square feet m the RA, Single Family Residential Distract Ayes Councilmembers Bealka, Cummings, Thole, Zoller and Mayor Kimble Nays None 3 Case No SUB/98-48 This is the day and time for the public hearing to consider a request from Folz, Freeman, Dupay and Associates, representmg JoAnn Montbnand and Teresa Maslowski, for a resubdivision of Lots 14, 16 and 18, Block 2, Greeley and Slaughter's Addition into two lots of 7,989 and 10,164 square feet at 211 North Owens Street m the RB, Two Family Residential District (7,500 square foot minimum) Notice of the hearing was published m the Stillwater Gazette on July 24, 1998, and notices mailed to affected property owners Commumty Development Director Russell reported that the request is for approval to resubdivide three lots mto two lots Lot 1 at 211 North Street would be 10,164 square feet and would mclude the existing house and garage Lot 2 will be 7,989 square feet (7,500 square feet is the minimum lot size allowed by the zoning ordmance m the RB District) Staff recommends approval on the condition that it is reviewed and approved by the City Engmeer The Mayor opened the pubhc hearing David Newburg, representmg the applicants, stated he was present only to be available should Council have questions 5 PI- INING APPLICATION REVIEW b _ ANI CASE NO V/98-45 • • Plannmg Commission Date July 13, 1998 Project Location 906 Fifth Avenue South Comprehensive Plan District Two Family Residential Zoning District RB Apphcants Name Maurice Stenerson, representing John A Prosser Type of Apphcation Variance Project Description A Vanance to the front yard setback (20 ft required, 6 ft requested) for the construction of first and second floor decks Discussion The request is for a vanance to the front yard for a first floor and a second floor deck The apphcant has future plans to add an attached garage to the west side of the home Due to site restrictions, the steep slope to the north, a dnveway to the future garage has to be along side of the house It is staffs' suggestion that a vanance be given for the first floor deck because of the future dnve The second floor deck could be constructed on the north side and not need a vanance Conditions of Approval Should the Commission approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions of approval 1 All matenals be compatible with the existing structure 2 Plans be approved by the buildmg official Recommendation Approval of vanance for the first floor deck Demal of vanance for second floor deck Findmgs 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a vanance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property nghts possessed by other properties m the same district and m the same vicuuty, and that a vanance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authonzing of the vanance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not matenally impair the purpose and intent of this title or the pubhc mterest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application form, site plan, photos • CPC Action on 7-13-98 +6-0 Denial • C • �g r t; t rt11a,"w� �{�y lr t �c y �iYJ`J ,` 4_ .yt% T Vh 1� fi 4 View taken from in front of Hartung's window 7 .l �444. v, Y j u s e — Yf t � X.1, 2 j J 7 %rye i f ,17 -`5 t , 4 L Y 1a r { 7MsJ fi ,, Y^,°y y 1 yk`Y x tta � r y r(Y11' AK tL4,..e ZMTJ + p y �.cC� r 4r--s .s;.. 7ivavy3t5, `a{� "i ' atv i'�kr'a < tr.,•l 1+dti�+�5'iF i�' ti 5 i'�itla P:f1-1'..rX4';i::57i,' zr,4.-`:PL:t.',Y,1-t.'• v•-• -7-'-', —= _f --- - - ' - v, 0 A4Mt til , b-!Afirg 11,,f -.1 This picture shows graphically the differences in the setbacks of the two houses • • • This picture shows how far east the house is in relation to the Hartung window It also shows the Hartung deck that is 3i feet onto the city right of way • • These pictures show the McClain's deck across the street. They were granted a Variance to build up to the property line ti • Two pictures taken before the remodeling project started.They show the large hedge,Vine Covered Fence, and a Four Foot Overhang that originally blocked the Hartung view. r • W_____ • • • • PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW FORM CASE NO V/DR/01-39 Planning Commission Date August 13, 2001 Project Location Parking lot north of Pine Street between 3rd and 4th Streets Comprehensive Plan District Public Administration Zoning District PA Applicants Name Brian Larson representing Memorial to Stillwater High School Veterans Committee Type of Application A Vanance to the height ordinance in the PA zoning district to construct a "Memorial to Stillwater High School Veterans" Discussion The applicant is requesting a vanance to the height ordinance to construct a memonal to Stillwater High School Veterans The applicant states "the purpose of the memorial is to honor by name all service people killed in time of war, who have attended Stillwater area schools It is also intended to serve as a focal point in recognizing all local veterans of military service, and inform and educate the public about our country's wars and conflicts and local participation in them" The site for the proposed memorial was designated by City Council as the center island areas of the city -owned parking lot at the above address The memorial site is divided into three sequential spaces, proceeding from the south to the north The first space or main entry from the south at Pine Street, would explain the history of Stillwater and the high school that once sat on this site This would be accomplished on a precasted wall The walls would be lit from the ground up Each of the three sites would have a bronze and stainless steel disk set into the existing brick paving as a marker introducing each segment The second space is created in the existing center "island" extending the pavers to form a 24 foot circle bounded on the east and west by curving walls These walls are used to describe the history of each war and military conflict In the center of the space is a tall flagpole for the American flag The walls and the flag would be lit by groundlighting The third space is centered on a 75 — 80 foot conical shape that is dedicated to those who sacrificed their lives in military wars and conflicts The shape is nearly identical to the cities church steeples The monument consists of an 8-foot stone wall base that would have all the names of those who died during these conflicts The conical structure would be hoops and radial framing tubes making it somewhat transparent In the summer vines would be planted to grow up the tower The intenor walls would have water sheeting over them • • • Conditions of Approval Should the Commission approve the request, staff suggests the following conditions of approval 1 All revisions to the approved plan are to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director 2 Landscape and Lighting Plans be reviewed and approved by the Hentage Preservation Commission Recommendation Denial The memorial is proposed to be 75 to 80 feet high, the zoning ordinance for that district is maximum 35 feet high It is staffs opinion that there is not a hardship when the memorial could be built to the allow height of 35 feet Findings 1 That a hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighbonng violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a vanance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same distnct and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan Attachments Application Form/Letter/Site Plan/Elevation Drawings/Photos HPC Action 8/6/01 +5-0 Approval of design with conditions, review and approval of landscape and lighting plan • • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER, MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No PLANNING ADMINISTRATION FORM ACTION REQUESTED DEPARTMENT Fees $50/20 $7 $100 $1 00+50/lot _Comprehensive Plan Amendment* $500 _Zoning Amendment* $300 _Planning Unit Development * $500 _Certificate of Compliance $70 X Design Review _SpecialConditional Use Permit ?c Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* *An escrow fee is also required to the costs of attorney and engineenng fees (see attached) The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (: e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project ¶ h g)' V ' Assessor's Parcel No (GEO Code) Zoning District Description of Project MWorti kt. -`o S11u,uWYT642- PrifSCHaa-JE-MeAl1/41 "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to file best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct I further certify I will comply with file permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner Ot'MD r 411Representative f7RIPIM Mailing Address Mailing Address L1► €C ) hecerrEaS City - State - Zip City - State - Zip stD fi N 4-11n ciCl tt tAPtieiv Telephone No Telephone No 52 Signature Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Principal Accessory Signature SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Stories Feet Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces H \mcnamaralshelia\PLANAPP FRM June 22 2000 4 • • • L&RSON BRENNER 807 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 Telephone 651 430 0056 Facsimile 651 439 1179 larsonbrenner@aol com 7 27 01 Stillwater Planning Commission and City Council City of Stillwater 216 N 4th Street Stillwater Minnesota 55082 RE Variance Application Dear Sirs This letter accompanies a vanance application for the Memonal to Stillwater High School Veterans The site for this proposed memorial has been previously designated by City Council as the center island area of the city -owned parking lot immediately north of the Historic Washington County Courthouse (north of Pine Street between South Third Street and South Fourth Street) The purpose of the Memorial is to honor by name all service people killed in time of war who have attended Stillwater area schools It is also intended to serve as a focal point in recognizing all local veterans of military service and inform and educate the public about our country's wars and conflicts and local participation in them The proposed memorial will provide a place for groups and individuals to gather to remember and honor local service veterans It provides a variety of spaces for gathering ranging from an intimate space for meditation at its base to the inclusion of the parking lot on occasion for larger groups The proposed design for the Memorial will leave most of the existing trees paving and lighting intact in the parking lot Two parking spaces at the south edge of the lot currently designated as accessible spaces will become part of the entrance area of the memonal, these accessible spaces will be reassigned elsewhere in the lot — resulting in a net loss of three parking spaces The attached drawings and Design Statement explain the intent of the overall design in greater detail This variance request is for height part of the proposed memorial is 80' high, current zoning lists a 35' height limit • • • A key element in the memorial s design is the ability for visitors to enter it and experience the vine covered, intimate space at its base Another key element is the proportions (height to diameter) of the open conical structure of the memorial A third consideration is the height of the trees — 35 to 40 — adjacent to the memonal The 80 height as shown on the drawings allows a 12 -0 diameter interior space at its base keeps the conical shape proportional to the surrounding church steeples dotting the hillside and allows the transparent upper portion to be visible above the trees As conceptually designed limiting the structure to 35 would unduly conceal it and not allow the intenor space at its base Because the structure of the memorial is essentially a narrow open framework it will be very Tight and transparent without the mass or density of an ordinary structure The bottom portion of it will be covered in flowering vines, adding to the memonal s positive overall contribution to the site and the neighborhood Sincerely Larson Brenner Architects representing The Memorial to Stillwater High School Veterans Committee Brian Larson AIA • Memorial to Stillwater High School Veterans Design Statement Larson Brenner Architects 807 North Fourth Street Stillwater Minnesota July 27 2001 1. Preliminary Project Understanding: What is the memorial's purpose? The Stillwater High School Veterans Memorial is intended to honor by name all Stillwater area service personnel killed in time of war, and serve as a focal point in recognizing all local veterans of military service A memonal of this type should have deep meaning and resonance, and be understood in many ways, at many different levels The memonal should offer a meaningful expenence to children and adults, veterans and non -veterans, those who have come to it purposefully, and those who are simply drawn to it The memonal should be able to be expenenced at - one level from a distance, and when moving closer, the expenence should change and become more nch and meaningful The memorial should offer the potential for a different expenence each time it is visited It should not be merely a cold, inert object, no matter how thoughtful or well designed It should connect to the local community and high school, explain the histoncal wars and conflicts, and remember the lives lost and celebrated It should speak of the cycle of life and death we all experience, reflected in seasonal changes and the beauty of nature It should offer a place where prayer is naturally accommodated The memorial should consider its context in both a regional and a more immediate sense, it should reflect both the natural beauty of the St Croix Valley, the scenic beauty of Stillwater, and its immediate neighborhood But the memonal should also stnve to be simple and timeless in its design It represents veterans from many different histoncal time penods, and needs to represent those from future conflicts as well As a memonal, its reach is broad and deep and its design should resist the easy temptation to engage one histoncal style, based on its immediate context The memonal should be more than a figure and a list of names It should create an environment— a series of outdoor spaces — in which pnvate meditation and public celebration can take place It should be a beautiful visual and physical focal point around which all can gather — as individuals, families or large groups 2. Experiencing the Memorial: How does the experience begin and conclude? The Memorial Site is divided into three sequential spaces, proceeding from the south entrance to the north The first space briefly explains the History of Stillwater and the Historic High School, and community bonds of the veterans The second space interprets the Wars and Military Conflicts, explaining and placing them in local historical context The third space is a living Monument to those who ultimately sacnficed their lives Each of these elements is described further below • • • I Entrance/Community and Historic High School Segment The main entry to the site from the south at Pine Street, has a bronze and stainless steel disk set into the existing brick paving as a marker introducing the entrance to the memorial This disk, repeated in each of the three segments, identifies the site as the Stillwater High School Veterans Memonal Threading from this disk and weaving through the length of the site is a narrow band of bronze set into the pavers This ribbon of shining metal metaphorically reflects the river and draws you through the site, connecting to the disks at each of the other main spaces Anticipating the addition of a reconstructed arch from the historic high school once on this site, the entrance to the site proceeds under this arch and provides two flanking spaces for memonal information explaining the ongins of Stillwater and the Histonc High School that once occupied this site II Wars and Military Conflicts Segment The second outdoor space is created in the existing center "island°, extending the pavers to form a 24 foot diameter circle bounded to the east and west by curving, sloped 4-1/2 foot wall segments These curving walls are made of textured, colored precast concrete Placed on their surfaces facing the walk are bronze or granite plaques which descnbe the history of each war and military conflict An soldier's image from each conflict could be photoengraved here Space is provided for future conflicts and extension of these walls Built into the top of the walls are planters, from which flowenng plants can cascade down In the center of the overall space is a tall flagpole for the Amencan Flag III Memorial Monument The third space is centered on an 75' tall conical monument to those who sacnficed their lives in military wars and conflicts This monument is a simple structure consisting of an eight foot stone base supporting a mostly transparent , open steel structure of hoops and radial framing tubes creating a shimmering, arbor -like conical wire frame, visible above the existing thirty foot columnar trees on the site There is no cladding on this delicate framework — it is open to the elements, allowing sun, wind and rain to pass through The proportions of the conical shape are nearly identical to the tall, slender church steeples forming the backdrop and dotting the hillsides of Stillwater This is important in how it relates to its surroundings, because most people's first expenence of the memonal will begin at a distance, with the monument portion visible as a local orienting landmark It would be visible as part of the city's skyline from the north entrance to Stillwater on Highway 95, from Pioneer Park, and (depending on time of year and foliage) from parts of Main Street and the Histonc Lift Bndge Appropnately, the height of the monument would be considerably Tess than the height of any of these steeples and the Histonc Courthouse The 8 foot high stone base of the monument curves and slopes inward The base has large openings on axis to the north, south, east and west, allowing entrance into the interior of the monument and movement through it On the faces of this stone base are carved (either directly in granite or on an embedded bronze plaque) the names of those who have died in service to their country, listed by conflict A graphic image of a typical soldier from each conflict may possibly accommodate this list and might help connect each list to the historical information previously • • • expenenced in the second segment There is space provided for the addition of lists from future conflicts At the top of the stone base is a deep planter/gutter which accommodates earth, a drainage medium/system and a subsurface tnckler imgation system From this penmeter, both perennial and annual vines and climbing plants can emerge Perennial vines will reach at least 30 to 40 feet vertically, and will usually flower once in the season, annual vines will reach at least 10 feet vertically and will flower continually through the growing season The plants and vines bring a dimension of nature, beauty and life to the monument In the spnng and summer there can be an explosion of blossoms and scents and vanegated greenery, autumn will bnng leaves turning into nch colors of fall, and winter will show the intricate and delicate tracery of the vines against the skyline The monument offers a different experience in each season for the visitor, and reinforces the imagery of the cycles of life, death, and new life The exterior of the monument offers visitors semicircular benches, with expansive views of the city and nver, for sitting and contemplation The interior of the monument offers the wonderful experience of moving inside a quieter, more intimate space, with a ceiling of soanng greenery and flowers, and soft, filtenng natural Tight and moving shadows There are benches offset from each of the four curving walls, allowing a place for rest, meditation and prayer Planting will spill over and down the intenor walls, and a small gutter system at the top edge of the intenor wall allows a constant flow of water sheeting down the interior walls, gurgling into a grated gutter at the base which collects the water At the entrance of the monument area, two existing deciduous trees are replaced with two white pine coniferous trees The white pines frame the monument's entrance, bringing color to the site in winter months and recalling the importance of the white pine to the history of Stillwater and the St Croix Valley 3. Detail Development. What about figures and images of the veterans? The inclusion of figurative art or sculpture in a memonal like this is an important and sensitive design issue There are many ways figurative art or images of soldiers can be incorporated into this design, and would look forward to working with you to determine the best solution As presented, our design would include a photoengraved image of a soldier in each of the historical explanations of conflicts and wars found in the second segment These images may be repeated at the monument, graphically tying the names of those killed to the conflict in which they participated An electronic informational kiosk may also be included, or planned for in the future This kiosk (which has been successfully used in veteran's memorials in other parts of the country) consists primarily of an interactive video touch screen in which various images, videos, sounds and information can be displayed Individual biographies of those who have given their lives in service will be included in this information t r • • • • • STIL • WATCZ E IG SCHOO V J. ERAXS hTE140RIAL LARSON BRENNER ARCIIITECTS MAY s 2nn t • ZIHIVATILIS 0 0 SYVHILHA L-ri 0 a' V -14 • • • rA55E13LT J 7AREA CURVED PRECAST WALL 0 PRECAST WALK WITH H15TORT STAPLE55 STEEL AND DESCRIPTION BRONZE 0 OF WARS AND BENCHES CONFLICTS MOUSENt LGHTS EXISTING L RxTURE FUTURE WALL EXTENSION TO ACCI1I00ATE EXPANSION 6 UDE SEALED BRONZE 'RIVER' STRIP INSET IN PAVERS - EXISTNG eizoc PAY . FLAG -STAINLESS STEFL/BROM DISK (HISTORY AND DFSCRIPTION1 1 OF WARS AND CONFLICTS MEMORIAL SITE PLAN EXISTING BMOC PAVIG EXISTNG FENCE DASHED LIE SNOU6 POSSIBLE FUTURE ESTALLATION CF HISTORIC ARGI CAST WALL SEGMENT Uhl COHNITT AND HIGH SCHOOL MORIATICN STING LIGHT FEATURE —DASHED LINE SNOW POSSIBLE WIRE NSTALLATICN CF HISTORIC ASH PRECAST WALL SEGMENT UTH COfINITT AND HISTORIC HIGH SCHOOL IFORIATION MEMORIAL ELEVATION-�- OM w 41. Mitgaa OPEN STARLESS STEEL ARBOR STRUCTURE CH POLISHED MOTE BASE IiJ • " APERICAN FLAG TW wiSP T'IOMt1ENT WALLS WITH NAMES LISTED BT COPL - OIRVED PRECAST Ns WALLS WITH HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF „, ,l®V WARS AND COOFLIOTS CURVED PRECAST WALL UTN BENCH —COLORRIL AMIIAL PLANING EXISTS* PAVING ACE FLAGS - EXTENSION CF GRANITE PAVBG SERVICE RAGS E)ISTIG PAVING STELWA HIGH SCHOOL V? E!AXS MEMORIAL LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS A r A'r '" n n n 1 • Pt $W rtt ',oi Atr* / litE6S tENom0 JAW 1 f 7 ti tt+?_ ���:F il��lli��u�lllli • v cuiWEP faEgA41- 01A4C4 DFTAILED SECTION AT MEMORIAL 0 1 5 10 OTTER- WITH cogs b OVAAr -M� OPEt►1 arAI►JI.t:',4 MPEEI. 'NE't)LAR 0001(ATV126 PEIzEuNIALWV, py,11JtlM. SJLLLWA • J L HIGI SCHOOL VE ERANS MEMO LARSON BRENNER ARCHITECTS p d \7 �? r) n n/ • • • STIL- • WA ER I-HGI- : scFioo VI ERAS VIE1tORI9L LARSON BRENNaARCHITECTS AF A'T 0 1 (\ i" 1 • • • • MEMO UM To Planning Commission From Sue Fitzgerald, Planner Date August 13, 2001 Re Fence Ordinance Revisions At the July 9, 2001 Planning Commission requested staff to obtain examples of other communities' fence ordinances for review Attached are fence ordinances from the following cities 1 Anoka 2 Apple Valley 3 Chaska 4 Cottage Grove 5 Edina 6 Maplewood 7 River Falls 8 Savage Attached is the July 9, memo from me for reference AUG 9 2001 9 09AM CITY OF ANOKA COMMUNITY DEV NO 314 P 2 Sec 36-15 Walls. Fences. and Hedges (a) A fence is defined, for the purpose of this section, as any partition, structure, wall, or gate erected as a divider marker, barrier or enclosure and located along the boundary, or within the required yard For the purpose of this section, a fence shall not include naturally growing shrubs, trees or other foliage (b) No fence shall be erected or substantially altered in the City of Anoka without securing a permit from the Building Inspector All such permits shall be issued upon a written application which shall set forth the type of fence to be constructed, the material to be used, height, and exact location of the fence A fee as determined by resolution of the City Council shall be paid with each application (c) Fences, when constructed to enclose any lot or tract of land, shall be located in such a way that the entire fence shall be on the property of the owner Posts and framework shall be placed within the property lines of the owner and the actual fencing material, such as chain link, lumber, pickets, etc , shall be placed on the side of the fence which faces the street or adjacent property (d) No fence shall be allowed or constructed on street right-of-ways Fences may, by permit, be placed on public utility easements so long as the structures do not interfere m any way with existing underground or overground utilities The City or any easements, shall not be liable for repair or replacement of such fences m the event they are moved, damaged or destroyed by virtue of the lawful use of said easement (e) In single and two-family residential distracts, no fence may exceed four (4) feet ui height above the ground level, in front of the front line of the residential structure, along any street or highway right of -way, or in the front yard as defined by this ordinance In these two districts, fences along the side lines to the rear lme, including rear lines abutting street or highway right-of-way, may not exceed six (6) feet rn height above the ground level (f) The required front yard of a corner tot shall not contain any fence which may cause danger to traffic on a street or public road, by obscuring drivers's view On corner lots, no fence shall be permitted within the intersection sight /stance triangle (g) Off street parking and loading zones and landscaped areas for non-residential and for multiple -family residential development adjoining one or two family residence districts shall be screened by a minimum of six foot high fence and/or a planting buffer screen Plans of such screen or fence shall be submrtted for approval as part of the site plan review by the Planning Commission and the City Council Such plans shall be part of the application for a building permit and such fence or landscaping shall be installed as part ofthe initial construction and be maintained in a sightly condition, compatible with the surrounding area (h) Every fence shall be constructed in a workmanlike manner and of substantial material reasonable suited to the purpose for which the fence is to be used Cloth or canvas fences shall not be allowed Barbed wire is not allowed rn any residence district but may be installed in commercial or mdustrial districts with approval by the building inspector Every fence shall be maintained In a condition of good repair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition which would constitute a public nuisance or a dangerous condition The Building Inspector is authorized to notify the owner or owners of the condition and allow owner or owners sixty (60) days in which to repair or demolish the fence (i) Fences shall be constructed rn conformity with the wind, stress, foundation, structural and other requirements ofthe State Building Code when applicable sec 36-15 amended by adding second paragraph, by Old 1985-#751, Sec 3 sec 36-15 amended by Old 1986-#754, Sec 3 sec 36-15 amended by Old 1990-#868, Sec 1, effective 8/24/90 • 08/09/01 THU 12 46 FAX 812 9532515 CITY OF APPLE VALLEI AID. ACES • • 1 Fences must be located entirely upon the property owned by the person erecting the fence If it is desired to locate the fence exactly upon the boundary line, a written agreement should be entered into with e,.e adjoining property owners) 2 All fences must be constructed in a workman like manner and be maintained in a reasonable state of repair so as not to become a hazard or nuisance 3 Fences 6 feet or less in height do not require a building permit Z o02 vfikt LA—SL1 4 Fences over 6 feet in height require a building permit and must meet the construction standards of the Minnesota State Building Code The maximum permitted height is 8 feet 5 Generally fences may be erected up to a height of 8 feet in the rear and side yard areas of a lot and up to 3 1/2 feet is height in the front yard area of a lot additional restrictions apply co portions of corner lots Shaded areas in the illustrations below indicate maximum fence heights 6 Any fence built co enclose a pool must be approved prior to installation INTERIOR LOT 8 AREA -4--315 AREA k..../PR0PER1Y LIRE l `CURB LINE ITEMS REQUIRED VITE PERMIT AF°LICATIGS 1 Site plan showing location of fence on property 2 Written agreement from neighbor if oa property line 3 Drawings showing details of construction ENSPEc io$s REQUIR 1 Footing Pefore pouring concrete 2 Final When complete CORNER LOT (A) i1 17 h PROPERTY LINE • T 3% AREAS CURB LINE F" 30 �3 AREA CORNER LOT (8) 8 AREA 31 AREA 30 PROPERTY LINE-0 . l CURS LINE -r f. 30 3' Area Rev 1-03-94 JUL-29-01 SUN 08 15 AM FAX PAGE 1 C i4,4S4' C • • 4., • e) No significant change to the exterior design and appearance of the residence other than as required by State and local codes and ordinances, f) Minimum of 100 square feet per sleeping room, maximum of five sleeping rooms g) No cooking facilities permitted in the rented rooms, h) Owner must meet State licensing requirements i) One identification sign permitted on the premises subject to the following i) Maximum area of sign h) Maximum height of sign 12 square feet (R and 0 Distncts) 6 square feet (R2 District) 4 feet Post It Fax Note 7671 Date p#a°geb. To .54eE From ZV 'h'J Co /DON co 0/1051619 Phone a Phorre a p A tigrc2 s/ Fox p 6s% - V30 O/o Fax* fra vV8 9a +ation or flashing light s which are not served onducted of the tems to determine their ..,...y...an; .. . .. ,..... yYr, M M II II IVWWVI 11.r MO W Jr replacements of such systems shall be undertaken as may be found to be warranted 9 20 FENCES 9.201 INTENT The purpose of this Section Is to enact minimum restrictions on fencing necessary to ensure orderly and attractive development, to enhance the "curb appeal from Chaska s streets, to protect the health and welfare of Chaska s citizens, to allow a free flow of alr, and to prohibit unreasonable restncbons of view while allowing each property owner to protect his or her property and privacy 9.20 2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS a) Construction Maintenance and Design Requirements I) Fencing shall be constructed and maintained so as not to endanger Life or property Any fence which through lack of repair, type of construction, or which otherwise imperils health, life property or the aesthetic quality of a neighborhood shall be deemed a public nuisance u) The side of the fence considered to be the face shall face abutting property The face shall be defined as the finished side of the fence rather than the side with structural supports he If fencing is bunt away from a property line, property on both sides of the fence must be maintained so as not to create a public nuisance Section 9 Page 28 JUL-29-G1 SIAV 08 16 AM FAX PAGE 2 • \r • • b) Fence Location Requirements i) All fences shall be located entirely upon the private properfiy of the person, firm or corporation constructing the fence n) When dnveway, access, or walkway easements are located on private property, fences shall not be constructed on the easement No fence shall be constructed which obstructs the flow of water upon a drainage or ponding easement c) Traffic Visibility Requirements On any corner lot no fence shall be erected in the tnangte formed by the front lot line, side street lot line, and a third straight line joining points on such property lines 30 feet from their intersection at the comer of the lot when such action would impede vision above a height of two and one-half (2 1/2) feet above the centerline grades of the adjacent streets d) Permit Requirements All fences require building permits 9 20 3 REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS 9 20 31 General Design Requirements a) The use of barbed wire or of any electrical current is prohibited, b) If a chain link fence Is constructed it shall have a minimum gauge of 11 9 20 3 2 Rear Yard Boundary Fence a) Height Restrictions A rear yard boundary fence shall not exceed six (6) feet in height b) Required Yard Location i) A rear yard boundary fence shall be permitted only within the rear yard except where rear yard access from the pnnapal building is achieved from an entrance/exit to a side yard In such instances, a six (6) foot boundary fence is permitted in the side yard to a distance not greater than three (3) feet beyond the entrance/exit in the direction of the front yard ti) Should a comer lot have a rear lot line in common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, the boundary fence shall meet the pnnapal structure's required side yard setback for comer lots or shall not extend past the front corner of the house on the abutting lot, whichever is less Section 9 Page 29 'UL-29-0' SUN 08 16 AM FAX PAGE j • \✓ • • ui) Large Tots containing structures set back 100 feet or more from a street nght-of-way, a rear yard boundary fence shall be permitted within side yards to the front of the structure, or in the case of two adjacent structures to a line connecting the front of such structures (Ord No 620 Sec 2, 6/16/97) 9 20 3 3 Decorative Fences a) Height Restrictions A decorative fence, or any natural hedge or closely planted vegetation, shall not exceed four (4) feet in height within the limits of the front and side yards b) Required Yard Location i) A decorative fence is the only type of fence allowed within the limits of the front yard orside yards except as indicated in Subsection 9 20 2(b) ii) A decorative fence erected on a corner lot shall be subject to the additional traffic visibility requirements in Subsection 9 20 2(c) c) Design Requirements A decorative fence shall have an opacity of no greater than 50 percent. 9 20 3 4 Rear Yard Privacy Fences a) Height Restnctions A rear yard privacy fence shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height. b) Required Yard Location A rear yard pnvacy fence shall be located only within the buildable area of the rear yard Under no circumstances shall a rear yard privacy fence be allowed in the side or front yard of a residential lot 9 20 3 5 Fences Enclosing Swimming Pools a) Height Restrictions c) A safety fence at least five (5) but no more than eight (8) feet In height shall be constructed to completely enclose a swimming pool with the exception of properties within the RR2 Distnct In recognition of the RR2, Rural Residential 2 District's low density nature, swimming pool enclosures in the RR2 Distnct shall have a safety fence at least four (4) but no more than eight (8) feet in height (Ord No 584 Sec 1 10/16/95) ii) A fence of at least three (3) feet In height shall be constructed on the top of the sides or the top of the decking of an above ground swimming pool The combined height of the fence and the pool sides together shall be at least five (5) but no greater than eight (8) feet in height Secbon 9 Page 30 JUL-29-01 SUN 08 16 AN FAX PAGE 4 •_✓ • • b) Construction and Design Requirements i) Any opening between the fence bottom and the ground shall not exceed 2 1/2 inches ii) Pedestrian access gates for pool enclosures shall be self -closing and self -latching hardware The release mechanism shall be on the pool side and be placed no lower than 54' from grade All other service gates shall have lockable hardware and be locked at all times when not in use iii) All such fences shall be constructed so as not to be easily climbable and generally to prevent children from gaining uncontrolled access 9 20 4 REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS 9 20 41 Fences for Screening Outdoor Storage Areas a) Height Restrictions All fences required for the screening of outdoor storage areas shall be at least six (6) but not more than eight (8) feet in height b) Construction and Design Requirements i) All fences required for screening open storage areas shall have an opacity of at least 90 percent 11) Screening fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building and shall be compatible with the natural surroundings 9 20 4 2 Fences for the Separation of Incompatible Land Uses a) Explanation Fences used for screening may be required at locations where commercial or industrial uses are adjacent to or across the street from property zoned or developed for residential or public use, as descnbed In Subsection 910 21 b) Height Restrictions The screening required shall consist of a continuous fence or wall at least six (6) but not more than eight (8) feet in height c) Construction and Design Requirements 0) The screening fence required shall have an opacity of at least 75 percent ii) A louvered fence shall be considered adequate if It blocks vision from a 90 degree angle to the fence nu) Plant matenais of a type approved by the Community Development Department may also be required in addition to, or In lieu of, fencing Section 9 Page 31 AL-29-01 SUN 08 17 AM FAX PAGE 5 • • • d) Required Location on Property i) The screening fence shall not extend to within 15 feet of any street or driveway opening onto a street ii) The fence shall be placed along the property lines or, in case of screening along a street, five (5) feet off the property line with landscaping (trees shrubs, grass, and other plant materials) between the screening fence and the property line 9 20 4 3 Fences for Protection from Danger and of Valuable Private Property It may be necessary for a commercial or industnal use to construct fences specifically to protect people from danger or to guard valuable pnvate property Such uses may be enclosed with an industnal chain Zink fence of at least six (6) but not more than eight (8) feet in height topped with three (3) strands of barbed wire provided they project over the property on the Interior side of the fence 9.21 HELIPORTS It shall be unlawful to take off or land a helicopter anywhere within the Ctty of Chaska except at a public or private use heliport for which a Conditional Use Permit has been issued and except in the following instances a) In conjunction with a special event after advance authorization has been given by the City Council, or b) When necessary for law enforcement or emergency purposes 9 21 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Because heliports present unique land use and development considerations relative to certain other land uses, it is declared that analysis and judgment of the effects of a proposed heliport are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare To that end, the following submittals and documentation shall be required for heliport Conditional Use Permit applications in addition to those required in Subsection 14 7 2 a) A copy of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) form 7480-1 "Notice of Landing Area Proposal", and all other documents sent to FAA with this form, b) A copy of a letter of "No Objections" from the FAA, c) A copy of the appropriate approval of licensing of the heliport and necessary supplemental information or equivalent, and the letter of site approval from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of Aeronautics, d) A current aerial photograph or drawing at a scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet indicating the approach and departure routes the location of all residences, schools, churches, hospitals and areas used for the open assembly of people, as well as other noise sensitive areas identified within a radius of one-half mile of the proposed heliport site Section 9 Page 32 07/19/01 THU 14 08 FAX 612 458 2881 COTTAGE GROVE COMM DEVLP ti001 Post it° Fax Note 7671 Date 74,9fjipayes/ a To : pi � fu y/L- Co /' �mM , Phone # Phone # 5r a1/77 Fax# 994r Wiz) Fax it FENCES COWL 'PLC 146002524 166 INSTALLATION CRITERIA ➢ Fence, as defined by ordinance, Is any partition, structure, wall, or gate erected as a dividing marker, bamer, or enclosure and located within a boundary or within the required yard ➢ Fences are allowed in any required yard or along any property line The entire fence structure and supporting footings must be within the property boundanes ➢ Fences are allowed In drainage and utility easements, but repair or replacement is the responsibility of the homeowner should construction activity be required within the easement ➢ Fence height shall be limited to a maximum of 6 feet Exceptions A maximum of 3 feet in height where it would obstruct a safe view from the driveway or street On comer Tots, no fence or plantng in excess of 30 inches above the curb line shall be permitted within a triangular area that Is 30 feet from intersecting curb lines of intersecting streets ➢ Fences are required around swimming pools having a depth greater than 18 inches The minimum required height is 4 feet. My gates must be self-closing/latching and capable of being locked ➢ Fences with barbs or other similar matenais or devices designed for secunty are not permitted In predominately residential areas. ➢ Fencing construction material types are not currently regulated by the City, but it is required that all fencing be kept structurally sound and in neat appearance ➢ There Is no recognized "goody or "bad" side for fence post and rail placement, under current city regulations ➢ The above information is excerpted from Titles 11-3-4, 11 3-5 and 9-11-4 of the Cottage Grove City Code. Other critena may apply where development restrictions and private covenants prevail ➢ A budding permit is not required for the installation of fences However, you must call Gopher State One Cakat 651-454-0002 before you diq to identify any underground utility locations (1:CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove MIN 55016 if you have any questions, please call the Planning Division at 651-458-2827 08/08/01 13 26 FAX 812 826 0390 CITY OF ®INN Z002 City of Edina Land Use, Platting and Zoning 850 07 • • • 5 Upholstering 6 Mortuaries 7 Commercial kennels as defined by Subsection 300 01 of the City Code 8 Tourist homes, boarding houses or rooming houses, and other kinds of transient occupancies 9 Commercial food preparauon or catering 10 Automobile and equipment sales 11 Landscaping and lawn maintenance service where landscaping materials and equipment are stored or parked on the premises D Permitted customary home occupations by residents who are physically unable to be employed full time outside their residence may be allowed as a temporary conditional use, with vanances from the conditions of paragraph A of Subd 4 of this Subsection 850 07, pursuant to the provisions of Subd 5 of Subsection 850 04 Subd 5 Fences m the R-1 and R-2 Districts R-2 Distract shall conform to the following Subd Fences erected in the R-1 Distract and A Fences exceeding four feet in height shall not be erected within a required front street setback or side street setback, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Subd 7 of Subsection 850 11 B No fence shall exceed eight feet in height C Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring properties D No fence shall be installed so as to obstruct a required clear view at street intersecuons as required by Section 1405 of this Code 6 Exceutions to Setback Requirements The following shall not be considered as encroachments into required setbacks A Overhanging eaves not supported by posts or pillars, and bay windows not extending to the floor, which do not project more than three feet into the required setback and which are not within three feet of a lot line B Sidewalks and driveways, but not patios * (' Fences which do not exceed the height limitations imposed by this Subsection 850 07 85042 Jul 19 01 02 31p • cc(( C C( C C( Zl C m ( C C: 4 C©( C CC(CD( • • (b) For the purposes of this section, an "outlot" is any parcel of land designated as an outlot on any plat ui the city (Ord No 481, § 1(§ 1005 030), 2-21-80) Sec. 9-3 Fences A fence that is within four (4) feet of a property line shall be subject to the following restnctions (1) Fences shall have a maximum height of six (6) feet for residential and ten (10) feet for nonresidential uses (2) A fence in a front yard that is at least eighty (80) percent opaque must be approved by the director of community development if it is visible from an adjacent dwelling The director may approve the fence if it does not significantly impair views (3) A fence is subject to article V, chapter 29 of the city's Code of Ordinances (Sight Obstructions at Intersections) (4) The structural supports shall not be on the outside of a fence, facing the adjacent property (5) Barbed wire fencing shall only be used to fence m hvestock on a farm and for top fencing around commercial uses where the base fence is six (6) feet or more high Supp No 11 502 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS § 9-6 (6) Fences shall be constructed and maintained in a workman- hke manner (7) The city council may approve variations to this section after notifying the adjacent owner(s) at least ten (10) days before a meeting (Code 1965, § 811 171 Ord No 230 § 1, 10 5-67, Ord No 578 § 2, 1 28-85, Ord No 718, 2 14-94) Sec 9-4. Disconnection of gas appliances or piping in violation of Code, notice to comply The building official or the designated representative of the city shall disconnect or order disconnection of any gas apphance, accessory or gas piping which does not conform to the require- ments of the code or which may be found defective or in such condition as to endanger life or property Where such disconnec Lion has been made a notice shall be attached to such apphance, accessory or gas pipmg which shall state that it has been disconnected and the reason therefor and such notice shall not be removed nor shall the apphance, accessory or gas piping be reconnected until it shall have been made to conform with the requirements of the Code and its reconnection has been autho- rized by the building official or designated representative The building official or the desiannated renroApn+af,ves of fhb 1,f. shall !ding -Men Post It' Fax Note 7671 To svE F4�ce-,6e.h li Go /Dept%% Phone Dale -7R )I es► / Prom Roseer Go ir1,/ yoLe wa-cD Phone —7?0u. Fan# ills._ Rg/o Fax # fees, .10e-r---t-Pvt_i.._ • • Ca • ORDINANCE NO 2000-09 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21 06(7) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF RIVER FALLS (FENCE AND WALL HEIGHT) THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVER FALLS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS REPEAL Section 21 06(7) FENCE AND WALL HEIGHT No fence or wall other than a retaining wall, along a side 1®e of a lot in a resrdenbal zone shall be lugber than sit (6) feet or closer than five (5) feet from the rear lot hie where an alley exists RECREATED AS Section 21 06(7) FENCE AND WAIL HEIGHT In any residential zone, newly constructed or reconstructed fences and walls are permitted subject to the following a A fence or wall up to six (6) feet in betgbt may be erected within the rear Lot line side lot hues and return to the front corner of the prwciple building b .A fence or wail not exceeding three (3) feet may be erected within the side lot tins and across front yards forward of the flat comers of the principle bm_dmg to residential areas c No fence or wall shall be closer than five (5) feet from the rear lot Tine where an alley Busts d Any wall reesming more than three (3) feet of earth shall not be allowed unless certified amputations prepared by a profiesaaanal eagmeer are provided to the City Engmea e. A terraced wall retaimng no more than sit (6) feet of earth may be erected without provrdmg engmeenng computations if the bright of any wdrvmduai wall does not emceed three (3) fret ani individual walls are spaced one and one-half (1 'h.) the height of die lugbest individual wall CITY OF SAVAGE 81281322858, 07/19/01 15 07, Max, #783,Fage 2/3 • • • LON ING CODE EXCERPT 9-14-21, FENCE REGULATIONS A Building Permit Requirement Na poi boll shall ort,ct a fenvu greater in heisht than six lett (b') without to at obtaining a building permit Building permits are not required for the con trot tion of fcntes which are Brix 1e4 L In height or leas l3 I outhon of Fences lionees bahull be located entirely upon the private pi operty of the perfion tom&ucting the &1) , unless the adtoining property owner agrees, in writing, that nth fenLo m.ty be erected an. the division line of the rei►puctzve properties The C ity may require a property owner to c tablt'h boundary 1tne& of property by a purvey AC .csb All fencing obeli (x, c,csiistructcd ui such a way to allow t1 ebs by utility can"pany personnel to lead utility meters located on the property 2 Pasements When driveway and ttocctiti easements are located 0rl private property, teaiceb shall not he constructed an the easement No fence ethall be constructed upon a % all, Way easement. riot t+hall a knee he constnu,lc.d in suoh a way thlt OIL flow of wwitcr upon a sit outage or ponding mamma is ubstrut.tE.d C Setback along Ariei ial/( ollcu.or Streets Along tin t4e1tel cis e.ollt.ctor stnccts where sidewalks or trails cilia cxiq pit ate proposed, fencab shall he set bask three feet (3') from right-of--wav line of gala roadway I) lit iglu itcti1 ic,Iinnb 1 Font or, vitundtng scrubs ixunt yu db shall not exceed three: and oi'e-lbalf feet (3`!1) lett in height and shall be at 1e,ast seventy-five percent (75%) open ypacc, to allow tor plumage at nu and light ►c l xc.epteon A privet) ft nt,e up to six (6) fc.ei in height may be tnaiallect avian, ca fhint yard whit,h abutb an at Etna! roadw.cy Such fence shall ix. e.onsttuete:ti with the. finiblicd side lacing the roadway and the supports f ing the inside 2 I1xcept a% piovuied herein, teni.cs erectt,tl within ten foot (10') toe rear lot lira. 01 wiihni five feet (V) of ends, property line may not ext Led six feet (6') in hught 3 1'xcept Di provided herein, fences created within the buildable arca of the tot (area Lope lf7 Or TR07tP07 1•\/tyti. M t • �'A 7TA-�I •• 'bp w 1wwMWI,Y=r constitute a nulSuuul, public, or private Any such fence which is or has bu,orne dangerous to lh. public health At weltlire, is u public nuisance. and the City mu} commence proper ^oi t t ah,stc ntent thereof p p pr+ucetdusgw foi t lslec.trtc fences shall not be permitted 2 /imbed writ fences shall be permitted only on bona fide funny, except that business and industrial tenets with barbed wire security aims, a nunimum of Six foci (6') in height (measured without the bu.urity artra) may be allowed by conditional use permit The security arm shall be angled in such a manner that it extends only over the property of thc pe rrnit halde, and does not endanger the public Such soc.uaty fencing &Pall not be loc,ntut along a property line abutting a residential use SpLcatnl Purpose Perc.es }'email lot spew' pu1Fase and fences differing to coneitructton, height or length ins) bc pt,rnxlttc.d in any district by conditional usv permit Findings shall be nude that the fe nc.r is necesiery to prntret, hurter nr tmpmves the premu p„ City et Savage MO McColl Drive Swage, Ma 661714 Telephone: 9$2-892-2670 Fox 952-882-26+.6 • • Sert by CITY OF SAVAGE 8128822656, 07/19/01 15 08, jedsx #763,Page 3/3 co cag • ti ft FENCING HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS c Fences within front yards are not to exceed 3-1/2' In height /1A,„ Prztm Fences within 50' sight distance triangle are not to exceed 30" in heig ( UST.. SrDsVilAU4, , 501 P1/445uc. Vai.,WT-OF 1,41.0 7 i Cur • • • MEMORANDUM To Planning Commission From Sue Fitzgerald, Planner Date July 9, 2001 Subject Fence Ordinance Revisions Staff is requesting the Commission to consider the following issues, and direct staff to proceed revising the fence ordinance Attached is the ordinance for your review Background Over the last couple years staff has noticed some issues with the wording of the ordinance in a few areas Issues 1 Number (m - 4e) "In residential districts, fences located in the front yard beyond the building line shall not exceed 42 inches in height " The way this is worded it also includes all houses located on corners because they legally have two front yards, the sides that abut the streets This means that the fence cannot exceed 42 inches in the front and 42 inches in what we would normally consider the side yard Staff would like to research a different way to approach wording for corner lots 2 Number (m - 5a) "Fences that require continuing maintenance such as wooden pnvacy fences shall not be erected within one foot of a property line " In terms of maintenance, it is harder to maintain two feet of space in between two fences, a lawn mower will not fit The other problem we are seeing is a neighbor hooks up to an existing neighbors fence, one who has installed his fence one foot within his property line The neighbor now claims a foot of his neighbors land Action Public heanng to revise fence ordinance / • Memo • • To Planning Commission From Steve Russell, Community Development Director Date August 8, 2001 Subject Comprehensive Plan Update/Review Your assignment for the August 13th meeting is to read Chapter 3, The Land Use Section, of the Comprehensive Plan We will review the text and map at meeting time Issues - Some land use discussion points are listed below Residential Densities Attachable housing Employment Development Areas Traffic/neighborhood quality