Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-30-07 Item 7A, Planning Case 07-006 Zoning Code for RV's ~ ~~HILLS Request for Council Action Prepared By: James Lehnhoff Dept.: . Community Dev ment Council Mtg. Date: ---------------------3-:22-:07"-..- Final Action Needed By: --5-:22-:0'7"'''' Agenda Item: 7.A -""-""---""S'udgeted 'Amou~nE~~-- Actual Amount: Funding Source ...... .,. _.0_"_____ !~1l[@'lli1E~~{t[f~o:~~~-S7m:mDklk'ilig;mDlill1ti'm.'....'..".".,..,......,.".".,....._.,._...,.,.___.____________________________________________.__..m........m........m."..."."......................."."_."._.,.._"._._"____"_________n_________n_._._."_.'...m."........."."..........._..... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _, ._............, !A. Motion to Approve the Planning Commission's Interpretation of the Zoning Code that 5th Wheel RVs should be Measurecffrom"the" Far! ! Front to the Far Back of the RV. , , , , , , is. Motion to Deny Planning Case 07-006 for a Conditional Use Permit Based on the Nineteen Findings of Fact in the April 30, 2007, Planning] lease Report. !a~w~t~~~L![t11tilm:~t~:f;ft[R~~tlliJili?d~~~lia:1.................."_"_"."_.__________________________________________,__._"mmm'.."."..."."."................._.."_..__._.__.__"_______________________________________"".".,._'..'.m."...".........."..._"."._.._.____________________________,,__m_._"_"_..m...".."............_"_.______________________ ]A. Approve the Planning Commission's Interpretation of the Zoning Code that 5th Wheel RVs should be Measured from the Far Front to thei 'Far Sack of the RV. . ; , , , , , iB. Deny Planning Case 07-006 for a Conditional Use Permit Based on the Nineteen Findings of Fact in the April 30, 2007, Planning Casei :Repo~_ ' 4-04-07 jDenial iPTRC: No.: No.: 7 A~2: Public Comments/Letters 7 A-3: Additional Information Submitted by the Applicant 7 A-4: RV Measurement Drawing x April 4, 2007, Memo to the City Council Recommendation: Recommendation: x None. None. 1'i c .3 . ~ .. -. <l $ ~ '" ~ :\J :ll ~~Hh ~iH lill q .~uH! 1l~~.3!in;>~~h jjJ~~ \'\'\\1I11iI0 Cl.l ;, < - ~ <:J ~ ~ ~ Z \"'"i (") \e (") --------r I I if , 1~:iJS II ;,~i~'@7f, 14.66 < .. o , 5 " 'C o , " o "0 " " 'd ,g " ~ , 0 .E .~ <II>',!:: rr~< ~ ~ ~n -.~.g -E3oa @ ~'-E ....:5.s 't; e.u; 6~ e ..o...."'<:l ~.s a S'''d~ o ~ e " " 0 , 0 s .~~ 8 ,,~ " e'~ i:i 'd'" .;!? d t- I'i"o o ~n~ 8..8"8 --, ,,:;: 'd~H ~~g ~.;::~ ~~"E :;~ 8 ~ gbe 00 " " :5 a3 0) o~e 00 __'d .- .... C 'd 0 , @~] "'d " ~ @ co " - - 8 5 ~tS 0 g~c: g.i:!<2 8~r- "t:I~g O'd"" ] @lOn "0", e... 0 ,,'" ~ =: "'-~ <'\Ic.n ]1 s 6 ~8o ].238 '<;::'03 c ~ tI.l e .~ g ~ g.'~..J s> 0 ",.E~ :.a '"0 ~ f--o,,~ 6::~g >:a.9N :;:",~ <.g-B d " ~ i5 I .. " - s 01 Ui '" u !3 o ~ ~ ---A~ HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 30, 2007 CC Agenda Item 7.A TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: James Lehnhoff, City PlanneU SUBJECT: Planning Case #: 07-006 Conditional Use Permit David & Karin Hagen 3631 N Pascal Avenue Request There are two motions associated with this planning case: A. Motion to Approve the Planning Commission's Interpretation of the Zoning Code that 5th Wheel RVs should be Measured from the Far Front to the Far Back of the RV. B. Motion to Deny Planning Case 07-006 for a Conditional Use Permit Based on the Nineteen Findings of Fact in the April 30, 2007, Planning Case Report. Back2ronnd This planning case involved two separate but directly related questions. First, the Planning Commission needed to determine how the length of an RV should be measured. Secondly, depending on the results of the first question, the Planning Commission needed to determine if the 5th wheel RV in this particular application met the requirements to receive a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The Zoning Code does not prescribe a specific method for measuring the length ofRVs. RVs include motor homes, travel trailers, boats, ATVs, 5th wheels, etc. While Staff has typically measured an RV from end to end in the past, that measurement procedure is not specified in the Zoning Code. When the Zoning Code does not include a particular measurement procedure and if a resident contests a procedure or other interpretation used by City Staff, the Planning Commission can review the challenge and make a recommendation to the City Council for a final interpretation of the Zoning Code (1355.07 ofthe Zoning Code). IlMetro-inet.uslardenhills\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-006 Hagen CUP (PC DENIAL)\043007 - CC Report - Hagen CUP. doc Page 1 of4 After reviewing the information presented by the applicant, the Planning Commission determined that the intent of the Zoning Code is to manage and reduce the overall visual impact of RVs that are parked outside. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends measuring RV length from the far front to the far back (See staff created drawing in Attachment 7 A-4). The applicant had proposed to measure the 5th wheel RV from the kingpin (hitch) to the far back. It is important to note that the fmal interpretation of the Zoning Code will apply to all residential properties and not just the property in this planning case. Unless otherwise directed, Staff will prepare language to amend the Zoning Code to include the appropriate RV measurement procedure as determined by the City Council. If the 5th wheel RV in this planning case is measured from the far front to the far back, the RV is 37 feet 11 inches long. A CUP can only be granted for RVs between 28 and 34 feet in length. If the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission's interpretation of the Zoning Code, the CUP cannot be approved due to the RV's length. The applicant cannot apply for a variance from the Zoning Code because it would be considered a "use variance," which is not permitted by State Statutes. A city cannot grant a variance for a use that is not permitted in a particular zone. Instead, the Zoning Code would need to be amended to permit R V s greater than 34 feet in length. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted a packet of information regarding measuring RV length. A copy of that packet and a letter from the applicant are included in Attachment 7A-3. The camper is currently parked in the northwestern comer of the rear yard, and it is enclosed by a neutral colored cover. If this CUP application is denied, the property owner will need to remove the RV from the property or enclose it in a structure. Code Enforcement Timeline For reference purposes, the Building Official and Code Enforcement Officer prepared the below code enforcement timeline in this case: . November 16, 2006: The City received a complaint regarding a large RV in the rear yard of 3631 Pascal Avenue. November 17, 2006: The City notified Karin & David Hagen in a phone conversation that the RV appeared too large to be parked outside in Arden Hills. November 30, 2006: The Building Official and Code Enforcement Officer met Mr. Hagen at the property to discuss the code enforcement issues and to measure the length of the RV. The RV was measured at 37' 11" from end to end. The official manufacturer specifications for the RV were requested from Mr. Hagen. December 4,2006: The City sent Mr. and Mrs. Hagen their first official notice regarding code enforcement issues at the property. The manufacture's specifications for the RV were not submitted to the City. The manufacturer lists exterior length of the RV at 37' 11 ", which was obtained from the company's web site. . . . \\Metro-inet.uslardenhillsIPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-006 Hagen CUP (PC DENIAL)\043007 - CC Report - Hagen CUP.doc Page 2 of 4 . December 18, 2006: The City sent Mr. and Mrs. Hagen a second notice regarding code enforcement issues at the property, . December 28, 2006: The City sent Mr. and Mrs. Hagen final code enforcement notice that gave them until January 4,2007, to resolve the code enforcement issues in order to avoid issuance of a citation. . Early January, 2007: The required changes to resolve the violations were not made and a citation was issued to Mr. and Mrs. Hagen. . February 15, 2007: A code enforcement notice was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Hagen regarding other unresolved violation issues. It was the intent of the applicants to resolve the RV length violation by obtaining a CUP. Ifa CUP could be issued to the applicants, the RV length violation would be resolved. The Code Enforcement Officer is currently working with the applicants to resolve a separate code enforcement issue. Recommendation Upon review ofthe Zoning Code, the Planning Commission unanimously (7-0) agreed that the intent of the Zoning Code is to measure an RV from the far front to the far back. Therefore, the Planning Commission unanimously (7-0) recommends denial of Planning Case 07-006 for the Conditional Use Permit based on the following nineteen findings offact (the findings in bold are the primary basis for denial): 1. The applicant has given a measurement of 34 feet in length and 12 feet 11 inches in height for the RV. 2. As measured from far front to far back, the RV is 37 feet 11 inches long, which exceeds the length permitted through the conditional use permit process. 3. Parking a recreational vehicle in a residential district that is between 28 feet and 34 feet in length and/or over 7 feet in height requires a conditional use permit. 4. An RV longer than 34 feet is not permitted in any residential zone. 5. The subject property is a conforming .65 acre lot. 6. The RV will not be enclosed by a structure. 7. The R V will not be attached to the ground in any way that would prevent removal. 8. The applicant has indicated that the RV will not be used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes while parked in the City. 9. The RV is currently licensed and operable. 10. The applicant owns the RV. 11. No other RVs are currently parked on the property. 12. The applicant has proposed to park the RV at least fifteen feet from the property line. 13. The applicant has proposed to plant seven, 12-13 foot Balsam Firs to enhance screening along the northern and western property lines. 14. The RV will not impact traffic or parking conditions. 15. The RV will not produce any noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, or other nuisance characteristics. 16. The RV will not affect drainage. \lMetro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2007\07-006 Hagen CUP (PC DENIAL)\043007 - CC Report - Hagen CUP. doc Page3 of 4 17. The R V will not change the population density of the property. 18. With proper conditions, screening and maintenance, it is unlikely that the RV will significantly impact the overall character of the neighborhood; be incompatible with adjacent land uses and structures; or will negatively impact adjoining land values. 19. The park dedication fee does not apply. Options RV Length Zoning Code Interpretation: 1. Approve the interpretation as recommended by the Planning Commission 2. Approve the interpretation submitted by the applicant. 3. Table the interpretation for additional information. Conditional Use Permit Application: 1. Approve the CUP as submitted. 2. Approve the CUP with conditions. 3. Deny the CUP based on the findings of fact proposed by the Planning Commission. 4. Table the CUP for additional information. A motion to approve the CUP would require a different interpretation of the Zoning Code than what is being recommended by the Planning Commission. lfthe Zoning Code interpretation decision is tabled, the CUP application should also be tabled. Finally, if the CUP is denied, the applicant will not be able to apply for another similar CUP for six months (1355.05 Subd. 4 of the Zoning Code). However, if the applicant withdraws the application prior to a fmal decision from the City Council, he may be able to resubmit a new CUP application in less than six months. lfthe applicant chooses to withdraw the application, Staff would still recommend that the City Council approve the Planning Commission's interpretation ofthe Zoning Code regarding the procedure for measuring RV length. Deadline for Ae:encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on March 22,2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by May 22, 2007 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for and additional 60 day review period, The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments 7 A -1 Draft Planning Commission Minutes 7A-2 Resident Comments (Submitted after the Report to the Planning Commission was prepared) 7 A-3 Additional Information Submitted by the Applicant 7A-4 RV Measurement Drawing 7 A-5 April 4, 2007, Report to the Planning Commission - http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us IlMetro-inet.us\ardenhills\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-006 Hagen CUP (PC DENIAL) \043007 - CC Report - Hagen CUP.doc Page 4 of4 2007 CrossTerrain Floorplan http://www.crossroadsrv.com!line/fjl_large.asp?line~ct&type=5W &... @2007CrossRoadsRV,lnc. Site Map ; Legal lof! j;~",~",-",""""""",,,,,=",,,~~ Model # TF36DS WIDE BODY: 2007 CrossTerrain Fifth Wheel Details 12' TF36DS 2007 Base MSRP; $49,710.00 Dry Weight: 10745 GVWR: 15500 Carrying Capacity: 3966 Hitch Weight: 2415 Hitch Weight Ratio: 22% AxleWelght: 8945 Tire Size: 225j75R15 Exterior Length: 37' 11" ExtericrHeight(WithAlC): 12' 11" Fresh Water Capacity: 112 gallons Black Water Capacity: 40 gallons GravfGalley Water Capacity: 80 gallons This double-slide SUT includes a center kitchen with booth dinette and sleeper sofa, a queen bedroom suite with corner shower and large wardrobe, and a large 12' cargo area with TV vIewing access and storage cabinet. .". "~,,.,.N,,~ ~,,"'~...<, "'U tW,,.,. ,.,,~ Standards, options & specifications subject to change without notice. 'NEW for 2007' features are for various models - Features vary by production date Please contact your dealer for detai/s. All CrossRoads products are covered by a Limited Warranty. This price reflects the MSRP (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price) and has been provided as an estimate based on our price list. MSRP does NOT include freight, dealer prep and pre-delivery inspections, documentation fees, tax, title, license, hitch equipment, safety gl<lsS (required in some states), state seal (where required), material surcharges, or other dealer related items and options selected by the consumer. Additionally, Canadian Standards equipment is required in all provinces. The dealer will provide a comprehensive quote that represents the total actual price. This estim<lte does not represent a price quotation and is not to be used as a sales agreement. WEIGHT INFORMATION Dry & hitch weight based on standard equipment only. Carrying capacity reduced to reflect maximum available options per unit. Standards, options & specifications subject to change without notice. PrintPageeEmailPage[ill 4/24/2007 2; 13 PM Attachment 7 A-I Draft Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 2007, City Council Meeting ..... 1L.. <C ! ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 4, 2007 2 A. PLANNING CASE #07-006 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: DAVID HAGEN: 3631 PASCAL AVENUE NORTH Mr. Lehnhoff stated applicants were requesting a Conditional Use Permit to store a 34- foot long, 12 foot II inch tall recreational vehicle in the rear of their property at 3631 N Pascal Ave. He summarized the City's Ordinance and his analysis. He indicated if the Commission determined the RV was no more than 34 feet in length, then he recommended approval based on the following conditions: 1. The landscaping shall be installed within three weeks of the conditional use permit approval by the City Council. The R V shall not be parked closer than fifteen feet to the rear or side property lines. The applicant shall submit a $500 financial surety to the City which shall be returned to the applicant provided the Balsam Fir evergreen trees are alive and in an acceptable condition to the City Forester no earlier than one year after the installation of the trees. The landscaping inspection shall only occur during the growmg season. The RV shall not be used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes while being stored in the City. The RV shall be properly licensed, owned by the property owner, and in an operating condition at all times. The RV shall not be permanently affixed to the ground or in a manner that would prevent removal. While stored, the RV shall be enclosed by a cover that is of a neutral, earth-tone color. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. He indicated he had received letters from Mike Pearo of Hilltop Trailer Sales and Coats RV noting fifth wheel trailers were measured from the rear bumper to the front of the hitch pin. He noted he had received an email from Thomas Nichols in favor of the CUP; an email from Reed Byers, 1416 Arden Oaks Court, in opposition to the CUP; an email from Michele Owen, 1428 Arden Oaks Ct, in opposition to the CUP; an email from Kathleen Wehking, 1476 Arden Oaks Drive, in favor of the CUP. He stated he had received one phone call from Gary Kramer who was not in support ofthe application. He indicated the applicant had submitted a petition from property owners along Pascal Avenue in support ofthe application, which is in the Planning Case report. Commissioner Zimmerman noted a fifth wheel was just one type of recreational vehicle and it was not the standard for a recreational vehicle. He believed the intent of the ordinance was measuring nose to tail, regardless of the type of vehicle. Mr. Lehnhoff noted the interpretation made would apply to all properties and not just this property. Commissioner Larson agreed and stated he did not know why they would measure these differently and he believed it was oversized according to the ordinance and the CUP was not applicable in this case. Commissioner Modesette stated she also concurred. She noted for administration of the ordinance it would simplify all things if it was based on the actual size. ,...", L&- : Q ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 4, 2007 3 Commissioner Larson stated back when the ordinance was originally adopted, 34 feet was probably a reasonable length, but today things are larger, so they need to say if the ordinance was correct at 34 feet, or should they look at other areas such as setbacks. Chair Sand stated it appeared both sides had good arguments in their favor. Applicant bought a motor home and the dealer represented it was a 34-foot mobile home, so the applicant thought it met the ordinance, but once it was measured, it was determined it was in excess of 34- feet and since the Ordinance did not very well define length, he believed both parties proceeded in good faith and it was a matter of interpretation they needed to deal with. Commissioner Thompson asked if there was any height requirements. Mr. Lehnhoff responded that R V s greater than seven feet in height, regardless of length, would require a Conditional Use Permit. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the request to come forward and make comment. David Hagen, 3631 Pascal Avenue N, stated this process started for him back in June 10, 2006 when he spoke with the City of Arden Hills. He stated he had spoken with the City and that he was looking for a trailer and they informed him of the code requirements and ordinances. He stated he had explained to them how fifth wheels were measured and classified and at that time, and someone told him that if that was the way the trailers were classified that it would be okay under the City Ordinance. He noted this was a major investment and they had been looking for a trailer for the past five years. He stated they had done their homework and based on what the City told them, they went out shopping for a trailer complying with the Codes and that was a critical part of their decision process. He stated all of the dealers he talked with referred to a measurement of a trailer from the king pin to the rear bumper and that was why they bought the trailer they bought. He stated he had received several letters from dealers and manufacturers on how they measured trailers. He believed his trailer was in compliance with the City Code. He summarized some letters he had received from various RV vendors and manufacturers. He stated the staff had also contacted three dealers and also found that this was a standard form of measurement for fifth wheel trailers. He stated he wanted to work with his neighbors to the best of his ability and was willing to put in $5,200.00 in landscaping along his property line. He stated he had been in contact with the City since June, 2006. He stated he was a conscientious buyer and had checked the Codes before he bought the trailer and based on the Codes, he bought a trailer that he believed met City Code. Anita Warner, 1444 Arden Oaks Court, stated she has lived at this address for almost 25 years and shared a common property line with Mr. Hagen. She stated this was a very difficult situation for them and during the 25 years, they have never made a complaint about a neighbor, but this issue affected them. She asked the Planning Commission to enforce the ordinance and not grant a CUP and to find the vehicle should not be considered for a CUP because it exceeds the 34-foot maximum length. She stated the vehicle was located to the west of their property and was highly visible from all windows of their home. She stated Mr. Hagen should have applied for the CUP before purchasing the trailer. She stated Mr. Hagen placed the RV on his property in early November and ...... LI... <( ~ c ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 4, 2007 4 had been cited for the RV being stored on his property. She stated Ramsey County Court had not followed through on the citation and Mr. Hagen only paid a $50.00 fine and the trailer still sat on the property. She understood there was some discrepancy in the measurement of the RV. She stated when the RV was a stand-alone as it was now, it should be measured from the front to the back. She stated when the cover was bought for the RV, the cover was over 37 feet long. She indicated the unit was not a small RV and stood 12' 2" high. She indicated if this was a motor home, it would be measured from the front to the back. She noted this was a size of a semi-trailer. She stated Mr. Hagen had done an effective job of going door to door explaining how the City officials had mislead him, but acknowledged ifhe was not allowed to have this unit on his property, he would bring in two smaller vehicles and place them on his property. She believed this RV would decrease her property values also. Colleen Paulus, 1462 Arden Oaks Drive, stated she supported the decision to uphold the Ordinance. She indicated the vehicle was huge and was extremely tall. She expressed concern about the parking surface and access. She asked them to address the height, parking surface, and access. Patrick McDonald, 3620 Pascal Avenue, stated he was in favor ofthe CUP. Mike Hagen, 1540 Arden Place, stated that the applicant had spoken with the City prior to purchasing and he had researched the ordinances. He stated there were nine corresponding professional RV dealers that had stated the Federal Regulation measures the RV's from the king pin to the rear bumper. He noted this was industry standard. He believed the Code was ambiguous. He stated he was a contractor and overhangs on a home was not considered in setbacks and he believed this was a similar situation. He believed the trailer was within the City Code and he asked the Commission to take into consideration that the applicant had worked with the City from the beginning. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Commissioner Modesette stated her opinion remained unchanged. Commissioner Thompson stated she was of the opinion that the size and the ordinance should really be around the impact. She stated she understood the Federal Road Regulations, but that was a different purpose and she did not believe it applied. She stated they needed to stick with how they measured as stated in the Code. Commissioner Zimmerman inquired as to what City staff had originally told Mr. Hagen. Mr. Lehnhoff responded he does not recall getting that question from Mr. Hagen but it was a possibility he had spoke with someone at the City; unfortunately, there is no way to confirm that. Commissioner Larson stated he had mixed feelings about this. He noted the applicant was told by the City about the 34- foot length and he was told by the dealer this was a 34- foot trailer and he believed the applicant had acted in good faith. However, even a 34- foot length trailer required a CUP and Mr. Hagen failed to apply for the CUP before purchasing the RV. He stated he was not willing to say this was a 34-foot vehicle however. ...... u... <C 0=:: C ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 4, 2007 5 Commissioner Holewa stated he agreed with the previous comments. He indicated he would not want to look at something this large outside of his windows. He believed the measurement of 34- feet was ambiguous, but it had to be the guiding force for him. Chair Sand stated he agreed with the previous comments. He believed the applicant acted in good faith. He also believed the building official had acted in good faith, but there was a disagreement about how the RV had been measured. Commissioner Larson stated if the RV was moved closer to the main structure, it would minimize visual impact to the neighborhood. He asked if this could make it qualifY for a CUP. Mr. Lehnhoff responded that ifthe length is greater than 34 feet, the RV could not qualifY for an RV. However, bringing an RV closer to a structure could be a condition for an RV that does not exceed the 34 length limit. Chair Sand stated he did not disagree with that, but he also agreed with Commissioner Zimmerman's comment that the buildable area needed to be defined. He stated what concerned him most was the fact that up to three RV's could be stored on the lot and this disturbed him more than a 34-foot RV being stored, Mr. Lehnhoff noted only one vehicle could be an RV. Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to recommend denial of Planning Case No. 07-006, for a Conditional Use Permit at 3641 N Pascal Ave based on the findings the trailer exceeds the 34 feet in length. Mr. Lehnhoff requested clarification of the motion because the Zoning Code interpretation on how to measure RV length needed to be dealt with first. Commissioner Larson withdrew his motion. Commissioner Larson moved, seconded Commissioner Zimmerman, to recommend for purposes of the Zoning Code, the overall length ofthe recreational vehicle should be used to determine the length. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Commissioner Larson moved, seconded by Zimmerman to recommend denial of Planning Case 07-006 for a Conditional Use Permit at 2641 N Pascal Avenue based on a finding that the R V is greater than 34 feet in length, The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Attachment 7 A - 2 Public Comments/Letters April 30, 2007, City Council Meeting James Lehnhoff From: Sent: To: Subject: Bumper 2Bumper [beaverlake6@hotmail.com] Monday, April 23, 20076:57 AM James Lehnhoff Support for Planning Committee's Recommendation on Plannig Case 07-006 Dear Mr. Lenhoff, We wish to express our support for the April 4 unanimous decision by the Arden Hills Planning Committee to recommend to the Arden Hills City Council the denial of consideration for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) regarding Planning Case 07--006 for 3631 Pascal Avenue North. We understand this recommendation will be addressed by the City Council at your April 30 meeting. We agree with the Planning Committee's assessment that 1) the measurement of a parked RV should be from front to back, not just from the king pin to the back (a measurement that is used by highway officials when the RV is being towed); and, 2) that the applicant's RV at more than 37 feet exceeds the 34 feet maximum allowed by the city for a CUP. The applicant's RV is also 15 feet high, making the vehicle comparable to the size of a semi-trailer and totally out of place in a residential neighborhood. Further, we would like to note that similar suburban cities in the area have maximum lengths for parked RVs that are much less than allowed by Arden Hills. Woodbury's maximum length, for example, is only 24 feet. We hope that in the future the City Council will give consideration to reducing the maximum CUP length. We thank you for your forwarding this message to the Arden Hills City Council. Sincerely, Stephen and Anita Warner 1444 Arden Oaks Court Arden Hills, MN 55112 Telephone: 651 636 3306 Email: beaverlake6@hotmail.com Interest Rates NEAR 39yr LOWS! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,299/mo - Calculate new payment http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-19132&moid=14888 1 James Lehnhoff From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mike Hagen [mjhagen426@hotmail.com] Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:53 AM James Lehnhoff mjhagen426@hotmail.com Planning commission meeting (Karin Hagen Camper Trailer) >To the City of Arden Hills Planning Concil. > >1 have reviewed the documents prepared by Karin Hagen and James Lehnhoff of >the City Zoning office. I am a contractor and am very familiar with larger >trailers. and the length requiremnets for both 5th wheel and commercial >trailers. I have also read the city code regaurding storrage of campers >and 5th wheel trailers in the residential zoning district. The code is >ambiguouious in the actual measeurment of the these trailers. I have also >spoke to three seperate manufactures of campers trailers and their >measurrnents coincide with the findings of James Lehnoff, The manufactures >measure the trailers from the rear bumper of the trailer to the king pin in >the trailer. This standard of measurment helps to determin how far a >trailer will follow a vehicle. It also sets a precident by the >manufactures as to how a trailer is both measured and licenced within state >codes. The Minnesota Commercial Drivers Manual has also established rules >for measring trailers while driving on the freeway. They have two >measurment methods 1) They measure from the front of the tractor (Semi >truck) part of the trailer to the rear of it's trailer for a total length >of a vehicle on the roadways. and 2) they measure trailer seperatly from >the kingpin to the rear of the trailer as to determn the length of the >trailer being towed. This sets a second president through the State of >Minnesota as to the length of a trailer. >1 have also had a chance to look at the lot that the camper is currently >parked in addition to the view of the 5th wheel camper form all of the >ajacent properties to the camper along with the view from all public roads. > With the planting of the trees enclosed in the proposal the impact of >this trailer would be minmmal to both property values and asthetic value. > >My feeling is that we pay our property taxes, and with these taxes we gain >a certian freedom to maintain our property and home within reasonable >repair, and within the city codes that we live in. These city codes are >based on reasonable laws and should be followed. From my understanding all >manufactures of these 5th wheel trailers and camper trailers classify the >length measurement from the king pin to the rear bumper of the trailer. If >it were just one manufacturer stating this I would not have such a strong >opinion, but it is industry standard. The classification that the city uses >to uphold their laws must have a basis, and that basis should be determined >by the professional and technicians that are in that industry. If you have >any questions please contact me 651-324-7080. > > >Mike Hagen >1540 Arden Place >Arden Hills, MN 55112 > Interest Rates Fall Again! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new t Page 1 of1 James Lehnhoff From: Sent: To: Kathy Wehking [kwehking@comcast.net] Tuesday, April 03, 2007 8:18 AM James Lehnhoff SUbject: Comments Regarding PC#07 -0063631 North Pascal Ave Dear James Lehnhoff, i am writing to voice my opinion regarding the RV being parked at 3631 North Pascal Ave North. I have seen the RV parked there and feel there is no issue with Me. Hagen having this vehicle on his property. It is not an eye sore, and I barely noticed that it was back there. I am not able to attend the meeting on Wednesday, April 4111 as I have another commitment. Feel free to use this message at the hearing. Sincerely, Kathleen Wehking 1476 Arden Oaks Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112 651-639-8348 4/3/2007 Page 1 of2 James Lehnhoff From: Michele [slomo@usfamily.net] Sent: Monday, April 02, 200710:41 PM To: James Lehnhoff Subject: PC#07-006 Dear Mr. Lehnhoff: Neighboring property owners were invited to submit comments about the application for a conditional use permit to store a large RVon property located at 3631 Pascal Avenue North before the Planning Commission public hearing on April 6. The following are my comments. I live on the Arden Oaks Ct. cul-de-sac near the subject property. I oppose the application for the following reasons. First, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion in your report to the planning commission that the proposed storage of the RV on this property can be mitigated so as to nullify negative impacts on neighboring properties or the community. I believe that storing iarge RVs on residential lots, whether "screened" or not, does negatively impact the neighborhood and property values. I do not think that the general public perceives storing large RVs on residential lots as aesthetically pleasing or a sign of a "desirable" neighborhood. This is especially true in the Pascal/Arden Oaks Ct./Arden Oaks Dr. area, where the lots are not configured in traditional parallel manner, but where lots (and what is stored on them) can impact more than one or two adjacent properties. When i moved into this area quite a few years ago, I did so with the hope that the quality of the neighborhood would not change and my investment in my home would not lose value. As you know, there are many valuable residential properties located in close proximity to the subject property. Next, I have heard from neighbors that the applicants told them the reason for wanting to store the large RV on their property is personai "convenience" so they can easily use it on weekends. They told the neighbors that they "don't want to" have to store it some where else. However, there are two other residents, on Arden Oaks Dr., nearby, who have very large RVs, and they store their RVs off site from their residences. The only time we see those vehicles is the day before, and the day after, they take them on trips, when they load/unload the vehicles. Then those RVs disappear (go to storage eisewhere). If the applicants can afford to purchase a large RV, then they can presumably afford to pay to store it somewhere else, Why should an exception be made here? It appears that the applicants are offering to pay substantial amounts of money to buy trees. Why not use that money to pay storage fees, like the other neighbors, and store the RV off site? I do not think that the applicants' convenience should outweigh the negative effect on the neighborhood of storing these types of vehicles on a residential lot year round. Finally, my opinion is that granting this application would be inconsistent with the apparent purpose of the recently adopted city ordinance requiring property owners in the city to meet a prescribed level of maintenance of their homes. It does not make sense for the city to adopt an ordinance requiring residents to maintain their residential structures, while at the same time allowing people to park large recreational vehicles in their yards. Cluttered yards or yards with large vehicles or numerous vehicles or pieces of equipment stored in them are eyesores to many people, just as much as "run down" houses. Even if well-intended, the new ordinance seems like a joke if the city takes such a laissez-faire approach to individual homeowner's requests to store large vehicles in their yards. I sincereiy hope that the planning commission, and the city council, will use this application review as an opportunity to change past practices and take the neighborhood impact of such projects more seriously rather than what seems to be a pattern of continuing to approve every individual homeowner's request. It is very discoura9ing to pay over 4000 dollars a year in property taxes, and work hard to maintain your home and yard in a pleasing manner, only to watch, step by step, the city let more vehicles and accessories accumulate on other properties based on an individual owner's "convenience" or personal preferences/habits. Maybe the city will even consider rewriting some of its ordinances to give more weight to the interests of the neighborhood and neighboring property owners. I thank you for the opportunity to submit a comment on this application. My husband asked me to tell you that he shares my views. Respectfully submitted, Michele Owen, 1428 Arden Oaks Ct. Arden Hills 4/3/2007 Conditional Use Permit Project PC#: 07 -006 Page 1 of 1 James Lehnhoff From: Byers,Reed G [RGBYERS@travelers.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 8:30 AM To: James Lehnhoff Ce: susanleach1@comcast.net Subject: Conditional Use Permit Project PC#: 07-006 I would like to voice my opinion as asked for in the Public Hearing Notice you recently mailed. Not only do I strongly feei this Conditional Use Permit should not be allowed, I would like a hearing that focuses on revamping all codes about this and similar issues. I have watched our neighborhood degenerate over the years and feel we should do something about it. My property value has also suffered as a result of storage of this type of personal property by a neighbor. Further, I should mention David Hagen stopped at my house yesterday to lobby for his interest in this matter. When I told him i feel strongly that nothing should be parked or stored in yards and that doing so negatively impacts our property values, he told me if he can't store his larger RV in his yard, he will store two units that are allowed. is that how we want our codes interpreted and applied? It is also my understanding Mr. Hagen plans to have visitors stay in this RV when they come in from out of town. We have chosen to live in a community that has higher property values, substantial taxes, good schools, and good return on value for our homes. Allowing this activity to continue diminishes the ability to live the lives we want and attracts those who might be better served by purchasing hobby farms outside the city to better handle all their additional property. Pis have the appropriate City Council member contact me at 651-639-1948. I would like to begin the process to redraft our codes to better support my ideology and that of my neighbors. These revisions would include: o Curtailing use of outbuildings o Limiting the number of cars that may be parked outside o Disallowing RV or trailer parking on driveways and yards o limiting the number of boat trailers that may be parked on yards or driveways to one unit and specify the size We need to stop these activities. Reed Byers 1416 Arden Oaks Ct Arden Hills, MN 55112 ---~----------~--------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This communication, together with any attachments hereto or links contained herein, is for ============================================================================== The Travelers e-mail system made this annotation on 04/02/07, 09:30:01. 4/2/2007 Page 1 ofl James Lehnhoff From: nith0201@stcloudstate.edu Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 4:15 PM To: James Lehnhoff Subject: The Hagen trailer issue Mr. Lehnhoff, After speaking with Dave Hagen, it has come to my attention that there is an issue with the storing his RV trailer at his home. As a long time Arden Hills resident I see no issue with it what's so ever. It is hardly visible from the street in front of the home and is also covered with a neutral colored cover to make it even less noticeable. It is my understanding that Mr. Hagen's trailer is within the cities length limit. The Hagen's home is cosmetically maintained beautifully and they should not have to suffer the headaches associated with having to relocate their trailer. Please take this into consideration and remember that there is always somebody who is ready and willing to complain about almost anything. If it were not this issue it would most defiantly be something just as minuscule. Regards, Thomas Nichols 4/2/2007 Attachment 7 A - 3 Additional Information Submitted by the Applicant April 30, 2007, City Council Meeting Council Members As you know by much of the information that James Lehnhoffhas given you, this conditional use permit has been in process on for a long time. I feel that it is very important that my wife Karin and I re-iterate the order of events since last June. I would like to start with a brieftime1ine of all that has been done in order to comply with our city code. I first contacted the city to fmd out what was allowed for camper storage. On June 10th of 2006 I contacted City Hall and was told that my 34ft. camper would be acceptable and comply with code. After checking with the city code my wife and I bought a camper that complied with this code. The code states that a camper 28-34 feet in length may be stored under a conditional use permit. Our camper we bought fulfills this criteria. I have supplied the city with ample evidence that our camper is classified as a 34 foot trailer. Our trailer measures 34ft. from the rear bumper to the king pin. Our camper manufacturer measures our camper as 34 foot. Every single camper manufacture, dealer and distributor also measures these trailers this way. The RIV A code is which is federally regulated is the RV and camper manufacturing code, this also classifies my trailer as a 34 foot trailer. Compare this to the city code for home construction. The footprint of a home is measured by the perimeter of the foundation size, This does not include the overhang of the eves that often hang over 3 feet on each side. This is the case with our camper. Our camper is measured bv a federallv regulated manufacturing code at 34 feet with an overhang above the hitch of approximate1v 3 feet. If city code had stated that 34 feet in total overall length was the maximum, I would have bought a different camper. However, city code does not state this. In conclusion, 1. I would like to say that I first consulted with the city to find out what was allowed for RV storage, 2. Second, I was told by the city that my camper was in compliance. 3. Third, I went and bought a camper to comply with city code. I see absolutely no reason not to accept this application for a conditional use permit. I would also recommend that the wording in the code be changed to state total overall length if that is what it is intend it to be in the future. Because, ofthe way the Code is written and interpited, any common person would fall into my position. It is not legally, ethically or morally correct to deny this permit. No person that does his or her homework beforehand, checks with the city, is told by the city and then goes out intentionally and buys in order to comply within that code should be penalized. Once again, the city has already recommended approval of this conditional use permit baring the fact that the measurement is indeed 34ft. If you need more evidence that this trailer is in fact a 34ft. trailer, please look at the documentation that I gave James and look at the results James found independently in his case report. If you would like to contact me please do, I would be happy to answer any questions. 651-271-9085. Thank You, David and Karin Hagen ,> Page 4 of 4 Planning Commission Hearing Planning Commission Meeting Notes "Hagen Camper" 4/4/07 4/4/07 ~ "'\fl""~'" 5\) Vehicle Mass and Dimensions for general access. G This bulletin is a guideline only. At all times the appropriate legislation currently in foree takes precedence. OVERALL LENGTH of Articulated Vehicle - 19.0 metres Prime Mover and Semi-Trailer 19.0 metres Semi-Trailer 12.3 metres JI I ~,~~ ~,~ <II 9.5 metres Note: . The distance between the point of articulation at the front of the trailer and the rear of the trailer must not exceed 12.3 metres. . The distance between the point of articulation at the front of the trailer and the rear overhang line must not exceed 9.5 metres. (Known as the oS. Dimension), Remembering that the overall length of the vehicle, combination and load must not exceed 19m. 4 SHOREWOOD RV CENTER. "The Secret's Out" I ("\I'V"--"",^V'- U \\..eWI"~ \ J . ,'" U~. 5-tk t j.L ^'-~ (q,v. f~ ~ ~~ f~ ~ 16 --r~ ^~.(Y ~ 1-'" ~1A ~ 1:Lt.. l:,lf 0 C '-J- ' { rtJ.- ~ f~ ff:7 ." ..-r'~ ~.. ,.' . .' . .......,...A~. ," . . . . . . . ..' -.". . ".- /: . .. . - . '.. . - .' '. p-~v/~ ~~P., ,v. j,A .. Sf ~ / '1V~ I-'-- . . .' . . . -' .... -." . . ,'. . lj ~ ;^~: .: s ~ WOdO {A._V G (J - CJ I Cf ~ / :5 9 Y / . \L~1\'U "" I Hillto' TRAILER SALESP . Serving the RV Indusery Since 1951 Dave, In regards to your question, our fifth wheel trailers are measured from the rear bwnper to the front of the hitch pin. This measurement is considered the trailers overall length and sometimes referred to as the travel length. If you have any questions or need any additional information please feel free to contact me Thank you, Mike Pearo General Sales Manager Hilltop Trailer Sales, Inc. Minneapolis, MN 55432 " 7810 University Avenue N.E. . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432 Phone: 7631571-9103. Fax:763/571-2536. Toll Free: 800/642-2649 www.hilltoptrailers.com __"BIllie 305 HAWPATCH DRIVE TOPEKA, IN 46571 Phone 260-593-3850 Fax 260-593--3853 ~W'^hx ~ k\-\-er.~ 3 Nov. 19. 2006 11:10tM ~rossroads xv NO. iO f J 1..,.1 November 29,2006 DEAR GENTLEMEN; In response to your inquire about how to measure the length of an RV. Here at c;R,QSSROADS RVwe measure from center of kingpin to the back of the bumper. We > advertise and seU it like that. It is the RV industry standard way of measurement Thanks, LAVERN BONTRAGER '" .~ {~(4~l1S .~II~ 3~ IJ. ~~ /Jv-f ~ IJ$ ~S//~ " C~\0'-h '-\ ) ~ ~-I ( r ~ +<V .J-.o..f~ k~ tL sh r-vk/~ ~~W1 ~~ ~-!lft~.y~Ad/~ . (ilL. ,,:. v LD~-t 5 \\ V l~{\-\--Lr 1 Q02.5 \Ne.St \- ,ee..\Nc...~ ~(', ~~ f'fP"''-''^'7- D Impearl Camper 1156 Hastings Aye Newport, MN 55055 651-459-1804 Chuck Nelson "Its simple, you measure from point A to point B. Point A being the rear bumper and point B being the king pin. This is how you measure a 5th wheel camper." Pleasure Land RV 7900 Riyerdale Dr. Ramsey, MN 55303 763-422-4171 "5th wheel RVs are always measured from the kingpin to the rear bumper. This is how .th tI:... 5th hi" you come up WI a measurement on a wee. Jim Glenn * These people did not have time to get me a formallelter but said that they could be contacted if necessary ~ AfP<l--o\~X C f t:<Cje. '2 Alcohol and Drug Testing Requirements The Federal Highway Administration has rules requiring alcohol and drug testing of drivers who are required to have a commercial driver's license. The DOT rules include procedures for urine drug testing and breath or saliva testing. Pre--employment (drug), post-accident. reasonable suspicion. random. return-to-duty, and follow-up tests are required. - Employers must provide their employees with detailed information about alcohol misuse, the employer's policy. the testing requirements. and how and where drivers can get help for alcohol and controlled substance abuse. Drug testing is conducted by analyzing a driver's urine specimen. The analysis is performed at laboratories certified and monitored by the Department of Health and Human Services. Maximum Vehicle Dimensions and Weights These are the maximum vehicle dimensions. loaded or unloaded. that may be operated on Minnesota highways: Height: 13 feet. 6 inches. Width: 8 feet. 6 inches. exclusive of rear view mirrors or temporary load securing devices which may extend an additional three inches on each side of the vehicle or load. Length: Maximum lengths for various vehicles are: VEHICLE MAXIMUM LENGTH Each trailer or semi-trailer of a twin trailer combination ............................................... 28'6" Single motor vehicle ............................m.....................___..................................................40. Trailer. two-vehicle combination ........ ............................. ..................................................45. Mobile crane __. ____. ................_____............__..__ ___. __ _________. .........____.... __....._____.............__..........48. Semi-trailer, two-vehicle combination ____............................... .........................................__.48. -Y'S"emj"fFalJer"two.vehi€le'oombination. .distanGe'tromki"!!min'ta ,,-_ cente"'Gt-reariaJ<te--group- 4-SrWor-less,............. ........................ ........................................ 53' Truck-tractor vV'ith semi-trailer combination. tvvin trailer combinatioii, drive-away saddle mount combination" ..m...........__.__....................................................... 75' Two-vehicle combinations ............................________...................____.....................................75. ... {All length limits indude front and rear overhang.} *These combinations are aJlowed to exceed 75 feet overalllenglh only when operating on a four or more lane divided highways and other designated non-divided highways that make up the Long Combination Vehicle (leV) routes. Twin trailer combinations are not allowed to operate off Designated LeV Routes. Number of Units. No more than two units in combination may travel on Minnesota highways. Exceptions are permitted for 28'6" twin trailers and mount combinations in drive-away operations. Weight Limitations. Minnesota uses a number of different types of weighing equipmenl These include portable scales. approved. privatetyowned scales. and official weigh stations along state trunk highways and interstates. Designated Highways These are Minnesota's State T nunk Highway system. which include routes designated as Interstate (I). United States (US). and Minnesota (MN). plus certain designated local highways. All carry a ten-ton limitation. Limits are: Any single or dual wheeL__................m............___...mm__..m..............m...m........10.000 Ibs. Any single axle.......__m..........m...............m..................h____................h...m.m......20.000 Ibs. Any vehicle combination with five or more axles with minimum spacing ............80.000 Ibs. . .... 5\ Vf"''''^''' 0 Karin & I are in the process of getting a ?"'k \ conditional use permit to park our camper in our back yard. It is very important for us to make every effort to work with our neighbors. If the camper is in any way a nuisance to you, we would like your feedback on what we may do to help the issue. If you don't see a problem with it would you please give us your support on the issue by singing our petition. The names and addresses of the people that I spoke with are listed below. 3623 Pascal Ave. Sean & Angelyn Morrissey 3609 Pascal Ave. Suzan Miller 3632 Pascal Ave. Stephanie Grow 3620 Pascal Ave. Pat & Judy Mc Donald 1435 County Rd. E Mike Mieling, David Gregory, & Jared Ingebertson 1460 Arden Oaks Dr. Tim & Allison Wagenknecht 1370 Arden Oaks Dr. Donald & Carole Palme 1377 Arden Oaks Dr. Patrick & Dave Beamish 1429 Arden Oaks Dr. Todd Hertog I spoke to the foUowing people. They were also in support of my Special Condition Use request but I was not able to get the petition to them in time. 1476 Arden Oaks Dr. Kathy Wehking 1466 Arden Oaks Dr. Ann & Tullio Alessi ..,----...----,-----.....,-.-.- 11 \'11"""""'''' IJ ~CC:''l''-- Z ;-,~~:~~=-::-~~~~~~>_'_ .~: _-~;~:.{--.:~,~:~~--:~:-it~~~~<:,'c;-:-"-. .. .'__._ '.' ;C"_". _, ""~'-i '.'.-"" ,,:JL ,,:: ;io,A':,.' ' ." .--.~-;;- ~S: ~'* IF t1i II IS ""- ..va y'..e,. BecvnI..K A VPA//J/C, F ~~_._ ("/ifip,/P- /9t/rl7& . \8' 'rt~~-\ " - t'\. \ ...-. . . . _. _ -\:::J.::j-- "_.~~ ~.~ \ 't;v" NL<:1-, t,t<, _ ,', . 1\ . "~.. \CUG 1.\ ~LJ>i"'" ~~~~.~ {,~.~'~ ~~~~ul!40~ r / .# ~ V /, ~#t.i.1JfY 'xlldJd~1//J) ~ j '-' .~,.....::..,.,V""~....._;~ "i '-"."("'+c .... -{/ '--'L"'- ( / JC-~~ iJ ... y-------- --------- ,c;?: I II ___ /I.' .II- "'ii" . ;,,,., ./1// -.r _ Vi/ll/iil;...~ ;'. -....-p/--' 'G,.~' ,..;. J IIIAViL.A/I/~ --- r' ._ , (l.---. -.; -" f i I - [/ ~---~.~ \. - ~ ~l_ /1/ I l/ ~ N' L~.<.- ./ _ 10 i i. i. i t \~,,\'IY~,I '-~/I/~--. ~'." E/Z/ J c7?~/' " / '" .. ~ c '" () co ~ '" . g o < () ~ o ~ ~ . r rlo...> e :::r::>_ U\E"3;: ~.):) ::n og?? ::J[;! ~3'~' o<~ t"'~"'::l P> 0"-- .:li:~'" -~. g ~.g.. ~-<if ~g~ g~i --'<=> ~"-~ -~" &Gg VoEQ ~o..g- o(t'Cl. 8g-3 2ci~ .....-=: ~ r'\~~ ~ g'~; 'o~ <~ ~ =:~ g ~= ;-g-i5.. :::J..... __ ~~~ 0, (3 ~~. o~~ :lag ~~ ga.~ Q 5'0 ~g- ~~~ l'>l'>(1l ~ge- =>..,'" .... :::""0 2.o:::J --0 ~?~ ~g~ 5'::3 -~. o _~ 2>;) <ii" :!g'", Eco "~O oO:::l g: ~.g. 5 Q ~ 0.(15" 6 (i':::J ~-o g:g~ '00 - 0 ~l:l :2.3 ==<< ~ N' 0 '" 0 ~ ~ Q' 0- o o Q ~ . ~ ~ 'j' . o )> A' ..I. '" ~ "~,,....... --- / / / / / / / / / j I Ii L i) i ~ ~ " " __"3hV~ su., !!..., nM '.0."1 ~ .------ . . > " . , " @ .~ -------- .- . . ~ 2 " ~ ~ \ , NT;; I ---'--~~.._- I' \ / -, / "'./ /~ I /' I I "'-, I I '" '~ I "~ /J, ~/ >, '/ / \ I \ "., ( I \, 'r/,~, q \ \ I ~~ ~ ,~ " \ I ) ../ o ",1.'\'\.,\ ;:;0 <:;g '" 5'9 8' ~ ~ on:l: ~ ~ G7 g!,;li'" eGo :3 l'l: q-.o rl <:; roo a. it :::> a. n .... !l~~@<:Il...~",~g~z. ~~~iR ~;g~a:E ~~;g ~o."lRg g:~a ! m "- b' - c ~ ~ - -. ~ ...... > 'L. ~ '"r. '" D s:.:> I s: fI) D .., '0 s:.:> - > ~ ('I) J Attachment 7 A-4 RV Measurement Drawing April 30, 2007, City Council Meeting ~ u ~o It) co .0 u...... 0 CO s.... s.... ...... .0 Q) Q) C oCl..Cl.. Cl.. ......EE C'-" 0> ......::J::J C.o.o C e "0 ~ LL Q) L.. :J en ....... CO .- Q) <.0 E D 0 s... ~ <D oc... Q) I <D CO I'-C/) o=> ..c co wIo-J . . c 0) ::t:t: .Q c ....... Q) ():o -.J D 0...5 > u 0:: "0 - :J 0 ..c en ~ ~ 0 I 7A-S Report to the Planning Commission Available online at: http://www.cLarden-hills.mn.us April 30, 2007, City Council Meeting