The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-06-10-PCChair Clayton Larson 1245 W. Highway 96 Commissioners Andrew Holewa EN HILLS Arden Hills, MN 55112 Liz Modesette Daniel Reiff Arden Hills 651.792,7800 www.ci.arden-hilts.mn.us Roberta Thompson Clayton Zimmerman Planning Commission January 6, 2010 City Vision A strong community that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness, and our tradition as a desirable city in which to live, work, and play. Agenda Regular Planning Commission Convenes 6:30 PM Call to Order 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. MINUTES A. December 9, 2009 3. PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 09-024; Appeal of Staff Decision; 1774 Gramsie Road; Mr. and Mrs. Schneider —Not a Public Hearing B. Planning Case 09-022; Variance; 1563 Edgewater Avenue; Mr. and Mrs. Ranallo — Not a Public Hearing 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 5. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council B. Planning Commission Comments 6. ADJOURNMENT —The Planning Commission will Adjourn to a Work Session A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Planning Cases are available online at: http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/planningcases January 6, 2010 Planning Case Map -fiRzEN ]HiLLs MEMORANDUM DATE: January 6, 2010 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #09-024 Appeal Mr. and Mrs. Schneider 1774 Gramsie Road ATTACHMENTS: A —Fence Permit B — Air Photo and Photographs of the Site taken by Staff C — Application and Supporting Materials D — Materials Supplied by Mr. and Mrs. Maloney Requested Action The applicants are requesting the Planning Commission make a recommendation to overturn Staff s decision that a fence located at 1777 Glenview Avenue meets the requirements of the Zoning Code. Background Greg and Patty Schneider live at 1774 Gramsie Road. Their property abuts Mr. and Mrs. Maloney's property to the rear. Mr. and Mrs. Maloney were issued a fence permit to construct a fence along their rear property line on June 9, 2009. I reviewed and approved the permit (Attachment A). Mrs. Schneider first contacted the City on September 14, 2009, to inform staff that Mr. and Mrs. Maloney had begun the installation of the fence and that it encroached over the property line onto her and her husband's property. John Mennenga, the Building Inspector, and I went out to the property that afternoon to do a visual inspection. Mr. Schneider met us on site and indicated to us surveyor's monuments in the ground that he did not dispute the location of. Together we tied string around the monuments and strung the rear property line. Based on our visual City of Aiden Dills City Council Meeting for January 6, 2010 lMetro-inet.uslatdenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases l2009''09-024 Schneider Appeal (Pending)l01-10-09 -PC Report SchneiderAppeal.doc Page I of 5 inspection it appeared that approximately four to six of the fence post footings encroached over the property line by V2 to 1 inch, and that dirt from the digging of the fence holes had accumulated along the rear property line and encroached as well, in some areas up to a foot. (Attachment B). At that time Staff discussed the issue and agreed that the dirt, and any other damage to the Schneider's property, needed to be remedied and the lawn returned to its original condition. Those portions of the fence post footings that encroached over the property line also needed to be removed so that no encroachment existed. The City verbally informed Mrs. Schneider of the Staff's position on September 15, 2009. Staff also verbally informed Mrs. Maloney and sent a letter on the same day. On the morning of September 17, 2009, Staff received calls from both Mr. and Mrs. Schneider informing us that construction had once again commenced on the Maloney" s fence and that the height of the fence exceeded six feet. They also stated that the finished side of the fence did not face their property, but rather the Maloney's. They requested that Staff conduct a site inspection on the fence as soon as possible. Staff spoke with Mr. and Mrs. Maloney and the person constructing the fence and visited the property that afternoon. After a visual inspection of the construction method of the fence Staff became satisfied that the fence would look the same on both sides when it was completed. Additionally, Staff determined that the height of the fence panels did not exceed six feet and that the fence panels were placed as near to the ground as was possible given the natural undulation of the topography. On September 18, 2009, Mr. and Mrs. Schneider requested that the Community Development Director and the City Administrator visit the site to determine if the fence met the requirements of the Zoning Code. The Building Official also accompanied them on the visit. The Building Official determined that the fence materials were of a high quality cedar and that both sides of the fence panels were constructed of rough sawn cedar boards. At that visit, Staff determined that there was no discernable difference between the two sides of the fence such that one side could be determined to be the front versus the back. Additionally, Staff concurred with the earlier interpretation that the height of the fence panels did not exceed six feet and that they were placed as near to grade as possible. This was in keeping with how the Zoning Code has been implemented in the past. Staff also noted that the portions of the footings that had encroached over the property line had been removed and the dirt raked back onto the Maloney's property. Staff did note on this visit three boards facing the Schneider's yard that had some sort of a stain on them. Staff asked the contractor to replace these three boards and he agreed. There is some slight natural variation in the wood color, but all of the boards will turn to a gray color over time. All of the fence boards have a "rough cut" finish on both sides, but there are no treatments to either side of the wood. Staff informed Mr. and Mrs. Schneider of the appeal process and deadlines for submitting application materials. On December 4, 2009, Staff received a request from Mrs. Schneider to view the fence once again in its completed state. On December 107 2009, James Lehnhoff, Dave City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for Januafy 6, 2010 11111etro-inet.uslajdenhills OanningOannina Cases 12009W9-024 Schneider Appeal (Pending)i01-10-09- PCReport SchneiderAppeal.doc Page 2 of 5 Scherbel, and Meagan Beekman conducted a site visit and met with Mr. and Mrs. Schneider. At that time Staff maintained the previous decision that the fence met the requirements of the Zoning Code and explained to Mr. and Mrs. Schneider how to submit an appeal. Their application request for an appeal of Staff's decision is attached (Attachment Q. Zoning Code Section 1325.05 Subd 4D, the City's fence regulations, states as follows: Section 1325.05 Subd 4D 1. Height of Fences in Side and Rear Yards. Fences in side or rear yards may not exceed six (6) feet in height in all residential districts. Fences may be up to six (6) feet in height if placed in the secondary front yard of corner lots in residential districts provided that the fence does not exceed three (3) feet in height within the structure setback of the primary front yard and the fence does not encroach on the clear vision area. 4. Placement of Fences Along Lot Lines. Fences may be placed along lot lines provided no damage of any kind results to the abutting property. 5. Direction of Fence Facing. That side of the fence considered to be the face (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face toward adjoining property. In the past, Staff has interpreted the Code to mean that the height of the fence is the height of the fence panels themselves, placed as near to grade as is practical. Fence panels typically come in three, four, and six foot heights and it is common practice to install them above the ground, rather than in the ground due to rotting. Staff has historically used a common sense approach that allows installers to place fences above the grade itself to prevent rotting of wood, provided that the fence is as near to grade as is possible or reasonable. Fences can be placed up to but not extend over any property lines. Staff generally recommends that home owners install the fence a foot or two into their own property so that the fence can be installed and maintained without trespassing onto neighbors' property; however, the Code does not require this. In most cases the fence is a mutual benefit to both property owners and neighbors generally don't mind having the fence right on the property line. In terms of "damage to abutting property", Staff has historically interpreted this to mean permanent damage, meaning that If damage occurs the fence installer must remedy it to the satisfaction of the abutting property owner. It is very common for communities to require the "finished", or "face" of the fence to face towards abutting properties. Because of this common regulation, many fences are designed or premade to have the same face of both sides. At the time of Mr. and Mrs. Maloney's application City of Arden Dills City Council Meeting for Januaiy 6, 2010 1 Wetro-inet. us 1 aj denhills Planning Planning Cases 12009109-024 Schneider Appeal (Pend ing) W l -10-09 -PC Report Schneider Appeal. doc Page 3 of 5 to the City it was indicated to Staff that this would be the case. Based on visual inspections of the fence while it was under construction and once it was completed Staff determined that the fence was the same on both sides and that it was not possible to determine a front or face versus a back of the fence. Permit Review Process All fence installations in the City require a Zoning Permit. The City Planner reviews and approves all Zoning Permits. when a property owner applies for a fence permit they are required to submit a completed zoning permit form, appropriate fee, and site plan of where the fence is to be installed on the property. They are then informed of the City's Zoning Code requirements. If, once the fence is installed, a final inspection shows that the fence was not built according to the City's Zoning Code regulations, the fence must either be removed or correct so that it meets the requirements of the Zoning Code. Mr. and Mrs. Maloney made an application for a fence permit in June of 2009. Mr. Maloney pulled the permit himself. The City does not require that licensed contractors install residential fences. According to the Building Official either a homeowner or a contractor can pull a permit. Contractors must be licensed; however, homeowners do not. If a homeowner pulls a permit they take on the liability of the project, it does not mean that they are personally required to do the work. As part of the application Mr. Maloney provided to the City a completed Zoning Permit application, which stated that a six foot high wooden fence was to be built; the required fee; and a site plan that indicated where the fence was to be installed. The City does not require certificates of survey to pull a fence permit. It is the responsibility of the person who pulls the permit to ensure that the fence does not encroach onto abutting properties. Residents are informed of this at the time the permit is issued. Mr. Maloney indicated that he had a licensed surveyor come to his property and find or replace the property monuments. He also provided an aerial map of his property and documentation of the irregular subdivision that had occurred between his and Mr. Schneider's property in 1976. Mr. and Mrs. Maloney's application for a zoning permit, and issuance of that permit, was typical of the dozens of zoning permits that are issued by the City annually. Recommendation The Planning Commission is being asked to determine whether or not the fence that was constructed at 1777 Glenview Avenue meets the requirements of the Zoning Code or whether it is in violation, and if so, what aspect of the Code has been violated. 1f the fence is found to be in violation of the Code the fence with either need to be removed entirely or more likely corrected so that those aspects of the fence that are in violation are brought into compliance with the Code. The City is not being asked to make a determination on the aesthetic value of the fence, the City ofArden Hills 047 Council Meeting for January (, 2010 I ilVletto-itiet.us iaydenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases12009W9-024 Schneider Appeal (Pending)W-10-09 -PC Report Schneider Appeal.doc Page 4 of 5 method of construction, or the type of materials used, outside of how these things might impact the requirements of the Zoning Code. Options 1. Motion to approve a request to overturn Staffs decision that the fence located at 1777 Glenview Avenue meets the requirements of the Zoning Code (a motion to table this request should include direction on what aspects of the Zoning Code are being violated). 2. Motion to deny a request to overturn Staff's decision that the fence located at 1777 Glenview Avenue meets the requirements of the Zoning Code. 3. Motion to table the request (a motion to table this request should include direction on what additional information is needed to make a final decision). Attachments A — Fence Permit B — Air Photo and Photographs of the Site taken by Staff C ---- Application and Supporting Materials D — Materials Supplied by Mr. and Mrs. Maloney City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for January 6, 2010 IlMetro-rnet.uslaydenhills�PlanninglPlanning Cases 12009W9-024 Schneider Appeal (Pendingo,)101-10-09 - PCReport SchneiderAppeal.doc Page 5 of 5 Attachment A Fence Permit --ARQEN HILLS January 6, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting r i ,-,,7L ienview Avenue 6/9/2009 PrOject Address ' '' Date of Issue City of Arden Hills 209-17 1245 W Hwy 96 * Arden Hills MN 55112 Permit Number Phone 651.792.7800 * Fax 651.634.5137 Page: 1 of 1 — — Zoning Permit Inspections: Inspection Phone Numbers: Min. 24-hour notice required for all inspections. Please Electrical Inspector: 763-754-2983 (call 7-8:30am only) reference the permit number when calling for an inspection. Fire Inspector: 651.481.7024 A final inspection is required on all permits. All Other: 651.792.7800 Applicant Information: Name: Timothy Maloney Address: 1777 Glenview Avenue Arden Hills, MN 55112 Phone: Parcel Information: PIN: 283023130034 Address: 1777 Glenview Avenue Zoning: ROW Project Comments: Structure Use Residential Remodel Fence Yes Driveway No Total Lineal Feet 100 Total Square Footage 0 Comments Install 6ft wooden fence Contractor Information: Name: Owner Address: Phone: License #: Owner Information: Owner: Timothy Maloney Address: 1777 Glenview Avenue Arden Hills, MN 55112 Phone: *Separate permits required for electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating, and air conditioning. This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 120 days, or if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 120 days at any time after work is commenced. **By signing the permit application or permit, you hereby certify that you have read and examined the application and know the same to be true and correct. All provision of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction. By signing the permit application or permit, applicant takes full responsibility for work performed. Fees & Receipt(s) Information: Fee Description Fence Construction (0-100 linear ft.) Receipt Reference Payment Received From 5787 S. Timothy Maloney Amount $15.00 $15.00 Total Fees Amount $15.00 $15.00 Total Receipts Receipted By: Sherri Eisenbraun Last a .µ..EN HILLS 1245 W Hwy 96 * Arden Hills MN 55112 Z09 Phone 651.792.7800 * Fax 651.634.5137 www.ci.arden-hills.mn.usZONING PERMIT APPLICATION ................................ ............... . ....... ..... . ......... - ......:.::...:.... .......... . :�+viiiiii::i::ilii::ijii::iii::i::iii::::iiiii':ti�::i: .:'::::.:...: {::. �::: ;: �v:.:.:...... :....:.......... •:..:nw.:::i..:.�::.:i ii:•fi{..i-::: ii:•iiijifiii':•i::i:: ii::::::...:: .... . ................... .. r.... . ... v:::::::::.y,:: nom. • ;::: vv:::::::::. �::.i::::::: {.:. �:. �::: ivU::::.: •:':::::::::.:::.: �._:::..::::. _..}:• v.. :. ....:.: ::.i�i::.� •::ii: i''.iii: r'>:i ii:}:iii;:i i::i:S?:ilii:::i:':":';;.'•.:•:Y}yt::i:.}ii�..::✓':i �•-iii': 'yi:iiiiiiiii: .y::_::::�.:::.n�;•.•.::::::._.�::.iiti;•ii:::{t4:i:{'�:•ihii:•i:•ii:i.?;.Y.:.iiw:.:�: .: .:... n: .. ... i...., .; ..:......... r...:.. :.: �:::::::::.ni•::.}'.:Y{: ni::4'6:v:?:::::::....:::.::::::. � p.i??iy:;'i::hj4>.}y :•}ii: ..........:..................:........ ..................:...:.. .. ... .. ... ... ................... ... .:::.v:::..:::...::::::. �:::::::. �. �..::::;i";:::::Y:;:`-':i:-:xari:::r::':?::i::i..::;:>:>::;:•::•::<•:i::::i:`:"l:.:".':':':::s:i':::.:�?:�`i::::::.;»:.>:_::. ::::+>issri;:::r.:.:::::�:<::;r.;..::::: .:..::::: :....::: .::::. �::._:: �:.>:.:r.:_:c.;r+i>:x;-.'-x.:.;•:::::.: .:::: .. ::. .: .: • :: +:' .: .:.: ... .. :>: .:. i:: :. .�: .:: -.� : :r: .:..>:.:: .: � ,.. :.. .. :>: .: .. ...... ::. . :+:.. • .::: .. .r: :ir :, ... .::. .:.:....:....>....:....r.....;....:>:;.r:::::. �::::::::::::. �. �:::.;:;::::._:::ir.�:;:.:::r>r:.:::;;.:::::.�::::::�:i;>xi;::.:::::.>:.�::::::::. �:<.:::• •::;:::.:>:;.::::.:>:.;:.:::: i:.>:::: n:`:.::+::.;i:::;;-:;:;.iii'•:.,.ri.:::a �:x..>:..;;..:::::::.::::::. _:;.;:-:.:x::r:-:.:�: ...�.t.�......'N• • - -. . � . .: .. �*.. - ::.: ::: ': -: . •: ; : i:: ". . -:.:. ... :r.. <: .: ; : .: ... :::. .. .. ...::. :.r• ..:: .. 9.:. :. � ;. �: .. � ::.:':. >•r ::. .: �.: ...................................:....:.:.:::.�:::::.:....................:...:.:::::�..tt......... D.�::.�.. b gin.... . ... .......................................:.�r::::::.............................:..::.::::.:....................::: ... ............... r " ` • K • Property Type: ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ Occupancy Group: Public For Office Use On! Property Address:7 aO/ t Bldg./Suite/Location (commercial projects only): Owner Nam - Owner Phone Number: /A& 6��71 - 6 Mailing Address: Cr a to 17 5 City/State/Zip: t ip- MI, ` ' • Applicant Type: omeowner ❑ Contractor; License # Company Name (contractors only): Mailing Address: City/State/Zip: Contact Name: Contact Phone Number: Contact Fax Number: A •= Reason for work: ❑ Alter ❑ New Remodel E] Repair Describe Work and List All Special Approvals or Details of this Project: Driveway Square Footage/Fence Lineal Feet (round up): Expected omple ion Date: r A site drawing showing the driveway or fence location on the property in relation to of er structures and dimensions must be included with this application. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Applicant must attach a site plan for all Permit Fee —Driveway$18 for first 1,000 sq.ft. + $6 for each $ applications. There is a 10 working day turnaround for all permits additional or fraction thereof requiring plan review. Call for a final inspection upon completion of the Permit Fee — Fence work described. This permit becomes null and void if work ori'°'° v $15 for first 100 lineal feet + $6 for each $ construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days, or if additional or fraction thereof construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 City Contr License $30 days at any time after work has commenced. By signing this (!f applicable) (annual fee) $ application, you hereby certify that you have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provision of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with _- whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction. Applicant takes full responsibility for all work performed. Applicant is responsible for all plan check fees if permit is cancelled or withdrawn.,, TOTAL PERMIT FEE► Applicant Signaturb Date FoOffice Use.Only — Planner Application Complete Date Approval, Special Conditions ❑ Denial, Reason for Denial: Revie na re Date Revised November 2008 • is *�. � ;..�te�l: +�• -� '.s :`i+�,:•:al •� 3�;rct 'iccian�s ��'7�{ 5-M '•111�� s •i) c... t �1 �:tic:.t?,t:�,. orni f1 7 LAR 5- U hilt Irnt Ct1:! Made this ...... ... .............. : f '., �e�'e��ex' � 76 ,,,... ; , ..Tl........ PAUL.. W , T pRNE a ri d G EORG�.N�.... hu s Via. n d a p<1 w ' ' if 1• t .� . ti•rtt� `'tf7 , �, ' . Minnesota . _.. •tie� ...:.. o �lr.�� 1"r8t 1,,ar't, rr,7�/:Z ICIMR D • ... . , �.�� W�.,�� . .... ........4. 13A RT SCIA. Sri ... ........ • .. .. .... ....ti ......t......1 ... .... �: ... .. '� f'/� i Y/4.11 � .(r1?d .Mede, 0, .. ...Xinries �a: T'r!1 t'f (';' ::/� �1rt' of:'r."7!?t� j: 1t• �>• ,.trfrl �1:: St:l.id 1rIH, ies ' f , ,�.11'ld�. I ryf �' r1 T-IT� r��rrt't 1=t r•r};r-,t��'.,'�•rtr';rr,. r;�' �i� other . j ; t !t ....ant V,�lteabl a ..sons ].C�+E rat. oll f r a them m ' :1 11 e- ,y,. rII 7)(171h;1,15 h;1,1s f t.lr.�' `c�C��trrll rf/r�'� f .� ..; r., . f,. . +, , ,�' • _ , } •�. •� T 7 t J .) 7 f !• . t a�r•.. ► 1 ft -t� rf �.` (� II/��'t�i/t• ��!'•t �y•.•{• �•]•.',�11J �'f j';r}�1 - 11 1:'=J;1�J'?. r� / TJ f� • '• ; ., tv ' 'fie. // ►/rr? % , r . 'f}rL!'!;?� 71 �7tt1 /rel %%N ; A. j/!'1 r'i . iI f%1,. it t 1..� ,�,r1 ,,,t. .r f I " .• -: '11 r'1I?, ,ti' 1t. t�t� ' I?1r7Jt �) ' y' �� _ {S • L, • .. �•�?•-• .��11 t.'1•.1 r11 rpt -tir. Irl r , !,i � ' f .I . . ]//1 i :,.r. %,!t'. .,,'tfl t.'r►'iIl', ,l ;1:', :•!:_'� tr't7�'� f,}1 1��'11'%•'l i r• 1 ? 1, .:. •_ ti Y .� tl.l.?�rj j,fr TJ {r t: r. ,: d . f: ' r r,:1 it r t; •, • •• .. �: 11�i• . 1 j 1.1 ��' ��I ♦�t ! 7f I��L�Sf�/( J �,�.!'.��1•: l��;Yi ��rt.; 111�� J'(/!�'•tit l r1.?r. I r ; f . Lot 15 , except*the North 10 feet � thereof, Block 100 SHOREW D HILLS NO. 2, accoidin .-to tfie Plat thereof• y •t l - r . t i • :y State .deed Tax Du(.,, ilereo n _;iI1 ' �x�i � roc; ite'?' 7viI.h. all thdr: hf,v 1 11 71i el ' f �S �� !r r ,!.LS t: ,r<<.• :� r.�::.:.1 , �'fr•f lYr :r�, � rrr; '- ' 11 i' i (. :.•/'j f /�1 r.' 1% f,r• 11 +1 >Ir t�!('; :�'• ii f i':J'1•l (d r I2 L%t'n i �� r' '/ • f ' • �? . ► ' + , . ' r `•t --` th-Ce Said r�,rr1r�•s cid BIZ, .;r'{..�a�rr1. l:c�� f!r�;� t:�'.1dn J'1.'.•', /�' it '' .'�t f •� i II ' �'� •/',�' ' �' , •. . ;; ' � � '/{•�' '•i:! r It J ,. tr �rrr.!r t*r:!. 1r.�,rf,4 sifrt� r��'•fi�:�1rY rrf the .. :'r.'•,f •, Ifrij'tsL't't', tli:� ;.�r''! �►•11','rr'.y' {1' Irl . t� ,l .I �'r°l.'e1{•' f, • �i'/J,I•!. �t'11f��r�.'� rf!%r. )%Ii` i'e•�� fenoiit ij! 1'rl��in?.Le) n. i. PAUL W. THORNE and GEORG Ng T j1` seIVes ,..Aheir heir's, y f_ / ,..� 1.f I /'il�.%t : �! t•fi (' �+•_ • % t , f 11 r'i•t /, 1'�.', i i • i �{ fit �r frr• ::ri!{. , tJc'r1•c•if'•�' �ij" a'�j1+{' .�'('CCI�TCI. �)t7i•t ji;.j 1 t r�•�•kiT�t�• a(e• :7i��•/•t! ij?' fl� -,;f,I� ii"i'%•: �f1'.+, �i ,. 7 ' ' -'' r ` ' . ' ! y' .r e... .'�r't,' 1 l.• ' /' Iso); ,Wv 1. r. tL e • r �. 1 • . I . ' U� ! T) ! � 1 �, ! 1 �••• � f { r. I � ,. i� f 1 j i .�.) .. i / � % � f I •i �.i /• 1 � ./ f � •_ • 1f'1 V ''�.•.rt 1':,�•�1f r:•) .�'!'t'J ,rtr;j ('r11•?Ts�'1j 7R�1I;. .�l�rr,�'. :!t )7?.rr?711%'' c'II1ft �'1..11r 1��..•.�.I�'1; ,:r• r:,�,, �%/� M!' a t 1 •. t: { -;dA j- 6tate 0. Atuntgota -0. V County of .... ...Rams.ey .............................................. 71he was cavi cuoirtf,ddrd brfore m(A t dlq/ cq� Dec -ember Paul Thorne and rgene L. A 04A by.. Thorno., -husband.. and wif.e.... N.vw* tif: r:,T;RS'0N M CAROL J. JEZIERSKI , NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA DAKOTA'COUNTY A AGNATUR KING 31,1979 My Cmmission Expires Qct. IN IVVTVVVVVTVVVVVV"VvvvVYTVTVMVJ4 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (-rJ-fLE OR RANK) .... .. ................... .. .... ....... .. ......... JNamo) 2 ..Q-UXi.ty.j3UJ1d1ng St PaU1.q--.M.1nne6*0ta-&fT4 0,00e u c 0 R. 4- 0 40- Let f1 4f w ;.°, - O.'s. V C c u ap. 0 as Awr f"'- a.A. irf M. -b- _0 M lull (D c CP. W 00 ETA ("N 4- M I 1- 1. 0 0 Z4— C . wJ #1-3 C I CA r— -0 eel fft*W VA) 0 IMP- 4— Al 0,00e IP ANN t f.. rw ep 4 J ajp�� iyti ' bi7kP i.rrF j! l '� i �.. ryl;. p www. _� _....._. _ _.. --- i z � YIN •�}' <'w. �+ _` �_ I AI % •wry. �_ �` �_ �. r,_ ..�- \ \ \. Awa 1' ..:�lilki�l � .�_ _..,,.. ��_ ter_ r _• __ " � •+ 1_ '` .. •err. 1 \1 Attachment B Air Photo and Photographs of the Site taken by Staff -ii EN HILLS January 6, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting ri 1, \ 1 fO Y i i V` O LL �! S A� 0 CD CD n O � - CD zC0 osteo .............................. ........... P/M ;,g .. . ........ -M 0 I�e g. .......... a :MEW x K* .......... % '-E % M, M M IN M�l al pl, ig moll ................................ ... ..................... . ........... .............. ........ .. .... ...... - - - ---------------------- -- -- WAS 1- w! -011 n CD Cr CL Nj N' ,,gg ........ .. gn % x4i ....... ........... qQ (D (-o CID (D CL WAP—ma - mm . . . . . . . . ....... ....... . . . . . . . . MOM -5 C=> Gn 73 ................ - ----- ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CL Ml X, onmvlzlt.l I ME C) - .'M ............. .. ........ �,i .......... g, ME Pli ME11,111.1 M R I'M -- ------ ARM - ala < ,g J, rl ar9�t, ; x1 g7Pl 3 fl q aE� tr \ �Ng��, p >�tl \1 `U 1�It��1 ,- �Qt; hll it�tlU\1'Qhttlt t\\tl\\l 1l '�tV a 1 t l Qh Q \li 11 H\ t n%r .Yk23CkN ... P kf r x�P . W sAi $ E, id'r ref . �J�h�' klkd4l(:o�'r91k'W1�4 a:te.,asa�� ................. __ < ,g J, rl ar9�t, ; x1 g7Pl 3 fl q aE� tr \ �Ng��, p >�tl \1 `U 1�It��1 ,- �Qt; hll it�tlU\1'Qhttlt t\\tl\\l 1l '�tV a 1 t l Qh Q \li 11 H\ t n%r .Yk23CkN ... P kf r x�P . W sAi J ,jeLr k s 8r fit' �r e or AeewP < ,g J, rl ar9�t, ; x1 g7Pl 3 fl q aE� tr Attachment C Application and Supporting Materials ,AVEN HILLS January 6, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting EN HILLS 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792-7800 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.ci.arden-h ills. mn. us Planning Case No. Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 2009 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: _-="' 7'7 G{/V(,� PUL��. C) �i Y�' I IG � U'Qi� Address: Telephone No.: _ Other, Fax No.: Email Address: Property Information Property Owner. Owner Address: PIT � - - � _------ Owner Tel�tpone Nq- Other: Address of Property Involved: Legal Description: Property ID No.: Type of Use: Zone: Property Acreage: T of Reguest* LJ Apportionment of Assessments ($30) Ll LJ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($550) Ll Ll Conditional/Interim Use Permit or Amendment ($350) Ll (3 Final Plat ($400 + $25 per lot) Ll Master Planned Unit Development ($600 + escrow) Ll Final Planned Unit Development ($200) Ll Planned Unit Development Amendment ($350) Ll Zoning or City Code Amendment ($550) ❑ Land Use Requests —Not Already Specified ($200) ppeal of Administrative Decision ($75) Minor inor Subdivision (lot split/consolidation) ($425 + escrow) LJ Preliminary Plat ($600 + $25 per lot + escrow) Ll Variance (Zoning Code) ($350) Ll Site Plan Review ($400) Revised: 12-16-08 Pagel of Rezoning ($550) Site Plan Review (Sign or Fence) ($250) Vacation of Easement or Right -of -Way ($300) *Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763- 398-3070 for additional information. *The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. *All applications may be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. 9 Filing -& Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. The Planning Commission and/or City Council may still require a certified survey. A checklist for other required information is also available. Complete/incomplete Applications An incomplete application will delay the processing of land use requests. The application approval time commences and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be "complete" it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required public notices have been sent and published. Payment of Fees The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required information and fees (including all deposits) must be paid to the City. If additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the City, the City Planner has the right to require additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all miscellaneous fees have been paid. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. Notice of Meeting Attendance W� In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Revised: 12-16-08 Page 2 of 3 Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule The deadline for submittal of land use applications is required according to the schedule outlined below. There are no exceptions. Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. Applicants are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary upon approval of the Planning Commission. 2009 SCHEDULE (*subject to change) Acknowledgement and Signature I Ica knpwledge thatil have read all of the information listed in the City of Arden Hills Land Use Application and fuliv, nderstand am responsible r all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this ply, fn and ap tion. Jll� t: Propo* Owner Signature (Required) Applicant Signature (if different than the property owner) Date I Date Please contact the City Planner at (651) 792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website: http.-1A1vww. ci. arden-hills. rare. us Revised: 12-16-08 Page 3 of 3 December 11, 2009 Planning Commission City of Arden Hills, MN 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 RE: Compromise Resolution Dear Planning Commission: We a filing a formal appeal of administrative decisions made relating the fence constructed by a Contractor at 1777 Glenview Avenue on their northern property line and on the southern property line of our property at 1774 Gramsie Road. That complaint is included on the following pages. Possible Solutions. A compromise resolution to the fence problems as outlined on the subsequent pages. • This is not what we want but we will agree to consider the resolution. • We ask that the City of Arden Hills intervene on our behalf and enforce the code regarding the proper application of the face boards by removing the individual panels, turn them around so the front of the fence faces our property. • A licensed contractor that we approve and agree is qualified to do the work, will properly screw the frame boards to the footing posts and frame and level each panel according to the proper construction of a fence of this type. This work must be done to our satisfaction. • We want the fence stained to protect it from the elements so it remains new looking on our side of the fence. • What should have happened at the start of the project was the City should have required the homeowners at 1777 Glenview Avenue to produce a site drawing including what the front and back of the fence looked like to insure they were indeed exactly the same materials, look, quality etc. • When it was determined that the fence was not the same on both sides, the City should have required the posts be moved back onto the property at 1777 Glenview Avenue in order to allow enough room for the front of the fence to be constructed from our side so the fence was front facing from our side. • If the Mahoney's refused to set back the fence from the property line, the City should have required the Mahoney's use a different fence design, a staggered f board design, which is the same on both sides. We had granted permission to go on our property and the matter would have been resolved then. Summary A Contractor working for the homeowners at 1777 Glenview Avenue started building a fence in August or September, 2009. In 2007, we understood that they were not going to build a fence. In 2008, we asked that in the event they wanted to build a fence, to discuss the issue with us first to be respectful of the decline in value of our home that would result from a fence being built. In June, 2009, we offered to get together with them to discuss boundary and fence issues so we could better understand their concerns. We told them we would be happy to get together and to give us a call. Instead of calling us to get together, they hired a lawyer. Then we received a series of letters from the lawyer who kept imposing short artificial deadlines on us at a time when our youngest child was graduating from high school, we were preparing for her graduation open house, attending all of the gradation open houses of her friends, supporting her efforts to find summer employment, helping her prepare to attend her freshman year of college and welcoming our oldest child back home after his sophomore year at college. Sometimes when you are trying to accomplish something with other people, it is helpful to understand where the other people are in their lives and to try to empathize with their situation. Just because the homeowners at 1777 Glenview Avenue wanted a fence immediately didn't mean that we were in a position to have the time to meet these short deadlines imposed by their lawyer. We told their lawyer over and over that we did not want a fence because we believed it would reduce the value of our property. We shared that the "park like" setting in the back of our property is what attracted us to the home and these aesthetics are what gives our property value and what visitors are most impressed with. We expressed that a fence would significantly alter the enjoyment we have experienced for the almost 18 years we have lived in our home. We offered multiple times to get together to understand their concerns and asked their lawyer to give us a day and time when we could get together her clients, the homeowners at 1777 Glenview Avenue. The lawyer said her clients chose not to meet with us and mischaracterized the tone of our letters. We responded to this lawyer by saying that if the homeowners chose to build a fence, we did not want the contractors to trespass on our property. Since they would not meet with us, relying on the Zoning Code, we understood that this would require the homeowners at 1777 Glenview Avenue to ask permission for their Contractor to enter on our property to build a fence on the boundary line with the face of the fence facing our property (at which point we could finally gain an understanding of what kind of fence they planned to build and maybe get to give some input into the process) or the Contractor would build the fence "set back" sufficiently from the property line so it could be built with the face of the fence facing our property in accordance with the Zoning Code and it could be properly maintained after initial construction without needing permission to enter our property on a regular basis to cut and trim grass and maintain the fence. The Contractor for the homeowners at 1777 Glenview Avenue did neither and built the fence right on the property line with the face of the fence facing the home at 1777 Glenview Avenue in violation of the Zoning Code. The fence footings were made sloppily of cement above the ground and many of the fence footings encroached on our property. This one areas where a breakdown of the City process occurred. a The Contractor for the homeowners at 1777 Glenview Avenue began building the fence g g in August or September, 2009. After a few of panels were constructed by their Contractor, it was clear to us that it was being built in violation of the Arden Hills Zoning Code for such things including, it was too high, it was being built backwards and the fence post footings encroached across our property line. We called the City of Arden Hills because we thought it would be best to correct the Zoning code violations before the whole fence was build by the Contractor. We also raised concerns about the sloppy workmanship and the above ground footings. Megan Beekman visited the site on September 14, 2009. Megan told us that she talked with the Contractor and the fence was not finished yet. She said the Contractor told her that when finished, the fence would be exactly the same on both sides. On September 18, 2009 we sent an email to City Staff, the Mayor and the City Council requesting that action be taken to stop the Contractor from continuing to build the fence so the Arden Hills Zoning code could be properly enforced. (See Attachment 3) After a conversation with Ron Moorse on September 18, 2009, we gave permission to the Contractor to come onto our property to nail the fence boards to the fence frame with the nails being pounded from our side of the fence going toward the 1777 Glenview Avenue side of the fence for the remainder of the fence construction so our side of the fence would begin to be the face of the fence in accordance with the City of Arden Hills Zoning Code. (See Attachment 4) James Lehnhoff visited the site later in the day on September, 18, 2009 and he said that after talking with the Contractor, the contractor told him that he could not nail the fence boards to the fence frame with the nails being pounded from our side of the fence going toward the 1777 Glenview Avenue side of the fence for the remainder of the fence construction so our side of the fence would begin to be the face of the fence in accordance with the City of Arden Hills Zoning Code. As we understand it, the Contractor told James he could not do what Ron Moorse suggested because the fence wouldn't be the same structurally because on part would be back facing our home and the other part would be front facing our home. Jaynes relied on the advice of this Contractor who we understand was not licensed to work in the City of Arden Hills and told us that the Contractor told him the fence was not finished yet, but when it was finished, it would look exactly the same on both sides. Again, there was not site plan filed with the city to verify what the final outcome would look like.The reason the fence contractor could not nail the fence boards to the fence frame with the nails being pounded from our side of the fence going toward the 1777 Glenview Avenue side of the fence for the remainder of the fence was because the contractor was building the fence backwards in violation of the Zoning Code. If it truly was to be the same on both sides, he could have finished the fence by nailing the fence boards to the fence frame with the nails being pounded from our side of the fence going toward the 1777 Glenview Avenue side of the fence. At this point it was clear to us that the fence could not be the same on both sides and the City of Arden Hills allowed an unlicensed contractor to finish the fence in violation of the Zoning Code. On September 18, 2009, James Lehnhoff told us that he disagreed with us. The fact that the fence was not the same on both sides could have been easily determined by the City of Arden Hills reviewing an accurate site plan for the fence and asking a few knowledgeable questions at the time of the Zoning Permit application and before issuance of the Zoning Permit. Fran Holmes, a neighbor and member of the city council visited our home on Sunday, September 20, 2009 and followed up later with the process for appeal. If the contractor doesn't ask permission to enter on our property to build the fence, the fence has to be set back from the boundary line sufficiently to build the fence and maintain the fence. It seems impossible to build a fence that complies with the Zoning Ordinance with the good side facing the neighbor and build the fence right on the property line, which is why we have a problem here. The City of Arden Hills either gave them permission to build the fence backwards or did not ask enough questions in the Zoning Permit application process, missed the requirement of viewing a site plan of what the fence would look like or issued the Zoning Permit without all the information. Then failed to inspect the construction of the fence and finally did not follow the City's responsibility to enforce the Zoning Code. The Building Inspector saw the fence for the first time on December 10, 2009 after it had been constructed. It appears that someone within the City of Arden Hills dropped the ball in allowing the construction of this fence. The fence is now built and it is not the same on both sides as represented by the Contractor. We would appreciate the City taking responsibility and rectifying this matter rather than having us bear the negative decline in the economic value of our home and the loss of enjoyment of our property. Here are some of our concerns: I. All contractors must be licensed by the state or City before working in Arden Hills. This form is used for all contractors including sign installers. A. We would like a copy of the state or city license for the contractor that built the fence at 1777 Glenview Avenue. • was the contractor that built the fence licensed by the state or the city of Arden Hills and if Arden Hills, did he pay the $30 fee for the City contractor's License to work in Arden Hills? B. The Zoning Permit Application (See Attachment 1) states that the Homeowner will be the Contractor and the Owners are listed as Nancy and Timothy Mahoney. The Zoning Permit (See Attachment 2) under Contractor Information lists the Owner as the contractor. The owner is then listed as Timothy Mahoney. The fee paid was $15.00 by S. Timothy Mahoney. 0 Most fence ordinances require: o If the homeowner is doing the work, Owner/self should be written on the General contractor line of the permit application. If a contractor will be doing the work, they must meet the City's requirements for bond and insurance. C. Given the end result of the fencing project, we find it highly unlikely that the fence was installed by a licensed professional fence company. II. Direction of Fence Facing. The Arden Hills Zoning Code states; That side of the fence considered to be the face (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face toward adjoining property. A. Most fence ordinances use what some communities call "pretty -side -out ordinances or the "good neighbor policy" that ensure that neighbors see the best side of the fence, so: • The builder of the fence gets the unfinished side of the fence. • The face side of the fence face out away from the fence builders home The "good" side of a fence faces out towards the neighbor. • Wood fences shall be constructed with posts, rails and other structural members located on the inside of the fence (finished side facing out) • The finished side of the fence shall face the adjacent lot line B. Generally, the face of the fence is defined as follows: • The finished side of the fence of the fence shall face adjoining property C. The non -face of the fence is defined as follows: • The framing material shall be placed on the owners side of the fence D. Here are some examples of how other cities in Minnesota have interpreted the "face" or "good side" of the fence: • City of Plymouth o (c) That side of any fence or wall considered to be its "face" (i.e., the finished side having no structural supports) shall face abutting property or street right- of-way. • City of Coon Rapids o The finished side is the side whose framing, supports or posts are not visible City of Mound o The side of the fence considered to be the face (the finished side having no structural supports) shall face the adjoining property or street right-of-way • City of Minneapolis o Posts and supporting members. All fence posts and related supporting members of the fence shall be erected so that the finished side or sides of the fence shall be facing the adjacent property or public right-of-way • City of Waconia o The side of the fence considered to be the face (finished side as opposed to structural supports) shall face abutting property. Abutting property owners will be notified by constructor offence five (5) calendar days before the building permit is issued. E. In this case, `{facing as applied to fence posts" faces the home at 1777 Glenview Avenue, not our home at 1774 Gramsie Road. This is the opposite of what is clearly required in the Arden Hills Zoning Code. The back of the fence, not the face, faces our home at 1774 Gramsie Road. 1. As fence construction began, our email of September 18, 2009 (See Attachment 3) requested that the City of Arden Hills stop construction of the fence for the reason outlined in the email. The City of Arden Hills rejected our request. 2. The face of the fence. The side of the fence facing 1777 Glenview Avenue is the face of the fence — "facing as applied to fence posts". Under the ordinance the face of the fence is supposed to face toward the adjoining property or our home at 1774 Gramsie Road. (See Attachment 4) • The fence face boards are nailed or screwed into the frame of the fence with the nails or screws applied toward 1774 Gramsie Road so the facing as applied to the fence posts faces 1777 Glenview Avenue and not our home at 1774 Gramsie Road as required by the Zoning Code. • Three finished 1 x 4 decorative, attractive pieces of cedar trim face 1777 Glenview Avenue • The face, finished side having no structural supports, "good", best side faces 1777 Glenview Avenue. • The side facing 1777 Glenview has no structural supports, framing, the supports are not visible, rails. • This is the good or best side of the fence. The face, finished side, "good" side or the best side of a fence shall face out or away from the property upon which the fence is constructed or in this case should face toward 1774 Gramsie Road. 3. The side of the fence facing 1774 Gramsie Road is the back of the fence or non face side of the fence, the unfinished side of the fence, non -smooth side, and under the ordinance this back side of the fence is supposed to face 1777 Glenview Avenue. ( See Attachment 6) a. Inferior types of wood are used on this side of the fence facing 1774 Gramsie Road • These 2 x 4s are unfinished, raw 2 x 4s made of pine or fir with big knots • Support posts, columns, rails or other structural members appear to be "off the shelf', inexpensive, unfinished 2 x 4s that have large knots. • Pine unfinished 2 x 4 framing studs toe nailed to the posts • These 2 x 4s are unfinished, raw 2 x 4s made of pine or fir with big knots b. Support and structural frame, framing studs, columns, rails, support beams or other structural members face our home at 1774 Gramsie Road and the Zoning Code requires that they face the builder of the fence. . • When building a fence, once the posts installed into the ground, the rails are attached to the posts and the fencing material is attached to the rails or fence frame • In this case, the rails or fence frame are exposed to our home at 1774 Gramsie Road and the fencing was screwed or nailed on to the rails or fence frame or studs with the screws or nails were inserted into the rails or fence frame or studs toward our home at 1774 Gramsie Road. This is the exact opposite of what the ordinance requires. • Here are descriptors from other cities that help determine the back of the fence -- lets apply them in this case: o Shows the frame of the fence o Framing studs o Framing material o Support structure o posts, rails and other structural members o having structural supports o framing, supports are visible o side with structural supports • The frame studs are toe -nailed poorly into the fence posts with nails with large heads that are mashed in • This is the unfinished side of the fence that shows the 2 x 4 structural frame for the fence o 2 x 4 at the top of the fence o 2 x 4 about 15-24 inches from the top of the fence o 2 x 4 at the bottom of the fence • The framing 2 x 4 studs are indented 1 1/2 inches from the post on the 1774 Gramsie Road side of the fence compared to indentation of 1/2 inches on the 1777 Glenview Avenue side of the fence, further enforcing the argument that the back of the fence faces 1774 Gramsie Road F. Conclusion. In this case, "facing as applied to fence posts" faces the home at 1777 Glenview Avenue, not our home at 1774 Gramsie Road. This is a violation of the Zoning Code. III. The fence is NOT the same on both sides as the contractor used a mixture of S4S cedar, with rough sawn cedar, and 1X boards with a mixture of 2X boards. The 1777 Glenview Avenue side of the fence has different and significantly better material on their side of the fence compared to the 1774 Gamsie Road side of the fence. A. Most fence ordinances require: • If the material used in fence construction is not finished on both sides, the finished side of the material shall be on the outside, facing adjoining properties and all structure supporting the fence shall be on the inside or owners side of the fence. B. Materials. The materials the contractor used to build the fence are not the same on both sides. • The 1777 Glenview Avenue side of the fence has o the finished side of rough sawn cedar as fence face boards o decorative 1 x 4 trim made of finished rough sawn cedar • The 1774 Gramsie Road side of the fence has: o The back side of fence face boards made of rough sawn cedar o 2 x 4 framing studs made of inferior, questionable quality smooth -(not rough sawn cedar), cedar, pine or fir with numerous large knots obvious knots. ■ We request a sample piece of the 2 x 4s facing our property to provide to the University of Minnesota Department of Forest Resources to verify the type of wood that was used. C. Structure • 1777 Glenview Avenue side of the fence o See Section E2 above • 1774 Gamsie Road side of the fence o See Section Ob above D. Conclusion • This is not a fence with two finished sides. The fence is not the same on both sides, nor are the same materials used on both sides. • The 1777 Glenview Avenue side of the fence is the good or best side of the fence. The face, finished side, "good" side or the best side of a fence shall face out or away from the property upon which the fence is constructed or in this case should face toward 1774 Gramsie Road. This is a violation of the Zoning Code. IV. The fence in several areas breeches the 72 inch height limit. And in some of the circumstances it is so egregious that it is 79 inches tall or better. A. Most fence ordinances require: • Height restrictions B. In this case: The Arden Hills ordinance provides Height of Fences in Side and Rear Yards. Fences in side or rear yards may not exceed six (6) feet in height in all residential districts. • Megan Beekman told us that in Arden Hills this means six (6) feet from the ground • The fence built by the homeowners at 1777 Glenview Avenue is an excess of 6 ft. When measuring the fence at all 15 posts, at only one post is the height of the fence 6 feet high or less • See Zoning permit application, contractor/owner applied for and committed to a 6 foot fence Attachments 1 and 2 • Measurements at each post are: See attachment 9 Post Height in inches 0 1 78.25 o 2 76 o 3 78 o 4 75.25 o 5 79 o 6 77 o 7 79 o 8 73.5 0 9 74 0 10 73.25 0 11 73 o 12 74 o 13 73.5 o 14 75 o 15 72 V. Fence footings still encroach over the property line onto our property at 1774 Gramsie Road A. Most fence ordinances require: • Fences shall be located entirely on the private property of the person constructing or causing the construction of the fence unless the owner of the adjoining property agrees in writing that the fence may be erected on the division line for the two adjoining properties. • Many homeowners build a fence with enough setback from the property line so they can maintain the fence properly B. In the case of this fence, • See photos at each footing. Even after the letter from the City of Arden Hills dates September 15, 2009, the following 7 footings of the 15 footings still encroach over the property line. (See Attachments 8 —14) VI. The Arden Hills zoning code states that fences may be placed along lot lines provided no damage of any kind results to the abutting property. • After the letter from the City of Arden Hills dated September 15, 2009, damage to our property has not been repaired, including near the following fence posts, 3, 5, 6,7,1 ,13,14, a 15. • Did the City of Arden Hills ever follow-up or inspect to see if the homeowners at 1777 Glenview Avenue had done anything to put them in compliance what they were directed to do in the September 15, 2009 letter? VII. Fence Maintenance. There is not enough room on the 1774 Gramsie Road side of the fence for the homeowner at 1777 Glenview Avenue to maintain the side of the fence that faces 1774 Gramsie Road and the grounds beneath it. This will lead to a condition of disrepair and a potential nuisance. Fences are to be kept maintained and kept in good repair. VIII. Appearance and Aesthetic Issues A. All 15 fence footings are above ground and create a visual sloppiness that negatively affects the appearance of the fence, the economic value of our property and causes the loss of enjoyment of our property. • See photos — Attachment B. The fence is stepped in a very arbitrary fashion, with bays stepping almost willy nilly. And bays that are level and the very next bay is not. C. No finished caps D. No finished trim along the top edge of the fence IX. Conclusion • We understand that it is possible for professional fence contractors to construct a fence that is the same on both sides, but that is not what has happened in this case. • If there is a three step process to building a fence. Install the posts, install the rails and screw on the fencing. In this case all three steps were done in violation or the ordinance. We can't see anything that was done right by the fence Contractor. o The posts were installed so they encroach on our property and with raised cement o The rails were installed on our side of the fence instead of as the ordinance requires that they face the homeowner building the fence o The fencing was screwed on the wrong way in violation of the ordinance. To prove this, Patricia Schneider had a phone conversation with Ron Moors and it was followed up by an email dated September 18, 2009 where we gave permission to the Maloney's fence contractor to come onto our property to nail fence boards to the fence frame with the naikls going in toward the Maloneys side of the fence for the remainder of the fence construction so our side of the fence would begin to be the face of the fence in accordance with the City of Aren Hills ordinance. This way the fence facing would be applied to the fence frame with nails pounded from our side of the fence toward the Maloneys side of the fence in accordance with the ordnance. • Loss of economic value to our home o The fence constructed did not enhance the look of our home, it has reduced the value of our home. • We have suffered the loss of enjoyment of our property at 1774 Gramsie Road from construction of the fence by the homeowners at 1777 Glenview Avenue X. Request a. We are requesting that the city take responsibility to strictly enforce the City of Arden Hills Zoning Code and remove the fence: • That the fence constructed by the home owners at 1777 Glenview Avenue be torn down or removed and any damage to our property be repaired to our satisfaction. • The fence contractor be prohibited from working in Arden Hills b. We are requesting a significant reduction, over (30%) in the assessed value of our house as a result of this fence and a corresponding reduction in our property taxes. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENTS 1. Zoning Permit Application 2. Zoning Permit 3. September 18, 2009 email from the homeowners of 1774 Gramsie Road to the City of Arden Hills 4. Email to Ron Moorse, City Administrator 5. Email to James Lehnhoff LmuicantiUc M200WAppificant Type: omeowner ❑ Contractor; License # Company Name (contractors only): Mailing Address: City/Sta OA Contact Name: Contact Phone Number: Contact Fax Number: ` Reason for Work: ❑ Alter Describe Work and List All Special Approvals or Details of this Project: too EN HWLLS Z09 .. 1245 W Hwy 96 * Arden Hills MN 55112 A site drawing showing the driveway or fence location Phone 651.792.7800 * Fax 651.634.5137 www_c7t.arden-hills_mn.us ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION r:J{,-r-. }r.: r r .1:3}.': '';.y ..}fi•:. . k {:.v::}.N .rJ... rY' .t. r. 1. £l. :. :•}Yv%:i:ir>{}?':' vx .- .vi4kii'rrs-'Ya.litri-• ::4'+i}-$v3iiT}:,?iri r..:.v.::{}.f../, ..... r-:: .:.!,v,:}.. :...r/v. yi. _r. r.C, �l .::i .:. n.f. r. .r:ni •Iv :..: ... r.} r... -:/v' : :... J v. .. %..a. -:.,Y,. -.l ri}.v-: :.: }.v v.3:•. J.i?-}.., ... .r.»:..v .. a.; .:�.:..f /r... a..a.:..X. >.. fr3r.YY-r.,._.r.. ..... .: rr f...>...d:: r . r. :_ .r /">.::^'• ' .. ,..:} 3-:., .r.rw-{,ra:. ?. : J.:.. ...n .: .r.:� rr ra.r.,a .... r... v..J ?�.., !. .......... .. ::............ . -...». r :r r.r Yrv..%.. .... r ., % � .:r :. :r.r: ..l...:.. ,.: r. t.,•;./ -. -.:....r.:.: :r:..... }:-M}..vy}};v: •.:::}:y::-::_:-}::}' . ...: f+r. .J ,: .v:. .r .. ._ra 1. .:- .r ..w1. ...-. :.{rf..x 1-.- rn -.. r % ...... .. . ✓ r. : ... /... . n. .f. . . : ... .a.::.. ., r... .. .. r. .f. .._. .ra...f.: .. $t .: .. w . . ....+ ..._.... . n...w..,- ...-... n. ... r... »: :.::.v:::: r.. v• . ..v:::::::::::•.v 4::.:.: .3':..::.v r........ w-.... .. - ....a { ..r:>r ! . ,....r...._rr..: .......ar..2r- : a %,. v ... ....�K..{.,.. _rr.. r...r.... .... ..J..,.$ - r./.....f?.}..f.r.:..:•::...v:.v.:,::.:.. . ..r >r.,. .. an rN r.... f _ r.... ..i, .. r. aw_ . � -:. •.-r-rr.r_..:.:.:. .>... _. .. _ rrf- w:.n, .t v n. ...-. :., _. :�r r ,..a ... .. .r .:. ... : _.. r::rv;. {:..1. •'•- ..r.. fi: v.:,•: - ... .. .r �. v:..r r.. .>r.:r h.M?.. r .v .r. -1.r /f::. .£1S. r ....r..:..:. .:.....,:.a.......:.. :•: f....,... ::-i{?...T?a .: y: -}:-}.:,},f:. r ,4..3}.. .. ..... h..._nr fk`.... ... /.v. a....v ....r fr ,r/... 3!. hu ... �.r-. Jae. h r •Y..r r. _ r nv .. .. \.. .:v Fn .. xwJ - ..r .f}! .. n._ :.-. r4n:. ...... ............ .. .... ..n... v:: .... .... -. r..r ._. ... .. c ..r .r rt .-. r . . ... r a,ry .. v?..r.. �. .... ..... ..- - ... r... n......,-. r ., r.a .. .£ e! rvf _.. f r... a.. .r. r... ..r. F.l J. ..:.. .. e ... f:.: rr'-•. ..:..r. ....r- .:!•.. .r_ r, . .,. r.... . � .. f r .... -..a:..: ...........K. .r .r-- r..--.. n .. :............. ..1. ...r ..} ... : .:. Jx,%r.. r .a ... r.r :. ..r .r>. _,-r l{ rlr ,.✓.., .. :. .r ,. ...7►:.. .... rr. ..r. .. ...... .a :. >.... _4>Yi ..r. .l. d..y / ... 1 ., .. r. r ... ..-... ....: -.-. .r ......, .r.:.... ..- .. r. -, �'r! ...r.. ! .a,.. � :. ..:. ./ ..r r .._ .-... .. Jr .. .:..r ..: ..a. ...}.+• ..... ..r. .�...,..,.. ../. r -:: r..:-,}k.3-,..:::.:�.:::: :::::: ..,. v. .a .. .. .ra!r :,. , r / }?r_.. J}/ ... ._. . ...:... . , ..._. rr.......... ... ......:... r. .r. - . r .r.r. .hS...a:mr..fte_r:. . !...o. J..rx..>rr'.r..r:.F>f.y...a..,.-.3._Y, . y.: >ra3: ....}.1faJJ ! /. .s r..rf ::..rr 1-. d..>r..:r r ..- v' �.1J...ro} '). r {.r�.r.r{..r.:a-.. -.}. r� q...rr .r$..{..r.f..�v.,n i.f. ✓/ /..:.Saarr.._.�,..f 6. rc .v }.....�k:.. tJ..r...!....r, r1.- i. .v..tr..w/n....a..a..Y....:.......r..r::...__:.,...r............,..f . ..wN: .r...T...f..J.r.... .. . r? u- . .r:.........r_...: ......ir..ri.:,...r.... .....:r,..r.... ..rr..,..._ ..r_...:.n.J.-.:...__....:....-.....:............ ,. r L.v . .•..t7 .:ry. rrx ..f. / f.:1i�t fr ur . r/fyrx',.. %: 'i\ .•>r.r,-.ra %r-.yt,.r•-f.r 7..,rf . arN....hw._....!a er .SJ_.F-J ...:.. ,:,:.. }.Y1f >rh...r...-...._....r .::.. ..... r..........,_...:....:.r...::.r.:.....:.....r..-r...rr.r.-r. . r:. -.......rv:.,:.:,.: ::..:..:.i.::..a{.. .y...:...:..::....:......... :........-_..,3:,:..............-.: .f..r....-. - .i .. .,_r.r1...,.:.?.._.:,,... r .....rti ..v.v.. ...w..r...nrr..r.....-...r.....- :r..... n.r:r..._..i..{........1!A.... , r..r. ..r.,r{..{ ..aC.> :.rw,a.a r£.:' ...r...v. ir :r...r.r-... >r -/r . w -. r rr r. . Ja..0. rrJr J...rr....Y...2,-v......r.. } r.{rv:>:..-,..,..r..93.r .✓. r. . r, . >. v>a....rrr:...,,.., r..r....Yr . -. . r_.. . r a.. rx �_�.-n a_ -wk .ri ., .:->....:.r.>...rr.:.}.....w..n..,...,.r.:n..{:.:::..i....:..-.::. ..::.......r .... . .r.._..... ..r!.-..:.....r..r... ....r:..r/. ..:.r:.:rf.,.../.r:............a...:...a....r:: .. .: {....:.r ....-,,.a...r :. .......:.....r........ rr..::Q/:.r-:.><:. ir n,�G l(.r:r..SwY...e.a.r._r. r ,-NJr _r $�!<w%.r.. ..�r n .... ..r . ..r... ...:r .a .:.. . r r.r..>.rr.�.. ... �:..�'. ..........••.f/..i...,.'..r: rrr .r..d� _{.! •Yrrr% %r ! .ef:.Lr ... :j:.k.-•>:±r }:.•:ir-:?:./'n: � S !1. 1 .....>r,..::3,....r::::: .... »._::: r..w.: r»::::::.::. �::: f.. - .a.. ..r.A. rrl..4a r,w..r.. .,r ..,....r. .9 r - ♦ .,,.. .t/ .r/$ •.. : ._v ,. ...... r .r...r.. .. .......r. ^$. rl>- r. .. / » .... .. r. ./.` .... .Jr. arr-x r ., f ♦ ./.v{- ?r .. ... .! .J ..ry n +.4 rJ• .. .. -. . . . S :.. r .. v.: w. rf ...-+.. •: , . . -.w .a.:..... T .. :{ :w. .. v. p ., .. r Y r .e1 rrr r tr .a. y n- _ .. r. l.M. r r. A n tie .-. f :., f ,vw>- :. %•/+... $C: - r.::: y. rrr.�r}e. vXT+f±vl .: £. l f: ,r.•CYr .:A .. f,yfr.-f/.•.:: �>•.v...a p �{� r}-. .}4 £/tw v>$'isf: ..h: !•',.; % _ .:.•J4 frr :.ff{:. • , n r:-. .i.a .l.£��: v v 4. r:. l;: .f. . .>r : a :,:.:«__�,,. .::;,(.�naS�.° .x.:.�,,�....�. .. >r ..r.... ..... . r;. r.r ...... .a r..-.... r1.. r.... r ......} rl.._.. ._ . . .. .- . a .. . ... ............ . ..... J• v .. a . ....-.,<: -:{v.< .•r>~. r. :'%Ja-•v�<' r r .r.: v . ..........:.. . :.r\.:...... r...... .... r.... .... r....r .... . _.{:. .......... . ... ............... r: -.: .. ...»r.{.{;•-}}^.S::Sk::::-::si:;;::}:;'if:�%;k:. .. x :r{ral. r .... r. r:: :•: Fi}::r::::�: »::.,.,..:..w.... }.::.v::...-;:.......:. r ........:..:v �: r::•:'-r?i rr}{yi}iii}i?:-'�:-% 3::r' urr. rr --: r:»:: }!: ::?•i: i}3: is 3:�:::'r ... vw.::v; F:::;,>. •-v:: v::.-. ........:: v:: :{:4:{-iY.:.T':.-.:.:..}$; :{;'$�:$:�.r:: �v>' . ri 4 k .: h:4i' T:r-:. fYYYi $$$:%}>:; 4�??r%:$ : • w;?.:.}.r;:?rrr}'.'<: v vs` > ;<•`:...:'a4:3'•:_}.r`..f..r �..:, .. }....:.� r i operty Type: ❑ Residential ❑ Commercial ❑ - Occupancy Group: Public $15 for first 100 lineal feet + $6 for each $ additional or fraction thereof construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time after work has commenced. By signing this Pro e 'Address: p ` '`) application, you hereby certify that you have read and examined this For Office Use Only) application and know the same to be true and correct_ All provision of 7 Bldg /Suite/Location commercial proiects only): _ presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other Owner Naris Owner Phone Number. Applicant is responsible for all plan check fees if permit is cancelled or 4 �1 — 61 3 Mailing Address- ddress-17.7 �-�' ? �„ o , 177 _ -_ City/State/Zip: LmuicantiUc M200WAppificant Type: omeowner ❑ Contractor; License # Company Name (contractors only): Mailing Address: City/Sta OA Contact Name: Contact Phone Number: Contact Fax Number: ` Reason for Work: ❑ Alter Describe Work and List All Special Approvals or Details of this Project: ❑ New ❑ Remodel ❑ Repair Driveway Square Footage/Fence Lineal feet (round up): Expected gomZple ion Date: A site drawing showing the driveway or fence location on the property in relation to of er structures and dimensions must be included with this application. IMPORTANT NOTICE. Applicant must attach a site plan for all Permit Fee — Driveway applications. There is a 10 working day turnaround for all P ermits $18 add for firstitionalor fractIncl sq.ft.ion ther $6 for each $ .addreof requiring plan review_ Call for a final inspection upon completion of the work described. This permit becomes null and void if work or Permit Fee —Fence _ construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days, or if $15 for first 100 lineal feet + $6 for each $ additional or fraction thereof construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time after work has commenced. By signing this License $30 $ Coe) f application, you hereby certify that you have read and examined this (if applicable) (annual fee) applicable) ( application and know the same to be true and correct_ All provision of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not _ presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction_ Applicant takes full responsibility for all work performed. Applicant is responsible for all plan check fees if permit is cancelled or withdrawn, P TOTAL PERMIT FEE► Applicant Si natu r Date Ll Application Complete - C�? Date Approval, Specia#,Conditions ❑ Denial, Reason for Denial: Revi ast Revised lVo�ember 2008 ��. .` \,� tir ter►► S� „ '..� .� �� •or _w „_. �r}'.c VIV wy� 'is W�� W .w�. ..rte► I�� -' i .. �. t ha tj '1 i { �l A40 �li.jipik'� � !.✓ 4 . .fill '• tiA .''iwMM ;.y,y;q.. t ftp '. �4. 14 h, "' . \ -,. "' ' "'� r'• a ;; Ali.'•' ;i;; ! Isl ,{�:, •' ` �.. „� -�.. � { : to 1 {i � �'t''" , �'t! OIL I TQ 17 vielenw Avenue 6/9/2009 Project Address Date of Issue %..jLy ui Hlue" niii5 Z09=17 9245 W Hwy 96' Arden Hills MN 55112 Permit Number Phone 651.792.7800 `Fax 651.634.5137 Page: 1 Of 1 Zoning Permit Inspections: inspection Phone Numbers: Min. 24-hour notice required for all inspections. Please Electrical Inspector: 763-754-2983 (call 7-8:30am only) reference the permit number when calling for an inspection. dire Inspector: 651.481.7024 A final inspection is required on all permits. All Other: 651.792.7800 Applicant Information: Name: Timothy Maloney Address: 1777 Glenview Avenue Arden Hills, MN 55112 Phone: Parcel information: PIN: 283023130034 Address: 1777 Glenview Avenue Zoning: ROW Contractor Information: Name: Owner Address: Phone: License #: Owner Information: Owner: Timothy Maloney Address: 1777 Glenview Avenue Arden Hills, MN 55112 Phone: Project Comments: Structure Use Residential Remodel Fence Yes Driveway No COPY Total Lineal Feet 100 Total Square Footage 0 Comments Install Eft wooden fence *Separate permits required for electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating, and air conditioning. This permit becomes null and void if work or construction authorized is not commenced within 120 days, or if construction or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 120 days at any time after work is commenced. **By signing the permit application or permit, you hereby certify that you have read and examined the application and know the same to be true and correct. All provision of laws and ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the performance of construction. By signing the permit application or permit, applicant takes full responsibility for work performed. .Fees & Receipt(s) Information: Fee Description Fence Construction (0-100 linear ft.) Receipt Reference Payment Received From 5787 S. Timothy Maloney Amount $15.00 $15.00 Total Fees Amount $15.00 $15.00 Total Receipts Receipted By: Sherri Eisenbraun k - I:rJ• � ..%!•tai: ��i11'�1t♦ to J!%int Tenants J - i oLlli V. 5-M a`��t:t�t.iss.t �__ rat �a�:l\a•a.a1.-•�•'.'. �:� ��:1,;� t�.. t (..- 1 ti.',. a 0 f Made this gra ......�4 :,� _ ....._ _ ....... �� 76 .._.... ......... ._... RNA-a•n�.. G�t�RG�N�....� ��,.� f a e' . f��•'.RICHARD ... -._ ... . t�ntZ �'tn�: r� Minnesota les i•+a� I' �1 rst part, 7.r �l . RI V_ HARD.• i/ �•• i��S1./•� .. and _ - -. - • . 1 j•l" ?7! g.nd R l fe -... .. . . - �t�F��If •j J ' Js- f.,rfirl _ (: % f thP fL7 ht �1�(f t't, X71. �•r}i -i .� . � :,1' ril lJi =' }� ;'}' � 1 . a, ,a..'i i f, • i l� ' .One d0.11ar..and-..oth 1•a•�� ::N:� /.l 900.4-a - il dValuable ... !Coni) ,. d e r ia{d`i•lon �.theIta11-ffZfl;t •d 1:i`1�" w.-I'd(17%r j.;14of tV vtiIj�� 1� '�[�a'•'++1tii/!�j•{� / i. a ;,�•..� iti• . {j{'.t �;'••j'�� '' .. �• �.7f j�/��'�%ri i.rl•{,(�'j.�• �1�fi•flf� , J �1� • ♦• yy�� j .• . I ` ? t ' r f • a�P �• %� a �'D�L�•�:? 1�i7�fl �1!!•+ t •►{ f?!. ti 011,71 1),1! •rtith I «' .• �, ��j.- .� ft l'i.'t-3a'�11 (7l �/�� r� �pij 1•l ! 1 r-1, . i" .� /' lt.�ti3 =r al. EJr a •• 1 ..'1 ] ,•� a • ij• 1 1 sa ��i• �f.jl a I �1• cd i1 : !f � I1 act ��' ��j ri-cl _ o il.nfl �; •j lJ lf' rr j.,7 i. .i ,j .i • �; +f 1 � f t t I flt; r7J a fi?t72{,'� 01if 1 (:i -f,-5 —:he;1�ff.: ja�7':l,,•'�'.� !r`J-'f.'i�. Lot 15, except the North 10 feet thereof, 81t�ck 100SHOREW Dm HILLS NO. 2, acct�rd3in to t , plat t� ` eretaf r AW -- a r � y •t i J t ' • J J _• 1tji " 1 State Deed Tax Du � flereo n ,. To.-- -( fer with. all th�: Ii�:�•�.'tX11ri��t�',�.is r: It(' :�r� t j•. ,j , 1 _ 'tap• 1, rl-lt 1JE41. �•' :: j�j;1'f'I-[lI I2 hn-,d, t�) tl•� •5%l ttl J)li f'jtt-•s �� I �t• ; - 7 a - - Il ta� f�t.r •�_�:f-i !fJ pi7 �7 + 1' t. !`_ t_,.? �it{?'1ir'.t rli1.l1 �ti!f• :1�'�4 r3.ttt rj.r�l-itY rif• Ilie twixi;I.;lOP f'(�!'t:t•C'j', %�;' :�tl''� r.t} s �.' f, . ;40' as ll.'l?C!?2t t 1? t'anl ni-r! • -. f7 r:.,., : j PAUL W , THORNE , and. GEORGE - ..._..�. THORN.lushac and w.:�e jNij'-" �Iiw'./ �j� s 1�f• :j1'.�� i�Il1' ula V Tw.�MA f.7J • 7 i 1. '_ • •ll }-...their �iii�!'S, �a.�!'i'lfi�}�'ti 1i%i�� 'i�{i��)>♦f•1.a�ij>F��y�`t• l�It {'liirt'f�lj-iii l:•iail #tl :a.lf : .i,s } i.l f• fi J. -I,-• • 5('.0 nd part, � �kK- -t �,�1 � n . �' e _, •.. �. : 1 . t)) 1 !!yy!r7T � ]] e s _ ' ey-� .. .L�•C.'� �v�.►+i�lif t.j� ��[', �'J• f J� 7 t . ♦ l • a r a », J {- to �tt...i rt 1: r� : at'r', js . �-f:., I 1 7 f71'�' %i 1. t �'rir r vie•''':'Jr1*1':'%�i t:) i`;'p1 <<11i1 f1I;, C7'tj7;t'. ��1 71Zt117��:"• i'1i2f �3t'Ilt !t'1��•�rii,; ji,: ::,,.� ry s: 7 *tate Jbf tuntOota S3. County of .... ... Rams.ey. ....................................... 77tv j'ijrrr;(;hr#f ins t ru m ion t ark-11(a1'ledded b("Aird, Im, .1 Of December Paul Thorne and Georgene lam A A Am"m a-, by.. Tborne, husband. -and wife... - CAROL J. JEZIERSKI 4- (NAME, 1JF pr.R%'()-v A( K.Nt3W1J'T)(;vt)) NOTARY PtJOUC MINNESOTA 4 DAKOTA F I I' N KING A(ACNOWLEW-Mi'N'll My Cmmissiop Exp7jres Oct. 31.1979 t rc:V..�trKF THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY '(TIT .E Mt UANK) .. .. ... ......... -01 2 IN&mo)se-c-uri-ty_�Bui St. Paulp Mir ne' 80ta 4f • .046 dt 44 Nk. c 0 4t- 40 -MFR 4- 0 4.~~ o C: tlu > 4 -ft" c 0 qu 4. 41,� f x- c .0 9 t-% 1 0 c 0 Qi 0 4- I.- tri la) 4— CL -0 cs- Q 41 fIrl dWA5w -am-] -i- W4 --.Zg e- V 0 0 0-0 Nk. Page I of 3 L 2 03 Business Growth LLC From: Patty Schneider [PSchneider@ScalesAdvertising.com] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 8:55 AM To: siharpstead@comcast. net; david. g ra nt@ci - arden-h ills. mn. us; holdenbj24@aol.com; FranH116@aol.com; davemcclung@comcast.net Cc: meagan. beekman@ci . arden-h ills. mn. us; ron. moorse@ci . arden-h ills. mn. us; james.lehnhoff a@ci.arden-h ills. mn. us Subject: ENFORCEMENT OF FENCE ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS Importance: High Hello, We have raised two children at our home located at 1774 Gramsie Road since March, 1992, or nearly 18 years. Fran Holmes, the city councilwoman, is a good neighbor that we are proud to know because she has a history of fighting for what is best for our neighborhood and the City. We spoke with Fran on Thursday, September 17th We shared with Fran that we are deeply disturbed and concerned that the value of our home and property is in serious jeopardy due to the construction of a wooden privacy fence that is being constructed by the new homeowners occupying the house that adjoins our two properties. The fence violates the City of Arden Hills ordinance on each requirement. We want swift action to be taken to stop the construction of the fence immediately so the ordinance can be properly enforced. The ordinance stipulates: 1. Fences in side or rear yards may not exceed six (6) feet in height in all residential districts.* 2. Fences may be placed along lot lines provided no damage of any kind results to the abutting property.* I That side of the fence considered to be the face (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face toward adjoining property.* *ktW://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/vertical/Sites/ The fence violates each stipulation in the ordinance: 6-- The face of the fence, the side that the fence is nailed to fence posts faces their property. 4. The fence is over 6 feet from the ground or grade. The fence panels themselves are 6 feet tall. There isn't any way a fence will be less than 6 feet in height when it is placed on cement footings that rise above the ground by a few inches and the fence panels themselves are 6 feet in height. This should have been stopped in the planning stages before it ever got this far. Due to the landscape, if the fence is not reduced in height, it will be 7' high or more as the ground goes up hill. 9/18/2009 Page 2 of 3 5. The footings for the fence extend on our property and damage has been done to our property. These issues that affect the economic value of a family home cannot be taken lightly as they have by City staff. The new homeowners building the fence have exercised complete disregard and disrespect for the City Ordinance and they appear to be manipulating the city officials that have *inspected the fence construction at our request. We feel our voice is not being heard and there is a bias in favor of the people building the fence. We are in communication with Meagan Beekman, however, it may be that Meagan's inexperience with issues of this type are precluded her from taking a firm stand to uphold the ordnance when speaking with the new home owners building the fence. We spoke with the City Administrator, who is indifferent to our concerns and is not willing to uphold the ordinance. It is always hard to make the tough decisions in life, however, the ordinance was passed for a reason and when it is violated, it must be enforced. Any additional cost to the violator of the fence ordinance that results from rectifying the violations is not the concern of the City. Had the violators followed the clear language of the fence ordinance, there would be no additional costs to them. . We want the mayor and City Council to intervene on our behalf, to ensure that the fence comply with our City's stipulations for building a fence. Anything less will significantly depreciate the value of our property. It seems like people select a community to live in that will help them build value in their residential home. In this case, the actions or inactions of the City of Arden Hills are reducing the value of the home we have owned for almost 18 years. The most serious and upsetting issues are the fact that the fence is being constructed with the back of the fence facing our property, the height of the fence exceeds 6 feet and the fence footings extend on our property. These issues are all in direct violation of the Arden Hills ordinance designed to protect the interest of people like us. The city needs to take action to enforce the ordinance in this case. We need action quickly. Thank you for your help on this matter. If you care to discuss our concerns, you can reach us at 651-402-6741. Sincerely, Gregg and Patty Schneider 9/18/2009 Zimbra: gpschneidergcomcas-l" --"%,et 4*Aft1 SmartZone Communications Center Collaboration Suite gpschneider@comcast.net Fence Ordinance Violations Friday, September 18, 2009 2:3 0:17 PM From: gpschneider@comcast.net To: sjharpstead@comcast.net; david.grant@ci.arden-hills.mn.us; holdenbj24@aol.com; FranHI 16@aol.com; davemcclung@comcast.net Cc: meagan.beektnan@ci.arden-hills.mnus-, ron.moorse@ci.arden-hills.mn.us; james.lehnhoff@ci.arden- hills.mn.us Hello, We are just confirming a phone conversation Patty just had with Ron Moorse. We give permission to the Maloney's fence contractor to come onto our property because the fence contractor will nail boards to the fence frame and posts with the nails being pounded from our side of the fence going in toward the Maloney's side of the fence for the remainder of the fence construction so our side of the fence will begin to be the face of the fence in accordance with the City of Arden Hills ordinance. The facing will be applied to the fence posts with nails pounded from our side of the fence toward the Maloney's side of the fence. We also expect that that the contractor will make sure that the highest and best quality side of each board will face our side of the fence to again satisfy the City of Arden Hills ordinance requirement that our side of the fence be the "face" of the fence. We will sign off on the document and hand it to the fence contractor immediately so he can come onto our property to accomplish the items mention above. I We also expect to hear from City of Arden Hills staff today as it relates to the other fence issues outlined in our email sent at 8.55arn this morning so there are no misunderstanding on these issue if the contractor's work over this weekend. Thank you. Gregg and Patty Schneider 651-402-6741 651-371-0640 http-.HszO I 16.ev.mail.comcast.net/zimbra/mail 9/18/2009 1k Page I of 4 Business Growth LLC From: Patty Schneider [PSchneider@ScalesAdvertising.com] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 1:37 PM To: Business Growth LLC Subject: FW: Fence front resolution Importance: High Patty Schneider 2303 V\Iycliff Street St. Paul, MN 55114 651-641-0226 oschneider(@,scalesadvertisina.com From: Patty Schneider Sent: Friday,, September 18, 2009 1:37 PM To: Patty Schneider; 'sjharpstead@comcast. net'; 'david.grant@ci.arden-hills.mn.us'; 'holdenbi24@aol.com'; 'FranH116@aol.com; 'davemcclung@comcast.net! Cc: 'meagan.beekman@ci-arden-hills.mn.us'; 'ron.moorse@ci.arden-hills.mn.us'; 'james.lehnhoff@ci.arden-hills.mn.us' Subject: Fence front resolution Importance: High We had a fence installer come to our back door this afternoon. He wanted permission to replace three boards. We assume this is after a visit from James Lehnhoff, based after our meeting this morning. When my husband asked for more information the fence man stormed off as if we were being difficult. Actually, we expected a report from James after he visited the work site to tell us what he discovered. I think we need to inspect the fence together with James, to get our opinion heard and to hear from James his rationale explained to us directly. Meanwhile, construction on the fence continues. We will discuss allowing the fence builders on our property to attached the same front face application, according to the ordinance., as is currently being installed on the neighbors side. If all the panels are redone and they are each the exact finished quality as is considered the front face of a fence. We want to hear back this afternoon please. 651-357-0640. Patty's cell number. 12/7/2009 Page 2 of 4 Patty Schneider 2303 Wycliff Street St. Paul, MN 55114 651-641-0226 pschneiderCcb,scalesadvertising.com www.scalesadvertising.com From: Patty Schneider Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 8:55 AM To: sjharpstead@comcast. net; david.grant@ci.arden-h ills. mn. us; holdenbj24@aol.com; FranH116@aol.com; davemcclung@comcast.net Cc: meagan. beekman@ci.arden-h ills. mn. us; ron.moorse@ci.arden-hills.mn.us; james.lehnhoff@ci.arden-hills.mn.us Subject: ENFORCEMENT OF FENCE ORDINANCE 'VIOLATIONS Importance: High Hello, We have raised two children at our home located at 1774 Gramsie Road since March, 1992, or nearly 18 years. Fran Holmes, the city councilwoman, is a good neighbor that we are proud to know because she has a history of fighting for what is best for our neighborhood and the City. We spoke with Fran on Thursday, September 17th. We shared with Fran that we are deeply disturbed and concerned that the value of our home and property is in serious jeopardy due to the construction of a wooden privacy fence that is being constructed by the new homeowners occupying the house that adjoins our two properties. The fence violates the City of Arden Hills ordinance on each requirement. We want swift action to be taken to stop the construction of the fence immediately so the ordinance can be properly enforced. The ordinance stipulates: I - Fences in side or rear yards may not exceed six (6) feet in height in all residential districts.* 2. Fences may be placed along lot lines provided no damage of any kind results to the abutting property.* I That side of the fence considered to be the face (facing as applied to fence posts) shall face toward adjoining prolperty.* *http://www.ci.arden-hills.nm.us/vertical/Sites/ The fence violates each stipulation in the ordinance: 12/7/2009 Page 3 of 4 6. The face of the fence, the side that the fence is nailed to fence posts faces their property. 4. The fence is over 6 feet from the ground or grade. The fence panels themselves are 6 feet tall, There isn't any way a fence will be less than 6 feet in height when it is placed on cement footings that rise above the ground by a few inches and the fence panels themselves are 6 feet in height. This should have been stopped in the planning stages before it ever got this far. Due to the landscape, if the fence is not reduced in height, it will be 7' high or more as the ground goes up hill. 5. The footings for the fence extend on our property and damage has been done to our property. These issues that affect the economic value of a family home cannot be taken lightly as they have by City staff. The new homeowners building the fence have exercised complete disregard and disrespect for the City Ordinance and they appear to be manipulating the city officials that have inspected the fence construction at our request. We feel our voice is not being heard and there is a bias in favor of thepeople building the fence. We are in communication with Meagan Beekman, however, it may be that Meagan's inexperience with issues of this type are precluded her from taking a firm stand to uphold the ordnance when speaking with the new home owners building the fence. We spoke with the City Administrator, who is indifferent to our concerns and is not willing to uphold the ordinance. It is always hard to make the tough decisions in life, however, the ordinance was passed for a reason and when it is violated, it must be enforced. Any additional cost to the violator of the fence ordinance that results from rectifying the violations is not the concern of the City. Had the violators followed the clear language of the fence ordinance, there would be no additional costs to them. . We want the mayor and City Council to intervene on our behalf, to ensure that the fence comply with our City's stipulations for building a fence. Anything less will significantly depreciate the value of our property. It seems like people select a community to live in that will help them build value in their residential home. In this case, the actions or inactions of the City of Arden Hills are reducing the value of the home we have owned for almost 18 years. The most serious and upsetting issues are the fact that the fence is being constructed with the back of the fence facing our property, the height of the fence exceeds 6 feet and the fence footings extend on our property. These issues are all in direct violation of the Arden Hills ordinance designed to protect the interest of people like us. The city needs to take action to enforce the ordinance in this case. We need action quickly. 12/7/2009 Page 4 of 4 Thank you for your help on this matter. If you care to discuss our concerns, you can reach us at 651-402-6741. Sincerely, Gregg and Patty Schneider 12/7/2009 To: City of Arden Hills From: Christian T. Hansen, Owner & Pres. of HANSEN BROS. FENCE & CONSTRUCTION Subject: Inspection of the Fence Construction along the Schneider's Property The attached letter and photograph copies prove that the fence we are forced to live with is poorly constructed, and does not meet the fence code. 1. Letter from Mr. Hansen, a 60 -year-old family owned and operated professional fence business owner, a Better Business Bureau Reliability Rated business. 2. Photo 1 — Mr. Hansen points out the fence is arbitrary, willy nilly stepping, the bays are not level. Over time as the fence settles and especially the use of inferior concrete instead of a gravel footing the fence will continue to pull apart as the wood expands and contracts. 3. Photo 2 — Supporting evidence that the face of the fence has a 1" rough sawn cedar finishing trim. The back of the fence is made of an inferior wood and is a 2" x 4" framing wood. 4. Photo 3 — Rough sawn cedar trim is 1 " on the front of the fence compared to the 2" x 4" knotted wood used for the frame and back of the fence 5. Photo 4 — Front of the fence, facing the Mahoney's yard shows the high quality of the rough sawn cedar which looks exactly like the type of cedar recommended for the front of a fence. (The wood is pink to orange -red with creamy yellow -white sapwood. Internet description.) 6. Photo 5 — Back of the fence showing poor workmanship, nails instead of screws, inferior wood posts and frame. 7. Photo 6 - Close-up of poor quality construction as described by Mr. Hansen, which proves the unprofessional finishing on the back of the fence which should be facing the Mahoney's, instead it, faces our yard. Over time, this will deteriorate. 8. Photo 7 — Back of the fence facing our property, clearly showing that the face boards are attached to the frame. 9. Photo 8 — Back of the fence frame 2" x 4" with knots. 10. Photos labels 5, 9, 10 & 15 — Show poor workmanship in footings, footings and dirt over the property line, problems that will continue to be an issue. The concrete has already cracked; it is above ground which will make it difficult to cut the grass. ....... ........ - I - A .. ............. ---------- ...... Pie I of I To whom it may concern, RE: 1774 Grins ie Rd Arden Hills, MN 55112 After inspecting the fence that borders the Schneidef's southern property line I find several reasons that the fence does not meet city code: 1. Given the end result of the fencing project., I find it highly unlikely that the fence was installed by a licensed professional fence company. 2. The fence is NOT the same on both sides as the contractor used a mixture of S4S cedar, with rough sawn cedar, and I X boards with a mixture of 2X boards. 3. The fence in several areas breeches the 72 inch height limit. And in some of the circumstances it is so egregious that it is 79 inches tall or befter. Furthermore, there needs to be some sort of city integrity code enforced on permanent projects such as the aforementioned fence project. This fence has little to no symmetry, and little to no aesthetic value to it.. The fence seemingly arbitrarily changes heights - going from under 5 feet in height to well over 6 feet in height??.?, The fence is also stepped in a very arbitrary fashion, with bays stepping almost willy nilly. And bays that are level and the very next bay is not.. Please visit the aforementioned site - I truly believe it is not indicative of what the fine city of Arden Hills would consider acceptable,, let alone code compliant- The fence is NOT the same on both sides, and the fence facing the Schneider residence has what I would call a nudge podge mix of fencing — unfortunately leaving the Schneiders looking at the worst of the two sides. Thank you for your consideration, Christian T. Hansen President Hansen Bros. Fence & Const. Z na" xv e j•.: 7f .. \ \ �. ...` _.. �\ \\\\ ��\ �\\ � \ aa_: .:�.�, \\,.��..,\ `.�. \\��S\R. ,\\, \�O.q�� \„�� ... ...... .._...-:.. ...:.:..................`.,,, . •.' ... .. .. \�..\\\.�.- o,.�,�,••,„",,,•,�• ,�': '` \\\\ \\. IN .,,,:.:: 01IMMI 11\1 ..... ............\ .....::..: ......._.�\.,i ....,...'..\�\� -\��\ \\ � �\o.. ta..` tia\\aa � \�\,` VAT ... ,: Y. Emw :. .. .....,... `..,;r r'.., ,;,:.:•a:a;., x anon„+nux,,,ax x ��r+,+xwn,,,,�x;,,;,;e+;n� xx :aV\;axU:;u��;1x\y?;S,}iV.S+`.�u11Ux@! 1x\!\d�'\\1W\6S@�x xx \xS`x� �x,:�•`: �•� �\:•:;+: ^'::•x!� :�`;,;i�: � 1 x 1 ; ❑� V „1x��,xx\.� ��:�;S1Wix\V'�;,xV1}xZ1`Pl;\.�1ixi,:ai�i%'1i i�` S!'•�x1u�;� .;:`... c ::.�xit V1\�\\� �\ \Cx 7 x xx� 1 xx x V x xZ x:!yu.x�`•x�,+:,.,.,.,; �, x wu \1\a\�\�\xx�J\\��•Q�@xC'ax\�x\i �x. J, xJ+,fix ��u�� .:.. ,.•, �. ..!x�,:,;;;.. \.x\ +�\x1x\��u�xx\�.�`y�.\Ui\\i�\\\\�\\�\.\\�\\\,,��\��ux\\`��\\�.!.\��`��,,a\\\�, �1,\x��\1a\�+,��,x�•� x ;mu. `\\`\� �x\\x�\�U� \�\xx �\\1\x\ x�x1u�\�\\\u\\e�J;;`�•,V\xx�;h\uV!\o i\,e;,;;x� � \,\\\•� x,\� 1\`x�\, ��\��:\\x)x�\\\xxx�x;�\;\\+,�\�a\\\.�\�\• a\a�U!\�\\ x\\�e\\\+,.,,,, �.,. �\ x1,, . a+ \1x\O,xxi\!,\\�,+2�a V��\\\�Ww12;Sa``�\,J+,�.�u�„\�\\q�x`x��\��j,+,+\�\•`\`\xx\j,:,•``iSe,a ��x 6**7 V \\ \��p\ \\\ � \i m \\ \ \\ "\\ \\U \\ \\\\v\\1v\ aX, � \1IM\IIIX \\ \\v,�.X, \ \\\v\\ \V\ y 1 0\\V�\1\�d \\�v\\ v\vr\`\ \\\\vv� \ \ \v \\v �\\ \ \\\\ J\\ \\ �\�� \ \\Q\.\\\ \ \ \ 1\\\\\ v\\�r\ \ \\ 1 \\\ \ \p\\ \ \\\\ \ \\ \\ \\ \l\ \ 0 \J\\ \\\ \ \ \ \�\\pb�\\\\ :\\\��Q\`�\ \\ \ \\ \ \\\ �\\\ 0v\\ v\ \ \ \\ \ \ 11 v \\A\\ \\\\ \\ \ \\ \\ o \ �\\ �\ \ \\\\ v \1.. \ a \\\ 1 \� \\ . � v\ \\ \\ \` \ e \ a i, " t \ \\\\v \r \ \� \ \\\\v\ \ V \\\ \ \\ �\ \ ` v \ •\ v��\\\\\\ \\1\\\ ; S' \\ \\ \\ \\ \��p\ \\\ � \i m \\ \ \\ "\\ \\U \\ \\\\v\\1v\ aX, � \1IM\IIIX \\ \\v,�.X, \ \\\v\\ \V\ y 1 0\\V�\1\�d \\�v\\ v\vr\`\ \\\\vv� \ \ \v \\v �\\ \ \\\\ J\\ \\ �\�� \ \\Q\.\\\ \ \ \ 1\\\\\ v\\�r\ \ \\ 1 \\\ \ \p\\ \ \\\\ \ \\ \\ \\ \l\ \ 0 \J\\ \\\ \ \ \ \�\\pb�\\\\ :\\\��Q\`�\ \\ \ \\ \ \\\ �\\\ 0v\\ v\ \ \ \\ \ \ 11 v \\A\\ \\\\ \\ \ \\ \\ o \ �\\ �\ \ \\\\ v \1.. \ \\\ 1 \� \\ . � v\ \\ \\ \` \ e \ �q\ \ vJ \ \ \\\\v \r \ \� \ \\\\v\ \ V \\\ \ \\ �\ \ ` v \ •\ v��\\\\\\ \\1\\\ ; .,. ._ i �i ii i i •i\i\ \i i�^ i,ii 1t,..S.. .. 1 �,tS i�i`,•,.,,i ��?�,,, ii„:a,•y\,, \ ".o..,,,\��"tis\,`��\��:�i\\.�\`�!,:\\\e.\��;1i\1�:�;v�;�,fi�\i°"�'o �t�'\ii.n�,:,.\i\,•V. +.,. a4�a:,.:\u;a\:�i� •fit �; .t ,.i ii ii ii '. ,�� , _�0�`SSi�\\a\i�S �:�\��\ ii i�\ iiq\\iV.:�,\1�1�;?;:, ��;,m...,y .,.i1.a•.i:g:�i.,.,: pi@ i i , ., ��„),: paa., i :.i\\i `i� i� i .a•. i\1i\�i�Q�,��\;i�•� �\a\�:\,\\Ji i S � . ::u:u:.?a'S+ir�,.ae'.,;::i;` .� i \\ �\ :\ \ �. ��i� i`\�\.�i\�:',c��i�x iiii�q\i iV i\•\a�u`ayta\.:\\��Z:k;'5;�'�;�Z'��^acu\,�,�'1`':'`°��:5 \� � .,a,,�': .;\�p�\i�`\'\i\�\i�i��``��`i:\�vtSi�•,,{.�\�`1ii \ i \\ .i i i �,,�ua�c,,.,.,:i:;t; i \. ii i \ ...\\iJi �`a..�1\\�.iu.„:,,,;a>a�''„„•\y.;',,,qy ��.,'ai2J1'Si\;:. ?,i�::S: �,•.i S�� i ii..R.: i i ; �,\ ;.i\t�Y:c, \\ger � .:.� � ii i Oi 1 i ,,.,i,,p.;.,,,; ,;;;:\Y��:S,�, i�ai1F.�Si\\ i1i J1�, ��: ;'1•S).`��; .i\: ,., ':..�a \'.,. q\r. ;�;\�aS�S\�;\:, :.? �',: VUi\\`,•�Se`'a�+.S`0`\?;�\�i\a,1ia,,�}..,:i�C;'9\\).,:. ��,:�;.;�V�., � ,;G`.,a;:i \ iii\\�i\, 1�1` ��C\�i`i'�ifi i`ii i i �, a:,ti:.,�,�y..:'i:,`•:\i � ,, .. ..,i\. \\Si :,Je"a\ ��ii\\\ .\� .. - . > : \ ;� , wi\ ,.\,i ,'„ i n�::a�':•i��,��1�'�:;;• �.:�u�:.? ��;, :.. t i .\ i\��\,;\ o� iii 1 \ i\apii,i l\ i \1Ct. \ i\i .:, iaS+:,a:•tt!. �,;,,,u.a,.�.� . ,:,;.qS;`, s £jilt Xx 134632 d Avenue Northwest, New Brighton MN 55112-6384 December 29, 2009 City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651-639-2525 .Pax: 651-639-2552 DanaRebelein.@a,comcast.net HAND DELIVERED Re: Response to Appeal of Administrative Decision (Gregg &Patricia Schneider) Fence located at 1777 Glenview Avenue (Timothy &Nancy Maloney) Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed are documents responsive to the claims made by Mr. and Mrs. Schneider in the appeal dated December 14, 2009. The enclosures include (1) an itemized summary of and response to each claim made by the Schneiders with supporting documentation and (2) a timeline tracing the history of contacts between the parties and actions taken. Background Information When the Maloneys moved into their Arden Hills home, high school and younger children, and even adults were cutting all the way through the Maloneys' yard, damaging the grass and hill in front of the house. When two of them were asked twice to stop cutting through, they threw a dozen eggs at the house and tossed several rolls of toilet paper over their trees and bushes. The Maloneys decided to build a fence across the rear of their property. The fence was vehemently opposed by Mr. Schneider, who stated that he considered a portion of the Maloney yard to be part of his "park like" back yard, and that a fence (showing where his property actually ended) would reduce the resale value of his property. In light of the Schneiders' objections, the Maloneys moved with extreme caution to comply with all applicable ordinances and requests of the City. The Maloneys hired a surveyor and had the property line marked; Mr. Schneider tore up the surveyor's stakes. Initially and absolutely forbidden from stepping onto Schneider property, the builders used methods to construct the fence which were more cumbersome than would otherwise have been necessary. The builders were made aware of the Schneiders' objections and were careful to make the Schnei..,der side of the fence the "right" side, with nail and screw heads facing the Maloney side. When the Schneiders objected to the texture of three of the cedar boards facing them, the builders removed them and attached them with the other side toward the Schneiders' house. The Issues The Schneiders challenge the City staff's decision that the fence complies with the zoning code in three particulars, claiming that (1) that the fence exceeds feet in height, (2) that it is not constructed entirely on the homeowners' property, and (3) that it does not have the finished side facing Schneider property. These issues are fully addressed in the accompanying documents. The Maloneys are fully in compliance with the zoning code. If you have additional questions or wish to see additional documentation, please contact me, and it will be forthcoming. Thank you for your consideration. Veryy yours, gr �r. ana Brandt Rebelein Attorney at Law Cc: Timothy and Nancy Maloney Maloney Reply to Schneider complaint to Arden Hills Planning Commission of Dec. 1192009 Summary of specific complaints by Schneiders: 1) Fence does not face Schneiders' property 2) it is not a fence with two finished sides; good side faces Maloneys' property; Maloneys' side has no "structural supports" showing 3) same materials not used on both sides of fence; "inferior" wood (including pine) used on Schneiders' side; 2x4s have knots on Schneiders' side; "better material" on Maloneys' side 4) 7 of the 15 fence footings still encroach on the Schneiders' property 5) fence footings are all above ground and create "visual sloppiness" 6) it is too high; it exceeds 6 feet 7) damage to their property has not been repaired 8) the fence is stepped in an "arbitrary," "willy-nilly" fashion 9) no post caps; no finished trim along the top of the fence 10) the rails were installed on the Schneiders' side 11) the fence was screwed on the "wrong way" 12) it has reduced the value of their home 13) it cannot be maintained on the Schneiders' side 14) contractor was unlicensed Responses by the Maloneys to the specific complaints above. Numbering below corresponds to the numbering above. 1 & 2) The fence was designed and built to look the same on both sides. Therefore, by definition, there is no "good" or "bad" side, no back or front, no "finished" and "unfinished" sides. Both sides are equal and look identical. See our photos taken 28 December 2009: photo #1 [Exh. A] shows the Schneiders' side of the fence descending from east to west; photo #2 [Exh. B] shows the Maloneys' side rising from west to east. Except for the fact that the Schneiders' side is in shadow and our side is in sunshine, they are identical. However, all the nail and screw heads are visible only on the Maloneys' side; there are none visible on the Schneiders' side. See photo #3 [Exh. A] for a clearer view of this detail from our side of the fence. This was our good -faith attempt to ensure that the Schneiders had the more "finished" or better -looking side, even though otherwise both sides look the same. 3) Exactly the same materials were used for both sides of the fence, which is made completely of cedar. See enclosed invoice from the lumber company, [Exh. B] and the e- mail from the builder [Exh. C] . There is no pine or any other so-called "inferior" wood anywhere in the fence. There is some variation of grain and coloring in the lumber, as there is with all lumber. We just installed hardwood flooring in our house, and there was lots of variation in that. even though it was all the same product. There are also knots visible on the Maloneys' side. See our photos #3 [Exh. A] and #4 [Exh. D] showing color variation, knots, and screw heads all visible on the Maloneys' side. The 1x6 and 1x8 fence boards were upgraded to "clear" cedar (i.e., no knots), and are all "rough -sawn" on both sides. The "good" side of all boards was installed facing the Schneiders' property. Where there were any blemishes, the blemished side was installed facing the Maloneys' property, except for three installed in error with the better side facing the Maloneys. The builder was asked by city staff to reverse them, and he did so right away. We don't know what the complaint re "no structural supports showing" on our side of the fence means. There are three horizontal cross -members on all fence panels on both sides of the fence. See enclosed photos. It looks identical on both sides. 4) All fence footings were inspected by city staff to examine their placement in relation to the property line. They determined that concrete from four of the footings had extended closer to the property line than it did everywhere else. They asked the builder to remove the extra material at those four posts. It was removed by the builder the very next day and verified by city staff. No part of the fence or footings encroaches on the Schneiders' property. The fence itself is set back six inches inside the Maloneys' property. See our photo #5 [Exh. E] showing the east end of the fence set back six inches from the red survey stake. The same setback of six inches was applied along the entire property boundary, following a string -line the builder established at the outset. Our photo #6 [Exh. E] is a less successful attempt to show the west end of the fence clear of the survey marker; a tree unfortunately impeded my access when attempting this shot. In any case, the Schneiders' claim of continued encroachment is a canard left over from their earlier claim to a 300 foot strip of our land. Even after we paid for a survey (see enclosed surveyor's invoice [Exh. F]) to establish the true property line, they refused to accept the results and vandalized the markers placed by the surveyor. That's when we retained legal counsel. See enclosed copies of correspondence between Mr. Schneider and our attorney [Exh. H, 5 pages] . 5) The footings were purposely installed with a little concrete above ground, sloping away from the posts on all sides to enhance drainage and prevent rotting where they meet the ground. Rotting of fence posts is a common occurrence when the top of concrete footings is level with the ground or below grade, thus allowing soil to make contact with them or rainwater to pool around them. See quote from cedar experts in # 12 below about needing to avoid contact with the ground. 6) The zoning regulations governing the building of fences in Arden Hills were sent to us by James Lehnhoff on July 18, 2007. They stipulate that fences in side or rear yards may not exceed six feet. In good faith, we ordered pre-cut six-foot board lengths and had our builder proceed to install them. Note that the lumber invoice [Exh. B] lists 269 pieces of 1 x6x6' clear cedar. These were used as the vertical members of all the fence sections. Only the posts exceeded six feet, to enable them to be sunk in the ground; but once installed, all of them were cut off at the six-foot mark, too, at the request of city staff because of the Schneiders' complaints about the fence extending higher than six feet. The fence itself does not exceed 6 feet in height anywhere. 2 One does not normally place the bottom of a wooden fence directly on the ground, to avoid rot and insect damage (addressed in #5 above and in the expert quotes included in # 12 below), and nowhere did the city's written regulations stipulate a height limit above the ground that fence tops may not exceed. Leaving a few inches between the ground and the bottom of the fence was an idea suggested to us by city staff, who did not instruct us to remove several inches from the top of the fence to avoid extending beyond six feet above the ground. Leaving space between the ground and the bottom of the fence is also a practice recommended by expert fence builders (see quotes in #12 below). So, at their closest points to the ground, our fence sections are several inches off the ground. Given that our property descends sharply (six feet) from east to west along the common lot line between the Schneiders and us, and that the fence sections are designed to be horizontal rather than each following the contour of the land, there are places where the gap from the ground to the bottom of the fence is several inches more. When the Schneiders complained, city staff contacted us about this issue and determined that we were building our fence "within the spirit of the law." We made further accommodations to comply with the regulations, however, including the removal of a foot of material from all remaining vertical fence panels (making the eastern half of the fence only five feet high), and placement of the panel bottoms closer to the ground. 7) There was never any damage to the Schneider's property. The one inch of concrete that came close to the lot line at four of the posts was removed within 24 hours and verified by city staff. All the post -holes were dug at least six inches inside our property, and the soil from the holes was used to partially fill in the crater left by the Schneiders on our land when they removed a bush they had planted there. They made no attempt to repair the mess they left behind in removing their bush. Our builder also leveled and raked the ground around all the posts once they were installed, and there was absolutely no damage to the Schneiders' property or mess left to clean up on their side of the property line when he was finished. Any claim to the contrary is erroneous. 8) In "stepping" the fence, the builder was just following the contour of the slope as it rises sharply (six feet) from west to east. See photos #1 and #2 [Exh. A] . There was nothing either "arbitrary" or "willy-nilly" about it. Perhaps in the best of all possible worlds, our lot would be level and our fence would not need to be stepped. But unfortunately our common lot line is far from level, and the fence needed to be stepped. 9) No trim is called for along the top of this fence. See our photos # 7 and #8 [Exh. G] of the same fence as installed on the west side of Lexington Ave. on the north and south sides of Amble Drive. Note the post heights which exceed six feet; the builder of that fence was not required to trim the posts off at the six-foot level. Post -caps are optional, not a required component. It had originally been our plan to use post caps but city staff encouraged us to cut off the posts level with the top of the fence because of the Schneiders' complaints. We did so. Unfortunately now post caps are all but impossible to install. But the fence is finished and looks beautiful as is. 3 10) "Rails" or cross -members were installed on both sides of the fence. See our photos and response #3 above. The fence looks the same on both sides. It was designed and built that way. The Schneiders' photos were taken before the fence was finished. 11) We have no idea what this particular complaint is about. The fence is not falling down, so it was obviously "screwed on" correctly. The screw and nail heads are all visible only on the Maloneys' side, though, which makes the Schneiders' side the "finished" or "best" side. 12) & 13) With respect to the Schneiders' claim of loss of value and enjoyment of their property, the fence has only reduced the incidence of trespassing on our property by the Schneiders and by numerous students from Mounds View High School. Real estate experts state year -in and year -out that one of the best value enhancers for homes is a good fence. This fence is made of top -grade cedar, and is designed and built far more solidly than the pre -fabricated fence sections found at Menards and Lowes and other home - improvement stores. While examining the project at one point, one of the city's building inspectors declared to us that the fence had been erected "with great care." We believe so, too. It will last for many decades and look perfectly fine on both sides without any need for stain or other types of maintenance. See the following quote from the Cedar Outdoor Products Web site, and note the reference to avoiding direct contact with the ground (www. cedar.-outdoo r.org/cedar_p.roducts/intro.:htm): "Western Red Cedar is a superior all-weather wood fencing material. Cedar wood fencing is naturally resistant to decay and insect damage. Cedar wood fencing has a unique, grown -in -the - woods preservative oil that means no further treatment of the fencing material is needed unless the cedar fencing material is in direct contact with the ground ... This allows your cedar wood fencing to age gracefully through decades of extreme weather." Or this quote from Repair-Home.com, "the home improvement site" (www.re-pa-i.r-h.om.e.com./Cedar lence Cedar Fencin..htm:l.): "Perhaps one of the most attractive qualities of cedar is the fact that it is naturally resistant to decay and insect damage. It is because of this unparalleled resistance that so many people choose to use cedar for their fences and home siding as well as for furniture, especially outdoor furniture and other garden items. Cedar is an exceptionally light wood that won't shrink or warp like many other woods do." With respect to the few inches of the Maloneys' property on the Schneiders' side of the fence, the spaces between the bottom of the fence sections and the ground will allow the grass there to be trimmed with a weed -whacker from the Maloneys' side of the fence. Leaving space between the ground and the bottom of the fence was recommended by city staff and is also recommended by knowledgeable fence builders (see quotes in # 12 above). So, with the best of intentions, we proceeded to use the pre-cut six-foot fence boards provided by the lumber company, all placed a few inches above the ground. 14) The builder, Tom, is a personal friend who has worked on many construction projects. Originally he was going to help Tim Maloney to build the fence but Tim's schedule became too full during the fall to permit him to take time off work to tackle the project. With students from Mounds View High School continuing to cut all the way through our property and further damage the grass and hill in front of our house (see our photo #9 of muddy footprints down the hill in front where we were trying, [Exh. I], yet again, to repair the damage and grow grass), Tom offered to undertake the fence project for us without Tim, using another friend who is also an experienced builder. That is how we proceeded. There was no intent to deceive the city or misrepresent by whom it would be built. We just wanted to stop the trespassing and the ongoing damage to our property as quickly as possible. Nancy & Timothy Maloney December 28, 2009 TIME -LINE of Schneider -Maloney Property -Line and Fence Dispute Fall 2006 Contacted City of Arden Hills for information re: building a fence and was given advice on how to establish the property line. It was suggested that we rent a metal detector and find pins at each corner of property, which are often several inches below the surface. Downloaded a plat of the property which shows back neighbor's property line jogs 10 feet to the south of original lot line. These 2 lots were severed later than all others; they originally both belonged to the owner of the Gramsie property, previous to the Schneiders. When our lot was severed, they kept an extra 10 feet on their side. We take note of this. Spring 2007 1 told Patty Schneider we were considering some landscaping options for the back yard, possibly including a fence. We rented a metal detector to find pins. Found three easily. Mr. Schneider sees us looking with the metal detector and comes out to talk. We explain about trying to find the pins. We discuss the foot traffic thru our property but he announces that he "does not want a fence!" We didn't continue searching for 4th pin at that point. The next day, as we start to dig for the fourth pin, Mr. Schneider charges out of his house and in a rage orders off "his" property. (The survey later established it was our land all along.) He told us he was a lawyer and he would take us to court. Also said they never had any trouble until we moved into the neighborhood and that we both should get professional help with our interpersonal relations. Got a call from the city planner next day. "Your neighbor claims you are building a fence without a permit." At that point we were only contemplating building a fence. NnvP.mhP.r `ns Building began on our patio. Mr. Schneider called the city and requested an inspection. He also complained about the contractor's trucks and equipment parked overnight on our street, though Schneider doesn't live on our street. The contractor had gotten city clearance in advance to leave equipment on the street for the duration of the project, and he passed all inspections. Schneider hand -delivered a letter to our door claiming we had agreed (supposedly in the same encounter that he ordered us off his property) not to build a fence. No such agreement ever happened. Just another example of his bullying tactics. This false claim plus his claim that he was a lawyer and his threat to take us to court led us to get our own legal counsel. Feb `09 City building inspector, John, visits our home to inspect inside renovations, as per the permits we had obtained for that work. He is aware of the Schneiders' objection to building a fence and visits future fence site with Tim. He suggests we build as close to the property line as possible so as to leave as little property on the other side to have to maintain. Also suggests leaving enough space beneath the fence to permit a weed -whacker to trim the grass on the few inches of our land that might be left on the Schneiders' side of the fence. And whatever you do, he says, don't pay for a survey, since you have already found one of the back pins. June `09 Had a survey done on our property. Mr. Schneider told the surveyor he was going to fight the building of a fence all the way. Mr. Schneider sends us another letter demanding that we remove property stakes placed by the surveyor. When we don't, he removes them and tosses them on our patio. That's when we asked our lawyer to get involved. In her second letter to the Schneiders, she ordered them to remove their bush from our land and desist from further trespassing on our property. They remove the bush, thus conceding the ownership issue of the strip of land they had claimed, but they leave a gaping crater where the bush had been, making no effort to fix the "damage." The Schneiders also contact city hall, requesting that the city rescind the building permit it had issued to us to erect a fence. City staff refuse. October `09 Tim speaks to our neighbor to the west (Pam) about our fence project and without hesitation she gives permission for us to build our (east -west) fence right up to her (north -south) fence so that we can put an end to the foot traffic thru our property. (Her fence is positioned a few feet inside her property, so we would need to encroach on her land to join up the 2 fences.) She asks if there is something she needs to sign and Tim brings her an application for a fence permit. Tim made it out and told her we would pay the fee. I explain this to Meagan at City Hall and tell her that that neighbor may not have filed it yet. Meagan tells me that even if the permit isn't filed that is OK, but we would be building at our own risk and if that neighbor changes her mind we would have to remove the portion of the fence on her property. Tom Polzine, a family friend for five years, and the father of one of my flute students agrees to help Tim build the fence. Tim's schedule becomes too busy during the fall at the U of Minnesota to permit him to take any time off to tackle the fence project, so Tom asks his friend Jim to help and they build the fence without Tim. Tom suggests a fence design that is the same on both sides, so there would be no "good" or "bad" sides. We order precut cedar lumber from a fence company. An all -cedar fence will be maintenance -free, avoiding any need to stain or maintain on the neighbor's side, where permission to go would presumably not be forthcoming. Cedar will last maintenance -free for decades. As soon as the post holes are being dug, we start getting calls from Meagan at city hall. She says the neighbor is calling every few hours and has requested them to put a halt on construction. She refuses to halt construction, saying we have the requisite permit. Discussions begin over the height of the fence. Tom speaks to Meagan. "I am a family friend of the Maloneys and am building the fence." The fence sections (precut 6 feet) cannot follow the exact contour of the land, which falls 6 feet from the east line to the west line of the property, but will be fully horizontal at all times and will need to be "stepped." Due to the falling contour of the land, the space below the fence will be greater at some spots. Staff mentions that Minneapolis allows for this land irregularity, and a six foot fence can rise to 6 feet, 6 inches. Meagan gives us the go-ahead to continue building because we are building within the spirit of the law. Discussions begin about encroaching on the Schneiders' property. Inspectors arrive and determine that the wet concrete has come close to the Schneider property at four different posts. Meagan asks that we have this cleaned up, which Tom takes care of the next morning. Tom has ensured that the fence sits back on our property by a minimum of 6 inches, and no concrete or fence material ends up encroaching on the Schneider's property. Building inspector visits site. Because of the incline and the height question, Tom decides to cut off one foot of all the remaining panels before attaching them. Inspector says this will show our effort to co-operate. No other action until December Early December. Tim asks Tom to extend the fence all the way to Pam's fence (have permission already) because he had left a gap of about 3 feet so as not to destroy tree roots in drilling a posthole there, but it was evident that we still were having foot traffic through that opening. Tom digs one post hole and Mr. Schneider and an inspector arrive while Tom is still working. Meagan calls the next week to say Mr. Schneider has filed an application to overturn all the staffs decisions relating to the fence. Nancy & Timothy Maloney December 28, 2009 Ul 'u� �• 41 r• s �', �F �" ;r�ESs•'v i i a n. r j> �1�, l r ,�P.s, ,z.� t. �.�.;;}; i. ' �3 r } ,,.P' s7 i°:�.;T h.•a'7 a �'� t, �3� `." :, r� & > � :"lV •h' F Y t 'i' Y ,9„�' "-,£Ps'a; �/f.J / f •H' s'i eyf ' /F%. -."S, .<`•' Y-ac ,m J' �'< tt ;, _y., s r "+ r' �li'r rXN ,%r.: .t- t �• ,•r, � 4 5 :. �, ��.::+ s .� �, g'�F ^?� r a x t:' f '� � r r h t .. ,r� �l" �a, i t 'v�-.. '1 ;a' ..�- #r>.; P a P �<.,rt�.a x.,., ,�,�, 'w�5r�•u, ,r a �-�� .. � cue.. ,w s ;k.. ,, ?-.'Pt. �.'; . .s:t ,., .', 1''f b .: ` .. `^<: - , r ,}�,r�, ; .r.,,r• �'% � . ,y?*r. � � s+.'. , v [ P r n _ -,Y -a. a .. ,� h✓� � s ;�r�v�+, � f „`��%; ..,fes of --s- � y ; �:., �s ,L..'i � y � Y � ,; S z` b P. FYt �, ;,✓»•f .»:, >/' y�FT.F-f'i .f'�k.�'✓� Fr�t: f vL .,"� tr ( Z ^ai�dr .1 �% Y A v4-'' t.',' %� }} ,-;# s,." �� L�;,.<dr;�'r%✓^Y�S� .,3�/x,� `£xx11. �•`-. � Z.ssFv s> . :Y% �YF : _ le r i � :r`.2Y�, .. Y� n � �" l �, ✓�S��,"v7P .:tk ✓ 1. . F?y„ �.'-' , ,� r4Y .M`. � �. '� .� ^rT a.+ t'� ,big +� sr, a,[�F? �`a r� � %��*'' �� %✓ i°�"•� n �`i`>'. o� .'� i�. rte', � v',.• _^• J _ a. �; a s t �* p t y�c:ak��y,�P! z k,� �,� �:�. .2' �' �� jam'" fv' `��1�_°�.'n�•�'.j".1'Y `' 4' -1 .'t L' r 'r c a- tr t i w., t 4 k7 ff� lY i {� f t •,: y, :its.• .l ,rre§'y"'frit' '�+, 1y a 3.e •:.�, J'% i �j"•:lr. 'f .,. C. e(.+. t.,' iS) ••ki �: -�, �x�.�Y. �P:E'. l�' '� b'.' .. � :.. ir. .•$• `a.[~. �•.4 f,. .� '�y '�: F, �.: ;: "� +''43 4i� � r > t � �D F •; `a! � �-e...s ��r, 7�. •+ �6, :� �.z '� ' 4 7' ,��',e.a� ��3° `r �. a . � � r "'� . � '""` t '; �rG...� [ _ ,��p� �. 5r'� ;� .. �4G !I� '4 .t `�� '� •,� � �?�� P , mac: - l'�, r "4'�rit.'�'j`...`�'` C•�� tiv, pP .?.. s a :'�#`£<4,` 'tp ecA ht��. ;,.._�. Yi .... ..L r. �0 �� j r � 's �� 1! !'$:•,�, r P i� r ,,r � yam. .. :. ,� , : '�e4't.. t' � i � r �t ^n'•a= � `� :� 2 : '"', t., `ya• � „f x � ."'" a, - .,r..� � q M u 'F,$ [ Vil 6 nA. p ,.-,. � . y �i>c . � `6 `r'6�F,4� � °ig., 1 �,�"� d h��C *,r�'[.t-�q�'_ �[v `�"�' cam• -:� � <, r/ F�,r i „.� ��.; F r yi:. j4s '�°`.,p°. � ��' ,a •..�..__. "__"�,^^^ � t., 4 ,:. s r �h b �� r: �' a*�� ,,�,, ^cs, �;c� � + , � s,, '' ,,Al !'r'r"" � � a 5 ,�,,,: y.,,•,� # ., � "� e � k`� :�,Y� �! ;rot ' �.. �.�d? tY .,n1. _....-,.•.�,., . shy r ��` � } � +sE �+' rr 'ia •..?., `»n%�;R... �� '.,,,,,F.• :,..wry" / R ,, �C ( � I .:L, an dna ark 1345 Highway 13 lFcii.ce &DeckMendota, MN 55150 Phone 651-457-5227 Fax 651-994-8718 Email Info@LandmarkFence.com Quantity 15 4x4x 10' S4S 56 2x4x8' S4S 42 '1 x4x8' Clear 269 1 x6x6' Clear Tax Del i very final payment Thank ) ou very much. we appreciate your business! Description P.O. No. Terms Due upon receipt Rate Total Invoice Date Invoice # 8/20/2009 2952 20.00 8.00 8.00 4.25 156.00 75.00 -2,458.25 Project Amount 300.00 448.00 336.00 1, 143.25 156.00 75.00 -2.458.25 $0.00 Nancy and Timothy Malone From: <tpoIzine@bwig.net> To: "Nancy Maloney" <maloneys@comcast. net> Sent: 12/28/2009 12:38 PM Subject: your fence Hi Nancy, Sorry to hear about your ongoing problems with your neighbor. I can answer a few of your questions regarding your fence. 1. The materials I recommended were to be purchased from Midwest Fencing. All the materials were 100% cedar including posts and this is what we used on your fence. I., 2. We rept the fence line approximately 6 inches from the lot line - raked all loose material from the neighbors and even backed off some ofthe footing materials to be farther from the lot line he - If ff t � t Li 6' 02� . :7 building inspeetor okayerd. the boa.-Ir'E .. asked us to consider omittfing th-e nes st caps to accoommm- 'sate our neigh,bor. I;S Val rt I rt mv el i 11 4-1- 1 t.R.A.Al :%%ftJIrI-* ."If it_I I a MIT t EAU 11 1 DOV R IE t F. I& $Ti 3e a. EE K. Page I of I EX 12,1L61U9 Exhibit D ia�NIF '�a t ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 Highway 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 401 1375 June 22, 2009 Ms Nancy Maloney 1777 Glenview Avenue Arden Hills, MN 55112 RE: Reestablishment of monuments at 1777 Glenview Avenue, Arden Hills, MN Dear Nancy: _..At yc3 �.�: 1-eeluest, viz verified . e ist.ing rnonu3 gents or :ep1aced_ the��n, if necessary, on the corners you specified at the above address. The scope of our services did not include preparation of a drawing or locating improvements or encroachments, if any on the site. If later, you would like to add such a drawing, please contact us for a prososal to provide those services. This is to certify that this work was done by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Sincerely, ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. James H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235, .President ,5xh. F 4 VAS $01 lay O -f gn PNR v AV 71 5 ljl-,f "i MAI* 'lQ4m � �. " V Ae k (0, oll lana )Vraltdt 1 �ebele�lr June 18, 2009 Gregg & Patty Schneider 1774 Gramsie Road Arden Hills MN 55112 ATTORNEY AT LAW 1346 32nd Avenue NW NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA 55112 (651) 639-2525 cury ��FAX: (651) 639-2552 INFONVIATION Re.: P ropertyine D ii spate ..... ................... . 1777 Glenview Avenue/] 774 Gramsie Road Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schneider: My office has been retained to represent .Dr. and Mrs. Maloney in connection with the above matter. It is my understanding that you dispute the results of the survey done at the Maloneys' expense by a licensed surveyor and, furthermore, that you have vandalized the survey stakes. If you believe you have valid grounds for challenging the survey, retain a reputable surveyor and provide my office with a verified copy of the resulting survey. Under no circumstances are you to disturb survey markers. If the second survey is not consistent with the present survey, we will be happy to discuss any discrepancy. Otherwise, we will assume that the matter has been settled and the boundary lines fixed. You mention "adverse possession." This claim is only possible where use of property has been adverse to the rights and demands of the owners. obviously, the previous owner permitted you to mow grass on her property. You have no grounds to claim adverse possession.. The Maloneys have acted responsibly. They initially asked you about the lot lines because they wished to put in a fence to deter children from running through their garden, and did not want encroach on your property inadvertently. After receiving several unpleasant and rather threatening communications from you, they retained a surveyor to locate the actual boundaries. The City of Arden Hills issued a building permit based upon the lot line established by that survey. If you have survey evidence supporting your opinion as to the boundary line, present it to me by July 1, 2009. If none is received, the Maloneys will proceed with their plans and construct the fence. Ve tru yours, ana .Brandt Rebelein Attorney at Law Cc: Dr. & Mrs. Maloney July 1, 2009 Dana Brandt Rebelein Attorney at Law 134632 nd Avenue NW New Brighton, MN 55112 Dear Ms. Rebelein, We are in receipt of your letter of June 18, 2009. We are doing the best we can to comply with your deadline of July 1st. When we bought our house in March, 1992, the owners of the house that the Maloneys now own told us where the boundary line was between our lots. We went by their explanation. We have cut the grass and fertilized and maintained the lawn on that basis since that time. We also moved the light green colored bush from the front of our house to the back east end of the property on the basis of this information from them. We do believe that we have acquired title to the strip of land between our properties that we have been mowing and maintaining for over 17 years and appears to be in dispute, based on adverse possession. We have treated this strip of land in a manner consistent with ownership. This strip of land in question appears to be roughly no more than 2 — 3 feet wide or long for the length or width Of our adjoining property line. We have tried to work with the Maloneys. If one of our neighbors had strong reasons against us building a fence, we would not build one. You mention. in your letter that they want to build a fence to deter children from running through their garden. This garden must be in an area of their property that we cannot see. As we said to the Maloneys in June, 2007, we will talk to the neighborhood students and -tell them not to walk through our yards, as a favor to the Maloneys. Since that time, we have- to-ld students not to walk through our yards. They-, were very respectful and readily agreed to respect our request. We don't have a problem with students walking through our yard. We just made the request to honor the desires of the Maloneys. We have not seen any students or children walking or running through our yard or their yard or garden. We were also surprised when Mr. Maloney told us he was secretly videotaping children and students walking through their yard. We thought the Maloneys had agreed to not to build a fence and we confirmed that in a letter to the Maloneys. We simply believe that a fence will result in a significant decline in the value of our home. 2 We request that we get together with the Maloneys to understand what is actually motivating them to revisit this fence issue. There are probably multiple mutually beneficial solutions to this matter if people can get together and talk in a respectful manner. For the first time, both of our children will be in college this fall. If and when the residential real estate market comes back, we are leaning toward selling our house. A mutually beneficial solution to the issues involved here is what we have always hoped for from the Maloneys. If the Maloney's refuse to get together with us or insist on continuing to proceed with building a fence, we will meet with an experienced real estate litigator to get advice on our rights in this matter. Gregg has a law degree, but has not practiced since the 1980s. If the Maloney's agree not to build a fence or we are able to reach a mutually agreeable solution with the Maloney's, we are open to discussing the prospect of not taking the steps necessary to fully understand our rights on this matter. It is too bad that the Maloney's did not buy a home that backed up to woods so they would not have to deal with people, neighbors or students attending the high school or the elementary school just a few blocks from their home. They could have asked us how we would have felt about a fence before they bought their home. The "park like" setting between our properties is what attracted us to our home and these aesthetics are what gives our property value and what visitors are most impressed with. A fence will significantly alter the enjoyment we have experienced for the past 17 years and will seriously reduce the economic value of our property. We will continue to cut and maintain the strip of land as we have for over 17 years. Please ,give us a clay and time when we can get together with the Maloney's. Sin e�rely, Gg r�t n Patt Schneider Y '1774. a sie Road Arde , Hills, MN 55112 651-402-6741 Dalfa Vraltdt 1Vebeleilf ATTORNEY ATLAW 1346 32nd Avenue NW NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA 55112 (651) 639-2525 FAX: (651) 639-2552 JL11 12 2 09 .:. �: y 0 LYP1 Gregg & Patty Schneider 1774 Grarnsie Road Arden Hills MN 55112 Re.: Property Line Dispute 1.777 Glenview Avenue/1774 Grarnsie Road Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schneider: As you Dave not provided any evidence to refute the survey, the Maloneys will proceed with their plans to improve their property by adding a fence. Because the survey is consistent with the site plan filed before the Maloneys' house was built and with the monuments that were undoubtedly in place when you purchased your house, we do not believe there can be any such evidence. The construction of a fence will not ``seriously reduce the economic value of [your] property." It will, however, prevent you from inflating the value of your property to the detriment of the owners of the adjacent property by creating the illusion that your lot is deeper than it actually is. If the previi�us owners of adjacent property misrepresented the location of your lot line, your cause of action is against them. If it were important to you, you could have verified the line by having it surveyed at any time before or since you purchased the property. The Maloneys paid for all of their propei-ty when they pUrchased it, and have been paying property taxes on it since that time. The Maloneys do not choose to meet with you again to discuss the matter. Judging by the tone of your letter, such a meeting would be neither pleasant nor fruitful. It is my understanding that, after one such meeting, another of your neighbors commented to the Maloneys that they were surprised the Maloneys were still alive! You mentioned that YOU planted a bush on the Maloneys' property. If you wish to remove that bush, you must do so before July 20, 2009. Do not trespass on their property for any reason except to remove that bLrs11. Other than that, the Maloneys consider the matter closed. very -illy Yours, Tuna Brandt Rebelein Attorney at Law C --'c: Dr. &. Mrs. Maloney July 19, 2008 Dana Brandt Rebelein 13 46 32nd Avenue NW New Brighton, MN 55112 Deaj- Ms. Rebelein, We received your letter of July 12, 2009 on July 15, 2009. We are taking steps to fully understand our rights on this matter. These short deadlines imposed by you don't allow us enough time. As we have said from the beginning, we are opposed to a fence because we believe it will reduce the value of our property. You and the Maloney's have simply chosen to ignore our feelings about this matter. If the Maloney's do choose to proceed with building a :h fence... we do not want Maloney's, contractors or others to trespass on our property for any reason. Once again, we are, always open and willing to discuss this matter with. your clients. Si rely, 0,41 S 'y" ure a y Schneid r 17 G msie Road Ar en ills, MN 55112 651-402-6741 �S4j ��° •I �. �'�� Vic.. 1 SQVI i •11 7 fit j+;> „ �� , ♦ � �� ` ��,� «� z W �s �.� e16� +ec+Y• T� +h k prY' rS' 4ir w wx P. RT ' Jp '�Y., d. y bg•. � �.,� A'�iFe � � 3 Y w %1 41, 14 '4,O -. . .� � o ,, i < .... , � .. ..o ,. ._ •y. _ ,.•. ( � • H' .t°'� � � ,. '+.00. . Y � .. �.�oV `Y..F EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 6, 2010 PC Agenda Item 3.D TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #09-022 Variance Brian and Vanessa Ranallo 1563 Edgewater Avenue ATTACHMENTS: A — Application and Supporting Materials B — Resident Comments C — Surveys and Photographs Requested Action The applicants are requesting a variance to construct a new home at the property located at 1563 Edgewater Avenue. The structure would encroach three feet seven inches into the front yard setback, nine feet five inches into the western side yard setback, and 17 feet six inches into the required setback from the ordinary high water level (OHW). Background 1. Overview of Request The applicants have a purchase agreement for the property located at 1563 Edgewater Avenue, which is located in the R-1 Zoning District. The property is a lakeshore property and is located on the southeast side of Lake Johanna. The existing house was constructed in 1955 and is a one and a half story home that is 45 feet from the front property line, 100 feet from the OHW, and approximately nine feet from each of the side property lines. Most of the homes constructed along this street were built in the early to mid 1950's; however, two homes along this street were demolished and new homes constructed in their place in the late 1990's. City of .Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for January 6, 2010 1 I Metro-cnet. us 1 ardenh111s 1 PlanningtPlanning Cases 120091()9-022 1563 Edgewaier Avenue Variance (Pending) W -06-10 - PC Report Ranallo Variance. d oc Page 1 of 7 The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the variance criteria, a survey of the existing property, a survey of the proposed property, and elevations of the proposed home (Attachment A and C). Also attached is an aerial photo and photographs of the site. 2. Site Data 3. Surrounding Area erect . _ _ _ L2 cure 1 . - d: ase' a o �a sty an North NA NA Lake Johanna South Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Front and 40 From OHW (Principal) Residential East Low Density Residential Single y R-1: e Sin lFamily Residential Single Family Detached Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 Residential West Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential Plan Evaluation 1® R-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A. Lot Size & Dimensions The lot is 14,810 square feet, 70 feet wide and 180 feet long. While the lot meets the depth and square footage requirements of the R-1 District, the parcel is substandard in terms of width. The City Code requires a lot width of 95 feet. B. Structure Setbacks — Variance Required From the front property line, the new home would be set back 36 feet five inches. Principal structures in the R-1 District require a front yard setback of 40 feet. 1. Minimum Lot Area (sf) 147000 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft, width/depth) 95/130 3. Height (ft.) 35 4. Lot Covered by Structure 25% 5. Min. Landscape Lot Area 65% 6. Minimum Building Setbacks Front and 40 From OHW (Principal) 50 Average Setback of two adjacent structures 97 Side Pard Interior - Principal (Min/total both yards on lot) 10/25 Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission .Meeting for January 6, 2010 1 Metro-inet.uslardenhills Planning Planning Cases12009W9-022 1563 EdgewaterAvenueVariance (Pending)W-06-10- PCReport Ranallo Variance.doc Page 2 of 7 The new home would generally stay in line with the existing side yard setbacks of the existing home. The west side yard setback would be increased to ten feet from the existing eight feet eight inches feet, and would meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. The east side yard setback would be decreased to five feet seven inches from the existing nine feet eight inches. The lots in this neighborhood tend to be narrower than current City regulations for the R-1 District would allow. Most homes in the neighborhood are non conforming and have side yard setbacks that are in line with the five foot minimum setbacks of the R-2 District setbacks, rather then the ten foot minimum setbacks required in the R-1 District. The new home would be setback 79 feet six inches from the OHW level of Lake Johanna. City Code requires a setback of 50 feet from General Development lakes such as Lake Johanna. Additionally, Section 1330 of the City Code states: Adjacent Lots. On undeveloped shoreland lots that have two (2) adjacent lots with existing principal structures on both such adjacent lots, any new residential structure may be set back the average setback of the adjacent structures from the ordinary high water mark or fifty (50)feet, whichever is greater, provided all other provisions of the shoreland management districts are complied with. A string line drawn between the two adjacent structures creates an average setback of 97 feet from the OHW level on this lot. The applicants are requesting a variance that would allow the home two houses to the west, located at 1575 Edgewater Avenue, to be used as well when calculating the average setback to the lake. This home is setback considerably closer to the lake then the other homes in the neighborhood. Using 1575 Edgewater Avenue, a string line drawn between the three homes decreases the required average setback to 79 feet six inches. This is the setback that the applicants are requesting. C. Lot Coverage The existing lot coverage for the property is 21 percent. The proposed home increases the impervious coverage to 32 percent. City Code limits impervious coverage to 35 percent. D. ,Structure Height While the exact height of the structure has not been calculated, the proposed home would be approximately 25 feet in height, well within the maximum height limit of 35 feet. The height is calculated by measuring from the average grade to the average slope of the pitched roof. 2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements City of Arden Dills Planning Commission Meeting for Januaiy 6, 2010 IlMetro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases 12009105► -022 1563 Edgewater Avenue Variance (Pending)W-06-10 - PCReport Ranallo Variance.doe Page 3 of 7 The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 3. Tree Preservation The location of the proposed home appears to have been chosen, at least in part, in order to minimize the removal of trees. It does not appear that any trees would be removed with the construction of the new home. 4® Additional Review The Building Official has done a preliminary review of the submitted materials and has not objections to the application. A building permit will be required prior to any construction taking place. As a lakefront property, the applicant is required to receive approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District and DNR. Variance Evaluation Criteria The criteria listed below must be used to evaluate each of the variance requests. A. Variance Review Criteria — Section 1355.04 Subd. 4.C: Variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code may be granted in instances where the strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Variances shall only be granted when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code. "undue hardship," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means: ■ The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under conditions permitted by the Zoning Code; ■ The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; ■ The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and, ■ Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Code. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following eighteen findings of fact for review: City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for January 6, 2010 IlMetro-inet.usIardenhillsIPlanninglPlanning Cases120OM9-022 1563 Edgewater Avenue Variance (Pending)W-06-10 - PC Report Ranallo Variance.doc Page 4 of 7 General Findings 1. The lot size meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. 2. The lot meets the depth requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. 3. The lot is only 70 feet wide which does not meet the 95 foot width requirement for the R- 1 Zoning District. 4. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and construct a new home in its place. 5. The existing home currently encroaches into both side setbacks. 6. The proposed home would encroach into the side yard setback to the west by nine feet five inches, the front yard setback by three feet seven inches, and the required setback to the OHw level by 17 feet six inches. 7. The proposed structure coverage meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. 8. The proposed minimum landscape area meets the requirements of the R-1 Zoning District. 9. The proposed home would not exceed 35 feet in height. 10. The proposed garage is outside of the 100 -year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 11. There is no proposed tree removal for this project. Variance Findings: 12. Single-family homes are a reasonable use within the R-1 Zoning District because they are permitted within the Zoning Code. 13. The property is unique in the City due to the narrowness of the lot and steep topography to the north. 14. The circumstances of the property were not created by the landowner because the lot was platted prior to their taking ownership. 15. The proposed side yard setback would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because most homes in this area are non -conforming in terms of side yard setbacks. 16. The proposed front yard setback would not likely alter the essential character of the neighborhood because most homes in the neighborhood have similar front yard setbacks. 17. The proposed setback to the lake may alter the essential character of the neighborhood because most homes are setback approximately 100 feet from the lake; however, because there are homes that are nearer the lake than 100 feet as older homes in this community are rebuilt it is likely that the prevailing setback will naturally move towards the lake. 18. The construction and location of the home is not based on economic considerations alone, because tree preservation and setback considerations were the primary reason for the proposed location of the home. Recommendation The findings of fact for this variance do not specifically support a recommendation for approval or denial. The property is unique in the City. The narrowness of the lot, which is more narrow City of Ar den dills Planning Commission Meeting for January 6, 2010 11Meti-o-inet.uslardenhillsiPlanninglPlanning Cases 12009109-022 1563 Edgeivater Avenue variance (Pending)WI-06-10 - PC Report Ranallo Variance.doc Page 5 of 7 than other lots in the area, make siting a conforming new home extremely difficult. If all setback requirements were met the home and garage would need to be constructed within a 49 foot wide by 40 foot deep area. The existing home currently encroaches within both side setbacks. It might be possible for the applicants to construct a home within the front and lakeshore setbacks; though it could be as tall as 35 feet. The prevailing character of the neighborhood is of one and a half to two-story homes constructed in the 1950's. However, two homes have more recently been redeveloped, and given the high value of the land it is likely that the City will see similar variance requests in this neighborhood. Additionally, given that one of the homes is located as near as 66 feet from the OHW level, as homes redevelop it is likely that they will be constructed nearer to the lake then they currently exist. A recommendation for approval or denial will need to be accompanied by a finding on whether the proposed home would alter the essential character of the community. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance, Staff recommends the following four conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2. Building, Grading and Erosion Control, and Demolition permits shall be obtained by the property owner. 3. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 4. The applicant shall obtain approval or a waiver from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to the issuance of any building permits. Options The findings in this report are not specific enough to fully support approval or denial of the variance. With a motion to approve or deny, the findings or the reasons for the motion must be stated. The following three criteria must be addressed: ® The proposed home will/will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or the City because... Once the findings are stated, a full motion to approve or deny can be made. If there is a motion to table, it is not necessary to state the findings. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 09-022 for a variance at 1563 Edgewater Avenue based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the four conditions in the January 6, 2010, planning case report. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for Januar% 6, 2010 hMetro-inet.uslardenhills lPlanninglPlanning Cases 2009109-022 1563 Edgeivater Avenue Variance (Pending)WI-06-10- PC Report Ranallo Variance.doc Page 6 of 7 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 09- 022 for a variance at 1563 Edgewater Avenue based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as proposed in the January 6, 2010, planning case report. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 09-022 for a variance at 1563 Edgewater Avenue based on the following findings... 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 09-022 for a variance at 1563 Edgewater Avenue: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Hearin Although a public hearing is not required for a variance, the Commission can allow public comments. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three -hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment The City has received three phone calls, an email, and a letter to date regarding this planning case (Attachment B). The two phone calls were residents that were not in favor of the application. Deadline for Apen'cy Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on December 7, 2009. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this Y February request b Feb4 2010 q Y (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may with the petitioners' consent extend the review period beyond the 120 days. AttarhmPntc A — Application and Supporting Materials B — Resident Comment C —Surveys and Photographs City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for January 6, 2010 Wetro-inet. us WrdenhillsTlanningTlanning Cases 12009109-022 1563 Edgewater Avenue Variance (Pending)W-06-10 - PC Report Ranallo Variance. doc Page 7 of 7 Attachment A Application and Supporting Materials 'It EN HILLS January 6, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting EN HILLS 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792-7800 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.ei.arden-hills.mn.us Planning Case No. 09- (��. Submittal Date -A Z-1- 01 Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number 14 Council Decision Council Decision Date 2009 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: %J6L1T4e- S 5 CA, Kf ,vl.A � l b �' __�__._ �. �___,_._----- _Address: o�.��5 Telephone No.:�pSI -3 �6,- 315 9 Other: 02- - d'l!C 12 i 0 Fax No.: Email Address: UV' roaa-lto P 4m&; I corn Property Information Property Owner:��1A e_1" ... ........ Owner Address: Ave Av'C(,Q f, W l t -S Owner Telephone Na Address of Property Involved: 1.563 Ud Other: Legal Description: Lo� Iq Blotic. Ay-.dtn �'iAis No. 3, ��to%1.i-e Com Property ID No.: -3---L=0 30 Z 33�- 0 0t 3> Type of Use: -_----�G�S I`G��'�1:�"7'Gi' _._ . __----- -- - - Zone: -Property Acrea-qe: - - =3� Type of Reauest* LJ Apportionment of Assessments ($30) J Ll Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($550) Ll Ll Conditional/interim Use Permit or Amendment ($350) LJ Final Plat ($400 + $25 per lot) Ll Master Planned Unit Development ($600 + escrow) LJ Final Planned Unit Development ($200) LJ Planned Unit Development Amendment ($350) LJ Zoning or City Code Amendment ($550) LJ Land Use Requests -Not Already Specified ($200) Ll Appeal of Administrative Decision ($75) LJ Minor Subdivision (lot split/consolidation) ($425 + escrow) ❑,�r Preliminary Plat ($600 + $25 per lot + escrow) Variance (Zoning Code) ($350) ❑ Site Plan Review ($400) Revised: 12-16-08 Pagel of Rezoning ($550) Site Plan Review (Sign or Fence) ($250) Vacation of Easement or Right -of -Way ($300) *Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763- 398-3070 for additional information. *The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application. *All applications may be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Brief Description of Request tplease also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the project): S I ( WTL&'k'eA0V'.-_..._.,.,........._....,_._.....d,..._._.,.._..m..._e.,__..,.._,._.,.._...._.d..__....__,....__......___......._..__...._...._.,s...._._._,,..........._a,._._.._._r_..�......._...,__.._._.._�..,....._.._...,._........w,....mw�»..,._.w_..,�,.,......__.a»._....m_,_......._....,...._.___.._..,.....,,._...__.._,.....__.__.».,._,_.,.,»..__._.»._....,..._..._. } i r E f t ,,_._,_.._.____......._.._._._..._,_,_._,.__.._._._..._.-_._.___�__..._._.__.......__...._........_..____.__..__....__._.___....__.,�..�._,._.__.._.__�_._._._.__�_�_..___..___�____...____..___.._.____.._,_..____._„.._________.__.�._._...._._...�._.____________��_..,_____..._...._..-._._..._._______.._..__.___,____________....��__._�....__....___..._. t i t i { i 1 { 7 I i f { i i 1 1 t 1 s f 1 { E Filing & Information Reauirements The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. The Planning Commission and/or City Council may still require a certified survey. A checklist for other required information is also available. Complete/Incomplete Applications An incomplete application will delay the processing of land use requests. The application approval time commences and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be "complete" it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required public notices have been sent and published. Payment of Fees The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required information and fees (including all deposits) must be paid to the City. If additional fees are required to cover costs incurred by the City, the City Planner has the right to require additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all miscellaneous fees have been paid. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Revised: 12-16-08 Page 2 of 3 Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule The deadline for submittal of land use applications is required according to the schedule outlined below. There are no exceptions. Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. Applicants are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary upon approval of the Planning Commission. 2009 SCHEDULE (*subject to change) Acknowledgement and Signature I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of Arden Hills Land Use Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Property Owner Signature (Required) Date -71jP9`, Annfinnnt _qhmwzaWin 11feflWarant thnn'thim property nnarl nnf, / ui Please contact the City Planner at (651) 792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website: http://Www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us Revised: 12-16-08 Page 3 of 3 TENTATIVE TENTATIVE APPLICATION PLANNING CITY COUNCIL DEADLINE COMMISSION MEETING DATE* MEETING DATE* DATE* (Generally held on the (Generally held on the first Wednesday at 6:30 p.m.) last Monday at 7:00 p.m.) 7 '2 January 5 February 4 Februa!y 2 %h'4March 2 April 8 A ril 27 .-March A r I : - 'M' -2 May 4 June 3 June 29 �ue1: Jul -8- Jul 2 7, July 6 August 5 ugust 31 ueste _g _01140 _pp b S '28 September 7 October 7 October 26 #giber ( n e .4- N' _v r:' -'er 'y rn� b;: 3+ November 2 December 9 December 28 december u2 Jpn 2U1t1 Y 2010 J nurary: Acknowledgement and Signature I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of Arden Hills Land Use Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Property Owner Signature (Required) Date -71jP9`, Annfinnnt _qhmwzaWin 11feflWarant thnn'thim property nnarl nnf, / ui Please contact the City Planner at (651) 792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website: http://Www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us Revised: 12-16-08 Page 3 of 3 The deadline for submittal of land use applications is required according to the schedule outlined below, There are no exceptions. Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday of each month at 630 PK though please contact City Hall to.verify the meeting data and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 M. Meetings are held in the- Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. Applicants are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary upon approval of the Planning Commission. 2009 SCHEDULE (iMiject to change) I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of Arden Hills Land Use Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing this application. J Please contact the City Planner at (651) 792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City's website: ht-�,'IWww,t,-,i.arden-hills,mn.us OMM DgwrilltiQU of RegMgst The Project lot and home are located at 1563 Edgewater Avenue,, in an R-1 zoning district. Dr. Eugene Bauer currently owns the property, and Brian and Vanessa Ranallo hold equitable title, with a closing date scheduled for December 17, 2009. Mr. and Mrs. Bauer, the original owners, built the home in 1955 and moved out this past summer. A dining room was added to the home in 1960, and there have been no other material changes or updates since. The current home is outdated, with a single bathroom and a basement bedroom that is not considered legal sleeping space. We have considered various remodeling alternatives; however, we have concluded that new construction will allow us to more effectively bring the residence up to current building code, maximize energy efficiencies and positively impact the surrounding property values. As background on ourselves, we have lived in Arden Hills since 1997 and have made several updates to our current home and landscaping to enhance the living space and aesthetics of the neighborhood. We have three children, ages 6, 9, and 11 in the Mounds View School District,' and also aging parents that we need to consider in our personal residence. The lot at 1563 Edgewater has some unique constraints that we've thoughtfully tried to overcome in designing our proposed home. The width of the lot (and most lakefront lots on Edgewater) is non -conforming, measuring approximately 70 feet wide. This creates a significant challenge to adhere to current setback requirements. Furthermore, in order to construct a new home commensurate with the other homes in the area, the narrow lot requires a home and garage design that is longer from front to back. Additionally, the sloping topography on the north side (lakeside) influences the floor plan. In consequence, we are applying for a variance from the provisions of the Zoning Code, In our planning, we've made several design decisions to preserve and conform with the general aesthetics of the neighborhood while being sensitive to the interests of the surrounding properties: By placing the garage on the East property line, it lies back-to-back with the garage on LOT 13, to minimize any obstruction in south side (street) views. Also, the front loading garage design preserves the mature trees and minimizes the impervious surface. The width of the proposed home is designed to essentially maintain the same side yard setbacks (East and West lot lines) as the existing home, which are greater than the two adjacent properties. The story -and -a -half floor plan is designed to minimize the overall height and maintain the views from across the street and other angles. • In considering the size and position of a deck, we've tried to preserve maximum lakefront views and the significant trees on the lakeside under the constraint of a sloping topography. Ranallo Land Use Application Page 1 Haxdsh%Criteria Due to the constraints of the non -conforming lot size,, and in consideration of height, sightlines, topography and preservation of trees, we are requesting a variance. Side BouIrl I 1-I I Irr�ll��l�r�/ ' ndary Setback The lot as platted (R-1 zoning) is narrow with a non -conforming width measuring approximately 70 feet, and seemingly the narrowest of the thirteen lakefront lots on Edgewater Avenue. The width of the proposed home (56') is designed to be essentially equal to the existing home. The proposed setbacks are greater than the side setbacks of both adjacent properties (approximately five feet) and almost all other lakefront homes on Edgewater Avenue. We believe this is not an unreasonable request: 0 It will not create a land use not permitted in the zone (R-1 is satisfied). • The challenge of meeting the current setback is due to the non -conforming lot size, rather than the proposed design. * It will not alter the essential aesthetics of the neighborhood. • It is not for economic reasons. This is not a cost saving proposal, as the costs associated with new construction are greater than remodeling or simply living in the existing home. Front (Road Side) Setback Our original home design included a three -car garage, which we reluctantly reduced to a two - car garage in order to attain the maximum distance from both the lake and the road. The proposed garage lies on the same parallel setback line as the two adjacent lots to the west (LOT 15 and 16). This location is approximately 36.5' from the road and accommodates the South side of the garage. We believe this is not an unreasonable request: • The challenge of meeting the current setback is due to the non -conforming lot size, rather than the proposed design. • The aesthetics of the neighborhood are maintained as the garage follows the curve of the road and the same setback line of adjacent properties. • The back-to-back position of the garage with LOT 13 minimizes any obstruction of street views and preserves the mature trees. • Given the curve of the road, the proposed garage does not extend beyond the adjacent garage in LOT 13, when measured on a straight line to the road. Ranallo Land Use Application Page 2 Back (Lake Side) Setback The proposed home structure is in compliance within the 50' setback from the OHW line. We have created an average setback by drawing a line from the adjacent LOT 13 to the east and LOT 16 to the west, (skipping the adjacent Lot 15 to the west). The sloping topography on the north side constrains the positioning of a deck to the east side of the lot where the average setback line is more limiting. This design and location allows us to limit the height of the home and attain reasonable square footage on a narrow lot. We believe this is not an unreasonable request: The proposed property complies well within the 50' setback from the OHW line. • The proposed property complies with all total volume, floor area and impervious surface ratios. The proposed property does not materially impact the potential future calculation of the average setback requirement for either adjacent property, based on the current standards. In summary, in designing our proposed home, we've considered and tried to preserve the landscape and general aesthetics of the neighborhood while being particularly sensitive to the interests of the surrounding properties. Aside from the provisions outlined above, our home will comply with all other building and zoning requirements. By constructing a new home, we will bring the residence up to current building code while positively affecting the environment and property values of the nearby community. Thank you for your consideration, Brian and Vanessa Ranallo Ranallo Land Use Application Page 3 Attachment B Resident Comment lt EN HILLS January 6, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 1 From: Fred Berndt [fbemdt@ardenarch.com] Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 4:24 PM To: Meagan Beekman Cc: Fred Berndt Subject: Project 09-022, Variance request for 1563 Edgewater Ave. Dear Ms. Beekman: I live at 1575 Edgewater Ave., in a home built by my wife's parents, which we have occupied since 1981. we remodeled the home in 1993, and adhered to all then current building and zoning requirements. I recently received a copy of the above .referenced proposal, and would like to express my concerns about it. A short description of the neighborhood might be helpful for the commission. The neighborhood was built up in the 1950'x, and consists of mainly modest size ramblers on lots that are rather narrow by today's standards, around 70 feet. There was a restrictive covenant in effect when the homes were built that limited the height of homes built on the lake shore, so even though some are closer to lots lines than is now allowed, they don't look massive or block lake views from homes on the other side of the street. Many of the homes on the lakeshore portion of the neighborhood are still occupied by the original owners. The former owners of the home in question built the house in 1955, and recently sold the property when they went into assisted living. The majority of the remaining owner's are in their 80's or early 90's, so many of these homes will turn over in the next few years. Therefore, I feel it is important to determine what zoning standards will be adhered to for these properties. Although I think the proposed home is an attractive looking home, I feel it is too large and is out of scale for the size of the lot. The fact variance's have been requested for three sides of the home makes this point obvious. If this home is allowed to encroach into the rear set back 17 feet, that means that the setback for homes that will probably be proposed for either side in the future will also move closer to the lake, as the average setback distances decrease. The side setbacks were set by the city for safety reasons, to allow access to rear yards by fire personnel. I feel the height of the house is the most objectionable and out of scale feature. The proposed home is described as a walkout, which means it is essentially a three story home, with a full upper story shown on the plans. Two homes similar in size to this proposed home were constructed in the last couple of years on Edgewater. The most similar, at 1505 Edgewater, was centered on two lots, and looks just fine. It is in scale with the size of the lot, and was a nice addition to the neighborhood. The other was shoe -horned into a space between two existing houses, towers over its' neighbor to the west, and detracts from the view and light available to the houses on either side. Many visitors to our home comment to us how out of place it looks, and ask how the city ever approved its' construction. The zoning requirements were set by the village, after much consideration, to preserve and enhance the character and value of property in the city. Existing non -conforming homes were understandably grandfathered in, and that is not a reason to construct new, non -conforming homes, which in the long run decrease property values for all. It is not in the interest of the city or neighborhood to allow these requirements to be ignored. Sincerely, Fred Berndt, Jr. 1575 Edgewater Avenue Arden Hills, 55112 file.//\\metro-inet.us\ardenhills\Planning\Planning Cases\2009\09-022 1563 Edgewater A... 12/30/2009 1563 Edgewater Street, Arden Hills Variance Proposal /Neighbor Contact I understand that the home at 1563 Edgewater has recently sold to the Ranallo family of Arden Hills. The Ranallos wish to build a new home, and I have had the opportunity to review the survey and the proposed new construction. I understand that a variance is required for this. do not oppose the construction of this home on the proposed footprint. I live at: My home is the second lakefront residence east of 1563 Edgewater. Wor AffAfl'06- Signature Meagan, From 1993-95 I was director of Planning and Economic Development for the City of St. Paul. During that time we built the Xcel Center, Science Museum, Lawson Software Building, etc. There is always someone who will object to progress. I think what the Ranallo's are proposing is exactly what this neighborhood needs, ie constantly upgrading of its housing stock. My wife and I are 100% in favor of this proposal. Attachment C Plans and Surveys 'It -AVENMLLs January 6, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting M;-::ay.<:•:-:•:>:::-::;-::%;i>"i: .............:'r._`.:>==i: 'ii':i ':::`'<':;:::::':':i:>R:%:ii: :::i:?:: :`•i: `'f: 't:ii '':=S::i'i:: :::'•'':=i ! -;.ter•; :�';:i`:?:=i:%�:�:`=:�::::��=:��:�`:�`;�:�:�:: .. of +l 4 _ f i lid li.x 't• +,.M� ��"'•"., ` l } ; } ''91 .- .- x. W--1 .................... , ,.e,. --:--:R:. N,�Ngo: ,9,. , N:..:.,%.,. WE "IV'.. -11. Nl.-.-.-,-,.,.-. 1--.. :.:.:.: :-N--:-:-:.:-:-;.xg .. --:.�.c.:-:-:.:.:.:.:..�.:.k:4.�.:.:.:.:.:�.: .... gzp.;� ", ., 'E?ENWEE', g:,:.,,,.og;KooZ, � .o, e, WE', ��'i.',..4�i.�.:,X,.;*��,�,�,�, ,-.--,...-..%..1-----;?, .,, **"-, "" , "' -, I -.,-.,-.-;-. * %""'% ** 11 ., x ". ,� . wsmw.�:,.:N:�-i��:�.�*�',�:i:K:39i�.., "," -1.1-111.1 "",%,-* " — .::N-:..N:1�Nr$�:N,, . ..... --� I-. ----I -.....I- 1�t�,- . XZ . I- �,Z�;�wwe,��p7�,�n��$*�;::-��;:%:Z,::,�/..$ 0: -I ,t�,,.i��------,-:M-nl.---.---,---.�---------,-,-----.-.- " K I.... 2�,tP-��-,f��E:,�.��..$,�$��;, 11 �,�,-M'-�Kff4"��:,?,,E::Bi:P.I,�*�:K-, NX ..... :.;,�:) -- .- �,,�l-IR�l.:,��,��E...�,�717�-11��-: ,.*,-'.-'.-' il '.. NgT...— , , - ct $- , -.I-,,--- , ,. -- - . :Z�N-1MoEi:-;R%,-X 101, . 1.1W."...., ... � ........ I �: ,oK:E:K*EoEgoI,--, , * ", -�ZE:IE�Eo I-N. W 1 - - sio`:�: -gN,,,,E,,..-1.,.-..,., :::.... .. . . ... Eo.-i . - .A,::: -, -.I' ,-.;1,EF- ,.I.I........"...- ..:." �, ---- .W.- ,.�i�iZ�-�'�3iEiE��;�i--.:i�:��iii?�ii::� �Z--?,e",�l.-..f4-...4"-,I.---"-- og,!-�:-.... .Zz�� , � ,Ng I-..-..,..- , 11. ..... M�-:,1,501,,3EER,�-F, �; ... I I, oewo,p.. ,%gNNZ: - ----. .,. 5 ,2..:�z:-�.-n�,�,:A�::�:...::"t::.� EiEii:i :-� - g"g-gi�.,§�*,:.!. o'. O�M g;EEN -: "4 , lNg S :,A -,"... NNN1.,,�.MEO , nNE:-::,,:Z: 9W io V Cd " F ... . , ... z..,. , "..- -'... ggg, IM 'o 'HEZ, 11;�E:E,U` , -,NNN;,N:M-N;. "'..,..... 0 I I..-M�."-.�.,:.",::�."...xl.::,. .xl.:.,. , g:E:� . :1,E, ,,, .xl.:.,. .N --:M j:j::�: NooZONP, . X ,�E,��c��P:;�4':�K�;;��f:�.o , �:N. -- 0,;z , 9I,.: �� 011 � ". §�,�,:M, K I., A 1 � � NAM-,' ,�7=A.. O: ,". 7:14W11-xxwg�E.-- "� , ,ggME �11,10�R, N . , . R-,I,:WN., -- -----,..- INEE,% ,.�I.w� glo, 41 M�Elk:X.5.�N g .�,. ,�*� %-x � .. I. .....�&�,,�.'��-:�;.?;��.,N?�",'., Z".E��q��,xz-�-'fl/-:�::%;"��/&�`�:,%,:�:N E 0 cu g ,��;O I EN .111— -N-1, . .......... 1 , E I. X . . . . . . . . . . .... � . . . . . . . . . K.... ........E...M ..-... —, - moogo!:Eo, E;?i I ... E,111.s MH�EEME,,*i..�,�o .... . "'?,'-$,�v,-9g,.'4��i,:��'�,,"iE ..... , ........ " ,,.,,��,,:��,....,::,.-::;::�,'.�4.:;N xg. SoNN,;,X,o -g7,—I— . . . g . ...... o., K"EMo ... ,�/O:V,�*%--��",��;��,5f::�S��.-;,7�."', ..:. 1 1 Mx " E;M,,.OZNN;NN,,:N; ;. i.:,: ..:: ,;:-,,E-Ei,:�%EEE;.E��iE., : ,N, " -- -- -M�E�i�i,��:. - , . . ,.N44 -H-M - 1. : ....... .,.-,-, , ,EiRX:EEiEEEi-. IN 001;]EEEE� 1,1.i�EioEi: :..:i::. ::.":E-.- � � � � �illillilli- $.- 0 — t4:- A - I -.... �...IWWZXO�o �/.o-;g�.N,N W,NE,re,,pEEE:N,g,g.,MgE: ,gg,,�-III,,x g-,,-IW.-Wx-x�EE*Nof 'M .. .. R:N .'r-MlIgg, ,�/..- W. -r ... IFIX. MINOXX .: ... - ,N::NN:::KZo::�:�o::, ... ,... : ,N . , : K.-.. . rg, .. . .. , iEN::,:� .. - �m�.g.Ega�-.,--. ,..,. ..go . , ... , ,*:::::::: -- - - :� -.1. I , .-lo:E: �E:,..: i. .-K. . .. ....... 1-: :M:�::�:.� - I - : . *�, I.. ,EEEE i E. , , .., 'P, -,-,KMW:, NX. -: ,...: I .. .�. I .. . .M?EE:,, MM, :.�:�:.:-:��.:.:.:.�-:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .i� -, �i. WN M . ,,, I ::�E::I000:I,.� - . � � EN I .:.3y:N,x --::�.� , -"? ,oi ...oE::jo:E:E000000g o:I�E:EoN: ...%:K 1i ..................... -.1....jiEE�:::,: MM -w -.z --: . " .:: - "I I .W. -NN", 1110,11, , , .""...Z.::::�-�."��%��,.:��i::�'i�.�.�.:�� ,Ikl..., "" - I. -C C) (= -,.EEEiEiEEEi:::::: ,�/, -.:, I ::::::::::.,..::::::�:::�.::�:::�::::�::::::::::::.::::::::.-�:i::::::. .. V.- - - , N', ,�N: .,. -...'. ...... ;-, . . ... ,,�-�4m-.;:.,,��f,;;�:��.,-��,:�.�.,:.:.:.,:.:.�:.:."!.:.:.:.:-,..,:.:.:.:.:�.�:.:".�..:.:.:.:.:.:.::�;��-:Z.:.�.:.�.�.:.:-:.:.:..-----��..-. , - . I,.:0NNNNNZNN:�:,NN, -,A:N::ZN:ii:,...-. � ,. I. - . , , - . ..... .... . ,�'�,��,�.-�,*,"-.':.�,�.:,�',�-;,;� IN""""', .. ..... , � ..... � . :��:.;-:-:-:.:.?.��-�.,K.�-,�"%*":":",:"�:.:.:.:.:.k:.:,.,: ...... .. , .: ......... "' "' , , *l .,......,.....,.....,. . " :-,* q., % X " N " M,K:N. "M . 'K. , . ..", i3,;.., 0/161", ,; , :. � p0g. .-Px ...... � ----- --- ,F//,NEo:Eo:EE*o:.. -,g*, , E. WE *5�,.�"*,;.,-,;�,�?"�Ill""I",-"--.I .,.--.,-I."-,,-"-.,,., ... I .W ..i �..,.,...........,...--... '...., �z/.:;"-,�,-,",",","",,",","-P."".3 ,EN. -1,-.-.1.. . 1%,N -EEN- ffi-I . . . . . . . , . ,:,;�Z�::�$::::::.,.,::f;::::::::::::N - , ,i�* ',"�:�,',-",',��:,�i�'��ii�.^��-�.-'.- NOWN, " .,,. C14 — , Z: S , ... " .. . , , . :EEoEEEE; EffE:,Z-:NS5g N-:,:E:;-,0N:%--11*,.,,:P, .." 0.,P-,�-�7g,,,;?",�EE�Ws. ?.F;.,�,:Hi��.ii�i��l-.�:i...�.i�.EE - * ` ,0,�,�M,�Kw .g". . ., Z, g . ....... o�?, ?E: .. . N� ,N.g,fEE-E*:z ,i:Mo- � �:: � � : j: , , - ,?E;sNE.:1,N�.:M-.-�.-%:�: "'.5a: V,Rz .� .. , �E�.. .g*:EEgEEEE!g , --NN...", ... - .3; o,EEEjj:EEEEE� -E, �,V-E%g P -pg- 3g,��::E��.:� - -, , . .W , " I ��Mr"-. 11 $ Ic , EE.. , . 5EiNEZEE I I ffi �,ffi 9�,NiE,9-Nii,,EBru:` - ,.. -11 EEiE, � ., "n, , 9EENE.,E 5� 0, o; . < MNES: MMER on ,10 S - , WS : : ,E-,IW,:;N=-OE,N ......................... � .... � .- go ,0. "m "UX".111-I.- - - ol O�:j:"..F:�:::is:::;*:Z:�::::::::..�,vl;,,� WN I : -� Eg .. ; 11111 .-EEEE EEEN ....., � 1111 I 1110 . ,::;�;::�,::�:-,.:k:c::Z.,.�;:::::* Nz� - ::: am gImIoI "I'! -N N,*EEEEEE;.EsENEE:E? I -11--l'N , N, .. V ,? -,Nz5EEEEW I I . . ., ..�f� ,4 j000z:�: .. I11111 . , g., s " ,a il� IS 111, - �E�l�*�,�;Ew.,*,.*,*� .`ox. �l;0 , E*; ... . z 11 "o;:�X*NE:o offl�ffip,*-W,�W:::E-, -KEE Ma, .I, - %.- , I. ii :i :: , W,:U?/,. x -:::`o: �Iff,/�Nw -,-,.......,.,...,..,. N,.-.�,.. 1.1.1-.1-.1.-o.W-.-.-,,�ii- 1: :�i��i�!,:��il�::I�l W � ---- I ...... 1. m = ,.., E WN., " " EN', 3�,M>,,*K*�� --m Z.. ::;:I' , . ,-.E::�:iE ... Ng;N` ,.,.:N::�00000 � � � - Edffl,-.O,- ��i�:;K,%4,.-5.�';:�-,'.�,fs�K§ii.;�', NNN--:?E ---- "El"I'la ", :ffi,N,B ,P %-,..:i�i-g E:N I,- -7- 01EM11. � , EiE` /1. ��.Nn.::i:: MR, I.?.,.x� � � � � . �" ,�`KE P/ '", .:-:-""".:. j: = -*� M cu -0 FFZM2;�,�,-��,V��-3�A>;�l,k:;,62�-�.'4��-"*'*,�,�*f�:iK*�K�:!,�n-:>�taf.. . .......... : = o WAMMugm ,ff,M>.;�RR--.RR.-.:-:0N:R . U VA 1NNzNNNNgMEN,-: . . I ... - "WNNZNNNN5;NN->x&�: .I;o.: .. �mw&l��l-a-,�:,g��,,5..'�;f.;p-r,,-.i .. ..E:3-. .-.- ,-P,-�;, g I � . ,,, WNNN,NN,:NX,,x:: . . .. . o. . -NEE?� U-00- , , 1. :::::::::::,jgp&1 :�: �� , ZNKNNNN�,N�.XNNIX�N� .X�:. : : : ��: . - ,� lE .EF,:O;�NENNZONft:-0 � i . - V , . I.. � � � I 1 ;NZ:: I � I. . " = — 0 (t .- ..- 4� >,. +� ;417-z,:F,4..T;";$,*��ls,�.,$,:�5�,�::.Z�O�lpN ... I �o:ME,E,EEE�,.E,,:EEEEEEEE�EE�, . 11� " , -W -.., ", N'.-, .. "; goVog, V V^gN,N,,WjNNZZ.`,, 01. �5�.Z.`$,:M%f.EEE EM� . ��",91:�.,:.s�-.'��""?",�,?"�,�� - 4. -�, . �g�. � ,�g . ,,,.,N .. - NO. . I NsggoE::: ,x<�?',,'�,��§�o�x,--��i��?,-..i�.�g-�,."�:.,�$i�E:::: INX., , ,�.* - I Ill CZ — = ,Z-�,.f:�f:H:;?i��.;�,::�.,��,,,,,�,;,i. �,,�,1,111.1.1..-:,.:".....-.-,,.-..-,- . -MML-�:�.MME?Eoo � -F--*i1N11 .. . N .., Ef, -,,...Ei��*� :6N - ,;M, ggzEE��;.* ........... �Mx 1 1 N -N �i��:�,,�r;�"�4s,-..'�,�;.�,,��i�.-.��..f'��,,I, .11 - - " ,$EK-;,cEE�:, : .......... . - , , ., ,�'�,40,.:49:�,�:2�c.:..�.,,.-.,�,- �,�o�s�,,��.�f�,;-*,fs.'*$��*�r�*:�'.,. �:EoEji .1, I . . 9f�kk,�,�'L$:�,�.'K��:�:"�",Sf-'.;.�;�*>4�-,��;�,N ! :i . �i��:-. i,5,-., - . � 1 E = 0 Z.- 0 -0 , .. . �p . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - . . , 11 . I ;i I �: 5 ;: � I �� . . :� . "I,-...."..,......."....,.'.",.. ..- , ; . . ... ,:, "M , , -. :: .9 ., ,WA§ I. -F , ,W,—, ". i�i�E�Ii� .. a , . N I Room .- 0 US ur, t4; - - U 0 mnmc - B ME BE oEEEiEii - ... -- ,NN', 1011 - - ---- W 0 -, i0000 11 : 000::: : ::: , ... - --0 .,:; M;M`�,.M%iEEE�i S:§.-,iEi:1,�ffiEiE .9 I .1.ES:iiii R. E�, ..... , EEg-,-EEEEEE-�Ngg�.Eog,�.� 1. IN— --- .., .1.1- '-.--.--,..-,.-,.- : ; -k::: f. us at. , .1::; -- -NN5NNN,1.,:1 ..k,gNZ,.:N0::0:=0. ,,, '��,:,r:�-,g��g�iiK�.%��.�;.."*:��,�'s$ ... . -.1-1111,11"..'. �.:...r�'..W,-.-.��,i:::.-.,�-9:.i:.:....,,�e: x�.:.ir;$N,oft� ... :-.-..-,...-.-X1"M, �E.;E� V, . $N,g,,K�;;,E,o%PzzK:M : . E:P;EEE:i�,,�;, $X:Ego:N�, .*:* I:N- ";- g, NN, 0"NON:�0z's * K, :::::::: ic, g1K.1.Eo:1:K:EgX, M�lv, w &- --� 11 0 r -- Cd u C> .- , � , InEW.E.i.i§,�,.i.i.�. k:EiiE - "IW.§A;7�§..,.�'..�c��:�0.1��,;;��:V�**��, .. X .W I , -, .. . . ........... . . , , ,.; I I I 0 I , W NMWE:�, "N::�WBE 0'WE", N...KWHINEEN?M� �,� " Ko*, "... .E., � zffi ffi,.� ... . 11 g, a : , , .9- gp-p,,�K;Ei�,�,Xzs-,-... . .... .. .51, ,yfgm, - -Z. . W U Q - c i%- 4- 0 .,. MR ...'el��.��.*�Z�:�:*:�*::�,..��:z��f4:�k W., .-f4g.. r,;?�.-,.-�.'('�f�,..--.>,"�,.-.�;., . ... . "'I'l-,.. -.E.- , -g- * .. i I - ..W.4W:?;mE? : : .%ffi ,, -,g-:.x-x, -IIIIx-IIII.- .R.", ..., . ... ":NN .jY .3ge x � , .. - i ....... ... , 0 i:: E ,,A e- r-;?�-�§�ME,�.i:�i��i�-,,�.�f�:��i k'. - '..... . '-".-,-,,".'. ��.�:.��v,:P.��y'.��:.:.:.::.��:.:,:: I,41..., am --m :� .,,XIII� -E:E:EEE,:E*E:- 0.:E,MP*.Eo o - i�gffi �iiN,-E�Xoo* '.. . -ooEE�,,,00EEo:RE:EEE: I . ,Z koo K ..... : :�%$::�?.A-,.$�.*-��',�::::.,".:::�::::,::;:::�.,:�:. R-.:gotuo:Kk:::N , ,,,-.-Ko:EE,.,-Eo I : 'IM."'."., :z g ,;.f�.,��iiiiiisii�,,Z,:?;".i-- '""' :%,,,N- :::; -o -k --., N Ni0000` ,,,*M, §;. " 4- = 0 CA c C.) -*--� -- c . . .�5��,'��;�,.�',�'.ii"�,�',�-�'.�.��.'��-,�'.��'- 1. .-W? -Wo ojx.:.. . Am-:N��: .... 1, - -... .... .�;�.��%'W..�:z��"9::::t:,�,:k!-,.-- . :. .., o,z.s�z�,�::n5::-:�f..:i�:-,.�ii *N-�g- N, , . . 1112,-,1,EEE:E--u�`C ,.,�::: . ;.,,,.:�NNN.:: M1 .�,. a, l, ,.,:"",, ..... , R, ,N -..,.iI---NN-,k-1-, :E:i11RoEEEo .... e. N....NNN,11.�- �,--1-:111%, .. . .... : ........ ... . ---w..------:�.-,-,-----------�-.-,-,.�-- �. -'.."'.. .4 ca i.-)- = t42 0 a .� ,,- . . ..... . - q IN-My� .-:��,,-.::.-I:-x-:-:-:N-:.: I . � : : 1E "*e.. -.:-�,n..�.�::�:::N:..:: .. . : -. ......,..:::: - I E��;� WYA 0 ,�E�§.,M, W---.�,,,RE:EN,N �. 'N :: . :-,*�,i,i` -.�.. ., .:. - "No:N, .. , -` .1 ........ ...... . . --.. ... �,. ....::-:I M-Eoo � . ON] .1 .. - EEEMEM,,E�i j r- "a = C11, ZZ, .., . . M EEEo?-- gE: , , ?iEENN---R:N----ERsiM .,.. -, Egg,:;:� .. ...EEii , ....... - :P;R�iE�iHSEEE-- :::,::;f,u � EVA . * ... - ...... .. F.ioogll ... I* .. - :N -, �EN-Y-11 ;-:NN.:-x,;.:-,.,-.-:-:-:-: . , pw� �..I:-:-:--1IXQ: ....... -. .- . . ,<.-,-,W.; En - "... -I::-;-:-:ZZNN ..-..-...-...-.....-.. , .... ..... o, - "' .11. " ��O� ogztg� iEi�i��cz'��,i:i,�Hi:�;�:'..,...:,ii:ii:: m. "";-.",:�:";-.��.��.K,��:�.o�:t-.:�.,--.::... ,::R,%�;0g, , I ..'.. .'-.'..%... N :."E: .... ... .... NN::0.1WN:R....-.-,-:-. E;.E,1,*.--* �f --.....-....�i,��i�i�E�i�.E '...., . A .. ,�- . .., ::Eii,.,ogz*E? ,�,y � .Mi�.,, M � 5E.�WEEE", 01 .-..- -�EE�iio.�--E��,-..-. " *�".�,��P.-'��,�E-�f4�-..w--� -..-..,oi� . -.-K.", 11 - , 11 . ,�:* : ..5 I , f, - I .? -.111 ............... -,-..R-� - � .. , . , ,.�!; I -,* "' 0 C) U = (= = u C,4 .. . ..N .." E... -:-:-:-,:�-I:-x ..", .-..--..-.--.-.-. ,-:i::,:�-��:k;;�::�;:::S::f,:,Siii��.-i�k-sE .. �r ? .. j`,,�I.,�-,:��j� S§Ei-;��§, ij�,IfEiE . .:-,,-:-I:-0 -:.>..:.:.:-:.- Nooft. �:iiiiiiii��i:i�:�i�i!�iiiissisi -,-�::;:, ,I o., ` lis�E� .. .. MNM �:E:Egi.n:s i;:iiiii�EiEi.-,. :1��;.�-,;.�i��":��'E��,�"�H!:!:��.-,.:?:.�::�:S.-, *i��`�iiiiiii,, :3P -N, -REEES�E:&'N ... ....-- I .. "' ,,-NN "Mits000f" - -, . . - *�ii�iii . . p .. ........ N * - , -"-'-".'-"-'-"-'-'.'-".,.,---,. ,�,. E- , , ,::: , .: . *-.-I- :,� wz�.. � 1111 11.1t I - �, . -.*:�f- -*. 1.11 --. .-.. I .. .*Ki K", ", N . ....... o I .., - � .. I n . I . .... , .. ........ - ....... . ....... ..,-. . ,� �-�:E--M,; ,,,� . ........ f NI-i.-II.I.... .-I....-... M.". � -- .W� I . .'-"" ... "........... 09 BE Es 9 : HE M E.EEENEEEE§:ii� ........ tr, -0 �- .- q) M., ..... I ... - ..... ... -'... ...-. ...,..-:M�,�.:.:.:.A..,..:-..:.:-:.;�I . .......... EEE .. ........ .... ,-..--.-. 0 ME i�. ��?,��-*-.-'-.;I:,..,...'.-".��-.-- .-� ..... :::x x 01-0 - I N= * BE �1 ;*; )a: . .1. � on 0: - .., -.,...,: 1 t I I -�.,. X§Eg :Mo*Eo:,K:�o*: ?.-EK t,�"�;i,� . - ,� *II�,-��: - PE - � - ......... ".%I. fc:�<K.;�::�::�"::::�::.Z:Z:"�,�; I I - ,::� ::I:,,. .. .. - -g, ........... 1. .... .Wo I - " , NZ .. EEiE� . - - ,!�: . g .11 - , lm! ,. I -T-11, - 0-0 ;-,&, - ,- CZ cr, = ..:-� . .,-,, .N`;N s'EiEiEs .... . --��::::::�'ii...,3"&'i��i�'--i��iiii�':��iii��'.�ii�*:i�'i'�,iii��i�;",.i � " -N ". - , , .*ji�,�.�,;,., -.10 : .. ,.. . .. .�:-.,�,,�:;:.,t:..�'.-.',':k::::::;�:�::::::::�;::��.�'...:', ,�:��-7--�-:i-..:��E:,.,:;S.,,.:i:I I,-, -, -.i:.�:,�: -EEE:E: -.oE!-EE I" -oEii�-g - -, --.E:, " M g SEEEEEEEE.-�EE, E.E�E�i ., ;".:N-,1,1,1 -� - �l �:�:i:E:K:i:H::i:�-*:i�,:,.",,.-....".e ,. .,.,�E� 5 ,N.E.-,,,.-.-.,.-.-,.--.-.-. . ,N N e- .-q) " -0 > . 8 f? X----... . �i��ii��E",..;,.�j.'��'i]iE?,::-,�-ii.�'�isi�i�ii:�.,.,-,�i,�,g5,�.:�.-�'�;�-.m��f9�:i."..�.�*,*'**ii�,� ... ... i I :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:,..:.:.:.:.:-:::: .N ... ::. -:-I:-:.,E-:.:.:, .E0000:E.000000.00 ,... . - ,::::::i::;:::::�::i:.".:.�:i:::-.�:j- -E,Eoo MEii:,:EE"-,M:ssNN MiEE� ... � .... ......... . ...� """" ."" :::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::Z�::�:::Z:::: * � . ,-Eii�i , , ,§, . 'N ,,iEE;Eo , .-E, :::�:i:i�::::�:i:i:i:i:i:::i:�:i:.,�::.,.�::..".",..f.-: ...XiEii�Eo i:�i:i�:iHi:i:��iiiii�ii*�,:ii��iii.-'�.::.,.�i:�','....,� 8 . � SoU,;�,-E* ............. II.-I.- � Eo� -ZEE ..... K�K�EEEii,*�,Ei:E:Effl Z � tr, I- 0 Z Ft Z 9..,.: n�::�:::".�::f�:::�::::::Z:��:�,f4;,�,s�:;��:--,�z:::;�y.::�::�::::::-- ..'*.�,:��.�Fii-��:�:,5i.��im��::� -,W. .. .".. . .. - :;k:o::�F�:?,:'.�:::�<:::::k:��1/1-0::�$�::::""""/*�"`�*�",:::::::::::::::::::�::::f",.,;,;Z�:?;;.* . , EEEEEiiEEMM�::� - i ,.-,�.:.�.,:.,:.,:.:-:-:.:.:.:-:.:.::P.R ,g... ,�� ,.; EoE�NEEEjEEijiE, EE - I ::: ...... . ,;?:EEf Nr . Eog,z . .o *:��::i��:E*:�:i:�::;3��-..,-i�,��l, y ...................." E . . . . . . . . . . . . . i:::: ....... - :,g ,,oE , - �- - - � �- M W = :k:".k::::U"�:z�Z��'::�:��:::::::-$$�:;�,.,.,.,: . .�.�,�,.......Z.........".....�:.:..,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:��.::;: "",.",.....,..---.-.-�.............",::��:'�:-'*i:�:�:rk-,:.:i:;:i:i g-, .,... .N..Xg. ,; --��"=:�.;-.,�.��-,��,;..-�.-..i��i�---*---- ,/�-:*---.-.-----.-------.-.-.--"i��&*��/��w��&*�I ,,.,EEEjEE,Ng,..j .- . Z .... 1. .. 0�,151� , , . ,::.,::::::,.:Z:::" ,iE§ ....... M19.10;�l"", - N, ... V. 0��,*,,00,�- -:.:-:-:.:-I:0.:.:,.:.:.- - , ::: .. 0:�;, MIS :0 ,v/,*--,-,xg- - -N,;N,x" ��:.:. i , n ...... K.E"kRMi K�r,�EE I , E , . .. Am 0 ,R"A", ,Z.-",.,..,Z",..,.....�.,....E 1111`0��V-0� I'�-/I ...... 011z,N .......... - W:N "EEEN:xx � , gii:i .: K...IIIIIIII: ,11 W.Ck"MIN 11,gB:/;,NdI N";oEEE� IN - ,.. O 0 ,R:SEN,� 05 Mzi a IIVWEE�F�n (1; �: -1� a 0 ro 0 r - -5; cr, B .. .... . �, :gj: F,,�W - . ., - -, ,..f * ..... -- Eg,�gi�,lg- . ,- -, .... .5 - -N gN M", . , V V1 7� cl M &. = � ,. , ..' , ; ..: . .--s �, / i. , --- -H.o. og, ,,, . .. 1 MUR emo-�g.�;,gm,,, . , . gg0y1W,..,ERfNE g ,T,z 0 0 W .... .. ... . � --. 'm .... g -- — , .. ": W - �:: .Of ." ........ ...........'.., -nommEmo Em - 111- ON q S -N- , - q> iii '.a a) > EN.M..; - a - : .. .......... ..... �: . - Nl.-,:, ..*Xg,' .'-..":., , 3ic. ` E " N .. .... 0*'�.?�---/-�;---P�,:----------,-.,.c.,*, NN:�1?--.:-I:.I:-:-:-:.:-I:-: ,N �.. .... N ,;,-.--.-., i:�,Ko:,1M!:,Eo&N1T, --� .;-,. ..."E0 .?.$;i:i:�:�::�':i:i:j:��::::.,..: ... . , ?%,;I,; , " " - -��,if Eio: . - v -Ei - It: J- -0t . _::::: . .. �/5��*�.:�-,':�K-:',�':i,�*,'.�$:E:S*��a:6��,....--;�:-:s��.,�f,�:i��iiiH!i��;��il;.��;�"�i,'-* i�.f- :I: ': - v .g . : W?,N, .,�;lz��:::::..,:$�,�:�:zg,��::,�:.,*"K.-,��:�:�:�3�:::,:E:i*:j:�:j�j.,::j�i:i:�:Ei-.':;*��'�::. . I,.---.--, ............. � .................. .. . . :�;�:��,,..��:5:::�::k�.�::�:::".":� �M-:: IV47��.P-"*"****"'***'*'.*.'-"".".'- t,b C) cot C 4� - - �* , .gMNNNNNNl, - . ..I: ,M�-:;=Sng .,.:... .g N; " ESE *I -?E� - =11 /,$Ei,NN - - � " Z��o .... -NM W,l : .. :E�.�f,S:i:�i��:��,�s,.:H::�.�'.�,�'I :" ... I I----- ,,W.k,7. - .. 1 5 . ��,�,fl,�f�:�:::;;��:::�::��::�:;:��:::;�.Z*:K�. ...........:.:.�:�.:-:.�-:.�,;�,�.:.:.�-. M�� -. �s --, ,�,W;/ Wo ...... NN I' - * F g. ..,;.��-.�:.,�:,:f...�'�..�.,:... loo.. .. ... I .... . .... . Ngoop"o ,�: . :��.--:.:.:.:.:�--�.:��.:�,.:'I , � "s z 0 -1p �- -I:$ &- 13 0* W � -4-0 C�j .R........'I...'. ... . - :R.::;EEN:R::E:W,V, . .Ooi, :;. ., ,NN,1� JOEE,Z:�-NNNO, .I........., . ........ � ..... g: . ,,,,-,.-.- .� .-e - 3EENNN : :K K Eo E: : : K, *I,::: X : :.. E�.§:f:E.EWNX,RH`E:EE.- =��.i n.", --- �. .N� , - `- M��,-., I, EE .; *Er,R-.:,N.:, -.,-E� ZZI: ; . Ng � M1--,11--* .- NN .. ...... . 1.,.,X-: . I � . -XI, - ME -' ... . .8EEE:N,*EE .:.:-I: , , , , .. * " M WE X -, k .: 1i ? N: - - ,�: r. E: -�-,, .- R -jo: BMW - . -.. K" . �Ei 0 . ...... .. . iii: "a tb-t� - �-U r� (1) " - 4� .- cl �F ,., ,7,:-X�- . -I1%-X-X-:�:-.-:-:-:-:iE i -.11:ZN -:NN::o:EN::s5N::N::::::: ....9 mj*g 'M000: ..... ,XX .::::. . ;.1 - ..:. �§�,�N ., , -�Eo�§ .z.:.��i.-*'�iiEE��2:i�Z"�isiii�iii��i . .,. .00g. 9:�i ,. ..�! :i:�:i:��...*.'��!��?.��!�� . . . .... .1 ... ��:��.-"�i..""�.-....-.kE��:��li��: - I W -..:.' - * W, so E m:::: - " � , .. .& N �:� �:��--.:�::k..��i�E:i�i��i��.�i...,. .'NoN&EN � 'E.E*', . . �,P-.,--.-,,.-.-."'*':"k-,::*:�."i:E ;M :. - 19- 7 .. . ., P,1Z::::Nt:EEE :...i -, Ei. r4 " , — - - ej u - 4� � u - 0 �r- 4-4 . ,� ,*E�z:��:�.�;i:.,�:i:.:H::�:i:�*,-,',, . . .. ..: , , -- ... . .;M :::::::: .... ...N .--:.,..:" � .,� i,-3io*Eo-E:E-].S-So- - 'K.......'. :N*.K. ":�o*oN.:.: :l.-�---: . .K. Eli: :.--:�:�:�:� . F1.5�-.7 �,�PE,M* i-,i-:*:i1.,`d;s ,�-:.:,,I:�X.v 111, :.. Ei:�:�:�:�� NN.--, --- I .... .. - .�o-F..%-M-:, ,11.1.1-1.11..1 . "W,: p IEKo . M.,,:NN::N::oE ....... � ".�2:.W��:.:.:.:,,.:.:.%.�:.:�- .:N: P,�,,::&:R:N:M� ..::k:s: §? , i :oo .�Eo-:-:-:.:.&. K�',�,��',�i:��if/,i,i:�:-'*�:i::,;;�;�� - , , . lz.o - - C;� = � UW) W C/) ffi �t:$::�:zl..,-Z,�iiifi�ii;i,-.:iii:�.iiii�iii."Ii�:�,::i:�:�: ,E:: ...X.., ... . �.:;:;:;:k;:;:;:�:P;:;:::::�;::::::��::��.:: �,g;Nff;`NoN=::�M ,-.-.----,,-NN:::::W.:::: .... -: -N . .:-:-K--1.�§`,-�Z m2RR -�i.�iEi�ii��";".i��i�i:�si�%-St�ii�:"....�................. .......... .. . .i....."'.., * 'k '"', . .. -oo I. -EiiER-EiE- ... ---- - ::MN .. - -�n I, - ....... � -,1*1 ._ ON , - - .... .. K;..., . ..... *; 00000000: ..W,. -----?*-------.--..:p ;"�:�:�-�-.��::::::W..:P,�l;:�.".::::�p::�-- -% .F,. , - ggg-, M ....... . ........ ............... -N - ii -iE�E�i�E�:�:� *§i . . . W. � y M." - ........... -- Mg.. SP soiEi ,,E I: - --" - -,:5E-K11-nP*g&*.*1� i3i�.�isi�ii�:�::K:i:E�;-:j�i:H::i,w��., Kffi� an .- " -4- u "O ., - � �iKs.?� N--,--.--;-,7,---- W- . . . I, .E�ii::Eifi - -.-1-1--,,-� ,,,,-,,.,,,,,.I-.-..� .. - - . -EER E,-,�i.*`§�. -�.EH . NN: -.g -NN, -;o . .fk%EEEjEEEo .. oHi H HE. I 19100 0 Ef iN W ::::::: .� .1-I.."�,�'ll.-�"..............�...,.?��::::�p::::�::,;.:�$::%:::::::.::: . i-@ , . .,-::Xc::::::::: .:f,::%k,:::::�::.:::.:�.�:k:S:R��-,��:-;�-�:....� ... "N', '?, . .� u ,-. 10 c = e- - C�4 = = *z -,NN` ON -F.E.� -:::�:: - .. , ,.,.. .E;ER-SNEE. -§§E, W::NZ1NN:`. . MW -1 ;� .......... X. - 1.1 --E,-,%.�4 .... - K�%:�-:M:i��:.�:.:.k:-:-:.:.�x,:.x�.; 5;.-1-1..1...-�.....Im.-i - .-,;;EEE;: - -" �:M*,NW,.:.;ZNNNft-:::1- . . .. -Es, -?`-� . gWEEE . . ..,.. .;Nn� . �0 ME .... � I . Xoc. .R. MEFEiii....- I:,lM,,.-.:i::1N - R .. 0 C) > -. -0 u W ,�. ;o: . ,�-kZgg:-*o,*: .,::-:::::Y.,:::Zk::Z:,�:::�::��::::::::�:::::.�..:::: ... � -', - '., . .:-:-XW1I�ZIEF: -- � " -:N ... .:::. . ., . . 11 g-RO-II.No. . c ,,��" .-,EEE:::- - .�:-:-:-X-:-:.:-:-I i. -.:g--.: , - - - - Wre. M-, - , , --*�*-",�'�"�'�*�*-"�"�"-,-*-,, 00�-� Eijsg:iiiiis��.Ei ��A::-.��:,,: ?EENN g.,g ".",R-',ii'i-*,*.,i*,i.",.i*.,':ii��i��.i�..,i�i:�9:�. , � -�-,.:�E��:, �� - ,�, co,*,, - ,:P0 ,;:�:Ooo -*�i*ixv: I .. IS M -111:1131M.11, �. ,. � - ,,Eo`":: OHIO- � = $- � C,3 0 Q C4- M 1,110 ,::R::::t$:::::�.,.".,:Y::::.-':Ij� .�.,,� M.,--��:. .I. . : . :.:.:-: I "ZON"R ..;, i�iEs, EM: E: *.- -, ,,-: .: k .%:::�::�::::::::�::::�:::�:::::::::H::��:j�j:j�j:�:�:i:i:i:: . .i�i,.�E�i�i�E�E�i�i� WE NNE § ... — :,��:::::�k�l:::��::::::::::::k:�:'�::::3�::�::::.:.:.:.:.:,.:.:.:.:.�.:- a -I. -P, .. - , " ","', -1 -*.".'.'--' , . �,#,::n::-Av,—Vl:�,;.,:,�,�-;�r:.��;!&-�.�5:�l-- W-IIN.N.. .. ... � * . , ...... I . . :-;NgN �:�;"::.,�.;:�:::::�:::;;�:�%.:..:,..;�:.,......�.-,.-.- ....... W, 111. - --. EE: 5 ,. ,. . � '�,*:�'KM&::*:6>�t§9��s:i�.�.�',',-�:��§�o�,�:.:.�i�.i! M - 15 COA 'A 0 CIN = U (=) W) "=4 I q: . . .... BE *; �,,,-H:-R, , -- I I §% k%. -E:EE-EMiEEi�iE--,.EiK*E:.,,, � , , o: %, 1 K, W :�NN111..-1-1.1 .... .. M=a a- W . . . . . .,.1.:N.I:.:.:.x-X�-:-.-I: .,--". � no , - .:.j8E.I: , ,--" �, .-...;..I-.;-_-_-_-_- .: - . WZ :�:�:�k:�::,.:��:cz::�k::::.i,44��..:. Moo .,*-.--.--.--.--.--.--.--.--.--.--.-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-..-.-."-..----I .. I . * - I ".... -.-�-111....1. ,..,,..*E:::KE000: .� ,-,.,,.,1 .. . .:; ... .,.... . ... .. : .. . . . : .. .. : .. : .. : .. .. .. . : 01 01 M; W, 1 10, ....... I", ?:E;,::N::,�,� :�::�::-��::.�::.,:::.:.:.:.�,��.. .. . . .. - -- �.;-..;-;-, I .�E. i��l�.ii.A.-�i�i�i�;��i�E-.-'�s��- E�S�EEI-,Eii§:, . . :Sz�$:/,,$$-�:::::�:::%:::::::,::.:.:.:::.:-:., . . . .�I. 1111111 .E_4 m .1NN.-.-W ........ ;- "I'l-l' C) us c .- 4 - C; cc C" . " - kf) CL C;3 " C,3 � 1�j IN- ,- ........ ,W, I ..1. "-,`M`ENE.x NEE4g"-,:E:, '"I'i". 11 � ,,.,N;xfi-",,, ..I -E:EgE*E.-.-- MINS-11 . OPT am � I ..... o =* ME '.-'. "..-I.,I-EE I E --5 U ,U 0 -0 5 E: g:EgNo W�v :M.:. . ....,: 0 . 0 ... — , : g:Mi�M,lK Mo;K:K:?.*" .... , ` , .I., .. i ...�.*-,�-,.. - I+-P (D -4�j - W-,,,-,,,1K1-E: ........... I-. i; -.1 K ;Vz,.---R------,-- . -.1 :::: - � - - . --1----.ftx,3p- 1--1-- NO:W.IkO"A��R�:NN . ................ -, oEi--.3g- EEE& 3��;�;-�i]�p,RF-,-.-:�;V-MAW.�n��w��:..-,�- N W1* .... 1. .. ::NNN�NZ�EEEEN;1/ -;-I;... I �::I:W�N� - - �EEEW,.;s - K. W-g-:Eg -, E�/ .-... - - ...-.-� , ,R- N * � - ` , Elly Z-:,.:Z.i.:.>.�:::::::---..:-Z------..-...",.,..: -- - 'a q) I W..; > . '.... - . ,. 1 . :� . _ ,ft Vffl.,MnEE Pi N- - . ,N'.., . , KKR:KE�o:s..oEEi`o:% W4.:* ... .. I , ,E:.%�o .�,,-I�.r§.t:,:-:.:.:--..:.�-:.:.:.:,:.:..��:.:.:�.;�%.� . . fts1,MKR-:KE�o:s..EE§i, ,X.M. .n - *,- , . � , -�1�..,1.-.-.-,.-.,- .%',, :......... ........ ggg�g lM,N--N�--%E!� S., WAP , Y, I I .- I ,..,. .... I ....... I � ., -.�,� .-Oi,o:�i "Ki, . .. ....'. . Ello -siE:.E,,.,.,i:Ri;:E . ............ .... �� .., . I ar . 0-1 p ..,N-;.:.:�:::::::S:::::::::�:�,;�:::::�:::::::�::::::::; : ... . I . K: - . 11 i�K:M� I . I I - Eo, .. I ik-5 - M &,fEE?. Z: ,o:.1g ,� `§ioSE ,Eio�i�:x�`-o:E,:-,%ii i� EE VE " 0 cl 0 Q c .> Z U +.1 0- :*.* -,:3, :N -EEEE:: .." ,.E;; .., . < � � .... -I- I . � X-:,-� K�Ea- W...E� .SiSEE; ,.,,,O,. ... .., -1. , 0000: - . . . A— . .. ,.:.:N �'..*:5-Z�'l.ci",�:,�"-��.*'O�'�E��,�,�X'- ,-§ .....-.. . .... , - .11 I W, W I -- -�Eg- - ,�, �, A , ... .-- I - .. .Z--' . ES.I....1-11. o. I NINE I ...... I ....... I ......... -:�§: I I ... � ,9 x--1-%--NN---..I----,;4 ..... . N.IE:EN:�E; ..... ----Ei 0 .. n W ;.:.,:-:� * * - , EEE'. -, . �l.-I.".,-.N.....�".'............ ":::�..�.:::::::$::�:::::�::::::.:��k*W��;�.:.:f xg: �-"i:ii.:,%:ii�iiil..�-'��-.��iil.-'5�:"*.i*�*,� o?;:N;:,,,,.-.-.;R . - 1* . ..EEEEEi.,gsEE` EE,o:E- io � * '" , . ENoN,K,:Eoo"M: "::::::: N � - . I- - ---WEiiig ::: ,f i i-,�E,-ffi RM *1 ....... E ....... �,,..*�K-:i�:i:i:-'-",:��:i:�i:�i:... :i�:::�:::::��:::::$::::::;�:::::.,4 " I , .. W 1:1. ,gEEEE.,.I, -. .. ..:KEK§. ,�,x-:-:,i::::E;.. --.-..,.,-. 11 ,,�i?�"----. _.� I I , 'M . � § - : ...i�Eo k --.--.:3%I §. EtEiiiii 1,11 , EE§E R.-.,:�;*�'.'.-§��:ii::�:.,-�i:: i:?EEii,I ..'-,,, , . I - =E�E=.-.-.-.... .. :::::�%::::::.:i:��..-.'i�l��.i�i;....�;� - -%;(,:,?��*:i:i�k:i::.tsi,�,*-*-'-E . . . �. I : xl.:.-:::.:.:�..:.-.::,Pk:-:::-�%.:.:.:-:.:.kl:s�i�i�I .:::::::::::,-,-"-'-' � -k ..... NN�,. .o:EEE�E::j:EEEEE,::::N:jgM�M .I. ....�iji�i. EE.Esiioij:�toi.g�,-.o . -.x. . , �. .1I ,E�3M,�,%`, V 01 * I >. U :z — � 0 "�; >, �- to 4� (j ... . :..... -.....'.... .,:� . ... ., ..; - .. ... :::: .§Ex , .., . .... I. N:: -::R: g - 11.-.�1-.-.-.-.- ..... .:.-.>. j, io*K� . .... -�::k,:Ek*:::...:Eoo.- *9 .�.�.:.II:.:.:,.:,. . - . .......... M. . .Rg.,IIIR: , . la-0*1 --- , -x.n.: . c . �*E::. ..�: :�. f'. :�§ --- 10 .. �r-:-: -:-:�-:---;, ., :, .. . :-Z::..:i. ME- - -, o5.Ei-�..IM.11 ��EM.vgNN*A,,K.,:?E . - �i.-.-...-., ........ . , . ":5� : .. .,-- ... ........ , �E..,... �EEoEi�RE�,.?5,,, �,,". �m ..,--- ,N.-- :i�*�,�:�."i�l.i.1'�Sii:i:��ii'�.,E - ..IINS I, ...... . .. - - . I;:- -- .. ::::-Q,5AEE: ON�MM --- - " .. N . .. . og'o-, .:.. I --o ..- . , :o:?o: I 01K, oo � .71 I , I:NZgNNN:;NR - " .=: . .. -:-aNM.g . . . . . :-M%o,:1-: �Ko:-�:Kgg:EEEI` " -.VW,.E . ME M.EE - *Kz:oN:EoN:.Nx...1.:-�. I..,.,.. �:K:.�.i:��ii�:��':��F�'.�.....,.�---- 11W, , )�:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:R:.::.,;K4w.*'�"7,---,-..,. . ....... , �:XogN,:A`g,o: .�i�i:�iiii�iii�iii::Hi::iiiii.'�.�i'-�$.��, , , -Ei:i:iiii�, 'g.. , ',Eft - - ;_ -2 = (u cc 0 U L- u = �i.,V§�;W.EMEii-.-, -- M�:NN.I: - o:E � --S0ix::R.EE:iii :1.-XK:E:Xog:;,: , NNEEE'.o.:-3SEE�-o ..:-, X. E:5iii,.,`,.., --- . I W.- " ,M�M,�jo ... E:§-oEES;��KEii, EEE'.*?�Esi-ER.Eir�Rif 1.` . . . . . . Ei: . U ;oo, ,-� W ------ ��:.:.-. . - Ei,�., ....... I., ........ . EEi:.EiKN,,.t.EE..*E., I,,.%-.,,:�,T-X:: . ,,WNX�l a .� 4--oEiP- -*, -::i�i�"i�.'sif'.-'?-,li4:,�,*ZiF�.*. :�.e:;.��:.�:.:��.:.:�.�.:.:.:%:.:n.:.. .,-,-"-,.'-.".. R�,:: ...... .,.... . .... . : ..... -�N�: :N::-:....-.-..-------.-.. --.-,..-,.-.,. : . :R . , :K*K:iEiii�:E� .... .. 5:EEo5::N::N:::::::: .m. Eo W 0 M mi HE .... %;: Z:�.:f�:;§<.:.:�-:�,,�:f�c.:.�.:.�:.:.:.,%7.,. ,..i�iiii��EEEEEE WE-, -oA ,.-E Mixi:1 ,,,-X.M.*:i�z�------;.-.----.------..-----�.--.-.- . 101 � N;-5:-.-x-I::I-, ..., .. . ., : R. il 0 , V .:5 . > -.. �- to I - It ..- . .: I .. ..'...... ::::..-'-'-'-'-'-'-'.'.�.'.'��'-.,-.-I M,�: %Eo:-",o:,EF;*oE:E � :g-, . n%:zg-,.2 q: a- , 't'.o* . .Nx I q. s �, ................ I . EN:EE .........1--g-.1-1 o�EEi�:E:EE':iii.,§ ..- -EE: � Fl-,i�Wg.i.;.! V..:.V.�-:-v�..:.:.:Ox,.�.:.:�.�.�:��-:-�:.:.:�.:-�:-� .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.Z:.:,I*: ,,,,:*o �x - Egg - -I .... ..., 11 . �ffEe,:oNNNNok:: �f..-----.-------,-,--.-----,-- �r'.��:.*,.-5��:.,�.i3iE.i"��ii:E�E:��i��,,��:�i�'i�i:ii.'i.i.-iE -I..' .:.:...:.-. - " CIF.W.".-MI I -.-.-.:1.-.,-.M1,-,§.- .-.-.Euxggio-,� . .-,:.:��.:,x.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.-:.-:.: ... Ng,X-%:-x-:.:.:-I:* 8x.: -:-,;x-:.:.:.:.:- ....-.-..,. ."...-....".1-EE � . . , . . .... . * - ,: gy ji R �::::;�,:::::::::.:::.:::.:�.:.:.:.:.:.:�-�.:.:.,.%.� .1.. III. .... . . .. . - , , 5i � I. .1 ..Mi:iEiE!Eio:E .. - Eo * �-gf,i ��'-5§�,?��;��..�:.:.:.:.:��.:�.:.:.:.:.:-:.�.:.:.:,W�:.:.:.�:-�:: . .:� , - . .., ... .. , .:1 . . .:; .I....:.M.�EM. ....." .M. �g :::.:. ,.-:M:::N:;: .:. ---.. ........ -1 IN §oPiKi�EEiiE;: ... .,� � W.S.11'. -o�:.::E:EE3!%o= W.; """"""""""""""" a ... . I � . , . , ..�..: , - .... ..�..: .�. ..� ..� .. - -, ..� . ::::::::::::: - ..�..: .- ENE' iM.EoE;,ioEEjiEo:. ,00�:3.---------:� ,,*� x -I.. My 1%. NN I . , ,-,5E; ---E1----, U 0 E Q 0 b.-- � �n z q) .- Q; � .-- i�� - ---:;::::::�:::::::::;::�,, ?0:.7. I N� .......... ...... � ME ME :E .. .-��i: .... .. ,,1E.-.K1E1.�EE . �i�E�i�E�;.,, .-. , I ... W -I"-'-'- 11 -.- -.1-11 .111,11, EEEiHSH..........iii .. . " . . . . . . . . . . "H"; ..,.�::. -,..:.;.�-::-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:.:.:f �-.-.-.-.-.-�-.1-11";.K,�l.......::::::.".::�...,.,�.,..�.-Ii"...*k-,%.��.:;n�% -I: .gIc. ;.:N0:::: ii:i�.,'il,'ii�'i��i-�.Si.'.2��j -,, " F" r-M 01 0 .. . .. . . ,..:---T-x-IIC,I... .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.>:.:.::::::::Z:��::k: .. . N..- W , PNNEN-::::�-::�. :��.:�:;:::7:::Z::::::�p;,:::::::.:.:.�.:. Am MR * N... .1 -::::*:.:::3�;i.-,,NN:.---� .1 , -, M ., ,:::;:::: . ,� .,::::::N E: > ,--�, .. . .N NEV II, M. OM . - - -ENE:E�k::�EE;:M..::;�N::N��.* - I .. , . - ..K%, , 0.3iE...:Eg I... ..., �-,-:-:�I�: `,.S%., W-Kn' W,.-� .. .". M�-,T- .. ...."...........".'.'�'.'.'.".................'�K.��,,,��?-i�<?i*"i��-4�,. .".�� - �,- ..-I ... p. .E.E.N'. . , . ..:.:.:.E;..c :.:.:.... .. . I i .-.-N;N,.:.,1.:.;o.:.,.. . . . . . . . iEEN - i:i,...,.,��i.'..��:iE::3i�5.-,.:�:i�i::i��..:::�:iii�i:i,.,.,::i��i�.'..:::::�:::,��:i:::::::::': - .. ..& I- I . !E.�" - ... .. . .., .. � . . - 1. . ` ` - * .1 WE I In - E CNI -- C) C) ::::::::.::::::;:,.:::::::�::::::::::�::�::::�:::::::::�'.ii:::�.":�.,..��:i� ... . ::::000:EEE::o::, , . .. .:::E�i�i:ij;ji . . . . . . . ... � :�:.�i:3:�::;,:i:�:i::�.��H::i:::i:,.,:::!::::z:�;::5��.%�::::;..:::: . F-.-�N,I:.:N�zz-EN-:- .,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:..:.:.�.:.:.:.:-.,..:..,.I .... . 1. - . . ..,.-N�.::::kM:,E::.:::�;: ;%::::::::::::::::::::::*.*.:::::::::: , .. * - ... - .:NN:E:::% .%I - - - - - - - §E;i�.�,:��E�IE-,;EE� . ----- �. ,EEEii:EVk-,iE§�:EEi�:E., - ,,.%***- .. :�oo:Ejo:Nj:*.:oo:� ..... .., ,. . EEiEEs�9*--I,:EE:ii;o :� - - - --- --- -- �--.— --- " - - .�:i:.,.,::i:i:i:3:*..�l:i:"..�- ::;R,:::;:::::.-,,:f�::::�::.',�:.�z:z�.;:k;�;$,:::::::.:.�:r.:*;�lk,�nz.-,:�.:- -C "a �- 2 , . . " cts W -� u :.... immm OW iiii i�EiEE:ii .SiEiEo Ei:5Eii�i-1.iEE:Ei:3 IR: " :.. ........... 0000, " "' E:. .9 b, W& I MM ...'s-lo�;'.., lo;K:1:11-1111 . . . . . . . . . . . .. .......... ; �. a� u C-1 Wj -- " 2 V .. .... gj:::� ` .,4-.% . �:�i N-, " . -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.""""""",..:,,,--,-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.'.'.'.'.----.-�.-- -- .. . , 1. , �:::::,:::::::�::. ,*:,:K:j:::::N . .. - . ... E�i:i::.,i:iiiiE,..-,o: -:-;.�:.:.:�.�.:.;.��..,.:.:.:�.,x : :... . -zIl;-;-:-; .;. .:.:.:.:.;.;.;.,:.:.:.:.�:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:�.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.. ... .......... .: :..��.-.�;�i��.o .-,�.�Eoiiioio*i EEIoEEo&, --i:-. - - " 'iEiEi:::�, `M�, I-,..-, - � -g; ---EEo .. . . o .% 11. . , .. .. , .3,. M, EiiiiiiKoEi-Kii;EEo i�:*I -Eiiiii:iic o:iii:E " �`,.,i;-:iili��:�:�:i",.,.,:: E a"""" , ,E5 -C � = r - < -5 = v - . -- .. .§:]i�i�i..§E.-o::i::E:: ,;." ... I - .. - - - .. is R 0 r W A, ,--,--,--.-.-.-."..-�,--,�-;,�?. , . � � `§:--.o.�:NN. .. - I K0000�K000f* EiiiiiEiEii§iiiiii, ... . ! Eso Nii�,-�� vi I 111 ow :-*M--.—....- ..... :,11, .. - 11 ji �E;i�E�m��m�iM:iiif:i�,�i.-,...., .j > Q) cc C4 7- ... .. --�;.-..,.. �---,i 3-11,-.,!�EEis i.§��E . i . - . ., ... . " iN EEi.---. . . . . 0. .M,. � I--, n M....., ... . - -.1 ... IENI-A, -;-r;-:.I:-X.-;1-;.: EiiEi*,o-o I . . -....... . .N . iKiEii*�,,� ....... . KI -K-.......... �iEEiKEIE?-,Eo *�iiE�`"-:,,, I ::R......-..-..::.. . . - i - � 4� .,.. . . . .: . :�:�ii:i:::::�:i:,:::�:�i�i:�i:.::::�::; K. . I 1 . ..:,: I iogo.;ol`.Exq�- - - . . �� .,. � :,g;oEoEEEEo . - I ,�.,:��,�;�.;,.5-"*:;*:**,:,�g an *:Xf gmi i��i��i�-,,�:iE� :�EiEE*,o:i*,,. . . . ...... . I . C= NO Mm -, �--�kw� -�S.,0-NNN .......... ,.,.�.�E .:W two - �-.-.".:�RW.��.,;��'$::,O,�-%--.o -,-: . .. i�.��-�,�:i�*,,. .%,.*,-g . i:,.-*.`-.,,-E,-,-.*.",E, - - * %. I':... i:Ko*s0000*::�,.E. ...... oo , ,:—.:—:i::H:::. - -.�*,, mm ::N. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ............... .4. l000i::��,.;kKoEEE: . .. ,oEE ::::... low . ."."....... * ..... ..... .....� ..... I ..... ..... ..... . .. ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ". .- - ."'.".- I - ��,:�.:::: E:iiE�iE: ::::::M:o .....`:... ....:.,; ...-. ...-. ...-. ...-. ...-. .. - ...-. ...-. ...-. ...-. ...-. ...-. ...-. ...-. ....-.... ,g "I'll I .R�� ,;�!��iI ---��.�.,��-E;,, "'."... " -.--.-...-...-.. �., ,-.1i*�*i Z= 0 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... � ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ." ...... ...... ...... .. . ...... . ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... . ...... , ...... ...... ...... . .......... -- :.:.:.:.:.:.::�,:::�::z:::::::::k::::i: K.K... ... .. � ..... ..... . . . ..... ... .. . ... .. � ..... ... .. . ..... ... .. � ..... ..... ... .. � ... .. �� ....... :�j000000:��:Eo;-, ............ o�,:.:N;N::: . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -- - i. . . . . . . : - .. �EEE:E., :.:.:...:.:..,�:.:.:,-:.:.:.:.��-4 M� A - .: ...... .. �E� *.. go 1 -:-:-%:ZgE-:-:-:-:-:N$-: ... i -II;-:-:-:-x-I::j iE .-O." ,::*.::A:N:E*:�::::::N::g: ooi� II.........I.I..., ...... :.. Nj: ... Most ER:K:,K 11*1111'.. " . """"' . .. ..... Eiii� ... ... MJJE M. ............ , "*-",*-"��*,-,*",;i-,-.-��.�..:.:.:.,:.:.:- .. .. N: . .'I,. . " ... . -------------------- i��. j: NO "�:i:::�:;,'M�:i.-.."::-.��j:�:�:�:-,*%'�:i:�i:�:i::::::::::::::::::::::: -.....-.......... iN .......'... .. , = ;. W-1 SEE u �,�.��Z�:i�.ii�.iii��ii�i��ii�'i�:: 1 -N-'-.-.:. ,::��..�:::r;�::::n::�:::;.,::..,�:Z:*..::::::�.:iii;,..:.:...:.:.:�:.:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. X-..--�.,.-.--,:.-.-.- So Ego .-.,N.o:.::: *1 ,:, . -------� oi=:EKW ... -- .:.:�,N. .....:, . "' �.::i:.Ii:i:i:i�:.-.":i:i:i:::i:�:j:j:�:j:j:�:j:j:E:�-..,:i.�:�:j: U&S,, I .. .. ... . ...: * . E E:E00000:�oo:, �.-.-.O...:..�.Z�:.. ... "' -,-E:K�Eo:.1�,g: E i:-%.-. �i: .,:,:-�. .. .*e ... .�*�.A,.,,E E, ... � . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1:1: No 0: It ""', . : -iiR: 1-1-1.1-1. 1?, -- ---- N -4i:*i� - - -. ..... % * ..,-. ----K---- . - *E:- -..N, ....,....'.. ,.,�.f , . ..-f ..-...... -..... k . I. ... EE-,,,.�,--,.�.- V cr, E I! ..*.--..-........If..?......,.��.-.-..-,. .............. �&. . - ,."" .. I:- ...., -.. .... .. . ..... 1. I M , NMI* :: � .... .. .: i.� . . . . . . ... I.... ,og,E1 al cl� .... I -:..--- . . . . . . . I. . . . . . .. . - : ::EE " �� :: : : : : : : : ........ X.... i§* ...... : :::::::::: - .......... , ..... I .....:..... .1 - - ... ........ ,1,`Io* -1,�]��i.'��i."�isi�ii�ii,�i�.��ii�.iiif�::iiiii�ii.-.i.,..,."...'��.,�.i .......... *-, , - -,--... -,----,--, . . CU/) LL W � �.,., ,. '...- �. .E;.� I'M ........ 'No 4 ..... .. ..... ............ "..... ... ::S�–:::I:::::::.,::::::�—:��:.Mm:�,, ........ .%,.... . .,...,......,..�.....�..........', I ... W/.-Xl: .. 1111 , " �*`W,��E*.,,0000, - ";:::,-.� � .,M:::,,,nt.%-.1.W. .. 1%1...., ... 1-1-1 ...... –, -4N > � �§ i�f`.M-.,W: CU 0.1 '.. ... .......... 'm .. NNN::: ..... — - i ... ... _ �:) 0 MEN O: ......... .. . ., ----- -- I Eggs W a X ....... --, 0 1�� , ; . i.",... ..: ,. :::::::: . -----I sNFIFT 9 RF 9 RUFFTC OL sr ro, . 40 WOO 4p EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 6, 2014 PC Agenda Item 59A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Report from the City Council December 14, 2009, City Council Meeting The City Council voted to approve Planning Case 09-020 for a Conditional Use Permit at 2 Pine Tree Drive to allow Clear Wireless to install antennas on the roof of the Country Financial building. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for this item at their November 4, 200% meeting. Cite ofArden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for Januaiy 6, 2010 \\Metro-inet_us\ardenhills\Pianning\Planning Commission\CC Reports\0 1 -06- 10 - PC report - CC repon.doc Page 1 of 1