10-27-09 BZA Agenda
Board of Zoning Appeals
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
7pm
7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
I. Approval of Minutes - September 22, 2009
II. The Petitions are:
8830 23rd Avenue North (09..10..15)
Merwyn and Joyce Larson, Applicants
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback
Requirements
. 3.78 ft. off the required 15 ft. to a distance of 11.22 ft. at its closest
point to the side yard (west) property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an addition to the existing garage.
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 13(0) Pre..1982 Structure Setback
Requirements
. 1.5 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at its closest point to
the side yard (east) property line.
Purpose: To bring the existing shed into conformance with Zoning Code
requirements.
2450 Kewanee Way (09..10..16)
AI Helaemo, Applicant
Request: Waiver from Section 11.21, Subd. 11 (A)(1) Front Yard Setback
Requirements
. 13.1 ft. off the required 30 ft. to a distance of 16.9 ft. at its closest
point to the front yard property line.
Purpose: To allow for the construction of an open front porch.
III. Other Business
IV. Adjournment
upon
a request. Examples
Braille, audiocassette, etc.
Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 22, 2009
A regular meeting of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals was held on Tuesday,
September 22, 2009 at City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair
Segelbaum called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
I. Approval of Minutes - August 25,2009
Those present were Members Kisch, Nelson, Segelbaum, Sell and
Representative McCarty. Also present were City Planner Joe Hogeboom
Assistant Lisa Wittman.
Segelbaum asked that the language in the motion for the
Lane North be clarified.
II. The Petitions are:
approve the August
MOVED by Nelson, seconded by Sell and motion
25, 2009 minutes with the above noted
Continued Item - 2500 Mend~'llpfl,~_inIINprth (09-08-14)
Marvin Frieman, Applicant .
Request: Waiver froliilcfi"t;);d~:30, Subd. 11 (6)(a) Front Yard Setback
RequirefB'nfs
. 1.:7.1 ft. df:fi1~I,irequired35 ft. to a distance of 17.9 ft. at its closest point
tronf,.rd (west) property line along TH 169.
Purpose.
fn~i~onstruction of an addition to the existing building
HogeboQ pplicant was at last month's Board of Zoning Appeals meeting
with a slllb :nlluest. He explained that the applicant's previous request was for
two varian along the Mendelssohn Ave. property line and one along the TH169
prol~rty line~ re.inded that Board that at their last meeting they asked the applicant to
reconlider his posal in order to make the proposed addition line up with the south end of
the exist" lng which could possibly include a slightly larger variance request along the
TH 169 si he property but would require no variance along the Mendelssohn side of the
property. He noted that the applicant has shifted the proposed addition to the north and no
longer requires a variance from the Mendelssohn Ave. property line therefore, staff is
supporting this variance request and feels it is reasonable and is in keeping with what that
the Board discussed at their meeting last month.
Segelbaum noted that the benefit to this revised proposal is that the addition is further away
from Mendelssohn Ave. and that it "squares off" the building on the south end.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 22, 2009
Page 2
McCarty questioned if the newly submitted survey is accurate. Kisch referred to the surveys
and plans and stated that the net leasable area seems to have grown from the previous
proposal. Sell referred to the current survey and stated that the size of the proposed addition
is actually smaller than the previous proposal. Kisch stated that there is a discrepancy
between what the plans show and what the surveys show. Hogeboom explained that the
Board should really be considering the survey more than the plans because an applicant can
end up modifying their plans within the confines of a granted variance. Sell added that plans
aren't always drawn by a licensed architect, but surveys are signed by licenseci!,re.gistered
land surveyors so it makes sense to consider a survey, not floor plans wh~~discuSSil.g
variance requests. Segelbaum said he agrees, but noted that it is imP9iant~~ call out
inconsistencies between plans and surveys as part of the decision lilking pf(J,~ss.
Kisch asked the applicant to explain the inconsistency between<I~.emlr~ffrom I~~tmonth
and this month. He asked why the first proposal shows the additi~tl to<~e 16 f~~~in width and
the current proposal shows the addition to be 18 feet in depth.
Marvin Frieman, Applicant, stated that is just the waytheafchitectdrew the plans and the
way he thought the addition would look better. He said he just.wants to fix up the property
and make it look nice.
James Smith, Representing the
addition is they would still have to stay 1
variance is granted.
n(Jlli~~fhow wide the proposed
the west property line if the
Kisch questioned if adding
He asked the applicant if he
the currently requested 1
a building really constitutes a hardship.
to building a 16-foot wide addition instead of
Nelson referred to
smaller on the new
the inconsisten in
addition.
and the new survey and stated that the addition is
on the previous survey. Kisch said he was looking at
to figure out the dimensions of the proposed
nth's meeting they discussed the taking of property along the
an t constituted a hardship in this case. She stated that she thinks the
.I}yvhat the Board suggested he do by aligning the south side of the addition
lnlling so a variance isn't needed along Mendelssohn Ave.
Segelbal ed the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no one wishing to comment,
Segelbaum osed the public hearing.
McCarty said he is concerned about the discrepancy in the size of the addition shown on the
plans and surveys. He said he was looking for the applicant to shorten the size of the
addition and for it to be further away from Mendelssohn Ave. but the same distance away
from TH169, not closer. He stated that the building might look too large from the TH169 exit
ramp.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
September 22, 2009
Page 3
Nelson noted that the difference in the variance requests from last month to this month is
approximately 5 feet. Segelbaum asked Nelson if she favors this proposal over last month's
proposal. Nelson said yes and added that having the addition line up with the south side of
the existing building looks much better.
Sell said he drove by the property and he thinks it will be difficult to even notice the proposed
addition from the TH169 exit ramp. He said he thinks the addition will look much better
"squared off" with the south side of the existing building. He added that thisill';II('y difficult
property to work with and if Golden Valley can get a decent looking office.;l~rlding it.i.U be an
improvement over what is currently there. He said he supports this reviledUrlquest.
Segelbaum asked about the amount of space between the exit raFl'1~ and J~is prC').pe~~. Sell
said there seems to be quite a bit of green space between the exit ramp and the. property
line.
Kisch said he does prefer the "squared off" front of the buiIdiAgiQut ~~estioned if a 16 foot
side addition worked on the previous proposal whyi~.pen!t~~rR'e~~~'.1 proposal. He stated
that if the width were shrunk the variance request ql~ng the ~~It property line would be
closer to the original proposal and the City would hq~e a larger~etback area.
Segelbaum said he thinks this is a reason~If}Ie reql.Jesfl'~..thisnew proposal has less of an
impact that the previous proposal. He add~~ thathe also likes that the building will be
"squared off" on the south end and favor of thlsproposal as revised.
III.
carried unanimously to approve the
35 ft. to a distance of 17.9 ft. at its closest point
169 to allow for the construction of an addition
MOVED by Sell, seconded by
variance request for 17.1 ft.
to the front yard (west)
to the existing building.
Segelbaum askealli;foge iRe property owner at 316 Meadow Lane North has appealed
the Board' centCiU ... is 0 deny her variance request. Hogeboom stated that the property
owner ha . th(!iBoard's decision but she has until October 1, 2009 to remove
the decK! I fRecision.
o boom if the City could require surveys to show curb cuts, existing
nding conditions, etc.
IV. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm.
Chuck Segelbaum, Chair
Joe Hogeboom, Staff Liaison
09-1 0-15
8830 23rd Ave. N.
Merwyn and Joyce Larson, Applicants
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
October 21, 2009
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
8830 23rd Avenue North
Merwyn and Joyce Larson, Applicants
To:
From:
Subject:
Background
Merwyn and Joyce Larson are the owners of the property located at 8830 23rd Avenue North.
Mr. and Ms. Larson are requesting a variance from the Zoning Code for the construction of an
addition to their garage. The existing west wall of the garage is settling and crumbling, and
must be replaced. The existing garage, measuring 19 feet in width, is smaller than a typical
two-stall garage. When the west exterior wall is replaced, the applicants wish to extend their
garage an additional 4 feet to the west. This proposed addition extends into the side yard
setback area.
No prior variances have been obtained for this property.
Variances
The proposal requires variances from the following sections of City Code:
. Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(3)(a) Side Yard Setback Requirements.
For this property, City Code requires a distance of 15 feet between a home/attached garage
and the west side yard property line. The applicants are requesting 3.78 feet off of the required
15 feet to a distance of 11.22 feet between the closest point of the proposed addition and the
west side yard property line.
. Section 11.21, Subd. 13(0) Pre-1982 Structure Setback Requirements
City Code requires a distance of 3 feet between an accessory structure and a side or
rear yard property line for accessory structures built prior to 1982. The applicants are
requesting 1.5 ft. off the required 3 ft. to a distance of 1.5 ft. at its closest point to the
side yard (east) property line. Granting this variance request would bring the existing
shed into conformance with Zoning Code requirements.
Recommended Action
Staff supports this proposal, and recommends approval of the variance as requested.
884S
2380
8925
231S
2360
2360
2355
2340
2320
2300
23RO Ave N
890S
'8925
o
!!!'!
S
e:
~
~
!!!'!
2:
2240
884S
8815
2225
2230
2220
8920
@
2160
21S5
2385
2365
2355
I'"
2205
2165
t6th
2315
2301
2245
Z
iLl
:>
<
:1
....
;::)
CI
<
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
For Office Use Only:
Application No.
Date Received
BZA Meeting Date
Amount Received
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
8830 23rd A V N
2. Applicant: Merwvn & JOYce Larson
Name
8830 23rd AV N
Address
Golden Valley. MN 55427
City/State/Zip
612-625-5973
Business Phone
612-306-8379
Home Phone
612-386-5104
Cell Phone
merwvnlarsoniWcomcast.net
Email Address
3. Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site
plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be
approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued.
The orooosed oroiect is a four foot addition to the lower level aaraae.Site olan/survey
Drawina is attached.
4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance
(see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs,
or other evidence, if appropriate.
Our garage wall is settling and crumbling and needs to be replaced. When we replace it, we
would like to expand the width of the garage from nineteen feet to twenty three feet which is a
more typical size for a two-car garage in our neighborhood. We are requesting a zoning variance
to allow us to extend the addition into the required setback,:.
Justification in favor of granting this variance follows:
1. The garage is currently nineteen feet wide and considered to be undersized for the parking of
two cars. Expanding the width four feet would create a more functional garage having an
interior width of twenty-three feet.
2. The garage wall is failing structurally and needs to be replaced. Installing a new wall with
proper footings, foundation and drainage and expanding the garage width four feet would
resolve the structural deficiency and at the same time create a more functional garage space.
3. The new garage expansion wall is built into the hill and therefore the low profile of the wall
and roof will have minimal impact on neighboring properties.
4. The failing support wall at the comer of the garage is only 16-inches long. Extending the wall
four feet will spread out the loads to more adequately support the structure and provide
stability to the wall system.
5. As we become older, it is increasingly more difficult to get in and out of cars in our current
nineteen-foot garage.
6. In Golden Valley, it is important to be able to store garbage containers inside the garage.
Our nineteen-foot garage does not allow storage alongside the cars. As a result, the cart
ends up being stored outside the garage a large percent of the time.
Over the last year we have invested a considerable amount of money in our house by replacing
the roof, siding, windows, kitchen and reconfiguring the floor plan. We would like to finish the
project by replacing the garage wall and extending the garage four feet to the west in order to
increase the functionality of a currently undersized garage.
~~~-~------~
at is a Hardship 1'1
he City Code and state law allow variances to helgranted when the applicant can show that the~_
have a hardship which detracts from the reasona~l~ use ofthe property. A hardship could also exis~
hen situations on the property are unique. This ~Uld mean having an irregularly shaped lot or
~aving steep slopes on the property, for example. yariances can only be granted if they are "in
keeping with the spirit and intent" of the City's zonihg laws and do not substantially change ~
~~_~acteL of Golden ValleLQr!heJ!eiSlhbQ!tJ9~.;
5. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also
understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted,
is not taken within one year, the variance expires.
P1~ ~ ' (bL,A ~
Slgnature'of Applicant tfv lL-C.
6. If the applicant is not the owner of all property involved in this application, please name the
owner of this property:
L::. I'S ~ ~
h/~ /~
~~
Variance Application Submittal:
The following information must be submitted by the application deadline to make a complete
application. If an application is incomplete, it will not be accepted:
~ Completed application form, including signatures of surrounding property owners.
_ A current or usable survey of the property must be attached. See the handout on survey
requirements.
~ A brief statement of the hardship which provide grounds for the granting of this variance (see
Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs, or
other evidence, if appropriate.
You may submit detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this
project. The site plans and drawings submitted with this application will be the basis of any
variance that may be approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is
issued.
~ Variance application fee, as follows: $125 - single family residential; $225 - other
Signatures of Surrounding Property Owners
Note to the variance applicant:
As part of the variance application process, you will need to attempt to obtain the signatures of all
surrounding property owners. This includes all properties abutting the applicant's property and directly
across the street. If on a comer, this means across both streets.
To obtain these signatures, you will need to personally visit each of these property owners, tell them
about your project (we encourage you to bring along a copy of your building plans) and have them
sign the area, below. The signature is meant only to verify that you have told them about your
project and gives them opportunity to comment.
If you have attempted to contact a property owner on two separate occasions and not found them at
home, you may simply write something to the effect "made two attempts, owner not home" and then
write their address. City staff will also send a written notice informing these property owners of the
time and place of the BZA meeting.
Note to surrounding property owners:
This is an application by your neighbor for a variance from the City Zoning Code. Please be aware of
any possible effect the granting of this variance could have on your property . You will also be
receiving a written notice informing you of the time and place of the variance meeting.
By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that
you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regarding the project.
Print Name t;v tt..- t\.J ~ eck
Comment
Signature &/iA- ~
Print Name ;to&-z.ct i1oVVYl.~
Address y?{/ti" Z,8Il!k_n~
Address d-1o~ L~ vtGc &J?A.J
5c1vlE~
Addres~ ctfJ PeCt1 T//~ /1/
Comment ~~ ~
Signature ~-
Print Name G:r- ~ t\-e.SS
Comment ~
Signature ~ ~~
Address c:J) J5" 6 >/e \ \ t\.ve.
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
~\ I
~ 1" iI"'II t
/' ~
., ,-
..j,
I &, " #' .",......" '.' ,..I
~7 ,~ ',-if
"'------- I'" · {
*.
.',~ -~,''''~.'"
~:f'."
,~
;fI,~. ,,-~_,_~
.~'~
-'\'''',.~
'~Uj* '" ~_,,"'~.~__
'If
l'" ~ ',,"
~'"
.,
), . \'
I /. 1, il"'J: .
r ",.t.,..." '''; . ·
Jt~~"- i~ :'qf~~,;<t"I"" '
_ ~ t .......
I t ;'~ ,./. -'h~'~r.
f t ~ f
~ ~ , ,if;
,l
t~
..t I
f Ii,
l"
h.
",~y
l
"
4
J
..,r/
J jJl
..--t
)\( I
L
t'
I"""
Established in 1962
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
LAND SURVEYORS
REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA
INVOICE NO.
F.B.NO.
SCALE: 1" =
78285
1046-47
20'
Basis of bearings is assumed.
Property located in Section
30, Township 118, Range 21,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Benchmark: Top Nut of Hydrant located at NW quadrant of
DeCatur Ave. and Medley Lane.
Elevation = 927.17 N.G.V.D. 1929 adj.
/__--!..__---- Denotes eXIstmg contour
. Denotes Found Iron Monument
o Denotes Iron Monument
o Denotes Wood Hub Set for
excavation only
xOOO.O Denotes Existing Elevation
~. V Denotes Proposed Elevation
..". Denotes Surface Drainage
NOTE: . Proposed grades are SUbject to results of soil tests.
Proposed building information must be checked with
approved building plan and development or grading
plan before excavation and construction.
Proposed grades shown on this survey are
interpolations of proposed contours from the
drainage. grading and/or development plans.
NOTE: The relationship between proposed floor
elevations to be verified by builder.
7601 73rd Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428
(763) 560-3093
Fax No. (763)560-3522
~url)-rynrs
QJ-rrtifirat-r
MERWYN LARSON
Property Address: 8830 23rd Avenue No.
Property is in Zone "X" per FEMA map nUinber 27053C0194E,
dated September 2, 2004.
proposed Top of Block
Proposed Garage Floor
Proposed Lowest Floor
Type of Building
Cham Lmk Fence
Overhead Wires
100.00 plat
100 19
. measured
""='W~~
I over~,;;;rt=,x~lt_ --
- - -t _ _ 'res',,--w=xw=:::
\ ---------~<.:i> '0
~ ~-----~e
~ .,,--
" " :?hed
x "
934.2 " \
" x \
"" 933.4 \
",- \
"
\
\
\
/
,/
fence south 'Of /me 2.0
Fence Carner 1.2' East 'Of Lme
----
- ---
//~
:tj.,ght
\
\
933.8 \
x \
\
933.7 \
/ /4.0 \ /4P
\/ \
J-; \
~ \
to I
- I
I
I
I
e;;l~:
(J.3'
capt 'Of
, /Lme
J~ ~\ /
. \. FtreplacJ 0
/ r 0
/1;as Metfr 8
/ ~~one Wall / / Z
'- \ \ f)"J
~V~hang ~ave / oJ?>
\ \ //
\ \ / /
\ \ ~ 0'!J\
\ \ /~ /
\ \ / /
\ XV /
/ ~o
\__:.~~ // /0
0~0
/ I
-.-----' J.-----
-928 1927.5
Wood Fence
~
\\
\ \ ~\/ Overhead W1~5
/ \
29':,\
~
~
~
~
\
\.
\
. 983 - ---
E:
~
-\..>
929.5
II:)
---
tc
929.f39
83033'3" x 929.5
....----__ 9 E 10G-r7
-- -- - - roo '0 measured___ - -
. 5? _Bat- - ---
---
./
./
./
./
_ _ 921 - - -
_.-
'" tc pc
~" 928.23
o.!..~
~\.
~~
~~~ 23rd
~'\,.
"'~
'\,.
'\,.
'\,.
\~.
~
'"
_ _ 926
tc
925.70
Avenue
North
Lot 7, Block 4, MEDLEY.HILLS
Hennepin C;:ounty, Minnesota
The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client.
We hereby certify that this is a true and eorreet repreaentation of a survey of the
boundaries of the above described land and the location of all buildings and visible
encroachments, if any, from or on said land.
Surveyed by us this 14th day of October 2009.
Rev
Drawn By
5. J1U//11.).<M'J.,
~:Z!.n~~992
Signed
File Name
mh-7 -4fb1 04647inv78285.dwg
09-1 0-16
2450 Kewanee Way
AI Helgemo, Applicant
Hey
Planning
763-593-8095 I 763-593-8109 (fax)
Date:
October 21, 2009
From:
Golden Valley Board of Zoning Appeals
Joe Hogeboom, City Planner
2450 Kewanee Way
Alan Helgamo, Applicant
To:
Subject:
Background
Alan Helgamo is the owner of the property located at 2450 Kewanee Way. Mr. Helgamo is
requesting a variance from the Zoning Code for the construction of an open front porch.
In 1959, lots fronting Kewanee Way, including the applicant's home, were given waivers to
construct their homes to a distance of 25 feet to the street right-of-way line due to the
topography. Mr. Helgamo has proposed to build an open front porch to a distance of 16.9 feet
to the street right of way line. Mr. Helgamo states that his current stoop is not fully-functional,
and his proposal will allow for the full use of the front entryway space.
No additional variances have been obtained for this property.
Variances
The proposal requires a variance from the following section of City Code:
. Section 11.21, Subd. 11(A)(1) Front Yard Setback Requirements.
City Code requires a distance of 30 feet between an open front porch and the front yard
property line. The applicant is requesting 13.1 feet off of the required 30 feet to a distance of
16.9 feet between the closest point of the proposed front porch and front yard property line.
Recommended Action
Staff supports this proposal and requests its approval as requested.
.0.,.. . c::
~~
~~
<6>(
t-o
2360
City of Golden Valley
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)
Zoning Code Variance Application
1. Street address of property involved in this application:
2 lf~o \< ev...J C{ f'\. e ~ W C\. 'f
2. Applicant: A I fI.efj€ mo
Name
? i..( ~D
Address
'7b"3 ,. ~>~ ~~"t73 0
Business Phone
/::L-w ~ nee
WQ1
0~ldc.... Va.tI~1 MIJ
City/State/Zip
("\ I ~
Cell Phone
5~'f2"L.
'11::> 3 . S L"L ~ zs-o"=>
Home Phone
o..l _ h. e lj ~fV\. 0. Q (r'. e.'-{ e r-s & C 0 ~1'"\
Email Address
3. Detailed description of building(s), addition(s), and alteration(s) involved in this petition. The site
plans and drawings submitted with this petition will be the basis of any variance that may be
approved and cannot be changed before or after the building permit is issued.
T1~C< ~abl"C.. fdo+(j\fe,--r;o,,+ e,.,+~t-GL
~ r b dt-~e"....c fl'd1 ec+ ~
4. A brief statement of the hardship which provides legal grounds for the granting of this variance
(see Frequently Asked Questions for an explanation of a "hardship"). Attach letter, photographs,
or other evidence, if appropriate.
7ie d~ c" ~""-5 ff,;.". $" (#/;/ rcsv1+ ,.... e\ ---Pv/1 -,t':,V1c.-!io....J
ov~red S-/cd ~ ra- \'Cc-I- /,A.hl! -e ~cf-411 ae.sf/e.f~'c41t./
f.P~ a t,~.fo -h< e e d;re /I e J/../'>c r /. 00 J ('.p (/&Ir; Mce J (l-udcc(
5. To the best of my knowledge the statements found in this application are true and correct. I also
understand that unless construction of the action applicable to this variance request, if granted,
is not taken within one year, the variance expires.
a14e~
Signature of Applican --
~
.. By signing this form, you are only verifying that you have been told about the project, not that
you necessarily agree or object to the project. If you wish, you may comment on the project.
Comments can contain language of agreeing with the project, objecting to the project or other
statements regarding the project.
Marc~ Shtt~tVO
r ~'/lt
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
It~t
Address
Address
Address
Print Name D e ~b~ <.. ) e.~ ~ e,,, 57..."2... ~ b~~ b
Comment ;tit ~ rc'-( ~)...oc. f ," r c 5 Z.2 - <:i s;- 109
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Print Name
Comment
Signature
Address
Address
Address
Address
~t>ecf:
~
'88'
REGULAR MEETING OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 1959.
Laurel Avenue - A strip of land 300 ft. in depth, North of and adjacent to
Laurel Avenue from the East line of Church of Good Shepherd to M.N.&.S R!!.,:.
A joint meeting was held with the Village Engineer, President Pennock~ the
Long Range Committee and the Zoning Committee to consider the rezoning of property
described above.
This matter was referred to the Planning Commission by the Council on June 23,
1959. A summar.y of the conclusions arrived at by this group is respectfully
submitted to the Commission as follows:
1. The matter, of rezoning North of Laurel Avenue requires more study than can
be given it prior to the Planning Commission meeting of July 16.
2. The group reconrnends employing a planning consultant to make a detailed study
of the property North of Laurel Avenue and surrounding neighborhood and to
prepare a coordinated street and zoning guide plan for this area. CarloL.
Gardner & Associates probably should be the consultant employed in view of
their recent stu~ of the Village. The consultant should work under the
direction of the Long Range Committee. Mr. Jim Hawks of Carl L. Gardner &
Associates is the recommended consultant for this project at an approximate
cost of $150.00 to $250.00 with completion qy August 13, if Council deems
advisable.
3. With due respect to the wishes of the Council, it is suggested that the
Public Hearing be held on July 21st as scheduled. The information gained
from the hearing will most likely be helpful in arriving at a satisfactory
solution. Should the Council consider it desirable, the hearing could be
continued pending results of the above proposed study.
Motion by Brown, seconded by Hetman that the Planning Commission accept the
Committee report and refer the recommendations to the Council for their consider-
ation at this time. Motion carried.
*!Cewanee Way - Clarence Scherer.
Request is for waiver to 25 ft. setback on all lots fronting Kewanee Way. Due to
the topography, the committee recommends approval. Motion by Brown, seconded by
Raugland that the Planning Comission accept the committee report and recommend
to the Council approval of the request for waiver. Motion carried.
WAIVER OF ORmNANCE
William C. Richter - 2200 Orchard Avenue
Request is for a 4 foot side lot waiver to enable petitioner to build a 10 ft.
addition onto the present garage to within 11 ft. of lot line. The Committee
~eels no hardship exists and recommends denial. Mr. Richter was present and
stated that in his opinion the property would be improved and also that his
neighbor was granted a permit for the same situation last year. Motion by Loughland
seconded by Bedwell that the Planning Commission accept the committee report and
recommend to the Council denial of the request for waiver. Motion canted.
\
\
\ ,
\
\1
"
-'-
\J'.
o
'^-
'"
~
,..
~
11\
"
~
~
~ ~ f;--.' .
\ .. "
I,
~ ~~
; \)>, ~
\ ~,~~
\
\
\
\
1"
\
\
,\ ~
" If ~
~\ '\ '"
, ~
'" ,~
0.\ '- ':::;.
\~~
\
\
j!fro 7( VUtl/1lffi Ufc~
-
- "1
\
\
-
-
-
-::
-
-
~"
'1'..'
o OC:lV'o TeS Z1ZoI</ MONUN1€.A/T
.... __ /53 ./4 -
. I
','
\
\
~
~
~
\
\
LOT.;7 /l-l/L/ T,;'E sov/?"cAs7eR~ y ft ,:/,,&
Lq T 8 -4..5 /,,?~,4.:st;/,e6F'o /'9~ON'ti7 r",y.:-
/VORT,yEAS7EA?~ y "pA/P ..sOQT~J1/E.sTcR~Y
L/A/E5 Tj"EREOrJ ,4~L //V Bc.oc"e- 5,
Oc~P~//9A./ //~/t?1TTS 7Y/RP !/AJ/7;
OEcT/OA./ /-0 /CJ~/V5'7'/P .?y/ R-4A/r;e:- "z?>
*A/A/c:/'/A/ COU,;{/T;r;n/A//vESoTA
'\,'
"
---
,
'."
----
----
"\ - -
.'. \1\
~
<-- ':.:
'\::l "
~ ~
''I <-.
i:; ~\
~
r--~
.
I',
,~)
'....'
f,f5 6ft (Jvf'#) -
_ -- / /.15. /5 ('pLA-r)
I #ERE.8r cc:e7/,,&/ T~AT r~/5 /5 A rRt/e- ./l"uLJ CORRECT
.eEP/2€'sc.AJTA 7/"/1/ CJ"c /'9 "SQRt/€y o"c 7"..A/E 80VA/LJAR/c.s
o,c rn/E LA"uO OE"5CR/.eE,o A8CJVC:J A'ND -ruc5 ~aCA7/0Al
. . ,
<::::) F L\ L L /r?PRCJt/€/'7EA/7S cPR EA./C4?CJAC..y/"'7eA/r.s,
/"c A/vY: 4.5 St:/A?t/G"/cO gy /'-?e- r,y/5 STP'
PAY- o"c J u AlE /.:;' 7Z
~y;e~-I4?&~
~A/AI'ESO 7A RE~/57/2/7 7/0/1/ /YO. 2.::11."
-
t
\
5J:7"' ~AtlL-S IN~I v6D
S-v L.)'" / 0; 19!)? - rr> c
REVISIONS
CHECKED BY
DESIGNED BY
CER T/ F / C A TE o/' SVRVeY
p,e
R/C.f/ARO OEr7PScY
:~gr45; I OATE.5'_ 7-.72 I SHEET '/ OF / SHEETSI FILENO. 8?..3..C..../
SCALE
,.. ,
HORIZ, I :20
VERT.
ENGINEERING - GEOTECHNICS - LAND SURVEYING
P,O, BOX OSSEO MINN,
DRAWN BY
t? L5 .f):#/-
I
I
L-_
I ~
..
~-
F
-
"
I
1'1
I'll
Itlf
.Ll
I
L_
l_
------ -
z
~
~
e~.5~
.0
'"
.z
~~.
~... ;;
-~~
:>..
OJ
~
C
OJ
""'0
o
\..9
OJ
U
C
OJ
""'0
Vl
OJ
lo...
o
E
OJ
Q)
OJ
I
>-
L.1.J
~
c::r:
o
.....J
o
U
o
.-
I
o
o:;t
I
"""'\
Ii
Ii
~~!~~