VN 88-07 CITY OF HOPKINS
�
APPLICATION FOR: AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE DATE: � �} �
CONCEPT REVIEW
CONDITIONAL USE PERhtIT CASE N0: 1�� ': � `� Y - %
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -, ��e
VARIANCE � FEE: -`J�� �
WAIVER OF PLATTING REQUIREMENTS
DATE PAID: ��- .�' -�'.��
—
1. Stree t Loca ti on of Property: � � `� �T N �- �' � :l,1� �� �1 N
2. Legal Description of Property: 1v��TH �D �%E� �^� tDT t�7 l.�sNn ,F}�-LOi- LdT (b,
L�C�f T�� ��uT1-f t� G�,G'v' Tr��G �.U��! R'� CJr.�'I�''rl,�/�l:P.�:� i���G��:?ii�1/iS�>,:
v�c:;,����J �. C��� � Addressa►-: '�'�t✓E it1. Phone �'�-='��7.:��
3. Owner: Name��-(Z.,Yf�, -
4. Appl icant's Name: �A�"�Y �. �lh�1c�s S Address��7 57��f/�. /U. Phone g 3��``1' ;'
5. Description of Request:� ��Q��,s,- �. s/��,�.�c� r/��rr z,����,�� oR'%„���^�c,� �F,Q�a���-u.,
� — L ,t�.�, '' 2 e'l , s , � £2 9g? ���4+cfi
;� rnc�T 5''T�`,+�ck- «.yn� +� f�1�FEt'�r`d � � �'z
oning District Use
. Present Proposed 7. Present Proposed
� �. 1-f�
8. Reason for Request: Fl+a�✓5 :��r,� n�� +-�� �- �'L +�z-'Z� �,��?�'E W'T*' �/�E'��' r�,Nb wfj��-
J,�J �9U G S�7aJ�-r++fs Z fesT SEtB,f'�-� P,:R 4'���r/�+-•ur�. �.�t.G r.7A�5c�R-Er�D/�l S�Pf8"�-ORLin1A,r/e�%�5
NOTE: If request is for variance, please also complete attached page.G��-�� oL'�-�- ����_'-/��
9. What error, if any, in the existing Ordinance would be corrected by the proposed amendment?
(for Zoning Ordinance amendment only)
10. Exhibits submitted:
Map or plat showing the lands proposed to be changed
Other SNI�� Y''�--P��I1"e �'/�'�/���' s';r� P�r�►v o�P��sGn s'i�'l�cTcci''cE. �W07O612A-F�1H S .
11. Acknowledgement and Signature: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties
of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Hopkins to take the action herein requested,
that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in ac-
cordance with the Ordinances of the City of Hopkins and the laws of the State of Minnesota.
C_ �
Signature of Applicant:
� � ,�
Signature of Owner: � �. , � -e��� �
�
�
RECORD OF ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Application for: Variance Case No: VN88-7
On the 26 day of �u� 19 88 , the action requested in the foregoing
petition was approved X disapprove�-) subject to the following conditions :
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approved �_ Denied by the Council this 2 day of August 19 88•
Resolution No: R�8-66
—��
Special Conditions:
.ri-- �
James D. rrigan
Planni g & Economic velopment Director
If �you have any further questions as relates to this matter, please call
Nancy Anderson, 935-8474, extension 146.
. --�
\
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
�
RESOLUTION NO: 88-66
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 88-7
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled VN88-7
has been made by Larry and Sharon Smoots, 215 - 6th Avenue North,
to construct a garaqe at less than the minimum sideyard setback
is approved.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is
as follows:
l. That an application for Variance VN88-7 was filed
with the City of Hopkins .on July -8, 1988 . �
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on July 26, 1988.
3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notices, held a public hearing on July 26,
1988 ; all persons present at the hearing were given
an opportunity to be heard.
4. That the written comments and analysis of the City
staff and the Planning Commission were considered.
�
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hopkins City
Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to VN88-
7:
1. That the applicant has been made the victim of a
hardship by the unique circumstance in that he
contacted the City when a variance was not needed.
2 . That the plans conformed to the then existing
setback requirements.
3. That he took steps to begin the project.
4. Delay was consistent with good building practice for
this part of the country.
5. Was not specifically informed of the change in the
ordinance.
6. Change in ordinance took place without his actual
knowledge of such change.
7. The re-structure of the underlaying foundation of
the retaining wall to conform to the new ordinance
would amount to substantial hardship.
8. Re-structure would not be consistent with the use of
property in the neighborhood.
9. Proposal suited to the property.
10. Neighbors do not object to the proposal.
Adopted this 2nd day of August, 1988.
�
Donald J. Milbert, Mayor
G
� U
� ���
� 5
o �
n K �
July 27, 1988 Council Report: 88-155
VARIANCE REQUEST
215 - 6th Avenue North
Prot�osed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: That the recruest for a one foot
sidevard variance is denied bv Resolution No• 88 66
Denial of the variance will not allow the applicant to construct the garage
as proposed.
The Commission unanimously approved. the 1 foot sideyard variance with
Findings of Fact. Approval of the variarrce will allow the applicant to
construct the garage as proposed.
Overview.
The applicants constructed a retaining wall last summer in their rear yard
with the idea that a 22 'x 22 ' garage would be constructed with a 2 foot
sideyard setback which was the required sideyard setback at the time. Fill
was brought in to make the yard level with the alley. The applicants were
concerned about the filled area settling and therefore decided not to
`, construct the garage until the summer of 1988. Last winter the sideyard
setback for detached buildings was changed from 2 feet to 3 feet.
Mr. Smoots, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. He stated that
;the retaining wall was constructed last summer with the intention of
construction a garage with a 2 foot setback. He did not construct the
garage last summer because he wanted the fill to settle on the garage site.
In January the Zoning Ordinance was changed requiring a 3 foot setback.
The Commission asked the applicant the difficulty in moving the stairs. He
stated that much of the retaining wall would have to be redone.
It was noted that the applicant did not receive notice that the ordinance
was going to be changed. The new ordinance was published in the paper as
,per state statute. -
The Commission was concerned about setting a predicent in this case, but
felt that the applicants situation was unique_ and that granting a variance
was proper.
�Fssues to Consider. �
o Does the previous setback apply in this situation?
o Does the subject parcel have a hardship?
Supt�ortinq Documents
o Detailed Background o Site Plan
� o Location Map _ o Resolution � �
�at�c► s� �md . .
Nancy �,l Anderson
Community Development Analyst
��
CR: 88-155
Page 2
Detailed Background.
The subject lot is 65 'x 134 ' . The proposed 22 'x 22 ' garage is to be placed
on the southeast corner of the lot.
The retaining wall as constructed allows a 2 foot sideyard setback to the
south. This setback cannot be increased with the garage as proposed
because steps have been constructed abutting the service door of the
garage. If the garage was moved further north, the garage would be
constructed on these steps. � - -
The ordinance was changed because the building code requires a 3 foot
setback. In the past there were problems with residents inquiring about
setbacks and getting different answers, one for zoning and another for
building code. It was decided to make the building code and the zoning
setback the same. The building code does allow a lesser setback if a fire
wall is constructed.
`- A building permit is valid for 180 days. If construction is not started
within this time period another permit must be obtained.
Analvsis.
- Does the previous setback apply to this situation?
The ordinance was changed from 2 feet to 3 feet, but the applicants possess
no vested interest in the old ordinance because of what they were planning
on doing. If a building permit was obtained before the ordinance was
changed and construction started within 180 days, the old ordinance would
have applied.
- Does the subject parcel have a hardship?
The applicants constructed a retaining wall and filled an area with the
intention that a 22 'x 22 ' garage with a 2 foot sideyard setback would be
constructed. The applicants are claiming that since the retaining wall is
already built, and to conform with the 3 foot setback, it would take
rebuilding of the retaining wall.
The Ordinance requires that the property must have an undue hardship. The
state statute states "undue hardship as used in connection with the
granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls,
'-- the plight the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not
created by the landowner, and the variance,
��
CR:88-155
Page 3
if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. "
The situation that the applicants are in was created by them. The
applicants have a 65 foot wide lot, which would allow a larger garage with
proper setback than what is proposed. There is nothing unique or special
to this lot that would allow granting of the variance.
The only reason the applicants have requested this variance is because it
would be expensive moving the stairs. Economic considerations alone cannot
constitute an undue hardship. The applicants do have the option of
constructing a 22 'x 21' garage without moving the stairs.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance as requested. By granting the variance
,�„_ the applicant will be able to construct the garage as
proposed. _If the variance is approved the Commission will
have to make findings of fact to support their decision.
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance the applicant will
either have to move the stairs or reduce the size of the
garage.
3 . Continue for further information. If the Commission feels
that additional information is needed, the item should be
continued.
,!
4 I �/ I 4� � 308
� � 4// I p 2�'
O . . 4 A�/S 3' �- c5-»_ _
(� c7� � � 4�? c�e� �
a \ I(24) (30) v� `�
'�
� � O 7 �
h �3U �
(s) � v ; (25) ��
� . 6_ �
� -- - -- (29) �
W `8, � �(26)3 R\ M �
�J hh .
� � — — — . M
r� 5 ti v � ��) (33)
— � 7/5 (9) � � � ��4 (28) p�. � � 2
V � . - �� .
, `I) � M ' I(66) (74) J P� (54) � �
. (2) , ^� I(8� �
a. � 2(67) � "
� k'� (75) 2 '�
� 2(83J (55) 2 ��
� �4) (i51) h ,� 3(68)
�
6(132) � /�`s - � � � 4(69) (76)3 ,� Q � 3(84) .�56)1 �
—N ��s,J N � � �o
5 (l3U U18) 2_►.� O 4 � •� "�. ' ^ - �77)4 � ` i 4(85) �
� yl o, 5(70) � � (57) 2
4U30) (u9) 3 ". (5) a
,� �j (7)N 6(71)
302J1 (120)4 �o ►n O � (78)5 ,N � �•5(86) ��
'� (� 3�'Y! . ���1 � so.v r ` +i
?(1283 (12I) 5 ,�o � � 9U4,� 2 (t34� (8)�o, v � 7(7;� (T9)6 r� o�. 6 f87j (58)3 �� �
rn 'I�6 � �rt 4U. o �� � , I� ►o '�.
���` ^ S"� : (13�73 � O 5048 � 8(73) (80)7 � `V ►0 0 ,.��
l�' �123)7 � v o. M � 7(88) � (59)4 �
, 7U (13�4 � � 4(147� � � '� �
�125) (124)8 0 :Q. �9� (138)5 0 ��- - a ' � (81) 8._ o � � `h .
M 3�4� 2 0 ��/� r,� (n p 8(89) f,� M
� - � � �.J '"J � (6015� (''��J.
� � � 9�90) � �/ •
n4) (53)1 N . 24i52 (31) I a' � 24�30) �9) � �r p------� .
(73) �.2 ' � , ,� o, 2 � 17 C (6Q 6 N � 5
�23(5t) C3�`2 `r 23(29� QO) 2 a - -� - - - �
7'-) . (54)3- � • _ ,22(5iS i33T 3 '►� � 3
� k' (65)
� � 22c2 nn3 � j� _ ; �6
�� css�4 `� . _
� 21(49 . Gi4)4- ►;� Q M 21�27) (12) 4 ,,,� ��� — (Z� - -
`' , M 4 . ��
70) (56)5 b� 20(4 GiS� 5. ►�n �. 20� 03) 5 � \�+ N _I5�
69) (57)6 ' � ')"
� � 19(4 6 �0 19(25) �14) g �, Q c��y 5 �9) 14 �
i8) (58)7 � _ __
(59)8 •� �� t8(46) � _.: N ,. _18�4� �15) 7 � N. 6 IIO) 13 (8) .
_ t 17(45 U6) e �
_ � ^ �� _ � l
,7) (60)9 � A � 16(44 9 a � (!� g a � N 7(II) 12 (I)
o '� N '^
S) (61)10 N �,�,. IS(43� (39)�10 '� 15�� �
N . 08) 10 � v, � g 02) (15� I I .
�) (62)I I N o 14 t -.- � � ��� (19� I I o
�� _
F) (63)12 N � 6PI 13(41) ` .�-�SO7 «� 13 �20) 12 � 9 U3f U4� 10 .
� Y
- -•-.�.... _ ._A/� , � 30/
: -► 1��r �•��"'�.-: . . . {
. 'c, �: .. — _ .�:
� . 7a
I .
� �3 . � , -
. . . . � 14
. . - .
,: . . -
�- FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
NOTE: The purpose of a variance is to provide relief to a property owner when
the strict enforecment of the Zoning Ordinance wo�ld cause an undue hard-
ship to the property owner or deny reasonable use of the property.
Hardshi� to the applicant is the crucial test. Variances will be granted
only in unusual situations which were not foreseen when the Zoning Ordin-
ance was adopted. Economic situations are seldom unique and are rarely
considered a valid hardship.
Hardship A.
Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause �ndue
hardship:
���/6N���1J�•oD h'v(I�D�IdFs 4-�/hCpkL�,r,'G- Cuk ,�c�� 7�T1�c� PGQu�P..iEMF�':S
i t� ff�((o I 4 fYl rt�JZ /� P lE i A�►./ rt,'[ l�!.i c-(. �.�t:'� �7 i i A C H t--�7 �i l}/�R b�
"�1f�V �t�0 tni�C�n�(2.E �7 t)i�30��`7" PE2in�T RcCu�d�./i'�,E.v i� ��� 10.f'T�CF+/�7SttE,Gr�
�
Conditions B. -
What are the special conditions (shape of lot, exceptional topographic
conditions, etc.) of this request that are unique to this property and
do not apply generally to other properties in the district?
�
��Nr��1��<<► �_.��-� (c,,-� '� 3 r�•o-� i71ZC �J r���►;,�, ,� « .— Y
�/�ILCE Tl�FC' (�')li .i'.^��i r-/ CO�L�t'� �` C � �T k � 4�1��L�
f�-�/'�r n n� pPirr� �� ,d tc �r �:� ,v�w,4�( l��Ci�`.vi��r� �iao 'r��
List of Homeowners
Contacted by Applicant C.
Submit a list of names and addresses of neigh6ors contacted.
��- � t'l�l)Z L+�IL. S �/L' -R�- � 67N /� �'�- h- • F-k�F'Kr.�s
f�i/��y= ���iCi-/ .:ZcS � �f/ �`�k /�. . t��/�%�/K" �
�7Qrv �v► 1 < <°t�r--� �o�o �'TN �-l�� . .:� . .�lO r'•���� �'
�
�. .y W Fi s ':Jo 2�� ,�,�7 �la�T Tt-�� �.�a-2� � R r+�o�.ti-r m r �i �c.
� �EEo�n �o (���,u� Tj-f� YAR1� L� v�� �� ,-1-r -rf-�� fj��,�v
+v D�,�. �p S �TT�E A N D Cf?�l S w P��!3 c.� r+�t 5 W , i�� T/-� rr.
�e/c(�r� >�. !.)� D�C, i7t� n ;e C�N s�,2�-t �r -r/�-E !��-Tiq .nJ,I�/�
W�c} G c N�V o f� �c -T� � S + --,� f� �c o•a�.v w � ,— To S F rr�2
�
Bt)� 2 Thl,E 4J�R.1 i 7��`L s4 JvD G�N S T2�c �-r TH f G/?/L,¢Co z
1 v} T F-�l� S t,r, ,�.� ��r2 D :- �5 i��. N n r^,Er2 � , ,- rJ,?3 !�F�c,� �/�.T r�
Y�dlL "T�� /� 2,�"fi4�.,J.,,J�. �J�1 �� 5, r✓� /��2r�, rT ,Jg 5 /�L, ���p
'
��� T� � �,q►2 R �r �
I ni S �..i.� s r � 9 t'�'k -ri-�� t3:.�� �,�r r� �1 r'� �� �►� ;=o rz
,
'Tff.E P,E✓z,�►�. +-r G nJ a w,? s -�o�,7 -;�� �S ��T�.a c�� rizr�rK
�{�-� �,�'aP�sQTY' C..Jiv� ,uDn �3��r�J � NAnJ��r� �� 3i,��i
5 r �u t�� Tl-t►c /2�Ti4 �•�.1�.,;� t�J r�c c. t-,1 ra s ����r¢!7 Y h,��r�
�` t5u � �-r �,v.►r-�� /�A�s i s ,:�j A �-� � x 2� � �!�/�A� r c.s � �-+
� � OmT S �T/B f}C 1� �T �.:Gr ot L r7 Tf�rt,� I�X TrZit/S/v�
(Z,E w c 2 � G� r= T�f� 12���Fr��!i} �/C� w fa- L c� iE sQcc�r� L� }�
RT T4,E �n z,a �jF TH�i S�T,µ, P_s To �O R�.�1 T�.�
�+r%��I T 1<9 iv fz � I f 9mT,
��
/r-- ------ — —-- -. . -- .
///
�' � Neighborhood Building � Remodeling
933-7673
� �(�G'j�-�'1
�� DATE � �'C�� `�� )` -�
NAME_ L �1��Y S I�(1(jC� `
ADDRESS�I� IO' A�E �I��T�--�
CITY_�l L`�,P K �N � �� 1/�� . PHONEC���(���— 1 `L4�"�
�
. N,I �� � � . � - � � . .
. � � � -._ . . , . ' ' _
� �
� . Y� g ---- ; � 2"1�C��� __ ----------_ --- -- ��(1
—T_—__ — �� \
_ ,8�� • � 1O�4�� �- o., �
� 2-14"M�cCoS �^f�--�-- ---�-�--
{ I — -- ... . N EAD ER � � I �
I .. — — -- • -----� - --�---' �
` � � l��x�� D.i-+. D. �
' � 2xS��-rG�L SE4_.i��E �oo� I
�. . ; I
� �
�� J � . . . . I I
� I �l I
1 �
J � I ; �-�
� I � ; �;
. , :,
- � r ' �
. i � � ,.
�. � , � , ,,
�;� ;a i o
� -� „ � �
w c� � ZZ /,�us5£S Z`� C7-�.�. �� \
� � ` � ' _�.
. � �",
� 1n �11
o I I `L- ��
o ' � , � `�
� 1-0 , �
! 1
� , �
, .
. ,
y r __'—._'_"._"_ —_'... .. ... . . --� ��:
_L
t `C1� I
�--�-� � --_ .-._..--�-j_ ....-_--- •- .__..._.
-- -- --.-•.--.. I
��
'� NO VERBAI AGREEMENTS RECOGNIZf.O
� � �l ,.-7 T� • r -
��^� � �� \_. `-- -
/ . ~,.
By 7urchaser - �
Pv -
- Co�Purchaser
� 1 �
{�L.-r� �-'��--� �,� ,��� „�-�, ��!�
. . , � �ti � �'� �
� : ��
. _ . _ , ,
�
.� . .
:
�;i.� �✓,C 1 y�
— — � S~.
� — —
- �_ _ �a o .
� � � �� �
� ��
Q r
10 , Q-
� ' - �
; " ��
�_o '� (/� ; ; -
� � N
� �, � � No ��hQ ` �.io-
�� � �' a i - .�� 01 7;G
,
� � � . � � �:> � �
� � C � � \ ;
� � �' � -�'�-'-�.- . . ,. . __ . , .. .
�' �� �� � � � ,. �"�S �_
� ;� � � ~" � � .�. � . : :: - —�- -
� �
_ , , .
� � - . - - ----- �
� � � , � u, _. . . a . . ---- �
� � �� . � �,, : - � �
. � .
��� � � Q � � ' - io
� . ���� �� � °� � ; a
� �..
`� � �; � ' . .�'
C � s � . . �
� � �� U � GN� � �
�� y � o
4 � �' � � �
, , •�.�.` 1" N �
� �
. � � ` � - 1Z
— '"�3 S� �-' 3� ` _ �
� �.CL� .
�
�
. �
� �
. � U
G
���
�-- ti Z
O c�
� K �
July 13 , 1988 Planning Report: VN88-7
VARIANCE REQUEST
215 - 6th Avenue North
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: That the rectuest for a one foot
sidevard variance is denied by Resolution No• 88-66
Denial of this variance will not allow the applicant to construct the
garage as proposed.
Overview.
The applicants constructed a retaining wall last summer in their rear
yard with the idea that a 22 'x 22 ' garage would be constructed with a
2 foot sideyard setback which was the required sideyard setback at the
time. Fill was brought in to make the yard level with the alley. The
applicants were concerned about the filled area settling and therefore
decided not to construct the garage until the summer of 1988. Last
winter the sideyard setback for detached buildings was changed from 2
`..- feet to 3 feet.
Issues to Consider.
o Does the previous setback apply in this situation?
o Does the subject parcel have a hardship?
Supporting Documents
o Detailed Background
o Location Map
o Site Plan
o Resolution
Nancy S. Anderson
Communi Development
_ Analyst -
� ' �
�
VN88-7
Page 2
Detailed Backqround.
The subject lot is 65 'x 134 ' . The proposed 22 'x 22 ' garage is to be
placed on the southeast corner of the lot.
The retaining wall as constructed allows a 2 foot sideyard setback to
the south. This setback cannot be increased with the garage as
proposed because steps have been constructed abutting the service door
of the garage. If the garage was moved further north, the garage
would be constructed on these steps..
The ordinance was changed because the building code requires a 3 foot
setback. In the past there were problems with residents inquiring
about setbacks and getting different answers, one for zoning and
another for building code. It was decided to make the building code
and the zoning setback the same. The building code does allow a
lesser setback if a fire wall is constructed.
A building permit is valid for 180 days. If construction is not
� started within this time period another permit must be obtained.
Analysis.
- Does the previous setback apply to this situation?
The ordinance was changed from 2 feet to 3 feet, but the applicants
possess no vested interest in the old ordinance because of what they
were planning on doing. If a building permit was obtained before the
ordinance was changed and construction started within 180 days, the
old ordinance would have applied.
- Does the subject parcel have a hardship?
The applicants constructed a retaining wall and filled an area with
the intention that a 22 'x 22 ' garage with a 2 foot sideyard setback
would be constructed. The applicants are claiming that since the
retaining wall is already built, and to conform with the 3 foot
setback, it would take rebuilding of the retaining wall.
The Ordinance requires that the property must have an undue hardship.
The state statute states "undue hardship as used in connection with
the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be
put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the
official controls, the plight the landowner is due to circumstances
� unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance,
��
VN88-7
Page 2
if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship
if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the
ordinance. "
The situation that the applicants are in was created by them. The
applicants have a 65 foot wide lot, which would allow a larger garage
with proper setback than what is proposed. There is nothing unique or
special to this lot that would allow granting of the variance.
The only reason the applicants have requested this variance is because
it would be expensive moving the stairs. Economic considerations
alone cannot constitute an undue hardship. The applicants do have the
option of constructing a 22 'x 21' garage without moving the stairs.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance as requested. By granting the
`...
variance the applicant will be able to construct the
.garage as proposed. If the variance is approved the
Commission will have to make findings of fact to support
their decision.
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance the applicant
will either have to move the stairs or reduce the size of
the garage.
' 3. Continue for further information. If the Commission
feels that additional information is needed, the item
should be continued.
�
��
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
NOTICE OF HEARING
mhe �or.ing and P1a.niag C��r�ssia:� af �he City oi
Hopkins will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 26, 1988
at 7: 30 p.m. , in the Council Chambers of the City Hall to
consider an application by Larry & Sharon Smoots for a one
foot sideyard variance to construct a 22 'x 22 ' garage at 215
Sixth Avenue North.
If you have any interest in this hearing, please
attend this meeting.
� For further information, contact Nancy Anderson or
James Kerrigan at 935-8474.
�� � ����
Nan� S. Anderson
Community Development
Analyst
l __
�,,� �- � 7- l S� �� �s�
� �� ��-� .� �
- _ � �, � �_ �s- �' � r�. - � ��-�-� �
�-� e�-w-�
- � �� �-�-�- �
� - �... �,�. � � �:�
�
�ey � -�—.� � � •^ �
c� � - �- �� .� �
�� � � �
,U----�,.� �,,,�- • �-- �
, .�-�� .�-� �-�^-� �
�-„-�(' _ � ��.�^�, G-4-r �.�-� _ ,
���� �
� cr.+.i s-,i �_e-,,, —�i/I . ,/./.��'�