Loading...
VAR 09.69F APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND CITY COUNCIL FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE IN REQUIREMENTS OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY Amt .1e, 9 (Applicant to complete items 1, 2, 3) 1. Name and Address of Applicant �?®1,A)t 4 6, LL rn jq 6 Kof «t ,S, L4€ re- Luj 061 r Co N-ro + , 123 11%i j Sal / Q-1 2. Legal Description of Property (also general location, such as -,"north- east corner of 64th Avenue and 5th Street° or 6415 Fifth Street") 3. Describe the variance requested. (Attach Plat ®TL shorting location of proposed bultding, etc., elan Za and ownership within 200° of said property.) 4. Camente by administrative official denying original 7,-sgsesb for building I ermit or other permit. (To be completed by adminiots�af ivA n ;bic?nl, Appropriate ordinances and section of ordinances to he e NOtice of H�c'i48g eppe dotes: (rust be at east once attached). s 2 s in Dfficial.Newspaper on the following O• to 6. BomIrd Members Notified of meeting by— a c� �e�j /Z, / 26 (Ltst Memmbers, Date Notified, and f®ygs or ""Nap, for plow t® att®� end hearing), a iem 606 Date Plan to Attend, 7, ltasCm 06king apg"b and the following property owners having property Within 200° notlfied; Date E"oS r-(A� ELS,r44 r 61,94 67- .:7m a!�. By Phone Notti f ted by ori (En�itial) O,l�'� „�Lj&Te©sn ^__._ �®Na�.� � • �� 194 7e���L�� ! gg1N„�I 1Pl�w, ill i t I i IAw.(i i r.. �. The 7411ewing Board Members end interested parties were prement at the Hearings B„ice” AI„ C-�,,33(Y'cDrV,7 4cp Fav •�� ��3�3 Q��� sb �� - Nb�'®cv oma-] , - 3 - OTHER PARTIES: NAM ADDRESS opiniona and recommendations by BOARD OF APPEALS: 10, For Above Rqc anri atitms Against RecMnendationg 11. Action by Citgo Council and Date: (Official Publication) CfTYOFFRIDLEY- _ PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAN the Board of Appeals of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 1869, to consider the following matter: A request fora variance of Section 45.26, Fridley City ,Code, to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 35 feet to 15 feet to,permit the construction of attached garages to the front of pro-, posed ;dwellings,`, on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and _t Block 1, Innsbruck 5th Addition, the same being 5172: 5175, $179, 5183, 5201,'k$7 and 5275 St..Imier Drive, Fridley,-Minnesoth: {R*uest by Rodney Bilhnan, Incorporated, 151 Silver Lake. Road, New Brighton, Minnesota *55112.) Anyone desiring to be heard with refer- enee- to the abrive' matter may be heard at this meeting.. DONALD MrffEL.WADT' Chairman, Board of Appeals (Sept. 24,1969)—TC ROONEY RILLMAN, INC. C -Zw- - 4ow,"B.uj"t., 612/633-0536 NEW BRIGHTON, MINN. 55112 Seat, 3, 1969 city o f 9-ti� 6d 31 Loi ive A ti9 Ave, N. £. 9it,W-ey, Nnnewt a 5Y421 Po&wq 6W -cm, m- wov ed. " to tect u� a va—nce on the c-atage iet- bach on Xotd. one thtouqA ,asoex, r9toch One, Asmbh.ach 5th &UitAon. We wijh to eet the �a e4 15 feet ftom the %t ,P.uu- with the additaonaC !b Jeet of 'Gou•Ceva&d. She cFa,� wowU then be anfaicwamate4 30 �eet Jacor. the ,jtteeit. 15&1 smk ice. cue .Ur pgat'.ion of theae tom 9 ant awe. ,.jou witeati7..e the dZf 4, i .A.ftq we ace faced with Uewtm--,,,- o f the d-wete ld&OP whish Ota & dode to the .dot tine. £nceo4ed id. a t'?piwt de4,i,a,n of a bai,&J,Lnc and .Loi ay -out. I9teaee fake uvtck/c comp d"o t ion cnd feet J tae to eaU u - in a.e¢aicd to tbii. matte& at lo" ea&tZe•.►.t convenZpw e Z f you need add i t i onat injo&mat ion. IsIbleetebJ, /Wne y /givxxr, , 9nc. Sohn i�oQ.0 u OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of Appeals of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, October 15, 1969, to consider the following matter: A request for a variance of Section 45.26, Fridley City Code, to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 35 feet to 15 feet to permit the construction of attached garages to the front of proposed dwellings on Lots 10 2, 3, 49 59 6 and 70 Block 1, Innsbruck 5th Addition, the same being 5171, 51759 5179, 5183, 5201, 5257 and 5275 St. Imier Drive, Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Rodney Billman, Incorporated, 151 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton, Minnesota 55112.) Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this meeting. DONALD MITTFLSTADT CHAIRMAN BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLISH:• September 24, 1969 THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 15 1969 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mittelstadt at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mittelstadt, Minish, Ahonen, Harris, O'Bannon OTHERS PRESENT: Hank Muhich-Building Official MOTION by O'Bannon to approve the minutes of the September 24, 1969 meeting as written. Seconded by Minish. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. 1. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 45.23 TO REDUCE THE SIDEYARD REQUIREMENT FROM 10 FEET TO 5.7 FEET TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FAMILY ROOM TO THE REAR OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE, TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 16, BLOCK 2, BROOKVIEW TERRACE, THE SAME BEING 801 -68TH AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY JOSEPH VANCE, 801 -68TH AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55421.) MOTION by Minish to remove from table the initial request which was tabled at the previous meeting. Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Before acting on the item, the different proposals and agreements were read from the minutes of the previous meeting. In opening discussion, the Board inquired of Mr. Tripp, 751 -68th Avenue N.E., if he had any success in selling his property since the Board tabled the request. He informed them he hadn't although some potential buyers were shown the property. Mr. Tripp also stated that a 30 day extension clause was included in the listing agreement, granting the Realty Company an additional 30 days after the expiration of the original agreement. He maintained he had no objection to the garage addition but feared the nearness of a family room, recreation room, or such, because of the possible noises resulting from parties, hi-fis, etc. Mr. Vance suggested using stationary windows on the wall facing the neighbors. Mr. Charles Babcock, 6741 Quincy, a resident from across the street of the proposed addition asserted that he had no objection to the request. MOTION by Harris to close the public hearing. Seconded by O'Bannon. Upon a voice vote, there being.no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Mittelstadt suggested the Board probably make a choice of one of two possible decisions; approve or deny the request. To table the request once more would probably solve nothing. 0 Minutes of the Board of Aoneals meeting of October 15, 1969 During the lengthy discussion some of the following questions were brought out: 1. Have the decisions of the Board in granting some of the past appeals resulted in more requests lately? Could blanket requests result from leniency? 2. It was pointed out that although not as a point of hardship, porches which are not considered living area are permitted the same setback as garages. It is very likely that there are noisy occasions on porches as well. 3. Do high building costs and inflated financing constitute a hardship? Mr. Ahonen expressed that the ever increasing demand for additional facilities resulting from the status change in the family, plus the fact that the only appropriate spot for a family room addition without creating an undesireable room schedule and design, present a hardship. In considering this,together with the family indulgence of the Vances, when the request was previously tabled to give Mr. Tripp additional time to sell his property, a MDTION was made by Mr. Ahonen to grant the request. Seconded by O'Bannon. Upon a voice vote, all voting eye, the motion carried unanimously. Before leaving the meeting, however, Mr. Tripp was reminded that he had the right to appeal the decision of the Board, at the Council meeting of October 20, 1969. In order to aquaint the Board with some of the problems influencing the request, a letter written by Mr. Rodney Billman, to the Inspection De$artment, was read before the Board. Mr. Moran, 5295 St. Imier Drive, expressed his views of the 15 foot front yard setback as being opposed to the decrease in the requirements,as it would result in an encrouchment of his front yard and obstruct the view toward his house and away from it. Mr. Gordon Murray, 5250 St. Imier Drive, and Mr. William Culbert, 5270 St. Imier Drive, concurred with Dr. Moran in that the shorter front yards across the street would give them the feeling of being crowded. MOTION by Kfmish to close the public hearing. Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanim® ously. With no further discussion a motion was made by Mr. Harris to deny the request, since Mr. Bilhman showed no further interest in pursueing it. inutds_o£ the Board o£ Acpeals meeting of October 15, 1969 Pa&e 3 Seconded by Minish. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. During a discussion period following the action on the items of the agenda, the Board requested that all stipulations as directed by the Board of Appeals be recorded and made part of all ensuing building permits. Further discussion regarding the new sign ordinance followed. The Board expressed a desire for a more explicit description of flashing signs. Mr. Minish expressed concern over the variance, for the construction of a sign, granted on July 2, 1968, to the Western Oil Company, 7600 University Avenue N.E. One of the reasons for granting the variance was stated to be that the 4' X 10' price poster signs would be eliminated. It is evident that Western Oil has ignored this condition. Here Mr. Minish made a motion that the Board request the City Council to obtain an opinion of the City Attorney as to whether it is now possible to withdraw the variance or if some other action is avaibable to enforce the conditions required when a variance is granted. Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Mittelstadt at 9:30 P.M. 7zx��46�4 ly submitted, V. Hank Muhich Building Official r W THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 1972 - The meeting was called to order by Chairman Minish at 8:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Minish,.,Crowder, Harju, Sondheimer, Wahlberg MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Clarence Belisle -Building Inspector MOTION by Sondheimer to approve the minutes of the December 14, 1971 meeting as written. Seconded by Crowder. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Each member of the Board received a copy of that part of the Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 1971 concerning the Guidelines for Lots Substandard in Size, in the Plymouth Addition, and also, that part of the Council Minutes of December 202 1971 that showed the Council concurring with the Planning Commissions recommendations on these lots. Chairman Minish explained that the Board of Appeals has been receiving many variance requests on 40 foot lots for which there are no specific codes. The Planning Commission reviewed this matter and came up with some guidelines to follow for each specific substandard lot in Plymouth Addition. The Board now has a recommendation for each lot which it can follow if variances are again requested. 1. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 45.053,_ 4A2 TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM 35 FEET TO 15 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF DWELLINGS WITH GARAGES ATTACHED ONTO THE FRONT, ON LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6 AND 7, BLOCK 1, INNSBRUCK 5TH ADDITION THE SAME BEING 5171, 5175, 5179, 5183, 5201 AND 5275 ST. IMIER DRIVE, FRIDLEY MINNESOTA (REQUEST BY RODNEY BILLMAN, INCORPORATED, 151 SILVER LAKE ROAD NEW BRIGHTON, MINNESOTA.)— Mr. INNESOTA ) Mr. John Bogucki, representing Rodney Billman, Inc. , was present to present the request. Pictures of the lots, the Innsbruck 5th Addition plat and a sketch of the position of the house on one lot were shown to the Board. Mr. Bogucki explained there are 7 lots that need a front yard variance as they have an extremely fast drop off that starts almost immediately at the front of the lots. In order to maintain the 35 foot setback requirement for the dwelling and the garage, a great deal of fill would have to be used or some type of bridge, made of concrete or spancrete, would have to be used for the driveway. This type of bridge could be dangerous in the winter as far as cars sliding over the edge. They propose to have the house set back 35 feet with the garage attached to the front, having a setback of about 15 feet. He said they are asking for 15 feet on the garages but they will listen to anything the Board may suggest. I. Mr. Belisle stated, upon recommendation of the Catty Engineer, that the setback has to be at least 20 feet because the car lengths would overlap onto the boulevard with a lesser setback. Mr. Bogucki continued that they plan to put fill in for the driveways only and will possibly put two driveways together, to make building easier, and the driveways wider. They would have a 3 car width driveway for a 2 car garage to keep the cars off the boulevard and off the street. The Minutes of the Board of Anneals Meetiniz of February 15. 1972 Paize 2 .'�Z. Bogucki said there won't be any front yard to speak of, but the yard will be terraced down. The main floor of the house will be level with the street but they might have to build the equivalent of 2 basements under it and possibly it would look like a 3 story house from the back. The basement under the garage would probably consist of a laundry room. Mr. Belisle stated the northern corner lot, Lot 8, has an existing house on it, which has a 40 foot setback on the garage and a 47 foot setback on the house. This house faces St. Imier as would the proposed dwellings. .Chairman Minish asked why they wanted a blanket variance on all of the lots. and also if they had any plans drawn up for the type of house they propose to build. Mr. Bogucki said they have not had any plans drawn up as yet. They feel it is better to wait until they have a buyer for a certain lot, and then to work with him on drawing up the plans for that lot. They want a blanket variance on all .the lots because they don't know which lot a buyer would want to build on. With the blanket variance a buyer could have his choice of thq lots. Mr. Crowder asked what would happen to the ponding area if these lots are developed. _ Mr. Bogucki said this is an unplatted outlot that will probably revert back to the City. It could be turned into a small pond if the people who buy the lots would keep water in it. Mr. Harju asked if this area was planned this way. Mr. Bogucki answered that when they bought this addition, they purchased so many_1ots. They had to -t - akethe good with the bad. A certain amount of.. money.has been spent__for__these lots and we would like to develope them to get the money backout of them. If these lots could be developed it would be a nice street. Mr. Belisle stated that we will require soil tests on the lots. Mr. Bogucki said they had planned on getting these tests. Mr. Crowder asked if the steep decline continued the length of each lot. Mr. Bogucki answered that on some lots it tapered off at the back but most have the very steep decline. Mr. Belisle stated the inverts on the sewer will have to be obtained from the Engineering Department for each individual lot.. Mr. Crowder had to leave the meeting at 9:20 P.M. Mr. W. Culbert, 5270 St. Imier, said he lives directly across from the lots. He didn't have any objections to developing the lots as a whole but he didn't think a blanket variance was the right way to do it. He said he has a large investment to protect and he would like to see some plans for the houses that would be being built, befSie any action is taken on the variance. He said no The Minutes of the Board of Anneals Meetin5z of February 15. 1972 Page 3 attempt has been made to show them what this would involve. He added he is very pleased with the area as it is now. Mr. Bogucki said they would never build anything that would devalue the surrounding property. The dwellings -that they would build on these lots would be more expensive than many of the homes already in the area as they would be bigger, having approximately two basements, and it will cost more for the materials. Mrs. Murray, 5250 St. Imier, said she thought this should be taken on a lot to lot basis. On a blanket variance they could build anything that they wanted to and we wouldn't have anything to say about it. She asked Mr. Bogucki if his architect couldn't draw up some sort of plans so they could see some idea of what they plan to build., Chairman Minish stated that in 1969, Mr. Billman asked for the same variances on the same lots. There were some objections from the neighbors at that time also and he abandoned the request. There were no pians drawn up at that time either. He added he thought a lot to lot basis could be easier to make a decision on. Mr. Bogucki stated they don't like to draw up plans when they don't know what the buyers would want. He thought that since he was in the construction business, he could possibly see something that the neighbors could not see. He felt that if these lots are handled right, it could be the best area of Innsbruck. There was then a discussion on other areas where there are houses built on a steep decline. It was brought out that some of these homes are built in a very attractive manner. MOTION by Sondheimer to close the public hearing. Seconded by Harju. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sondheimer stated he felt that there was to much talking in generalities. He would like to see 2 or 3 approaches that are workable brought before the Board that the people could see. MOTION by Sondheimer that 2 or 3 proposals be presented that can be evaluated on their own merits. Mrs. Wahlberg said she felt soil tests should be taken first. MOTION dies for lack of a second. Chairman Minish said there was a hardship in the steep decline of the lots but he felt the Board should consider the variance on a lot to lot basis. He added the soil tests should be taken to determine whether a house could be built on each lot and he felt that the applicant could get some plans for a house of this design to show the neighbors and the Board. 02 The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Meeting of February 15, 1972 Page 4 1— Bogucki asked if the Board felt he should take a specific lot and try to draw up a specific plan for that lot and present it to the Board. Chairman Minish answered that is what the Board would like to see. Mr. Sondheimer added that the plan does not have to be fully designed but should show how to arrange the basic elements. MOTION by Sondheimer to table this request until such time as Mr. Bogucki can present some detailed consideration of the design approaches. Seconded by Wahlberg. Upon a voice vote there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. 4 Chairman Minish added that when the plans are submitted to come back before the Board, notices be sent out to the surrounding property owners again so they will be able to see the plans also. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Minish at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, c I L MARY HINV, Secretary OFFICIAL NOTICE CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE j BOARD .OF APPEALS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the Board of Appeals—qf the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at('$•30iP.M. on Tuesday, February 15, 1972 to consider the following matter: -� A request for a variance of Section 45.053, 4A, to reduce the minimum front yard setback requirement from 35 feet to 15 feet to allow the construction of dwellings with garages attached onto the front, on Lot 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7. Block 1, Innsbruck 5th Addition, the same being 5171, 5175, 51792 5183, 5201 and 5275 St. Imier Drive, Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Rodney Billman, Incorporated, 151 Silver Lake Road, New Brighton, Minnesota.) Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter may be heard at this meeting. ROBERT A. MINISH CHAIRMAN BOARD OF APPEALS A'Ce'r, x . eo 496 99 Y APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF APPMS AND CITY C6VMit; ?� FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE IN REQUIR9MENTS OB' CERTAIN.ORDXNANCES OF THE CITY OF FRIDLE'Y (Applicant to complete items 1, 2, 3) 1. Name and Address of Applicant f2,o41&q lgi% nan. 9ne. New,gjkt�brxog, Mily, SSI 12 X.2. Legal Description of Property (also general locaticn, such ass"noYth- "at corner of 64tH Avenue and 5th Street" or 6415 Fifth Street") 2. 3. 4, S, 617 all. -Ln gtoek. i, 9nvuG�uck Soh Aden. x3, Describe the variance requested. (Attach Plat or Svrvwy nt property showing location of proposed building, etc., alio adjoining pro"rties and ownership within 200' of said property.) ,Rwaae4tingace _ a ya-t an the cam 4et- Gaels k� #o 3 S to Ecom 15 to 20 &orn theaoH.t .Lot Livte. bue to � �eup.�te dicon-o� opte 7 ,Coit o&i.iGteo cam a devweava wit/oat cwt fx enae and u4 ezoncGttZonde 4�. Comments by administrative official denying original request for bulldinS permit or other permit. (To be completed by ndwin'_atrativa ofiiciAl. Appropriate ordinances and section of ordinancesi to be cited,) S. Notice of Nearing appeared datest /" (w"t be at least once 10 attached). -2- Official Newspaper an the following ore meeting •• copy of notice to i. Board Members notified of meeting by • )C]: L-° ,Uc- (List Members, Date Notified, and "Yes" or "NoPI for #tans to ettaW hearing). a Name at -to ,Attend i■ V.lai�■ ID � C^�? 1 n _ r�Y _h ..� ca fl o 7. Berson making appent and the following property *Mors having property within 200' not-ifLed: Name Date If r 1 j7 t �r w .. l k �/t � �,A� � _rel ✓tn � !� �S y� ��_Q. /' l �% 9A e -�.�.�i /b Hyl 0 Cif 1"o-6 , JA2eC� Xy Phone Notified by or VALI . (spitiw 1� i u Y31.�i. IS. fta Following Board Members and interested parties were present at the Bearings i go 4 . 3 - OTHER PARTIES: 1 OJI A ti'khJ-1 1111o4 C�& '"c 9. Opinions and recommendations by BOARD OF APPEALS: ADDRESS 10, For Above Recommendations 11.*kction by City Council and Date: Against•Recommendations s The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Meeting of February 29, 1972 Page.4 r Chairman Minish informed Mr. & Mrs. Jacobson that they could contact the City Engineer if they wanted more information on this. MOTION by Harju to recommend to the Council approval of the request since there is a hardship due to the error that was made by the engineering company that drew up the site plan. The requirements for the larger building have already been met. It is just the total area -that not been met. Seconded by Crowder. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. 3. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 45.053, 4A2 TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REgUMEMENT FROM 35 FEET TO 15 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION / OF DWELLINGS WTTR GARAOFS ATTAr Tw.n ONTn TPF. FunwT ON T.nTG 1 _ 9 _ q _ I 5 A _ Awn 7 BLOCK I,- INNSBRUCK 5TH ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 5171,517535179,5183 5201, 5257 AND 5275 ST TWER DRIVE FRIDLEY MINNESOTA (REQUEST BY RODNEY 11LI TAN;, TNCQRPnRATED 151 SILVER LAKE ROAD, NEW BRIGHTON. MINNESOTA.) Mr. John Bogucki was present to present the request. Chairman Minish explained this item had been tabled from the meeting of February 15, 1972 to allow the applicant time to bring in sketches of the type of houses that could be built on these lots. MOTICLN by Crowder to reopen the public hearing. Seconded by Harju. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bogucki presented 5 sketches of what possibly could be built on these lots. The final decision would have to be made by the buyer however, as to what he would want. There were seven property owners in the audience that came forward to look at the sketches. It was asked if the driveways are still going to be put together? Mr. Bogucki answered that the garages could be together but they wouldn't have to be. • It was asked what would be done with the ponding area? Mr. Bogucki answered that it would be up to the people who bought the land. They could possibly keep the water at a higher level if they wanted to. The main concerns of the property owners were; the back of the house being just cement block, landscaping in the front yards, the blanket variance, 2 driveways together, and 1 property owner was against the garages being ahead of the house. Mr. Bogucki explained that he does not need a variance to build the house. This will be set back the required 35 feet. The variance is only on setting the garage ahead of the house. The house will be built the way the buyer I 0. • The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Meeting of February 29,1972 Page 5 would want. it. The houses will be higher in cost than the surrounding homes because there will be more material necessary to build them. They would not devalue the surrounding homes, in fact, they could possibly raise the value. Mr. Belisle•stated the Engineering Department had found the existing elevations for each of these lots. The difference in elevations from the existing curbing to 70 feet back onto the lots is between 13 and 16 feet. The elevation was also found on the walk out basement on Lot 9, the lst lot around the corner to the north, and the City will not allow the proposed houses to be lower than this. MOTION by Harju to close the public hearing. Seconded by Crowder. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harju stated his feelings have not changed since the last meeting. No new information has been brought in. We don't have a particular -house for a specific lot to consider as there are no buyers'. I think going on an individual lot basis instead of a blanket variance would work out better. I have no specific objection to moving the garages ahead of the house. Mr. Crowder stated he is opposed to a blanket variance. As far as adjusting the garage setback, there is a problem in the tremendous amount of fill needed if the garage was to be set back 35 feet. I have no qualms about deviating the setback. It would be easier for the builder if he could get .a blanket variance and I think we should give him some assurance that he has a better than a 50 per cent chance of getting a variance if he was to find a buyer and come up with a specific plan for a lot. Mr. Bogucki asked if there would have to be a hearing on each variance for each lot when he found buyers for them. Chairman Minish answered yes. He added that if the Board recommended denial of the request tonight, and the Council concurred, it would be 6 months before this request could be brought up again and this might hinder the developer if he happened to find a buyer before then. MOTION by Crowder to table this request with the understanding that it can be brought back on a lot to lot basis. Seconded by Harju. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Minish at 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted o MARX HIN Z , Secretary