Planning Commission Agenda Packet 12-11-1984AGENDA
V REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
December 11, 1984 - 7:30 P.M.
Members: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Richard Carlson, Ed Schaffer,
Interim Member William Fair.
7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order.
7:32 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Monticello
Planning Commission Meeting Held on November 14, 1984.
7:34 P.M. 3. Public Hearing - Variance Raquest to allow Additional
Driveway Access Width than the Maximum Allowed and
No Curb or Gutter Along the West Side of the Parking
Lot - Applicant, Security Federal Savings & Loan
Association.
7:49 P.M. 4. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow
an Addition to be Built onto a Non -Conforming Building
in a b-3 Zone - Applicant, Danner Trucking.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ITEMS
8:04 P.M. 1. Set the next tentative meeting date for the Monticello
Planning Commiasion for January B, 1964, 7:30 P.M.
8:06 P.M. 2. Informal informational diocuosion with Planning Commiaolon
mombero.
6:21 P.M. 3. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
November 14, 1984 - 7:10 P.M.
Members Present: Richard Carlson, Ed Schaffer, and newly elected
Planning Coemission Member, William Fair.
Members Absent: Jim Ridgeway, Joyce Dowling, Don Cochran.
Staff Present: Thomas F_idem, Gary Anderson.
The meeting was called to ordor by Acting President, Richard
Carlson, at 7:40 P.M.
Motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by William Fair, to approve
the minutes of the regular meating of the Monticello Planning
Commiosion hold October 10, 1984. Motion carried unanimously.
J. Public H oaring - A Conditional Use Request to AL low a Nursing
Home in an R -B Zone - Applicant. Monticello -Big Lake Community
Hospital District.
Barb Schwiantok, Hospital Administrator, was present to show
the proposed location of the now Monticallo-Big Lake Nursing
Homo to be built directly in back of the exiatin g Monticello -Big
Lake Hospital. Mo. Schwlentek indicated to Comniosion members
the building would be a 2-lovol building with the lower moot
level to match up with the existing lower level of the hospital.
Acting Chairman, Richard Carlson, opened the publlc hearing
for public input. Mr. Robert Jameson questioned as to how close
the now proposed nuraing home would be from the high water mark
of the Miaalaoippi River. Mn. Schwiantak indicated to Mr. Jameson
that soil boringo had boon taken and that the cl oeeat point
of the proposed nursing home to be built would ba approximately
7-8 foot above the existing elevation of whore Lt to at, thus
necessitating additional fill to be hauled in. The soil borings
were taken from the existing soil, and water wao found to be
7 fact below the curtocu at that point. Commiao ion member,
William Fair, questioned Zoning Administrator Anderson if the
otrout vacation had anything to do with the proposed conditional
use as proaontod. Zoning Adoiniotrator Anda CaOn indicated to
Commission momboro that the otroot vacation was acted on by
the Monticello City Council at their Tuooday. Novombor 11, mooting,
and a motion was made by tho City Council to not grant the otroot
vacation at this time but instructed Consulting Engineer, John
Bodallch, and Public Worko Uiroctor, John Simolo , and City Administrator,
Thomas Eidem, to work with the Administration and Hoard of the
Monticollo-Big Lake Hospital to establish soma o ort of width
for the right-of-way of River Street. The main concern of the
9
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/84
City was to protect our interceptor sewer line which runs directly
in the center of the platted River Street.
Motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by William Fair, to approve
the conditional use request to allow a nursing home in an R -B
Zone. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Public Hearing - A Simple Subdivision Request of a Residential
Lot. Variance Requests for Lees than the Minimum Lot Width and
Lot Square Footage - Applicant, Harry Stokes.
Mr. Dean Hoglund, real estate agent for Realty World Maxwell,
was present to propose the simple subdivision request for Mr.
and Mrs. Harry Stokes. In the simple subdivision request plat
as presented, it showed a 72 -foot lot width with 132 feet of
lot depth, which is lees than the minimum allowed in an R-2
Zone of 10,000 square feat. The 72 feet in width is loos than
the minimum lot width required in R-2 Zoning, which is 80 feet
of lot width. Zoning Administrator, Gary Anderson, indicated
to Commission members and the public that was present the
City staff's proposal for accommodating a subdivision request
like this. Staff would like to ace a minimum lot width of 80 feet
be established, recognizing that they have only 132 fact of
depth, but the 80 fact would give us the minimum lot width required
in R-2 Zoning. Also, with the Increase of lot width from 72 feet
to 80 foot, the sidoyard setback lire closest to the Stokeo'
house would be less than from 18.9 fact down to 10.9 feet.
On the sidoyard setback, which is the aide closest to the roar
of Stokes' house, staff in suggesting that the aideyard setback
on that side be increased to 20 tact rather than the required
10 fact, with the other aideyard setback being lett at the minimum
required 10 foot. Thin would allow a maximum of a 50 -foot wide
house and garage to be built on thin lot. Planning Commission
Chairman then opened the public hearing for public input. Mr.
Stokes, property owner requesting the subdivision, stated the
reason for going with the 72 foot instead of the BO toot was
that currently he has no garage onto his house and that the
driveway used to got to his house is right along side the roar
most portion of his property. It it won loosened from 10.9 foot
down to 10.9 foot, it would allow him very little room to got
in and out of his car once parked on the driveway and still
be on his own property. Acting Chairman, Richard Carlson, at this
time closed the public hearing and asked for a motion.
Motion by William Fair, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to go along
with staff's recommendation to approve the simple oubdivicion
as presented with the following conditions: That the front
foot width be Increased from 72 feet to BO foot; and the aidoyord
setback on the aide cl0000t to the roar of Mr. Stokes' houoo
be increased from a 10 -toot oldoyard notback to a 20 -toot oidoyard
setback. Motion carried unanimously.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/13/84
5. Public Hearing - A Variance Request to Build a Cold Storage
Building in an R-3 Zone - Applicant, Ruff Auto Parts.
Mr. Chuck Stumpf, partner in Ruff Auto Parte, along with Mr.
Ron Ruff, partner in Ruff Auto Parte, was present to explain
their request for an additional cold storage building to be
built on their property. Mx. Stumpf indicated the reason for
the request is to allow them to put up a cold storage building
to put in damaged repairable cars once they purchase them; to
have them inside so they can work on them to tear down whatever
parts are needed from them before they be set outside for other
use. The basic problem they have is, especially during the
cold weather months, they have no place to have these cars that
they purchase for the salvageable parts to work on them. The
buildings they have currently are used for storage of various
automotive parts. Mr. Ron Ruff indicated that due to the nature
of their business, they've had a fairly successful year no far;
but that doesn't moan that in going to continue at the rate
that it is and that they could not proplan just how many more
buildings they would need n ow or in the future. It basically
bears off of what the market will bear. Ruff Auto Parts itself
would not like to be tied into a developmental agreement saying
when they would have to put up another building or whatever
other conditions may be attached. City Administrator, Thomas
Eidem, indicated the City's standpoint in regard to the Ruff
Auto Porta request io the City is seriously looking at creating
a zone specifically to allow the nature of Ruff Auto Parts,
whether it be a commercial typo zoning or whatever the zone
may bo, something to accommodate their typo of businosa out
there. Ruff Auto Parts originally was in the, Township and woo
annexed into the City. At that time, the toning that wan applied
to it vas some typo of residential zoning, which was very limited
to their typo of operation, which meant their operation is allowed
to exist an a non -conforming uoo. Staff is proposing that we
work with the applicant, Ruff Auto Parte, to come up with a
developmental plan and a decision to work with them that would
be In the boot interest of the City and of Ruff Auto Porto.
Both Mir. Stumpf and Mr. Ruff indicated they would be willing
to vork with the City to of low them to stay whore they are and
still clown up their property se the years go on. With there
being no input from the public, motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded
by William Fair, to grant the variance request to build a cold
storage building In an R-3 Zone with the recommendation that the
current Owners of Ruff Auto Parts work with the City
and to cotablioh an ovoralI working relationship to keep the
property cleaned up. Motion carried unanimously.
-3-
(D
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/84
6. Public Hearing - A Conditional Use Request to Allow a Detached
Accessory Building in Excess of 1000 Square Feet to be Built
Without a Principal Use for the Vacant Property - Applicant,
Marvin Scherer.
Marvin Scherer was present with his request to build a cold
storage building to put his antique automobiles under cover,
and in doing so that once allowed to put up the building to
put the vehicles under, he would also keep the property moved
and kept clean. Mr. Scherer questioned as to the City regulating
the numerous types of landscaping controls which are required
of Mr. Scherer at this time, that being tree plantings, screening
fence, and the hard surfacing of the driveway, and the green
area or lawn area to be kept mowed and neat in appearance.
Mr. Scherer indicated he had purchased it long before the property
was in the City limits, and when he was annexed into the City
he had to conform under the R-1 restrictions, which doesn't
allow a detached accessory building. Mr. Scherer's property
is vacant property, and it doesn't have a principal use. Without
e principal use, you cannot build anything else. Zoning Administrator
Anderson indicated to Commission members and the public present
the staff's recommendation to allow Mr. Scherer's building to
be built there with the following conditions: Screening fence
be installed, hard surfacing of the driveway, tree plantings
to be put in. Mr. Greg Wagner, Morton Buildings, Inc., was
present to support Mr. Scheror's request to be allowed to build
the building and offered the following questions: If all the
conditions are cast in atone and in there no room for deviation
from those conditions one way or the other; and if the building
could be not the other way on the property to run lengthwise
with the property. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered
that the building could be negotiated to nit the other way,
but the reason it to sitting the way it Is now is to utilize
the lomat amount of screening fence that would as required as
a condition. Acting Planning Co®ioolon Chairman, Richard Carloon,
closed the public hearing at thio time.
Motion by Ed Schaffer, ascended by William Fair, to approve
the Conditional uoo request to allow a cold otorago building
in excoou of 1000 oquare foot to be built on a vacant lot without
a principal uoo with the conditions an oubmitted by City staff
to be negotiated between Mr. Scherer and the City ntaff. Thoy
are ao follows: 1) Building not back to within 5 foot of the
south and vont property linea and the couthwoot corner of the
property. 2) Door entrioc on the cant end of the building
only. l) 7 -foot or 8 -foot high opaque ocrocning fence of treated
wood in the following araaa: from the cant and wont roar proparty
linco to the north about 60 toot; from the northwest corner
of the building cant along the building 20 foot; from thio point
start with the lento going north from tho building 10 foot;
then west 25 fact to moot with the went lino fence; otarting
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/84
at the northeast corner of the building, north 15 feet; then
east to the east fence line; a 15 -foot maximum width gate of
the same material as the opaque screening fence and the gate
to be closed except when in use. 4) 15 trees, 8 feet in height
at a minimum in the following areas: 6 spaced along the want
side of the property, maximum 30 -foot spacing; 6 along the east
side of the property, maximum 30 -foot spacing; 3 along the front
side of the property, maximum 30 -foot spacing. 5) 12-foot-
maximum
2-footmaximum driveway width, concrete or asphalt driveway. Driveway
to be from the Golf Course Road south into the property, then
up to the east building entrance door. 6) Absolutely no outside
storage. 7) Building use is for cold storage of vehicles and
its accessories only. Motion carried unanimously.
7. Public Hearing - A Request for a New Residential Subdivision
Addition - Applicant, Realty Station, Inc.
Mr. Ed Doran. current property owner of the former Rand Mansion,
was present to discuss his proposal for subdividing his oxi.sting
vacant land around the former Rand Mansion. He indicated to
Commission members he has been unsuccessful through Realty Station
and other realty companies in Monticello to sell his property,
and he is looking at this aa a posmiblu alternative to sell.
off portions of the vacant land around the former Rand Manoion.
The public hearing was opened for any public input. Cecile
Muehlbauer, odea agent with Realty Station, strongly voiced
her concerns over any architectural controls which may be attached
as a condition to this proposed now subdivision. In checking
through many uther realtora and duvuloporm in the Minnompolin/st.
Paul metropolitan area, they have had several prospects on thn
property, but nobody in willing to come forth to expand the
amount of money needed to renovate the former Rand Mansion.
The former mansion would be better oft being demolished, and
highest and boat use of the land, therefore, would be vacant
land with no former Rand Mansion structure on it. She felt
that the architectural control portion ae a condition to this
oubdivision would be a definite hardship on the owner and the
prospective developers of the property. Thomas Hideo, City
Administrator, oludsd to the architectural control which we
are looking for as o condition to this. The reason for the
architectural control is that the typo of housing to be put
in there be of somewhat similar nature to what So existing there,
not that it hos to be exactly the memo thing but something that
would complement the former Rand Mannion. The entablishmont
of an Architectural Control Board would consist of a repraaentative
of the City, a reprocontativo of the developer, and an independent
individual to act as a nonrotated individual. Zoning Administrator
Anderson handed to Planning Commiomion Chairman, Richard Carlson,
a letter received from our Consulting Planner, John Uban of
Howard Dahlgren 6 Anoociatom. Him commontm were basically the
-5_
Planning Commission Minutes - I1/14/64
name concerns as voiced by City staff. He felt that the subdivision
itself, due to the character and nature around it, would be
very complementary to the City as a new subdivision with some
type of architectural controls. Richard Carlson then read aloud
a letter submitted from Mel Wolters objecting to the proposed
new subdivision, feeling that there are a considerable amount
of residential lots available in the City right now and the
City does not need additional lots and that we should take care
of the developers that do have the residential lots available
and try and lesson the amount of residential lots available
at the present time. Mrs. Robert Jameson was present to express
her concerns of their property, fully realizing the problems
which Mr. Doran has encountered. Their property, like Mr. Doran's
property, is currently on the National Register. She is not
in objection to the proposed subdivision, but she feels there
should be some type of architectural control to avoid dissimilar
type housing to go in adjacent to historical site properties.
Motion by William Fair, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to approve
the proposed subdivision as presented with the following condition:
that there be 1) an architectural board established consisting
of a representative of the City, a representative of the developer,
and an independent individual with no affiliation to either
the City or the developer. 2) That the Architoctural Control
Board, before isouance of the building permit, decide the type
of houoo to be built on the residential vacant lots. Motion
carried unanimously.
8. Public Hearing - A Conditional Una Request to Allow Outdoor
Salon in a B -J Zone - Applicant, Monticello Auto Salea, Inc.
Mr. Clarence McCarty, owner of Monticello Auto Salon, Inc.,
was prooent to explain hie proponal to have a anise lot to display
hlo automobileo which he currently hao for ogle. The proposed
lot in quootion is the M ti of the former Dino'o Other World
property. The lot conaiato of a very badly deteriorated parking
lot, which could be upgraded for the dinplay of the vehicloo
which Mr. McCarty would like to ocll. Conditional uoea for
the auto oalea lot itoelf, there will be no office building
or repair garage what000ver. Thera will be no buildingo at
all. It will be just a lot for dioplay of hio automobiloo.
Commisoion momboro asked Mr. McCarty the number of caro he would
like to have out there. He indicated the total number he would
like to have at thin time would be 10 caro. Staff to ouggeating
a maximum of 10-15 caro; preferably 10 caro now, and if the
need should arlao and he nnod❑ additional oneo, he can come
back and ark for opace for additional cora on the lot. With
no input from the public, motion by William Fair, occondod by
Ed Schaffer, to approve the conditional uoo roqueot to allow
outdoor ooloo in a B-] Zone with the following conditiono:
-6-
N
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/ 84
v 1) The conditional use be for a period not to exceed past December 31,
1985; 2) The vehicles to be sold there, whether they be automobiles
or pickups, will not exceed a gross vehicle weight of 9,000 lbs.
3) The site be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and meet
his approval before it can be open for business. 4) The area
be lighted and the light directed to the cars on the sales lot
only . 5) The total number of cars at this point not to exceed
10. 6) The entire area which Mr. McCarty is leasing be kept
neat and well maintained through the duration of his conditional
use permit. 7) The vehicles to be displayed belong only to
Monticello Auto Sales and they not be consignment care from other
individuals or corporations. B) A fence be put around the old basement
in the front and on the two sides. Motion carried unanimously.
9. Consideration of Approval of the Final Plan Staqe of a Planned
Unit Development to be Known as Broadway Partnere - Applicants,
Jim Powers and Kent Kiellbor$.
Jim Powers was present to explain to Commission members they
have everything intact for final plan approval except a couple
Items on the drainage plan haven't been put down on paper, and
the narrative summarizing their whole Planned Unit Development
has not been drafted in final form. Commission members asked
staff their comments on this. Staff feels that they could approve
the final plat subject to two conditions: That approved drainage
plan be submitted, and that the narrative portion of the Planned
Unit Development be submitted by the next Council meeting.
Motl on by Ed Schaffer, seconded by William Pair, to approve
the final plan stage of the Planned Unit Development to be known
ns Broadway Partnere, with the following conditions: 1) That
approved drainage plan be submitted prior to the next City Council
meeting, November 26, 1984. 2) That the approved narrative portion
of the Planned Unit Development be submitted prior to the November 26,
1904 , City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
10. Cons idoration of Approval of tho Final Plat of the Subdivision
of a Residential Lot for 0 Townhouse Units - Applicant, Jay
Miller.
Thio Is an information item to the Commioolon members that at
the Tuesday night, November 13, Monticello City Council meeting
they approved the final plat for the B unit townhouse subdivision
as presented.
11. Cono idoration of Continuation of Variance Request for No Hard
Surface. Curb and Cutter of Parking Lot - Applicant, Milton
Olson.
Milton Oloon was present to apologize to Commission members
-7-
Planning Commission Minutes - 11/14/84
that he hadn't gotten his parking lot hard surfaced prior to
the 1 -year variance which was granted October 4, 1983. He had
fully intended to get the parking lot hard surfaced with curb
and gutter installed prior to October 4, 1984. Mr. Olson indicated
he is willing to go along with Planning Commission members'
recommendation as to the definite time limit when the parking
lot in to be installed, that being to be installed in the spring
by no later than June 10, 1985. Commission members asked Zoning
Administrator what would happen should Mr. Olson not install
the hard surfacing and curb and gutter in his parking lot by
June 10. Administrator Anderson answered the parking lot would
be reviewed June 9. At the June 10 meeting, Zoning Administrator
Anderson would report to Commission members the status update
on Mr. Olson's parking lot. if it wasn't completed, the members
could at that time instruct the matter be turned over to City
Attorney, Gary Pringle, of Smith, Pringle 6 Hayes.
Motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by William Pair to approve the
variance request extension of the hard surfacing and curb and
gutter of the parking lot for Olson Electric with the condition
that Mr. Olson is to have curb and gutter and hard surfacing
of the parking lot installed on or before and no later than
June 10, 1985. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by William Pair, seconded by Ed Schaffer, to eat the
next tentative date of the Monticello Planning Commission for
Tuesday, December 11, 1984, at 7:30 P.M.
Motion by Ed Schaffer, seconded by William Pair, to adjourn
the meeting. She meeting adjourned at 10:38 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ca�Mdirwo"'/
Zoning Administrator
-R-
0
Planning Commission Agenda — 12/11/84
3. Public Nearing - Variance Request to Allow Additional Driveway
Access Width than the Maximum Allowed and No Curb or Gutter
Along the West Side of the Parking Lot — Applicant, Security
Federal Savings 6 Loan Association. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The new Security Federal drive -up entrance widths proposed are for
26 feet in width where the maximum allowed by the ordinance
is 24 feet. With the placement of the driveways, we see no
problem in the additional driveway entrance width being increased
from a maximum of 24 feet to the applicant's request of 26 feet.
Security Federal is also asking for a variance for no curb or
gutter along the west aide of their parking lot. The reason
for their request is they will be at sometime in the future
adding on additional drive -up tallove; therefore, the cost to
rip up existing curbing and put in new curbing would be quite
expensive. The type of curbing they would like to put in would
be an asphalt type curbing, which could be easily removed whenever
expansion of the drive -up tailors would occur. Our ordinance
specifically does not allow any typo of asphalt curbing. With
the proposed development on the entire west half of the block
which Security Fodoral owns, we would look at the possibility
of utilizing oomo typo of shared parking with the now proposed
building to be built on that half of the block and also the
new building and parking lot facilitiao for the now Security
Fodoral building. If oomo typo of aharod parking could be utilized,
there would be no need for any curb or gutter variance.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the variance roquaot to allow additional driveway
acc000 width from 24 foot to 26 foot.
2. Deny the variance roquoat to allow additional driveway acc000
width from 24 foot to 26 foot.
3. Approve the no curb or gutter olong the wont aide of tho
parking lot.
4. Deny no curb or gutter along tho wont oldo of the parking
lot.
C. STAPP RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommondo approval of the varianco roquoot to allow additional
driveway acc000 width from 24 foot to 26 foot; to dony the variance
roqucot on no curb or gutter along the woot aide of the parking
`.1
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/11/84
lot, requesting that the applicant, Security Federal, bring
in an overall site plan for development of the west y of the
property with the possibility of using some shared parking In
between the two halfs of the property.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed new Security Federal Building
site; Copy of the site plan for the new Security Federal Savings
6 Loan Association building.
-2-
variance Request to allow
�,• //� •r/ /•�• / •� additional driveway access
1• ,, ; /� / r .• ` - - - q ( width than the maximum
allowed and no curb or gutter
Ong thewest side of the
lot.
j//I \\ Securit ederal Savings i
Wan Aseoi tion.
c 1 �� ,i//i i r,'; ., �, • .�.%
c.� ..�
I ChWA►
.� \_ � a I • �� !fir• /l �; w'o •. .. %,4' ,
i i1 J
t NO
�r ��'�•�� � ��� ���'al i d is
G
I a �a 0�,•
-- - - 6 6 6
.r
t• I s 1 O ce
\ ZD 1
j TVP
IJ
-
t
�.
N�• 4�•
C I
TYP
1
0
1'
I \/
\��� L le' -o•
TYF l
TYP
r• 1
I
e -oi
TYP � �
_ W. 0.
3�-0•
STREET
-a a---4
v[P
t
�.
0
C:3)
Planning Commission Agenda - 12/11/84
4. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow an Addition
to be Built onto a Non -Conforming Building in a B-3 Zone - Applicant,
Danner Trucking. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Mr. Danner would like to have an attached leanto building to
be built onto his existing truck garage for use of items currently
stored outside to be stored in this new building addition.
If allowed to put on the building addition, Mr. Danner would
thus have very little, if any, outside storage that is not under
cover other than the excess semi -trailers, which he would not
be using at this time. Mr. Danner's trucking is not allowed
in the current zoning which existe out there, B-3 (Highway Business
Zoning). We have also discussed with Mr. Danner the possibility
of relocating into a zone where his trucking business is an
allowable use and has indicated interest in working with the
City on a possible relocation. However, money would be the
main stumbling block in regards to a relocation of Mr. Danner's
Trucking business. If he is unable to sell his property at
a reasonable price and obtain property in a now zone and allow
a building to be built on there within a reasonable amount of
money, Mr. Danner would not go along with this. He would stay
where he is at until he could afford to build a now building
on a different site. Staff is looking at this as a blight property
~ out there, allowing him to build this addition merely to clean
up most, if not all, of his outside items stored outside and
put them in under cover; thus, cloaning up the area considerably
from what it is now.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Approve the conditional use request to allow an addition
to be built onto a non -conforming building in o B-3 Zone.
2. Deny the conditional uoe roqueot to allow an addition to
be built onto a non -conforming building in a B-3 Zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional uoo roqueot to
allow Mr. Danner to build an addition onto his non -conforming
building in a 0-3 Zone. Staff to otrictly looking at it that
it to blight property. We would got rid of the blight from
the area, ollowing him to put the material under cover. Tho
building addition would be complamontary to the building that
to built there right now.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the prop000d building addition; Plot Plan.
-3-
•*o�JJ `1 711 ,
J "Il JJJ
.,�„ � � .� • *•: i a .,�;'t . C + �/ „`` ,
�i����•,p i' '•��C��% �» l' fj1',� 4 r. Rtrirl�i .t„/••.
r. r '� . � ♦+ . gyp, 7/, ,,}J�. � MY41
NIGHWO
`tondicionn t � �.oo�at
lg'roy 'a
an additto
nozmtn9 � 41�a
Danner TruLon n'.o,-ya�r+�-�7
'•
14
.r-
�
`
a p'
j r
' 1 1 :11 .•1. 1
/ PERMIT MWER
UOORCSS-' �_ /�I •dL///1 L �A� TiP -
1
LLGAL 1 •. ::�0.7of Nld tL,rC.,.�ieT �O.Si ��"�1��L� ,� .
OCSCRI►TION ,LOT &M/A/BIC,2/d SSL BLOCK ADD T1ONIW4 ERi
50, rT. or 317E AREA ? SD. ". of AREA CACCLFIED BY BUILDING_ OjkOwitAQmtA
.?5180 vifh /�id� ,
INSTRUCTIONS TO A"LICANT
INI! PORN .rCLO NOT 0[ V]CO WEN ►LOT PLANS VRA"TO 1CALC A.t /ILEO vITN TAUT /[KNIT A►ILIC�l10N.
,ON MCV LVILOIKl. IROvI Ot 1NL IOLLOVI ..O INIORNAT IOwI LOC ATIOw 0I II6POI10 CO NlTRUCTION AND C.ISTING
INP ROv[NCNT 9. ANOV OVIlDIMO ]ITL AND ]t70 ACR DIMT NlION1. ]..OV CAI.ENT, . IIN16N CONTOURS O. OnAI NAG[.
I N51 ILOOR [LCYATION]. A7R[CT tLCV"..N ANO ]CVCA CLCVATION. SMOV LOCATION OI VATIR. /CVC.. GAP.
.ND CLLCTRICAL.LRYI[ t LINK. lwOV LOCATION] 01 ]U.Y[Y Il..l. !►CCIr V' THC USE Or LAC" OUIL011-
..0 [AC/M/N�A�J�OII f0 RT10N TNt.[D/.
tJ INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE EACH GRAPH;�UARE EQUALS 101-0" fit 101-0"
�/ 1--
1
_ I •J
1
:lw. I., Illy IN., IN. w.pO..O 1.n.b u1,NN.111 -l- In IM rlon.np -1 um. Jii.w N�rwr. u.l 16n1 ,urn w h•- wnl.
�r.l Obl n„urr .DW a.l. "
i TT]L./utw C" DOI.[N D.r'CONrnIL�PIr on "L.'Trr:r ,R' 1 rIVL
.•.............Lu...........................
.........r . .n.•...n.......••............ ...,.......
( IOL LItT YAl O.IAT� • •r.....
!L'NEO APARCIVED BY DATE`_
I �/