Loading...
1. Bruce Paul VariancePC DATE: 3/2/04 _2__ CITY OF CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 3/22/04 REVIEW DEADLINE: CASE #: 04-09 BY: NB 3/26/04 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for a 12 foot front yard setback variance from the required 50 foot front yard setback to expand an existing garage for a single-family home on a 1-acre lot, zoned A-2. 10240 Mandan Circle Part of North West Quarter of Section 36, Township 116, Range 23 Bruce Paul 10240 Mandan Circle Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District (A-2) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Large Lot ACREAGE: 1.1 acres DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 12 foot front yard setback variance from the required 50 feet, for the construction of a 46 foot by 36 foot (1,656 sq. ft.) garage. Staff is recommending denial of the request. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because thc applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. Subject Pr° )r ?'rOil. r~? /./' ! / / ! Trail COrridor Planning D Paul Variance Planning Case #04-09 March 2, 2004 Page 2 of 7 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a 12-foot front yard variance of Section 20-575(5)(a) to construct a 46' x 36' foot (1,656 sq. ft.) garage. The site currently contains a single-family home (1,534 sq. ft.) and a 22' x 24' (528 sq. ft.) garage. The garage is a legal non-conforming structure maintaining a 38.9' front yard setback. The zoning ordinance requires a 50-foot front yard setback. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing front yard setback and increase the size of the garage by 1,128 sq. ft. from its existing state. The city code prohibits expansion of non-conforming structures. The property is located at 10240 Mandan Circle; part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 116, Range 23. It is zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2, which intends to preserve a rural character while respecting development patterns by allowing single-family residential development. Access to the site is gained via Mandan Circle (a local street/cul-de-sac). The westerly half of the site is occupied by a bluff and is heavily wooded. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS DIVISION 4. NON-CONFORMING USES* Sec. 20-71. Purpose The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any non-conforming use, building, or structure; Paul Variance Planning Case #04-09 March 2, 2004 Page 3 of 7 (3) To encourage the elimination of non-conforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. Sec. 20-72. Non-conforming uses and structures (a) There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any non-conforming use or non-conforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity. (b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, any detached single-family dwelling that is on a non-conforming lot or that is a non-conforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded; provided however, that the nonconformity may not be increased. If a setback of a dwelling is non-conforming, no additions may be added to the non-conforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. (e) Maintenance and repair of non-conforming structures is permitted. Removal or destruction of a non-conforming structure to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its estimated value, excluding land value and as determined by the city, shall terminate the right to continue the non-conforming structure. (f) Notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this section, if approved by the city council a non-conforming land use may be changed to another non- conforming land use of less intensity if it is in the public interest. In all instances the applicant has the burden of proof regarding the relative intensities of uses. Section 20-575 Lot Requirements and Setbacks. (4) The minimum setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, fifty (50) feet. b. For rear yards, fifty (50) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. Sec. 20-1401. Bluff Protection (a) Structures, including, but not limited to, principal buildings, decks, and accessory buildings, except stairways and landings, are prohibited on the bluff and must be set back from the top of the bluff, the toe of the bluff, and the side of a bluff at least thirty (30) feet. (b) On parcels of land on which a building has already been constructed on June 1, 1991, the setback from the top of the bluff is five (5) feet or existing setback, whichever is more, for additions to an existing building. Any new buildings will have to meet the thirty-foot setback. BACKGROUND The home located on the property was built in 1962, prior to the adoption of the 1972 zoning ordinance. Due to the date of first construction and the unique shape of the 49,530 square foot agricultural lot and the existing bluff, the existing 528 sq. ft. garage has a 38.9-foot front yard setback and does not conform to the required 50-foot setback as stated in Section 20-575 of the Chanhassen City Code. Paul Variance Planning Case #04-09 March 2, 2004 Page 4 of 7 The applicant is proposing to convert/expand the existing non-conforming 528 sq. ft. garage located north of the home. The garage is setback 38.9 feet from the east property line and is proposed to be convened into a 36' x 46' (1,656 sq. ft.) non-conforming garage. This continued non-conforming garage requires a variance of 12 feet and would increase the square footage by 1,128 square feet from its current size. The existing non-conforming garage location meets the rear and side yard setback requirements of the A-2 zoning district as well as the required bluff protection. The existing detached garage has a side yard setback of roughly 19 feet and a rear yard setback of roughly 50 feet. Both are within the required setbacks of I0 feet (side) and a 30-foot (rear) bluff setback as stated in Section 20-575. The proposed distance between the addition and the front yard (east) property line would remain a non-conforming 38.9 feet if approved. The applicant chose the garage location due to several factors: the bluff west of the existing garage requires a setback of 30 feet. A septic tank is located directly south of the home, and the property's well is located directly south of the existing garage. Additionally, several maple trees are located on the east portion of the property. All these factors create limitations that prevent the applicant from relocating the structure elsewhere on the site that might seem buildable. The proposed garage location would remain a non- conforming addition; however, it would not require the relocation of the existing driveway and walkway. ANALYSIS Since the earliest record we located, it appears that the existing structure is a legal non-conforming structure because it was built before the adoption of the 1972 zoning ordinance. The applicant is required to apply for a variance to construct any addition which does not meet the setback requirements, as specified in Sec 20-575 Lot Requirements and Setbacks (front yards, fifty (50) feet, rear yards, fifty (50) feet, side yards, ten (10) feet). Additionally, Sec 20-71 and Sec 20-72 prevent expansion of non-conforming structures. The proposed addition, located northeast of the existing home, does not lessen the non-conformity and would remain a non-conforming garage, if approved, 38.9 feet from the eastern property line. The property has an impervious coverage of 8.2% (including the existing garage); the proposed detached garage will increase the impervious coverage by 2.3% for a total of 10.5% impervious (including proposed garage) coverage, well within the required 20% maximum. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing garage to a 1,656 sq. ft. detached garage. This will not change the current 38.9-foot front yard setback; however, it will expand the existing footprint of the garage. As stated above, from Section 20-72, ifa setback of a dwelling is non-conforming, no additions may be added to the non-conforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements. Thus the applicant is requesting a 12-foot front yard setback variance to construct the detached garage on the existing non-conforming foundation. The entire home is in compliance with the required setbacks and the proposed garage will maintain its existing non-conforming front yard setback of 38.9 feet. The remainder of the garage setbacks is in compliance with ordinance requirements. Nearly all of the neighboring properties meet the required setbacks for the A~2 district. However, the immediate neighbor on the north side of the subject property did have a variance approving an addition to Paul Variance Planning Case #04-09 March 2, 2004 Page 5 of 7 the owner's non-conforming garage on file in the city's planning department to allow an additional space for parking in the garage and maintain the non-conforming lot size. A garage 1,656 square feet in size could lead to a home occupation. An activity such as a contractor's yard or wood shop is not permitted. The size of the proposed garage is larger than the square-foot requirement for a rambler which is 960 square feet. Staff has reviewed properties within 500 feet and compiled the following list of variances: File Number Property Lakeshore Variance Request Action Taken 91-17 1024 ! Mandan Circle No Addition of garage on non- Approved conlbrming lot 99-18 10291 Mandan Circle No Variance to replace failing septic Withdrawn system Staff is recommending denial of this request based upon the following: 1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2. The site contains a two-car garage as required by ordinance. 3. The applicant has the ability to increase the size of the garage without the need for a variance by building a 36'x 34' garage with an area of 1,224 square feet. FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criterion. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a reasonable use of the property for a detached garage exists and/or can be created to meet setback requirements mentioned in Section 20-575. However, the existing structure is built almost in its entirety within all required setbacks. The home and garage were constructed in 1962, while the earliest record of the zoning ordinance was in 1972, creating a non-conforming structure, which makes it impossible to expand the 42-year-old garage to 46' x 36' (1,656 sq. ft.) without a variance to the setback requirement. The bluff to the west limits how far a building may be set to the west requiring a 30- foot setback. On the south side of the property the applicant's drain field and current septic tank limit alternative locations on the property. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same zoning classification. Paul Variance Planning Case #04-09 March 2, 2004 Page 6 of 7 Finding: In reviewing neighboring properties' surveys, many meet most of the required setbacks. However, not all neighboring properties had variances or surveys on file. The subject property and adjacent properties are unique in that they were built in 1962, within the required setback requirements, prior to the earliest updated zoning ordinance of 1972. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The addition will increase the value of the home; however, that is not the primary intension of the applicant. The addition is based on bringing an outdated portion of the home up to date to benefit the needs and desires of the current homeowners. The intended usage of the proposed garage is to store vehicles and house maintenance equipment, including woodworking equipment that is currently located outside and in the home. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is not self-created by the homeowner; the home was built within the setback requirement prior to the adoption of the 1972 zoning ordinance. Therefore, the garage is a legal non-conforming structure, requiring a variance to expand to a 36' x 46' (1,656 sq. ft.) garage. co The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The variance if approved will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. The addition is located in the same location of the existing garage west of the adjacent property and out of site of the front and rear entrances, nor will it substantially increase the congestion of the public streets as it is an addition to a private residence. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission deny Variance #04-09 for a 12-foot variance from the 50-foot front yard setback requirement as shown on plans dated 9/20/03, prepared by Allan R. Hastings based upon findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2. The site contains a two-car garage as required by ordinance. Paul Variance Planning Case #04-09 March 2, 2004 Page 7 of 7 3. The applicant has the ability to increase the size of the garage without the need for a variance to Section 20-575 of the City Code. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application. 2. Survey of property dated September 20, 2003. 3. Letter from Bruce Paul dated January 20, 2004. 4. Public hearing notice. 5. Building plans. 6. Log of soil borings. 7. Petition for Variance. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-09 - paul variance-10240 mandan circle\staff report 3-2-04.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: __ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit __ Non-conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* __ Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Subdivision* __ Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements '~____ Variance Wetland Alteration Permit __ Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment __ Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/VV AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ ~ ~0. C~~ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8Y=" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. LOCATION / ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE /~. ~ (¢~' W T ANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESENT ZONING /'-IL` -- ~- REQUESTED ZONING /-J/- -- '~' PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. ~ignature of Applicant '~gnature of Fee Owner Application Received on ///~/~7,//~'~/ Fee Paid Date Date Receipt No. 7 7~ g / The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Proposed garage floor elevation Proposed top of block elevation Proposed lowest floor elevation That par~ of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36~ Township 116~ Range 23~'d~ser_lbed as ~ollow~ Co~encing at a point on the North ~ine of said Northwest Quarter~ distant 300.0 ~eet east o~ the Northwest Corner thereof- and running thence South 4 26' East a distance of 300 45 feet to the actual point of beginning, thence continuing South 4 26' East a distance o~ 150 0 feet' thence West and parallel to said North line a distance of 315.1 feet more. or less to the West Line of said Northwest Quarter' thence north along the said West ~i~e a distance of 149.55 feet~ thence oas5 and parallel ~o said North line a distance of 310.4 feet more or less ~o the actual point of beginning. ' ~ '~ Bearin s ' ~ ~E~(~):20~+~'F ~, Subject t ........ ts of record if any , ~- ~-- +0 %~ ~'~L ~ G~ ~0,~- /0 ~ De.o,e~ set or found iron pip ........ ts ~ Denotes set wood hub and tack ~.~ Denotes exlsting elevation ~Denotes proposed finish grade elevation /Denotes direction of surface drainage I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries in the Office of the County Recorder in and for said County, also showing the proposed location of a house as staked thereon. Tha~ I am s duly Registered Land Slurveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Allan R. Hastings Minnesota Registration No. 17009 212 First Avenue E. Suite No. C Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 952 445 4027 January 20, 2004 Variance Committee City of Chanhassen Dear Committee Members, This letter is to petition for a variance on the setback from the street for a garage I am going to build. The new structure will take the place of the existing smaller garage on my property. I would appreciate your consideration, because the following conditions on the property leave me with no other options. The property has many limitations for the placement of a new structure. Because of these limits, I have to build the new garage on thc same footprint as the existing structure. There is a nature bluff on the west side of thc property, which limits how far thc building may be set to the west. I respect the 30ft. setback from the bluff as an important environmental easement. On the south side of the property is my drain field. With future provisions being made to residential drain mounds throughout the area, and the fact that my well would be jeopardized, there is no possibility of moving the structure closer to the house. I did explore the option of a variance to thc north. I feel this would not be an option pleasing to my neighbor. This limits the area on the property to build the garage. My current plan would be to utilize all of the property easement to the north. This -,viii allow me to get the width I need for the building. In order to get the length I need, I am asking that the building be allowed to stay at its' current setback from the street. This would keep the neighborhood looking as it does now and allow me the room I need to house all of my needs. Without the variance, it would take 10 ft. off the length of the building, not giving me the room I need for storage. The current structure's setback does not in any way block the line of sight for any vehicles on the road, causing an unsafe condition. The existing driveway is almost three car lengths from the edge of the street. It is evident that in 30 years this distance has not been a problem for the neighborhood. The new structure will be more in keeping with the style and overall appearance with the homes around mine. It is important to me that my property does not reflect badly on my neighbor's. I would like to provide inside storage for all of my vehicles, and house maintenance equipment. If the new structure was built under the current setback provisions, it would open up a view of my front yard and give my neighbor a view of the drain field and possibly take away some of the privacy he now enjoys. The granting of this variance would be in the best interest of the neighborhood and myself. It reflects the improvements that many of my neighbors have already made to their property. I would appreciate any time or consideration you are able to allow. Respectfully yours, Bruce Paul 1024~1 MANDAN CIRCI,[( CllASKA, MN 55318 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 20, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for variance to front yard setback at 10240 Mandan Circle, Bruce Paul - Planning Case No. 04-09 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Karefi J. Eng¢lhaq:tt, Depn'ty Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this;,:lC4.~ day of ~"b,'c,~ r/ ,2004. g:\eng\lbrms\a ffidavit.doc KIIVI T. A4EUWI~N ~ Notay PuDlic- MiDDesola ~: CARVEH COU.NTY ~ ~~V¥~,~My Commission Expires 1/31/2005 ¢~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Variance to Front Yard Setback APPLICANT: Bruce Paul PLANNING CASE #04-09 LOCATION' 10240 Mandan Circle NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Bruce Paul, is requesting a variance to the front yard setback to expand the garage for a single-family home on a 1-acre lot, zoned A-2. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Nathan Bouvet at 952-227-1132 or e-mail nbouvet@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 19, 2004. ? Subject Property ':- -~ Gte, Location Map Public Hearing Notification Area 10240 Mandan Circle City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-09 P~oneer Tra;I (Hwy 14) Pioneer Trail Subject Property ALBERT & SARAH J AVEDIKIAN 10220 MANDAN CIR CHASKA MN 55318-9401 ANNE & CLARA VOGEL 815 CREEKWOOD DR CHASKA MN 55318-9643 BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOC 1025 CREEKWOOD DR CHASKA MN 55318-9647 BRUCE W PAUL 10240 MANDAN CIR CHASKA MN 55318-9401 DANIEL SCHAITBERGER & CATHERINE A SCHAITBERGER 10241 MANDAN CIR CHASKA MN 55318-9402 DONALD E HALLA & SANDRA J CWAYNA HALLA 10000 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHASKA MN 55318-9465 GARY & DEBRA ANDERSON 725 CREEKWOOD CHASKA MN 55318-9621 HARRY E NIEMELA 10670 P©PPITZ LN CHASKA MN 55318-9280 JAMES E & GAlL E BECKER 10291 MANDAN CIR CHASKA MN 55318-9402 JAMES E & R SUSAN PEDERSEN 10300 MANDAN CIR CHASKA MN 55318-9401 JAMES W SABINSKE 775 CREEKWOOD CHANHASSEN MN 55318-9621 JOHN & ELAINE Z MALAKOWSKY 10301 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHASKA MN 55318-9467 JOHN C & KATHLEEN M CHLEBECEK 10260 MANDAN CIR CHASKA MN 55318-9401 JOHN J & J PHILLIPS ETAL C/O JAMES & CHERYL SULERUD 730 VOGELSBERG TRL CHASKA MN 55318-9461 MARK D & KAY M HALLA 770 CREEKWOOD DR CHASKA MN 55318-9620 RENEE L STRICKLAND 10251 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHASKA MN 55318-9468 RICHARD T HALVER 10271 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHASKA MN 55318-9468 SPENCER L & GLORIA A BOYNTON TRUSTEES OF TRUSTS 777 CREEKWOOD CHASKA MN 55318-9621 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-09 - paul variance-10240 mandan circle\ph notice labels.doc ~,.. cfi3 :IO ~,0 O~ ueC LOG OF SOIL BORINGS Location of Project: ~anft~ CircI~ Borings made by' T__o.m__Jf~[_~chnik ....... Classification Sy~.em: AA. HO Date: Dec_em_bet 26~2__0_0.3_ USDA-SCS __~X.~_ [hfified Other Auger Used (check two); Ha~ld X P 0 WeF Fligbt Bucket X Other Depth fu Feet 7--- Bming Number B 1 Surfac~ Elexmtton I_0_XLR 2/2 San.4&._Cla_x l 0 'YR 1.__Q0_._YR 6/4, M_og)..ed at__ Inch Hand Aug~- Feet Boring Nmnl~t .~ Surfac, El~'ation B2 1_0_.~. 2/2 10 YR 4i'3 !.9 Y_ g_2~._t__Loan~t Mottl_~ at ~ End of Boring at ..... Sliding Water Table: Presem at feet of depth, hours after boring Not Present in boring hole End of Boring at 2.5 feet. Standing Water Table: Present m feet of depth, hours ~ boring. Not Present in bo~ng h.ole X Mottled Soil: Mottled Soil: Observed at ~1.5 feet of dept. Not Present in boring hole ...... Observed at 1.__!2.~_t~et of depth Not Present in boring hole Observation and Comments: Ob se~'ation artd Comments: PETITION for VARIANCE at 10240 Mandan Circle - I am in agreement to allow Bruce Paul to keep the existing front setback of the current garage building. I understand that the new building will be placed 53 feet fi'om the edge of the street. It will in no way cause an obstructed view of the roadway or detract from the neighborhood. NAME: ADDRESS: