HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 12-13 PCP 3 C:ryor
BROOKLYN
CENTER
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
DECEMBER 13,2012
(REGULAR MEETING)
1. Call to Order: 7:00 PM
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes—November 29, 2012 (Study Session)
4. Chairperson's Explanation
The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to
hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes
recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these
matters.
5. Presentations—None
6. Planning Application Items with public hearing)
LUDMILA BRYSKINA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2012-022
5601 INDIANA AVENUE NORTH
Variance to City Code Sect. 35-111, the expansion of a non-conforming structure in the
R-1 (Residence One) District, which would allow the Applicant the ability to construct a
passageway/tunnel between an existing dwelling and detached garage, and maintain a
reduced setback for the garage of 18.3-ft. from the required 35-ft. front-yard setback.
7. Planning Application Items without public hearing) —None
8. Action Items
9. Discussion Items
10. Adjournment
3 C!yar
BR 0 A
CENTER
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: December 13, 2012 Application Filed on 11/14/12
City Council action should be
taken by 01/13/13 (60 Days)
Application No. 2012-022 -
Applicant: Ludmila Bryskina
Location: 5601 Indiana Avenue N.
Request: Variance to Sect. 35-111 to allow the expansion of a non-conforming structure by
allowing a reduced setback of 18.3 feet to remain on an existing detached garage
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Ludmila Bryskina is requesting a variance from City Zoning Code Sect. 35-111,
which would allow the expansion of a non-conforming structure and maintain a reduced setback
of 18.3 feet of an existing detached garage. Approval of this variance would authorize the
Applicant to construct an underground passageway or tunnel between the residential dwelling
and detached garage.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices to surrounding property owners have been
mailed. The applicant has submitted for review and consideration two petition letters signed by
neighboring property owners supporting this variance request. An aerial map, survey/site plan
and building diagrams are attached to this report, which illustrates the details of this request.
BACKGROUND
The setbacks for a dwelling and detached garage in the R-1 One Family Residence district lot are
as follows:
DWELLING (Principal) GARAGE (Accessory)
Front Yard=35 ft. Front Yard=35-ft.
Side Yard= 10 ft. Side Yard(interior)=3-ft.
Rear Yard=25 ft. Rear Yard= 5-ft.
The existing detached garage measures approximately 24' x 24' or 576 sf, in size. The proposed
passageway/tunnel measures 16' x 29' and would be constructed at or below the surrounding
grades between the residential dwelling and detached garage. The existing garage sits 18.3 feet
from the front property line (Indiana Ave. ROW) and only 2.6 feet from the north lot line.
Zoning regulations stipulate that if a detached or accessory structure is connected to or built
closer than 6-feet to the principal building (i.e. the dwelling), all principal building setbacks must
be met or demonstrated.
As illustrated on the Applicant's cross-section plans, the house sits a few feet above the grade
elevations of the detached garage. Upon parking in the garage or driveway, the owners and/or
visitors walk to a set of concrete steps leading up to a slightly elevated sidewalk that ends at a
front porch area of the home, and then more stairs leading up to the front door and landing. The
homeowners claim that navigating these stairs and sidewalk has become increasingly difficult as
Bryskina Variance
Page 1
12/13/12
they have aged, not only for them but for their elderly father they care for in the home.
Inclement weather does not help or offers hazardous situations at certain times throughout the
year when traveling these stairs and walkways.
Sect. 35-111 provides "No such nonconforming use of land shall be enlarged or increased or
occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this
ordinance." As illustrated by the survey, the detached garage is nonconforming as to the
required setbacks from Indiana Avenue; and the house is slightly under the 10-foot side yard
requirements as well. Because of this nonconforming status, the variance would be needed to
allow the tunnel connection, since this would essentially increase the legal nonconforming use
(status) of the subject property. Allowing the connection-way between the two structures means
the joined structures would be considered as one, large principal structure, and therefore all
principal (dwelling) setbacks as noted above are required to be met.
The Planning Commission should also be aware that the subject property is entirely affected by
the 100-year floodplain established off adjacent Twin Lake. As part of the overall floodplain
development standards and regulations provided under City Code Sect. 35-2100 — F000dplain
Management, approval of this variance and subsequent building permit would be subject to
additional development standards required under the floodplain ordinance, which are very
detailed and specific. This variance is not requesting relief from any standards or requirements
listed under the floodplain management ordinance, nor would it be applicable since any
allowance or relief from the floodplain ordinance requires a special use permit instead of a
variance application.
ANALYSIS
Section 35-240 —Variances of the City Code provides the current governing rules and standards
in the review of variances. The section states the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals, recommends and the City Council grants variances from the literal
provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue
hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under
consideration. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence
that all of the Standards for Variances, contained in the Zoning Ordinances are met, which
include the following:
a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of
the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be
carried out.
b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the
parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other
property within the same zoning classification.
c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been
created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land.
Bryskina Variance
Page 2
12/13/12
d) 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 of land is located.
The Minnesota State Legislature passed a new law in 2011 that significantly revamped the
parameters or standards in which municipal governments can review and grant variances.
According to Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6. Appeals and
Adjustments, the standards noted above have now been revised by eliminating the need to justify
or prove a hardship in variances. The primary standard or principle in the granting of variances
is now based on a "reasonable" test or justification. The new law (abbreviated below) provides
the following standards:
Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance
establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying, with the zoning ordinance.
"Practical difficulties,"as used in connection with the grantingof a variance, means:
a) that the proper. owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the zoning ordinance:
b) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner; and
c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality
Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
iculties.
The City Attorney has advised planning staff that in order to be consistent with and compliant
with new State Law, the city should analyze or determine this variance case under these new
rules and standards. The following is city planning staff's findings based on these above-
referenced standards:
❖ that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the zoning ordinance;
The "reasonable" nature of this particular variance case appears to be rational and
practical. It is obvious the property will function better with an underground tunnel
connector between the house and garage, especially during cold, rainy/snowy/icy
conditions. The same could be said if this happened to be an at-grade (same level)
addition or walkway between both structures. The homeowner indicated they are an
"elderly couple" and taking care of their [older] father from the home. They are seeking
a better and safer means of traveling to and from the garage and the home. Staff believes
the tunnel would provide an ideal structure to safely and effectively transport pedestrians
and/or objects from the home and garage. The proposed use appears to be an appropriate
need of this site and may therefore be considered a reasonable use.
Bryskina Variance
Page 3
12/13/12
the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner
The existing home -and garage were built in 1963, and not by the current landowners.
Although somewhat unusual to see homes and garages throughout the community built at
different grades, this does not mean the subject property is especially "unique" by any
means. The term "plight" as noted in this heading is defined as "an unfortunate
condition; a difficult or dangerous situation, especially a sad or desperate predicament."
An additional rational argument could be made that the situation of the stairs and
sidewalk between both structures is somewhat of an "unfortunate condition"; and one not
created by landowners. The added fact that the homeowners are elderly and care for an
even older family relative makes this tunnel feature a wise and reasonable option. The
remedy, as proposed by the Applicant homeowner, appears on paper as a simple fix;
however, the new tunnel will be an expensive and highly engineered structure, which in
the end will hopefully provide the personal safety and comfort the homeowners seek
while traveling between garage and home.
❖ the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Staff does not believe that granting of this variance would alter the essential character of
the locality or the neighboring residential homes in this area. The impact is limited to the
interior portion of the property and the proposal of constructing the tunnel underground
and situated between home and garage further lessens any impacts. The tunnel will not
be seen from the lake area or impact any view-sheds.. As part of any future grading on
the site and construction performed under the building permit, impacts will be eliminated
or addressed during full review of said permit. Any grading (grade changes, slopes, etc.);
erosion control, or drainage impacts caused by the installation of said improvement will
be fully reviewed and approved by the City Engineers prior to any construction.
Additional landscaping or trees along the north lot line may be warranted to provide
screening of the underground structure from the neighboring homeowners.
❖ Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Staff does not believe the Applicant's request of this variance is due to economic reasons
or considerations alone. The private property site will function much better due to this
connector between garage and home. Staff anticipates and theorized this structure will be
an expensive endeavor on the part of the homeowners, not only to engineer, but also in
the building of said tunnel. Nevertheless, staff hopes the owners are fully understanding
of the risks and expense this new structure may bring, and the added requirements to be
placed on them as part of the consideration of the future building and floodplain permits.
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
The updated variance statute states "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony
with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with
the comprehensive plan." By simply adding a tunnel connector between a home and garage, and
further allowing an expansion of a nonconforming use does not take away from the general
Bryskina Variance
Page 4
12/13/12
purpose and intent of the [zoning] ordinance. This allowance, even under a variance, appears
reasonable and justifiable. It is important to note that by building the structure almost entirely
underground, this helps eliminate visual impacts and views from adjacent neighbors, which is
always a positive.
With that brief summary, Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance based on the
grounds that the new standards for granting variances (under Mn SS 2010, Section 462.357,
Subdivision 6), particularly the standards for reasonableness and uniqueness to this and all other
properties throughout Brooklyn Center have been met; and the variance is in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the ordinance.
If the Planning Commission accepts this recommendation, the Commission may elect to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-26, which memorializes the findings in granting this
variance and provides for the conditions of approval as follows:
1. No major modifications or expansion to the existing structures on the subject will be allowed,
except those illustrated on the submitted plans and considered exclusively under this variance
application. Any deviation or modification to these plans will require separate consideration
and approval.
2. The Applicant shall provide detailed and certified topographical survey information showing
existing ground elevations and contours of the property for determination of drainage and
flood plain impacts.
3. Based on the 100-year FEMA FIRM maps, this property is located fully within the 100-year
floodplain. Any modification to the property and structures must fully comply with the City
floodplain Ordinance 35-2100. Detailed plans must be provided for review and approval.
4. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to
applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits.
5. The Applicant shall ensure that all disturbed areas of the rear yard area caused by this
construction will be restored. Additional plantings of evergreen trees and shrubs will be
provided along the northerly lot line to screen the underground tunnel from the adjacent
neighbor.
6. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, including details of the
underground tunnel connector, lowest floor elevations, and any related improvements.
ATTACHMENTS
• Aerial/Location Maps
• Survey Map/Site Plan
• Tunnel Layout Plan w/Cross-Sections
• Supporting Photos of the Property
• FEMA Panel No.27053CO202E(100-Year Floodplain Firmette Map)
• Neighboring Property Owners'Letters of Support
Bryskina Variance
Page 5
12/13/12
Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-26
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-022 SUBMITTED BY
LUDMILA BRYSKINA FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO CITY CODE
SECTION 35-111 NONCONFORMING USES, LOCATED AT 5601 INDIANA
AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2012-022 submitted by
Ludmila Bryskina proposes a variance to City Code Section. 35-111, specifically to allow the
expansion of a non-conforming structure in the R-1 (Residence One) District, and allow the
Applicant/Owners to construct an underground passageway between the dwelling and detached
garage, and maintain a reduced setback for the garage of 18.3 feet from the required 35-ft. front-
yard setback, located at 5601 Indiana Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on
December 13, 2012, whereby a planning staff report was presented and public testimony regarding
the variance and site and building plan were received; and
WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and
standards for evaluating and determining variances under City Code Section 35-240 and the
Comprehensive Plan, and moreover those variance standards as provided under Minnesota State
Statutes 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6. Appeals and Adjustments, the Planning
Commission considered and determined the appropriateness of said variance based on the
following factors:
a) the property owner's request to use the property in a reasonable
manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance is justifiable and
reasonable, considering the overall improvements to this site as a
convenience food restaurant are not drastically changing. The ability
to add three access drives into this site will provide better separation
and allow customer traffic to safely enter and exit this site;
b) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner, since the original site was
built as such in 1963 and created a conflicting grade elevation
situation between the residential dwelling and detached garage, and
the owners presented a reasonable remedy of installing n underground
connector or tunnel between said structures;
c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality, due to the fact the installation and construction of the tunnel
will take place in the interior portion of the property; no view sheds
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2012-26
or lake vistas will be affected; and the tunnel will be below grade and
screened as needed; and
d) Economic considerations alone did not constitute practical difficulties
in this particular case.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission
of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2012-022
submitted by Ludmila Bryskina is hereby approved, subject the following conditions:
1. No major modifications or expansion to the existing structures on the
subject will be allowed, except those illustrated on the submitted plans
and considered exclusively under this variance application. Any
deviation or modification to these plans will require separate
consideration and approval.
2. The Applicant shall provide detailed and certified topographical survey
information showing existing ground elevations and contours of the
property for determination of drainage and flood plain impacts.
3. Based on the 100-year FEMA FIRM maps, this property is located fully
within the 100-year floodplain. Any modification to the property and
structures must fully comply with the City floodplain Ordinance 35-2100.
Detailed plans must be provided for review and approval.
4. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits.
5. The Applicant shall ensure that all disturbed areas of the rear yard area
caused by this construction will be restored. Additional plantings of
evergreen trees and shrubs will be provided along the northerly lot line to
screen the underground tunnel from the adjacent neighbor.
6. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, including
details of the underground tunnel connector, lowest floor elevations, and
any related improvements.
December 13, 2012
Date Chair
2 of 3
PC RESOLUTION NO.2012-26
ATTEST:
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof:
Chair , Commissioners
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
3 of 3
LOGISMap Output Page
5601 INDIANA AVENUE N.
J 1 4013 1 j j l I I I I I I I 1 —1 4..
.58TH AVEN
57.tI 4019 .1013 4007 5731
5738
5)31 5731
5730
5731 YL 5725
3919
3913
3907
3901
3825
3919
3813 3807 3715 370) 3639
3833
House Number Points
NMunicipal
Boundary
Streets
3918
3912
3906
39W
3628
3824
.3820
M16 3527
3835 5737
36YJ 5731
r
� 3624 iT25
pill
IML
STOt ; 5709 5191 X
LL- 57TH AVEN --
5639 5827 S 5634 3915 3937 3901 3825 3919 3815 380) 3959
Z
5621 O
552-0 5821
3918 3912 3" 3990 3524 3818 3912 3!x16 38W
5898 5815
55'5
-- SURQUESTLN "
5611 5612 5507
0�
5607 1 5610 3913 3907 3901 3525 331§ 3915 3507 3.401
0.
'I 5503
SNJ3
� 56W 3912 3906 39'}0 3524 3818 3812 3305 3!!00
•. _--___ _._ ....36TH AYEN -..
]p15 3YOT 3901 3825 3lnY 3855 3!507 3Wt
5520 3912 3905 3WY3 38:W 3812 3906 3�5
22
_ .......... _-.._.ECHeERR DR
IS 3925 3917 3901 3831 3925 38!9 3613 5533
55x
a
55116 5512 5527 w 5530
4
5451 x 5158 5525 1 5520
x
5450 .13 5510
!144'1 rD �.^"'•
22 f� 1144 5507
ro
PID: 0311821310082
5601 Indiana Ave N
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
N.thp.d Park
I SUBJECT SITE I
r C;(;,(of
BROOKLY,
CE, LATER
Legend
El
Highlighted Feature
Street Name Labels
House Number Points
NMunicipal
Boundary
Streets
Lakes&Streams
Parks
OParcels
I SUBJECT SITE I
r C;(;,(of
BROOKLY,
CE, LATER
LOGISMao Output Paae
http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=bc_logismap_ovsde&ClientVersion=4.0&Form=True&Encode=False[12/7/2012 2:31:05 PM]
00irt zrI va ta of 7J
for: Ludmila Bryskina ;% �: I - E
5601 Indiana Ave.N Z.s:';;`
Brooldyn Center MN 55429 N7p"33'35"E 16- 2g61 " :�i•: . 16.5' I 0 20'
16713' t "INS a �•:�: :•:��•:�i•:.i•:. i
LU
° GAS %`;%`;%`;%�;%`;•. I LU
tO
FEVR 595 55
PROPOSED TUNNEL E` ';:. r
N i I Z
L
Description of Property Surveyed: Asa Notel 2^ �.:;:: ':;•^.,:':;:':; : '
Tract B,Registered Land Survey
No.960,Hennepin County,MN. N °
A i
Subject to easements of record.
�.•:.
P Gil
0
C 1.6'
Z ° w ch Benchmark: 16.5'
Q• ) Top Nut of Hydrant
♦♦ Q LU 2' Elev.=857.57
(NAVD88 Vertical Datum) a
Lu
A
_ _! 31'
_ I AT Do",=854.75 -' 2 i ENCE ` ,
t -CHAIN LINK F .� 118
t
o
s
/ I 22.6
/ n SHED in
0i - 155 66'
I , 5 7,'44'SB"W
/ ,y 22• r�? S NOTE:TUNNEL FLOOR TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT OR ABOVE
AN ELEVATION OF 856.65';1.00'ABOVE THE 100-YEAR B.F.E.
a2'+I OF 855.65(NAVD88 VERTICAL DATUM)
THE B.F.E.IS BASED ON THE NGVD29 VERTICAL DATUM.THIS
SURVEY IS BASED ON NAVD88 VERTICAL DATUM WHICH IS 0.15'
ABOVE THE 29 DATUM IN THIS AREA.
REVISED 10/24/12-TUNNEL ELEVATION AND DATUM
LEGEND I hereby certify that this plan or report was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly FILE NAME
O SET IRON MONUMENT licensed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of 1064-OO.TRV OREMIER
the State of Minnesota. SCALE DATE DRAWN BY:
• FOUND IRON MONUMENT 20' 10-24-2012 SVI LAND SURVEYING, LLC
�,,,,`�•`;•`�, l�'7 c>3 IO
JOB REVISION SHEET
Concrete 7-� �Ly J'L 1064-00 1/1 1/1
�'•�'�'•'•�' Steven V.Ische, Lic.No. Date 952-443-3010
This map drawn with TRAVERSE PC,Software
rmverse PC
I
NEW DOOR—
EXISTING EMI
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I �
I I
I i
I I
I I
N I I
16'-0•
ADDITION
4'CONC.FLOOR
NEW WALL
ROOF JOISTS ABOVE
\ @ 12'O.C.
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 2•SPACE BETWEEN EXISTING
AND NEW WALLS FIELEO WITH
FOAM INSULATION AND
COVERED WITH RUBBER
MEMBRANE
I I
NEW&X T OPENING �—
1 EXISTING GARAGE WALL
allout of SITE f VIEW
2X 6 WALL V HIGH
METAL FLASHING
ROOFING MEMBRANE
I-JOISTS @ 12.O.C.
STORAGE
I.
w
7
LAKE
ADDITION
TREATED 2X6 SILL PLATE
SILL SEAL EXISTING 1 TY .0.
O.C.
12 COUR ES ONC.BLOCK WALL 24'-°• GARAGE
POLY-WALL WATERPROOFING ADDITION
R-10 2'CLOSED CELL FOAM
DRAIN TILE TO SUMB PUMP
4'CONC.SLAB ON GRAVEL BED ---82'
— - INDIANA AVE
20•:B•coNC.Frc.wi
REBAR AS PER CODE —
Section 1 n SITE VIEW
avablueprints.com
No.
Description
Date
5601 INDIANA AVE
ADDITION
SITE
Project Number Ludmila Bruskina
Date 3/26/2012
Dreg,M Author
Cbeacea by Checker
A101
1 Smie As indicated
E
R
a
FRONT
1/8"=1'-0"
27-0'
i
No.
FL
ROOF(12-I JOISTS @ 12.O.C.)
.:EXISTING HOUSE��
EXISTING GARAGE
EXISTING GARAGE
m
-..
.GROUND L WE
ADDITION
20'X 10'CON..M REINFORCE AS PER CODE
12 X B X 18'CONC.BLOCK WALL
24'-0'
29•-0"
27"-0*
=1'-0"
avablueprints.com
No.
Desaiptim
Date
.:EXISTING HOUSE��
EXISTING GARAGE
NEW ADDITION
-..
.GROUND L WE
=1'-0"
avablueprints.com
No.
Desaiptim
Date
5601 INDIANA AVE
ADDITION
ELEVATIONS
Pmlect number Ludmila Bruskina
Date 3126/2012
Dram by Alexander B.
Checked by
Al 02
Scale 1/8"
. �.
. . ..
FEET
Y
r.3f
.:....
Ell
F
ZONE
-
VA �5 � .
ImNut PL
I,i nn i nnl
PANEL 0212E
C
P
57TH AV.
Q FIRM
�A.e.. tt LFpi �'i.4
+s r ®t,7G
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
,, +
•
A u � :�s.�j
e.....
MINNESOTA
(ALL JURISDICrIONS)
PANEL 212 OF 479
. . l_
00MMUNrrY NUMBER PANEL SUFFD(
�i' 38;^
y
�IITIII�
p §� ,1�'E;L I ...
MOO
i $t, r a 'Si
M AP NUMBER
Q , EFFECTIVE DATE
djZ tt x
Y s 1 b
-"t t p��� i'j ✓
2,20 04
,'� ."n .fix � `;L o� 7 c ��r J� � +�.•' 1 �_P'. + L
� 1
4 4�
I
I
=�
e�
t.
t
•t..` '` i, '� aryl
K4
,
r -
OW or -7-
Kill
Letter to support variance for connecting garage with the basement
5601 Indiana Ave N
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
We, William and Connie Clabots are aware that Bryskin's family at 5601 Indiana Ave N
is planning to build a connection between the detached garage and house basement.
We believe that this will have no impact on the neighborhood and/or environment and
we have no objections to such project.
Sigp"re:,
Date 1,91a S-// 2
Letter to support variance for connecting garage with the basement
5601 Indiana Ave N
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
We are aware that Bryskin's family at 5601 Indiana Ave N is planning to build a
connection between the detached garage and house basement.
We believe that this will have no impact on the neighborhood and/or environment and
we have no objections to such project.
1
Signature: / II/(^,Y�J /A»- �C S
Date 16 /2-/2-7//Z. ll 71i ,
5- &d-kl Wafghor
5te 0-7 1 voidpw- P-ot
But)VIT �eVArxIN