Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC66073 - 10/27/66 - 3907 & 3913 52nd AveL11-.� PLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST FILE INFORMATION File Purge Date: '/9s Planning Commission Application Number: G(00-73 PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: PLAN REFERENCE Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were consolidated. • Site Plans • Building Plans • Other: FILE REFERENCE Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents. Document Type Date Range Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes: City Council Document Tvoe Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council 10/-/6c. }ab►ed City Vault 10/27/" City Vault Number Location City Vault City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault VILLAGE OF BROOKLYN CENTER #bb073 Zoning Application .E Street Location of Property 3907 and 3913 - 52nd Avenue North Legal Oescription of Property West 25 feet of Lot-3 and East 126 feet of Lot 4 Block 5, Twin Lake Woods Addition Owner: Name Laurel. H. Zipf Address .390 a,K Ylo - 11EIS, Applicant: Name S_mestad & Engquist ,Address3818 Johnson St. N.E.-Phone SU 8-5544 F9 7-3379 Type of Request: Rezoning _X _ Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request Special Use permission to allow construction of two .duplax-dwellings on the above described property. Reason for Request 0 FEE: $ 5.00 #21057 Rec'd, Published On Pl. Comm. Agenda Pl. Comm, Action On Council Agenda Council Postponement Council Action Bldg, Dent. Notified Applicant Notified P1. Comm. Postponement L. (Applicant -g 4�, - (Date) commendations of Village Officials Any official making any comments should sign and date. Use additional sheet comments if necessary attach hereto. Please draw or attach sketch of proposed structure showing the following: 1. Indicate North 6. Dimensions of proposed structure 2. Location on lots 7. Proposed set -backs 3. Adjacent street names 8. State zoning in force in area 4. Location set -backs and use of adjacent existing buildings 5. Distances between any proposed structures and structures on adjacent property. (To Be Filled in By Planning Commission) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENOATIONS On the day of 13f',-C 19 4he action requested in the foregoing petition was approved disapproved ( ) subject t he following conditions. Chairman i%—(v _- -- --- COUNCIL RECOMMEN TIONS Approved Denied by the Council this day of 19 dnnrnupd with following amendment PLANNING COU1I5SiON INFORMATION SHEET Application No,, 66OT3 Applicant: Smestad and Engquist description of Request: Special use permission to allow construction of two duplex dwellings on the property. Property: 3907 and 3913 - 52nd Avenue North OVest 25 feet of Lot 3 and East 126 feet of Lot 4, Block 5, Twin Lake Soods Addition) Owner of property:. Laurel Zipf BACKGRGUNJ: 1) A similar request for two duplexes on this property was made in 1963 (963008). The Planning Commission recommended approval of that request (May 2,, 1963) while the Village Council denied it (May 6, 1963), No reasoning for these actions is present in the &inutes of those meetings POINTS TO BE CONSIJERE J : 1) An interesting situation arose in regard to the previous duplex request: The property is very low; and has served as a sump area for runnoff water. Apparently a question was raised by someone regarding this runoff, and an opinion from the Village Attorney at that time was requested. The Attorney's letter is enclosed for review. 2) The property will be used as two lots, each 75' x 237', each with an area of 17,775 square feet. The zoning ordinance requires 12,400 square feet of land for a duplex site 3) It is quite likely that the nature of the property will require the use of pilings to support any structures built there, in addition to a good deal of infilling, L-- MEMO TO:: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Commission Secretary DATE: October 27, 1966 RE: Application No_ 66073 by Smestad and Engquist Construction Company requesting special use permission for two dupley dwellings at 3907 and 3913 - 52nd Avenue worth,: In accordance with the Commissions request:, the applicant has submitted the results of soil borings on the subject properties,. The Engineering department has reviewed the report of the Engineering firm., and is in agree- ment with the suggestion of the Engineering firm that piling would indeed be necessary to allow construction of any type on the property. 1 would add to this verification of the Engineering firm"s report that the Commission should place this report in its proper perspective; that is, as an interesting bit of information relevant to the actual construction on the property, but not relevant to the issuance of the special use permission in accordance with the Standards for Special Use Permits. 52nd AVENUE NORTH s>>L 3925 3919 i 3913 3907 i 3901 3815 38i1 4001 r" M � M N N I (i 1{ ' 7575' OAK STREET NORTH L iNoauwr, FRAStR i MAONUOON ATTORNRY• AT LAW YrSN••:� t rltiooulRt itb. CMAGN SON tutlr .� M.•tA? �O all 0 t rtt. •AA►♦ 41: ARn r - a" A% .4 Cc 416ri -SON ►r, �,<< -Huti vA 1! of r Planning Commission Village of Brooklyn Center 7100 Osseo Road Minneapolis 29, Minnesota Gentlemen! fI';�±�r� M-OLANO SANK •Ul,:I ♦O MIMN[AP0Lie 1, MiNhISOTA •HCN. FROSPA, •-O•il March 22, 1963 The Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 7, 1963, requested an opinion from this office on the following questions: 1. Can an owner of platted property be required to provide drainage of a lot which has been used for years as an area sump when he wishes to fill part of the lot and tuild a residence thereon? 2. What responsibility for contributing to the cost of drainage may have accrued to the adjacent property owners due to the fact that part of their surface water discharges into this sump area? ` The water contained in this sump area may, I presume, be considered sur- face water. The common law rule with respect to surface water is that surface water is a common enemy which each owner may dispose of as best he can. This rule is modified in Minnesota by the limitation that a property owner may not unnecessarily or unreasonably injure his neighbor. The general approach the Courts take in applying this concept is to compare the benefit derived from the disposal of the surface water with the injury to the adjoining property owners. In other words, the owner of property is legally privileged to make a reasonable use of his land even though the sur- face water may be diverted causing some harm to others. He is only liable for damages when he acts unreasonably. In addition, I know of no rule of law which requires a man to maintain his property as a swamp to provide a drainage basin for the surrounding property owners. t ..^# ` 00" f':` Planning dommission Wch 22, 1963 Pap Two if this property owner were to construct a single family dwelling on this lot, he would have a right to fill the lot and construct the building with- out any special permit or authorization. I understand, however, that the owner has applied for a Special Use Permit to construct a duplex. This raises the question of whether the Village may require him to provide drainage as a condition of permit. In my opinion, the conditions which may be attached to the issuance of a Special Use Permit are conditions which will ameliorate the disadvantages Inherent in the special use. These are such things as screening of parking lots] green strips and the like. In this case, however, the disadvantages, loss of s sump area and increase in surface water, would also result from the permitted use of the property —a single family dwelling. I do not think, therefore, that conditioning the Special Use Permit on providing drainage involving substantial cost would be reasonable. The adjoining property owners have the same responsibility respecting drainage as 011 residents of the Village. If a drainage problem requires construction of asaer r&cilities, the Village may proceed with the normal public improvement proaSediags. In this manner, by holding hearings, the facility may be constructed and the cost assessed to the benefited property owners. CASWELL ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 7708 LAKELAND AVENUE NO. OSSEO, MINN. 55389 LAND SURVEYORS GEOLOGISTS SOIL SPECIALISTS MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS Mr. Laurel Zipf I ain Schools, Inc. 3906 — 52nd Avenue North Minaeapolis, Minnesota Dear Sir: October 25, 1965 CO. The preliminary testholes we made at parts of Lots 3 and 4. Block 5, Twin Lake ''�coods are attached along with a map showing the property and testhole locations. 3tanuard cA-,nctration methods were used to put down the testholes. A two inch O.D. sampler was driven by blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. Penetration resistance is indicated on the logs in blows per foot: (BPF). Dlesthole one, located in the filled front portion of the site, reveals eight feet of peat materials below nine feet of brown loamy sand (fill) an(d light brown fine sand. Groundwater is noted at ten feet. Testhole twe, made from the criginal ground surface elevation, shows peat to a depth of five feet) underlain by gray fine to medium sand. Water at this hole is at a depth of three feet. Based upon our reference elevations, organic materials vary in elevation by five feet and are deeper at test — point one. You could cinsider two methods of improving foundation con6iti.ons at this property: removing and replacing the organic soils or driving piles. Removing the organic materials requires excavation of the existing fill as well as excavation of all organic materials. Ground water would be E::icountered, hampering removal of peat and placement of the compacted fill. Very likely, removal of the groundwater by sumping and well point— ing will be difficult in the sand, considering the close proximity of Twin Lake. We suggest that driven piles are the only feasible method of building support at this site. At least ten feet of penetration into the sand materials such as noted at 17 feet at testhole 1 will be necessary to develop adequate pile bearing.. Greater length will likely be necessary at other locations. TEL. 425-2181 CASWELL ENGINEERING CO. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS 7708 LAKELAND AVENUE NO. OSSEO, MINN. 55369 CIVIL ENGINEERS • LAND SURVEYORS GEOLOGISTS October 26, 1966 SOIL SPECIALISTS w wiricAl r.0NS111 TANTS Soil Testing Twin Lake Woods Page — 2 — Variations in depth to the sand layers underlying the organic soils are expected at this property. Our two testholes indicate a five foot vari— ation. To more accurately define the number and length of piles, we suggest additional testhole exploration. Yours very truly, SWEL ENGINEERING CO. 0 0 Carl E. Anderson CEA:dj File; 2387-2 Enc. D DATA ON SOIL BORING TEST 2387--2 Job No Sponsor Mr. Laurel Zipf Address 3906 — 52nd Avenue North, Minneapolis innesota Name o4 Subdivision -- 'Rain take Woods Location Test Point 1 Test Point 1 (Continued) Depth Elev. 9 7. 8 BPF Depth Elev. APF 0. 6. 9. 10. 17. 20. 0 6 5 8 Brown loamy sand 9 4 2 0 2 Light brown fine sand 1 1 0 Wa to r U — 1 Table 3 5 4 Black decomposed peat 4 4 4 4 0 10 Gray fine to medium sand 10 7 0 20. 24. 0 7 Gray fine to medium sand 7 7 10 0 CASWEII ENGINEERING CO. 8Y Ak Dote October 26, 1966 DATA ON SOIL BORING TEST Job No 2387-2 Sponsor Mr. Laurel Lipf Address 3906 — 52nd Avenue North, Minneapolis Nome of Subdivision Twin Lake Woods Minnesota Location Test Point 2 Test Point Depth Elev. 90. 8 BPF Depth Elev. BPF 0.0 3.0 5.0 9.0 Black and brown peat —Water— Table 6 Gray fine to medium sand 5 6 6 CA WEII ENGINEERING CO. By — C�f�7 Dote October 26. 1966 7708 Lakeland Ave. (Brooklyn Park), P. O. Osseo, Minn. CASWELL ENGINEERING Registered Professional Engineers and land Surveyors SOIL TESTING LOCATION MAP For ! %y% A/ f-/U; _i L. c DATE Lo-r 3 , ¢ X�a-p/ the. c. 75 kE CO. Mf rornQr- -1op o /moo 71>40n7 S�e�, i'or 75 o to le, $/oci 2 -Trwl IV Z 4.c E' Woo '5- Phone HA. 5-2181 File No. Z 3e: / Z'