The URL can be used to link to this page

88-625 WNITE - CITY CLERK PINK - FINONCE G I TY OF SA I NT PAU L CO°ncil [//6 / CANARV•-DEPARTMENT File NO• `J v v�� BLU� � - MAVOR C unci esolution '�\� 1 �� Presented By ��"'� Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS , Richard and Cla' re Allyn appealed a decision of the Zoning Administrator to the B ard of Zoning Appeals , which de- cision determined that the ho e under construction at 2108 West Hoyt Avenue, Saint Paul , Minn sota, conforms to the height re- strictions of the Zoning Code and that the correct method of measurement of the height of he house is from the finished grade of the site rather than the o iginal grade of the site; and WHEREAS , The Board conducted a hearing on this appeal (File I�do. 10185) at its meeting on gust 25 , 1987 , at which time it heard testimony from the owner of the house in question, Douglas Doty, from the appellant Richard Allyn, their respective attorneys , and from concerned residents , he testimony primarily relating to the height of the house at 2108 W. Hoyt and the method of ineasure- ment applied by the Zoning Administrator ; and the Board laid over the hearing on the appeal for period of two weeks for the purpose of allowing the partie an opportunity to arrive at a compromise solution to their c ncerns and problems and present them at the next Board meeting, �which the parties indicated a willingness to so do; and WHEREAS , The Board reconv ned the hearing on File No. 10185 at its meeting on September 8 , 1987 , at which time the attorney for the appellants requested t at the Board lay over further discussion until September 22, 1987 , so that additional infor- mation requested by the Zoning Administrator could be obtained and so that the parties could ave further opportunity to negoti- ate a compromise position, whi h request was granted by the Board; and COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimond �� [n Favor Goswitz Rettman B �he;�� __ Against Y Soncen Wilson Form Approved by C' y Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary By �L1'�� gy. Approved by AAavor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council gy By . • � � ��'�°`� ... . - , ; � r a,. �. r1�" t �- t. t{ � ,r. ._ , �., _ _ _. Ji1 r ? . . !c� i_ _,�..ii` { i' �. �, i ,. >, I1 _ i.i7:°3 1c`.tf 1r ii(1 ' ' �� r � i'_� '-!�t J i�I'-i CJ f-1 : �.�:`�i'..�( � (�.'�� '�' I _':� ,1 , �.l f I.,I i�:' -�I 1 'f� 1. _ (,i•�F�,� _t. <_� '.Y�'wi _. .. .. , i:��.��.� :-• .1..i-�I t�:..)P`�f':I. ._.i r._�'� t:t�' -'�.;<.' i"l�" =?, �.i . .. =I, !. I.. .� .,!�i.J f .. ... ��_. .,1.1_.;i� �.:�'1�. , ., _ . � �>, ��:..,.. �.:��r« o;, L�i�� r"-c�� ,�-c? ..��L1::u . !. =,�; +�I; !;c>� ., i.r°� _ ''�;iC>t"i cl.l 1�:�' l l, t?c1i=: .i,`3± ;:°i�r!l i '_'.C..i f'r'�i!11 �rl'ct i., ;sl_(C� ,':_'•)% �:l ;.i: I�'ir- ,. f")�� y� .1 �"1L�i;it: ��I.�'_, 'Jl.l1�. iG t,_ J t�l U'_�. t:.O tf._ �i"Oi1�� ;JI`"'=��E)t� i".`y' Z 1_t�l�-� _ C.;"i.:.!'? �?�?I_IC11C ��:� �.�!fl�'?Y". �flF_' �JY- '✓1 ':;] �il�`; Of t:`?.? _'<�i1'�C�!:I �_:r,��J c�tl!:! �:.i i � i=. �U i c i�l�1.1 C'I 1 I i �:,fl ci� l.C� �:"1 � =i�: �:1 ._'O Il 1.fl'�{ !'%ut Y" 7 �..f 1�:_ c? :fl!!,.,� i-.) i _. C i��. �_1��cii1�F'C� �:!)' �itta ��t:�r�I`�� , �t�� 't��f=� �i:.�l� , ,.,� �.�.� i".G'_-�U�_ :;�;c=U' .r�.� 1_i..�,�... .� ..,,-�, a... ._. �- ' � }. _. �, .. .1.0 �^' ' � �:a ,i .F�.i-��..-E� ...nc�� c: { . . !i' .i ��.i � . (��c .v C:;��fl �.,1 f 1�!� �:c_� .:1��;� �. _._! f: �;f"1. 1 i' ��1 . .. . i i C v._:, � tl C t:fl : ��J:z� Ci (ii :ti�:.'-:G l.C? C:C;11t1ilU�c.' �.i"?`:�. f�.:::�i"7.Il�:y� U�`1C-L.L J:. �.;C.��;vi' 1:� . .�. ,ni�i � " i:A rl!:.� . . .. . ` y.��l : i _�_._ C �,.iSy... ��'c� � l 1.,`. , iil �i..�it.�.; 1� ",i ^_>,s .�. i_.: tl , Cii�i.�! ,. , �; ,� �� .,,. ��,- �.C: '�1 ):'1 7 :'� tU �;h._ �' i. .r � ;� ��: it I. `i�%i•7<_ .1.� _ f"C� � � , ,. .:,, � _ . � . ,�� t± i. : -°, � , ,: ,„ � � ,:,r- t �,.`-,..__r _ _.__ - � �_3 � � - .�.� i ,_ _ , � . . .� " ..� � c.� I�.�: ry��.a ._�I �� ' �y '' . ' ` _' (�� '�-r"3.T_.l I1��.,:�._: � c, i_: �� f i.. _ . . _. _. . . � �i -� � _?� : i'�; :!_l.:.!. l..i��' t��:'l ��.i �_�i ., c_. , c.':i _ 4'.t;'.., i"°Giit. ��li'c.: _ .: L.�:��,:�;.i:::��. f c.l"`•'��4 � ��JI� .� ::,_..�. � � ,.., �� _,.,-c� u_;t.' ; ; � . _.�', i 'r�� :�: � ii� ! ,. ;� 1�c � � k,;�:_ . >'. I l; �1= 3i,,� �,.t!, l 4.—. .i. �_i_'. �� i.�� LC�:=?) :"il`1... 1:.IlE; �..''�ij.' ' ' .. r3� �_ r:,��l,�_ � � .i. Lf'; (t.,.r1 '�. l ) c>n t: �... , ;:��- �_ti 1 . '� ,rlii ?.�,�.� .,J_! ,Svl��'=; t. __ C:i. 1�:.. i 6� ,._ _ _ _ _ . . . _ i" l';/ C;< i'_ :. C' � �`�,::� �1`y` �.;';;` �, '��,ri : . _ __ ,--.- , �� .��f�'.i � _f.I i°�. ._ i �,_? . �� - �' , I�,"'a _�.!i , I � ..�i.I_,_��" _ _ t.1� a ... �� . i-� . ._ .. �. .... °.,.a-.. �- ,s� .., � i.. �. � _ �,; . f1 1 ( :L�. ..� i'f� _ L;� i,y i..� k _ ��ll�. _y E. . ., ;; i? ._ f'��.if�'. 1 � _ � , . c:... ._, ... ., � � ._i.. _... -:• ,. : ,.. . .-, i . .,, � �- ,-, � . ; c . .I� t.il ! �.....if ,.::: �'�:�. �II �I:.:: � .�I �::il�-;. 1..�:J' . .:. .�.•: l. .1�_._ ., .'Li �..�i iu' � , , . i , .� . . � i � ��7�.t :� Y;f,i` ��, Cf'1�1 fl.-i� - l L ; i ��? C.:a1f"1 u-t �:.��iJ.� �::i1I��_ �'c^,��t71;L �, �� ':. � � . i, a i ,.� i ,.7. .�., �� .r- ii .ia :. :fi�, I�C.:'il�le.: ti`�i... ,"vC; f,�i�, i i il`lL . � t �.r;i �y' 1 �ilc:� `.:.�� .-_ �n f' �.n� J,�:7 t i e1?.r;i�it��t� :��i.�>� �,. ;4� ;?n 'L:��. `�",_. .!'� fl ';`!.Cs'� �'T ;r;�=: rlc_ �llC-? c.!7�i';_ �.f i(.- r�Y. �..JI`l`� i' a. .,��1'" ).:��C'. 1. y �f1C� (,.i j �:,1 �i) _;f"i� �1 �1'-��"1{� C�"i Lfl.�" �� ..1'.-', i�i� �1 17i;1 ;.l.lii'_t(Il JF � ._��,� �.� I�l�...<<.:Ll��`�`:-�:�� ti .,-ii ��- <"J��i '�c� �1f�1.'.;.rl�� I� �.�.�'_'. (�fl!? t�l�, � `;�fl��';:�t` , 1��11"� . ,��1_� '.�'fl ; Ci J�"L:c'..�I �,Ci Li�1�=.' f�l•'_�li14 ��' �_i`?��? � ITl_+�.'c;C� ii,-t.C•i� f'�-Olil ��1� .. :l'P<,t. �... l:, �JC'�..l...C� �`�,=1r_.FC �I"`:c? ] ��'l�f:, ..,.f�1C; ,.�J.i �'��'0�11 ;"11. ,6 ,1 C�,_ ;t �'i"i . � i':,�il�� ...(1�� t�fl,._t' � i�i C` �1._ ?1:_��i_,r._..�G� ��l�`. �h.1�. f�l(7 f'� i va t 11 c��.f"i :L C"i ��_� :. !,��j-,.�,�y��j� � �� l l .. '.: . �'. .�...� ' � �..: 1� L'J..:I.......�'� I � ..,.I�� .. "��I l�� I•..•i�_ '-SI �L i_�1�� II��..� ,_ .J _. �.1 :�i"i L � i. ... t' ,� � � ,i i:;�_!�; �.J r�� i:r� � ;<� ta C;)rt L.r��_ ._:_l t�� i:, i fi:r'�._ �U?_ �t..�� r .. _; . � � !.�� C � I- � f":Y ��._?C:'l C�:i '�1., �_�]. ',i`t ,=+�Ti:.iri_j :;Elf.; ... '_ _..1�.. i .� ., ' f�i..l-:1!,:_.1 i� ._. ._ il�.. �'��);�i-�:. 6��.)�.. . �...t. .,,�.a..`.. _'�., ._b.i.. �. :ii _�!��.i ii��:�i.�.- - -' . = C��.l!�i.lf'�i�t ._�.�i;1`�� i��I�,L��Jt��r� �.c� �t�l� �:ii �Td::tts t . _ ,:-11' ,. .:,i�l�:c:'.i_a 7�ii"_ J r., ' i, � ' �^ 1 r�,�`lr.l 1 � f� - - � . ,.�.,.�.�, �.i. ,:•i�l �':� , � f�,L. �_S _..i (_:{ , �.-�l.c . ?1.'. _ .. �_ .� ��i�_,.�,�' 1.�',- . � 1 j �rr�� c�,n� n .. k_��. rr.��,,,<��c� K:�4a�1. � j�r;�in ttt:� _: i.r.F,;:, . ';'') -�-�_ryry r.,.`,o F �_?�� t.i':�; I:�c;t:.y h�-rr� c�alci k�� " h��?;%��,ca" �...t�P;h.�r� ti��ur�� b�� :� "c��k�.:1�c' ro��fi" , �.rY 1 T h� r,�_,c!; �-.:� .�;� r�c� �;�c��c; �; h L � . <,�i��as Whe�r�a� , The Eoard r�a nve.ne�� the he,�ring on F_�_1_�' ..._�_�-_��_�.��. ��t it� meeting c�n �e�ptember 2� , 1��87 , �at which time the C3oard was informed by the �ta-F� c� th� Zoning �administrator that a survey waw, ctor�e on the f�on yard �etback -Far the hc�m� in �ue�tion and it v,�a�� d�termi �d frc�m that �ur�dey that Mr . Doty 's hame wa� ;�uilt tc� c ose to the front prn�erty lin� than �ermit.ted un��r the pr vi�i.ons of �he Znninq Cnde and �hat to remain in th�t l�ca i.nn a zonin�� rariar�ce must �Fir�t be grar�tEd by the �nar�, an that the parti�� t�ec�ue�t�ci further time to c��n�inue to work aut t.heir- diffe:°ence� , anc! the �oard m��ved ta c�ntinue the h�aririgs ur�t:�l Octnk:�er 13 , 1`��i ; and Wh�rea� , Dou�las Doty , n �eptemb�r �4 , 1`��7 , ma�� applicatiori C.r: _i..l_�......_#_�.�?_�� 7...)........t.a th� Eio,�r� af Znni.nc� �1K>pea1� for� va.riance� for th�. home at� �1 8 W. H�yt , th� �aid v�ariances being f��r the building heigh , lnt coverag� ar�d frant ydrd �ett�aak; and Wher�a� , The Board c�nd cted it� hearin� on both the A11yns ' appeal �File #101�5) and the Dot.y'� appeal (f=ile #10217) on Oc�ober 13 , 193`r , and the following t��timnny was con�ider�d by the Board: (�n �eptember 23, 1��7 , ha Zoning F;d��ini�tratt�r not.ified Mr. Uoty that re coulcl bring hi� h��me intc:� canforTmance with tf�e Zaning Code pro�ai�ion�, i� he did thre� t.hings; ( 1 } o t.ain a buildin� permit t� move �he home back from he front propert.y lin� betwe�n S' an� 1U ' ; C2) liminat�; any d�ck on th� �nut.h �id� of the hc�me a ove the grc�uncl floor lev�l ; and (3) keep the h�ight ,� thA hnme to a maximum af 3� ' aJ mea�ured -From the average fini�h�d gr�ac��. The neigr�kaor , Mr. �lllyn, okajected to �he hc�me �!�irig m�ved back -FrTom th� �tre t a� it woul.d binck th� light and air fram hi�a � n adjac�nt hc�me , an�l th�t. i��e preferred tha� the ho e r�main in it� �re�er�t loc,�ti�n if the r�of wer reduced in h�ight and t�� i�eck con:�tr�!c�ed an the ear of tr�� Doty f�ome . That after much di�cus�i n amnng the two appellan��- n�ighbor"s, t.he Ba�rd wa� dvised �hat a compro��ni�e �olution �at;i�fact��ry tc� thsm w�� recomm�nded for adoption by �he 8aar-cl , th cam�r-o�ni�� a� foll��ds; 1 ) Th� hcme nc be moved back fr�m the str�eet 2) The ronf on the Dc�ty harne w uld be ��hip�ed�� r�ther tt�an be "g�blec� roof " . 3) "I�he d�cl� �,��u' d not; exceed � 2 . , , . ��-�� 1J2 fe�t in height fr-nm gr-ade. 4) The nece sary lot coverage variance wo ld k�� c�rar�t.e�. Wh�r�ea�, based on th� bove ccmpromi�e �grTeement �nd the prapa�ed accept�.r�ce th�reof k�� the B�ard, the ap��eal fFil� #10185) of Ricf��r� arid Glai � (�llyn w�� wa.thclrawn by the s��id appellant�; ar�d Wh�re�s , �3a��cl upon th t��timany t"ECE'lved by th�� Esc��.rc! �nd upon the r:�commendat.ion n�F th� Pl�nnin� �t.a��f , th� �i�ar� of Zoning /�ppeal� did adopt it� final ac�tion on the �pplicatinn for var-iance� m de by L�auala� L�nty, ba�ed upon tf�� fcllowing fiindin�� made by� he �aid Snard anc! as cont.aineG in it� re�nlution tt10L17 , a�� ed �ct�ber 27 , 1`=�8i : 1 ) Mr � L�oty , the applicant , i� k.�uilding a a-�tc�ry :�in�'le--family hnuse at 2108 West t~Icayt f�venue . �t. . P�ul 's �SUi].ding Inspet�t ' on and De�ign Divi�i.on i�su�d a builda.nq permi for th� hous� in Nta�ch 1`�87 and work is currently i progre��. The r�aus� has been framed ii�, inclucli � the rc�n-F . 1"he building divi�ic�n � proved �he hei��ht of the hnu�e based on �.�:lans an �1�vaui�n� subma.tted to them by the a�plicant w �n he ap�>lipcl for° �. b�.ailding �ermi�. The building d vi��ion fo:Llo�n��d it� standard �ractice and m�de it� i itial determ�.natinn vf th� h�i.c�ht of �.he building y mea�uring frnm t.he archit�ct; ' � �cale drawi �� . The�e dr�.win�� ir�dica�e th� �round leve7. with a da�hed line b��t do nat �pecify whether thi� i� an existing gra.d� r�r a propo:�ed cha��e of gr�d . Alth�ugh it. i� not app�rent in the clrawin� , th� da��hed ].inE3 inc�icatin� prnpa�ed graund level is abaut 6' ak�ove the exi�tina grade on the site cn th� ea�t ancf front sidQ of th� house. • 2.) 1"he heigr�t of the b ildir�g when mea��ured by ataff in �eptember v,�a� 3 '6" me��.�ur�d frc�m the current grade to the mid p�ini; �f th� roof k�ase�� o�� the average c�f �1], four� ide� . (TI7e h�ight m�a�ur�ci �n th� west and bac��c �id , wh�re �he lnwer� 1eve1 i� at grade , wa� 35'4" ) . T� meet t.he height limit of 30' s�� by t.he Zonin�� Cod� the grade wc�ul� hav to be r�ai��d 3'�" nn z:�11 four side� . Hc�wever , it i� not �aas�ible �� r�aa.�e the grade signi�icat��.1y c�n the w�st and b�ck �ic�e beczu�e of the lc�c�tion o dc��rc and winu�w� �a mo�;t. 3 . . . � � �-�as �F �he gracle change� would have tu c�ccur an th�: front �.nd east �ide. 3 ) 7t�e F�ll.yn� ' , nei�hbo � tc� tY�� e��t , �.ppe�zl�� the deci�a.on af the build � ng divi:�ion to grant th�: builc�ir�g permit. t� Mr . Dn y , �ayin� tha� the building hei��ht whc�u'ld ha e been d�terminecl fr�m �;h� grade that exis��d on sit befor� ca��struction beg�.n r��her tha�7 the ;�ropa�ed grad�s shown on th� architect '� plan� . This appeal wa� later dre�p�e�� au par� nf a com�r�mi:�e �e� een Mr . Doty ancf th� Rllyns , whic:h is r�flect d ir� th�e c;onditionw �f thiJ varianc�. The builcling ciivi�ion re uested mare r�etailec� information fram Mr . Dot in (�ugust about �xactly� how he pro�o�:��d to gr�de the �:ite to m��t. t;he buil.ding h�ight limit �u t.r�i� w�.s nat. ��bmit.ted. 4) Mr . Doty i� requ��,ting � vGariance fr.�r buil�ing h�ight to permit; a buil ing 3�'6" hiah . Ne st;ill contenci� th�t he c�.n m� t �h� :��' hei�ht 1 imi t �e t by the Zanin�� Cnde . Ho ever , he i� rec�u��ing a. variance fnr twn r-�a��on . First, he �ays that h� elied nn advice provided him by the buil�ing divi�io in d�termining the t�eight of th� hou�e ancl that h would suf-Fer undue hard�hi� n�w if the 8ZA now ov�r urns that advict= aft�r th� h�us� h�s be�n l�.rg��1y uilt . �ecc�nc�, i� the 3�F� uph lds the buildin� divi�ic>n'� determination, I�fr . Dc�t. wauld like the optinn tc� low�r the grTade from w at i� �hown on �he pl�n�:� i� thi�:, i� what the n�i�h ors want. S ) Mr . Dc�ty i� vdilli g to chanqe �t7e ex:istina gab:l� roa�F line ta a h pp�cl ronf line at hi� awn expUn�� . 1"his wo��l� 1 :��en t.he impact n� the �,uilding ori the �llyns' pr�operty . Whei7 �t.anciina clo�e ta the bui],c�ing ; the ra�f wo�.�ld not �e vis:ible: the hicJhe�t. nint vi�ible w��uld be th� eave� which woulcl be 6' S" abc�ve the exi�t7_ng �r�.c1� . Tt would ul�n les`en he ma_s c�f the ha�.��e �Nhen viewed from fart.her a a�,� . 6� Mr . Poty i� a1�.o �eeking a variance to p��rmit a front yard .�etback of 13 ' . l�gain , the re�ue�t fGr the varTi,�.nce i� kaa��ec'. on the a�sertion tha� he checkecl with the ��uil ing d:ivi�ic�n on more than arie occ�,��on t�� verify t.h t hi�; plaris were in ca��form�nc� with the �t��ack requir�m�nt,� and w�.r � I , • . � ��_�°�5 to;ld that it was . I�r . D ty claim� that requirinc� f�im tc move �h� hau�e ba k �.t this pc��int �NOUId �,au�e him �ub�tantial harc�ship �') °i'he variance for� fr nt y�rd �etback i� �lsc ju�tified by th� �act �:h t the 1ot i� ��ary �ha�lcvd. The lot is 9�' de�p comp red to 12S' f�ar a typic�:� �t . Pau]. :Lct. �) Mr . Dot;y is r�que:�t ' nc� a ��ar-ianr� fcr 1;1t cnv�rage so that. he c�.n ake change� �o � deck U�hi.ah will l��er7 it� im;�act n the nei�hbors . This var-ianc� ��a� not ne ded for the hou�e �:� or�iginally plann�d . How ver , in di�,cu��ing th� hou-e v�ith the n�i�hbnr-� , bath �ide� agre�d tha�. a d�ck proposed for �he I� ck n� the hous� 4vould ha�✓� les� impact o�7 the n�iq bcar� i�f it wa� lnwered ar�d moved �way �f��om the pr� c�rty 1ine . I-ic�wev�r , ir� order ta mnve the d�ck t will be nQc��zry t.o h�ui].c� a landina off th� d�or nto th� ho��s� �nd �;tep� from �he landing dowr7 �:o the deck . Thi� �dculd increas� the �ize of the dec!� �ri ugh to put tt�e house over the 30% lot covera�;e 1.i it . .i.he Wl lyn�' anc� Mr . D�t agr�eed to a height c�f 3 .0 ' �For the lower level af he re�r c�ecl�c and �.hat. the upp�.ar level would r�ot p oject more than 4 . 5' beyc�nd the rear n-F the hou�e. Wherea� y SUIJed upnn the� abc�ve f indin�� the E�card nr� October 27 , 19�57 , by it� re� lution Num��r 1Q217 , grar7�.e� the f�llnwing varianc�s for the roper�y at 2ia� We�.t Hoyt Avenue anc� lega].1y described ��.� fal ow�: �outh 93 . 55 fe�t of the narth 123. 35 �Feet n-F Lot 1Q, F�?uditor' � �u�divi�ion: ( 1) a maximum buil�in� heigh� of 33. 5 ' subjec�. tc� the applica.nt modifying the ror�f ta "hipp�d" r�o�:�f a.:� �hnwn in attach�d �.xhibit f�; (2) f� fr°ont yard �,etback of 13 ' ; {;3) �laximurn lot cover�a�e ofi 1.2CJ ��uare -Feet. mar� than 0 0 �u�;1ec:t t.o the lower :1�vel. c�cck propo�ed for the ear o-F th� hause n�t !��in� more than 3.0 ' high(a� mp��ured frcm t.he �urf�.c� afi the deck to the battom of th� wir7cln4vs a�� the we:�t �ide nf the rear nf t e ha�.,�e as tr�ey were built a�', of Octob�r 1� , 1987) a d th� up�aer� levc�l a-F the �eck nnt. praiecting mnr�e th n 4 . 5 ' �eycnd t.he rc�ar af the hc�u�e. Wher�� , F�ursuant to t. e praviwinn� of �ecti.on ��t . 2n�� , Elizak�eth Ni . a�l�m, 2117 L�u ley s�v�nue , �aint Paul , Minn . , on hdc�vember 11 , 1587 du�,y file wi.th the City Clerk her appeal 5 . • . � � �-Gas from �he determir�a�.inns made by the Bo�rd c�f 2oning F�p�eal�, r�eque�ting a hearing before he Gity Cauncil for the pur�o�� of cansidering the actions t ken by the ��.ic� �3oarc�; Whereas, �ctin�� pursuan to �ectinns �i4 .2(�S thrc�ugh 6a . 208, and upon notice tn a pellant and nt.her ��:f-Fected �aroper�y awners, including t � �lllyn� and Doty , a ��uulic hearing v�as duly cnnducted b the City Cc�uncil on L�ecember 22, 1987 where all intere�ted pa tie� we�e given an opportuni�y t�a be heard ; and Whereas , The Council , h ving hear�d the �tatement� made, and having con�iG�:red the va iance a��plicata.an, the re�ort of staff , the minutes and findi g.:, of the Bo��.rd c�f �,'_aning f�pp�als, dbes her�by Re�olve , That the Council c�f the Cit�� of ��int Paul do�� hereby -Find and determin� th t the Bnard did make an �rror af fact �nd law in granting �h� variance� relatin� ta the lc�t coverage and maximum height f the k�uildin� ds �et fnr-th in t;he Bnard' � re�nlu�ion r�umber 10��17 , aclopted Qctraber �7 , 1987 , for the fnlluwinc� r�a�nn�; 1) Granting of the 1 t cc�ver�age variance is not su�a�nrted by the evide ce . The �rovi�ians c�f the Zonir�g Code r�str�ic� t e dev�lopment of th� lo� ta 3Q �>ercent of �he squa e f�ota.ge� The ��ub,ject lat i� not unu�ual in si.ze or topc�graphy and a hou�e of rea�onable ��ize could e bui:lt nn it . The owner prnposes to buil� a de k onto f�is t�ame , ancl th�� i� the c�use �For requirin the variance. "fh� hard�hip, in this ca�e, i� selt� reated anc� i� not in keeping with the �pirit or int nt �f the Zc�nin� Cod� . `) Grantir�g of the � ildin�� height variance �� a� to permit a heiqht of' 3'�" , which is 3'6" in exce�� of the Gode requiremen � is als� not �uppGrted by the r�ccrd. The e>cces h�ight will im�air tf�e neighbor '� adequate 1i ht an� air ancl will alt�r �;he ��er�ti�l character �f the surrnunding ared. The owner has ir�da.catec{ �;h t he can me�.t the Code hei��ht r�strictionu with�ut t i� var�ianc;e , and i�F any har�d�hi�� exi�t� becaus of th� w�y the owne� ha.:s pr�c�e�ed in b��ildincl he hnme the hard�hip wa� created solely by the wner therecf , Further Re�olved, That the Cauncil of the City �f �aint. �a�al does her�by affirm the fincling� and conclu�ic�n� oi= the Board �nc� does hc�reby ratif the granting pf the variance fnr the front yard s�tback so � to all�w th� �tructur� to b� � , .. , ��=�a� located only� 13 feet from the �treet. , �ubjPCt ta th� fdllnwing canditinns; The raof af the hcu� b� recc�n� ucted �n th�t th tap , peak , r ri�ge i� more �ha 5 feet a av� the derside of he ex � sting permost e es. Th altera ons to be c mp'1 �e prior o the occ �zncy of �he dwel n�. The imney of t hou�e be cc�r��truu d tc� be 1n red to a eight whi is two fee �k�n�e t high t pnint the r� f indicat� bc�ve. he a1 tera � an� t� b�, compl .te p� � nr t.n the cupanc nf the dwe7.1 ' g . 1. �. 7he �xi�ting patip door have acc�� t�� a landing ancl/or s�airway na�. ta exc�ed �d inches pro.jection from the ext rinr wa11 . Th� hand and guard rai1� for thi� 1�a clinc� and/nr stairway tc� be turned spindle� and �Nan rai1J Jtain�d ��a mauch �;he siding or equivalent ta minimize vi��.�al impact -Frarn adjacent propertie� . � , � 1"here �hall be no above grade cieck in th� rear� yard space . f�ny impro� em�nt shall �e k�y ground ��rface �atio of concr te , brick , �tc�n� or �imilar material� in �irect Go tact v�ith tY��e earth at i�.�� a�pr�oximate exi�ting g ade or a w��oder� platfor�� not t.o exc�ed � inches abo � gr��de withaut perimet�r r-�il�, fencing or othe tr-eatment ��o��e the �eck �urf�.ce. � . �� The l.and�cap� pla incorpc�rata,n� the fnl lowing i� attach�d and ma�e a part h�reof ; tl��e purpn�� nf the planting::, i� �o re uce vi�ual impact nf height , ma�s �nd r�cluced front. yard of the �xi��tir��g �t.ruc�ure . ,�. vertical eve green °acr�ening at we�:t and sauth prop�rt,� 1ine� . b . perman�nt p1 nting� ir� fr�nt yard . c . frnnt ��.ir ay and landing d�tails and retaining w�11 d�tailw . . . , _ . • ,� :._. � _, � WHITE - C�TV CLERK COURCII / PINK - FINANCE GITY OF AINT PALTL �( �loo�� CANAR1f��_DEPARTMENT "BL�UE - MAVOR File NO. Council Resolution Presented By Referred To ' Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date d. foundation plant 'ngs with trellis ' s or equivalent vertic 1 elements at west wall south of the en ry door against existing bricks , or eplacing brick with siding at upper leve of west wall to reduce the amount of solid brick wall . e. other indication of surface treat- ments and plantings or remainder of lot area. The plantings and constru tion indicated above shall be completed within one y ar of occupancy of the dwelling. The Zoning Adm nistrator shall strictly enforce the conditions 1 hrough 5 above as a condition of the granting of the front yard variance to allow the structure to remain at its existing location on the lot. FURTHER RESOLVED, That th City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Elizabeth S lem, Douglas Doty, Richard and Claire Allyn, and the Zoning A ministrator and the B,oard of Zoning Appeals. 8 . COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department oE: Yeas Nays �imond �A� [n Favor �('�oswitz Rettma�� ,� �be1b� Against By \ Sonne�� '�i�V'ilson Adopted by Council: Date MAY — � �� Form Appro b 'ty A orney Certified Py o uu cil ,� r By �� gy. ��5-�� A►pproved y �Vlavor. �ate Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By g3' � " � � � , C ITY O S�INT PAUL �� `�� `��;Ti 0. �"�� ' OFFICE OF THE MAYOR _� , �� + un�mu �� R� ' mt 11 �,r. �� ; ,- - CE��ED imim�w�4 iA . .. 3 7 CITY AAT,T. `� �w�� GEOBGE LATIMEE SAINT P UI.�MINNESOTA 56102 ��"'"` � � H MAYO$ ( 12) 298-4323 � 198 C/ry c` 8 May 11, 1988 �Rk V� /U Council President Scheibel � Members of the City Counci '�� 7th Floor, City Hall ��. Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear President Scheibel an Council Members: After thoughtful delibera ion and meeting with the parties concerned I have decided to veto Council Resolution 88-625 passed by the City Council on May 3, 1988. The original resolution as presented to the Council c ntained five stipulations and was the long sought compromise be ween the neighbors and the owner of 2108 West Hoyt, Douglas D ty. In approving the resolution the Council chose to delete t e first two points--namely lowering the roof and chimney--an in doing so, eliminated the most impnrtant ingredients of th compromise. The original five points a e acceptable to both the neighborhood and to Mr. Doty on the con ition that the City pay for the cost of lowering the roof and ch mney. I have been very reluctan to agree to pay for lowering the roof. But I am convinced y the facts of the situation that it is the only viable solutio to a difficult situation. The fact is the City made an error i approving the plans. In addition we have delayed the final decision for many months causing additional expense for Mr. oty and consternation on the part of the neighborhood. The Ci y's willingness to pay to lower the roof is the key to the comp omise; without it Doty will sue. If the roof isn't lowered the eighborhood will sue. In either case the additional delay will ause Doty, the neighborhood, and the City more time and expense. As you know we have been wrestling with this issue since Augus of 1987. In December, 1987 the Cou cil voted unanimously to deny all variances for 2108 West Ho t. If the Council had ratified that action we would have been f ced with moving the house to another lot or making drastic chan es to the structure itself. I asked the Council on January 12, 1988 to delay final ratification to give the parties an opport nity to reach a compromise to avoid moving the house. We have compromise which makes neither party entirely satisfied. Howeve its a compromise all are willing to accept; the other possible options are unacceptable and invite litigation. O Council President Scheibel Members of the City Council May 10, 1988 Page Two I urge you to reconsider you action and approve the granting of the set back variance con itioned on all five stipulations contained in the original co promise resolution. In addition I recommend that the City pay f r the cost involved in lowering the roof and chimney and that th proper City officials identify the appropriate source of f nds for subsequent City Council approval. Very truly yours, Geo e La imer Ma o GL:ss cc: Jan Gasterland Jerome Segal Elizabeth Solem Richard Allyn Douglas Doty Larry Soderholm Ed Starr Peggy Reichert Ken Johnson Greg Blees � HOW TO USE THE GREEN SHEET The GREEN SHEET has several PURPOSES: ' ' " ' 1. to assist in routing documents and in securinq required signatures 2. to brief the reviewers of documents on the impacts of approval 3. to help ensure that necessary supporting materials are 'prepared, and, if , � required, attached. � - Providing complete information under the listed headinqs enables' reviewers to make ` decisions on the documents and eliminates follow-up contacts that may delay execution. The COST/BENEFIT, BUDGETARY AND PERSONNEL IMPACTS heading provides space to explain the cost/benefit aspects of the decision. Costs and benefits related both to City budget (General Fund and/or Special Funds) and to broader financial impacts (cost to users, homeowners or other groups affected by the action) . T3�e personnel impact is a description of change or shift of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), positions. If a CONTRACT amount is less than $10,000, the Mayor's signature is not required, if the department director signs. A contract must always be first signed by the outside agency before routing through City offices. . Below is the preferred ROUTING for the five most frequent types of docutnents: CONTRACTS (assumes authorized budget exists) ' � � 1. Outside Agency 4. Mayor 2. Initiating Department 5. Finance Director 3. City Attorney 6. Finance Accounting ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Budget Revision) ADMINISTRA�IVE ORDERS (all others) 1. Activity Manager 1. Initiating Department 2. Department Accountant 2. City Attorney 3. Department Director - 3. Director of Management/Mayor 4. Budget Director 4. City Clerk ' 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, F&MS COUNCIL RESOT.,UTION (Amend. Bdgts./Accept. Grants) COUNCIL RESQLUTION (all others) 1. Department Director 1. Initiatimg Department 2. Budget Director 2. City Attorney 3. City Attorney 3. Director of Manaqement/Mayor 4. Director of Management/Mayor 4. City Cle�k 5. Chair, Finance, Mngmt. & Personnel Com. 5. City Courlcil 6. City Clerk 7. City Council 8. Chief Accountant, F&MS SUPPORTING MATERIALS. In the ATTACHMENTS section, identify all attachments. If the Green Sheet is well done, no letter of transmittal need be included (unless signing such a letter is one of the requested actions) . Note: If an agreement requires eviderice of insurance/co-insurance, a Certificate of Insurance should be one of the attachments at tiune of routing. j . Note: Actions which require City Council Resolutions include: 1. Contractual relationship with another governmental unit. 2.. Collective bargaining contracts. � 3. Purchase, sale or lease of land. 4. Issuance of bonds by City. 5. Eminent domain. 6. Assumption of liability by City, or granting by City of indemnific�tion. . 7. Agreements with State or Federal Government under which t2zey are providing � funding. 8. Budget amendments. ��^�� CITY OF SAINT PAUL __��... ,,�,, -� '•''= OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ;• �; : ii� �� ,,,+� ,.�� Jo' � ALBERT B. OLSON, CITY CLERK V''°�"„mR!��"`� � �\ 386 City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 � 612-298-4231 GEORGE LATIMER � �--� / MAYOR � �� / � sny t t�;�r ��' � � ..,. f......! � May 3� 1988 ('�1 I , , '�ca��j � � � _ r �.=-. Honorable George Latimer Mayor Room 347, City Hall Dear Sir: I herewith submit for your approval the following attached Council files that were adopted at today's ity Council meeting: C.F. 88-625 thru C.F. 88-646 C.F. 88-649 and C.F. 88-650 Very truly yours, ��e��' vU� C�;�� Albert B. Olson City Clerk ABO:th Attachments _ . _._..,�_.,, ____ ,. _ _ - � � .: ,,� , . ,;r.> ... wHiTE — Cirv CtEqu �. - ��._- � • - � `� COU[iCll � . �_. P�NK _ F�NAN�� " �I TY �OF SA I NT PA U L u CANARV - DEPARTMENT . BIUE rMAYflR�� .' � ,,. . � � . � Fl�e 1�0. `T C ncil eso�u�ivn , Presented By � r Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date � . ` I�S, Ricb�ard �nd G1ai A11yr► appt�s�l�d a dee�isi� of t� Zonirtq 1�►dmini�trator to t� of Z�i�Si �PP@als, r�hi+ch de �isit� d�ter�ti� t,Ma� the ur�dar c�st�tioia at a�.oa � t � �yt 1►verlue. S�air�t Paul, Min�a ' ta, c�for�s to the �ight rf - � stri�c�#c�s of � Zonis�g Code t�t t� carrect w�thod af � e�s�t �f �e hafght vi t e � is, tr� t2� fitatahed ac�e ,�.�.. o! the si�te rat�er t�ati �u or inal ade of t.t� s •l�a�ad. �RE�1S. T'h� Board +��clur� �rd a �usrinQ �on t�i� a�� 1� �o. iOla. .S:�� at its �e�ti�q on qus�t �3, 1�87, �t �icb t� •. . � �e�a r�i t e r�ti� fram tZ� o�ur of tt�et �use in c�estic�, �vctq as �►'tli. trqw � a�ps3larrt Rfalaa A21yac�, the#r reapscti�re at , * a�d lrv� 'caa�cerr�d r�i+d�ts, h� teati�ng gri�rarilg r�elati ta Ch� hei�tt of tic� hc�ta st 230 �t. Htr�yt �d tt�e �thad �►f �a unr- �aent app3;ied by t� �ing nist�rator; a€�d ths B�rard la�id war the l�earlis� o� ttie ap�aer�l 8or �eriod ot t�ro r�eks fcsr th� Purpose a�f al2owing the parti a� opport�i.ty tv srri� at a ccr�rv�si�e so2utiva tc; their rns ac�d grable�s and pres�rre the�n at �hi rtext Hc��rd meeti�g �ii� tl�r perr�f es indf+�ated a � �ri l l i�ess ta at� d�a; a�d _ 1i�S, ?he D�r�t �rsc+a�t tl�e �earing c�n File i�p. 7.Q �� at its w�sti�g o� Septeaber. �, 14t�'7, at whieh ti�e a for t� appella�nts reque�t�,+�ll t ths �bard lay c�►�st furtlser discu�sicm tn�til Sspt�aber �2, 39a7, �o tl�at� additfor�al info �ati� requ�a$�e1 by th� Zc>nir�q Ai�ai.rzi.stratc�r could #�s obta snd �a tha� �h�t parties could furtt�er oppart�sa}i�y to� ti"- ata s c�pr�is� sitie�; �hi t� ques� Maa gr��d 13y th+�` _ �oard, ar�d , „ ,' i _ � �, s�',.�,; � ''a .� � �`i-^� f'� � i.. I � � ' � � � � � � �i � ._ . � COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Depaitment of: Xeas , Naj+s Dimond �os [n Favor � Goswitz Rettman �h�;� Against BY sonnen �V'ilson Form Approved by Ci�y Attorney Adopted by Council: Date � J.` Certified Passed by Counc.ii Secrefary BY <'? � r"�'� l � � : � Jt By Approved by Mavor: Date Approved.by Mayor for Submission to Cou cil By BY , , _. . . ._ _ � WMITE — CITV CLERK � .,�.... J � � CW1f1C11 . �� •'))j � c. P�NK - F�N�N�E GITY -OF AINT PALTL BLUERr—MAVPORTMENT � . FIIe NO. �� -� s� C�►uncil esolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date 1�R�►. Ricl�rd and Clai Allyn appsaled a d�ciai�a af � 8�ning At�nistrator to the of �ing ltppeals, �ich de-� cisiac► det�raiosd that the �d�r c+or�str�etion at Z10� Mes1G � . HO�t Av�1ue� Saint Pa�.., �ti ta� Cot�foPN CE� ttie hal�ht t�e-' �- strictions of t� �niny Code t2�at the corr�ct �thod of _ _ " ieaaur�t o�' the hei�t of t � fa frc� the finished r e!� of the site �ath�r t� the Qr lsal ra�e of thr s�� mn 1�REA�, '!�e Board ed � l�eari�ag an t�ia appeal 4�i e 110.. 101dS Y at ita aaseting aA A t $S� 1l87� at r�ich Liaie �stisony fro� the o+�cr of the h�se i� q�estfc�t, Dougl,aas . � Doty, frav the ap�e2lmt Richa All�, th�ir rea�tfa� attc�rle�rys. �, anc! fraa concsrr�ad resiel�ts, �e�ti� pri�sarfly reltti� tc� the �ei�t of t� hcn�s� at 2� M. t3ogt a�d t.� method c►f �e we�nt applSeci hy tMe Z�g 16c� nistratc,►r; arid th� Bc�ard laid a� tbe �►riuq c� t.�r app�al for �riQd of t�c► �re+�ks f�r the i purpose of all�inq the pa,rti aa opport�tity �r srrive at a cc�prasise soiution to their z�s and prob�a�s asnd pr�se�� t� �t t'�e n�ct He�rd aeetistq Mhicli the partt+e� it�dicated a ! •ri l 1 in�sas tr► �o da; a�nd N�►S, '!'t�s �oard ths l3sari�+g oia rils lb. 1�laS at its �eeti� +�a 3�p�esber e, �l�l7, at �ich ti� a rn�y for th+s a�slla�►ts ra�quested t th� Ha►�rd lay t�sr furtber ; discu�sion �nti2 Septe�ber 22. 2387. so thst addi�ic�na2 intor-� s+�tion re�quested by the Zacsi� 1Wwiaistra�or cc�ld �e abtai� a�d �o that the partiees c�culd av� fue�tl�er a�rt�ity to n+�qot1- at�r a c�proial.ae positf�. rhi c�rquest xas graQted by t!� Hoard; and - .-.� I I COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Dimond 1 �os !n Favor Goswitz Rettman ' �i�� _ Against BY Sonnen Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date I Certified Passed by Council Sectetary By I B� . I S . A►pproved by Mavor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Cou�cil By BY i . � . P��.s' Whereas, 7he 6oard recon ened the hearing on F_i1e_._.#_1_0185. at its meeting on September 2 , 1987 , at which time the Board was informed by the staff of he Zoning Administrator that a survey was done on the front ard setback for the home in : question and it was determine from that survey that Mr. Doty's home was built too clo e to the front property line than permitted under the prov ' sions of the 2oning Code and __ that to remain in that locati n a zoning variance must first . be granted by the Board, and that the parties requested further time to continue to w rk aut their dififer-ence�, and the 8oard moved to continus the hearings until Octok�er 13, ' 1987; and Whereas, Douglas Doty, on �eptember 24 , 19�7 , made application (File_.#1:02_17)......_to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances for the home at 21 8 W, Hoyt, th� said varianc�s being for the building heigh , lot coverage and front yard setbacl�; and Whereas, 7he Board cond cted its hearing on both the Allyns' appeal (File #10185) and the Doty's appeal (File #],0217) on October 13, 2987 , and the follo�ving t�stimony was con�idered by the Board: On September 23, 1987 , hz Zoning F�dministrator notified Mr. Doty that e could �ring his h��me into conformance with the Zo ing Cod� pro�aisinns if he did three things: ( 1) bt�,in a building permit to move the hnme back from the front property line � between 8' and 10' ; (2) eliminate any d�ck on the south sida of the home bove the ground �loor level ; and (3) keep the height of the home to a maximum of 30' as measur�d from th average fini�hed grade. The neighbor, Mr. Allyn objected to the home baing . moved back from th� str et as it would block the light and air from his wn adjac�nt home, and that he preferred that the h me r�main in its �resent location if the roof we e re�uced in height and no deck constructed on the re�r �f the Dety home. That after much discuss on amnng the two �ppel�ants- neighbor�s, the Bo�rd wa advised that a com�romi�e snlutian JQL1Jfactory t them wa� recomm�nded f�r adoption by the Soard, he compr-omise as 'fO11U4JS: 1) The hor�e nt be mnved back from the �tre t. 2) Tha roof on the Doty home would be "hipp�d" rathar than b a "gabled roof" . • 3) The deck. w uld not exceed �!- 2 �., ;.�;. �,F_` ,�,��: CiF^'a�► �� 1/2 feet in he ght from g��ade. 4} The necessa y lot coverage variance would be granted. Whereas, based on the ab ve compromise agreement and the proposed acceptance thereof b the 8oard, the appeal (File #10185) of Richard and Claire Allyn was withdrawn by the said " appellants; and � Whereas, Based upon the estimony received by th� Board � and upon the recommendation n the Planning �taff , the Board o� Zoning Appeal� did adopt i s final action on the applicatibn for variances mad by Dougla� Daty, based upon the following findings made by th said 8oard and as contained in its resolution #10217, adopt d October 27 , 1987: 1) i�� . Doty, the applicant, i� builciing a 3-story �ingle-family house at 108 West Noyt (�v�n�.�e. �t . Pau1 's Building Inspect ' on and Design Division ZJJ�.l�� a bui.lding perm-i .for the hous� in Ma�ch 1987� � and work is currently i pro�res.:,. The hous� ha� been framed in, includi g the ronf . The building division a proved the height of the house based on plans an zlevations submitted ta them t�y the applicant w en he applied for a builcling permit . The building d vision followed its standard praotice and made it� i itial determinatinn of the height of the building y measuring from the architect's scale dr�awi gs. These drawing� ir�dicate the ground level with a da�h�d line but do not spscify whether this is an exi�ting arad� or a praposed change of grad . Although it is not apparent in �he drawing, the dashed line indicating proposed ground level i about 6' above the existing � grade on the site on th ea�t and firont side of the house. 2) The height of the building when measured by staff in aeptember was 33' 6" measur�d from the current c,rade to the mid-point of th� roof base<� on the average of �11 faur sid?s. (7he h�ight mea�ur�� +�n the we�t and bac�: s ' d�, wher� th� lo�,�er- le��r�l i� at grade, Uaas 35' 4" ) . 7n meet the height lim ' t of 30' s�t by the Zonin� ' Cnde the grade w�u1G h ve to be raised 3'6" on �11 four sides. How�v�r , � t i� not poS311J�� to raise the grade significantl on the wpst and back sicle because of the locatio of doors and windows so most 3 ��-6 as f the grade changes woul have to occur on the front and e�st side. 3) 7he Ally�s' , neighb rs to th� east; ap�ezleG the deci�ion of the buil ing division to grant th� building permit to Mr. D ty, saying that the building height should h ve been determined from the grade that existed on site befor� construction began rather than the propose grades shown on th� - architect's plans. 7hi appeal was later dropped as - part of a campromis� be ween Mr. Doty and th� Allyns, which is reflec ed in the c;onditions of this . variance: The bui].cling Givision r quest�d more detailec� information from Mr . Do y in August about �xactly how he proposed to grad the site to meet the building h�ight limit b t thi� w�s nat submitted. 4) Mr. Doty is rec{ues ing a variance for buildin� h�ight to permit a buil ing 33' 6" hi�h. He still contends that he can me t "he 30' hei�t�t limit set by the Zoning Code. Ho ever , he is requestir�g a. variance for two rea�on . First, ha says th�t he elied on advice provided him by the building divi.sio in deterrnining th� h�ight of the hou�e and thdt h would suf�fer undue hardship now if the 8ZA naw ov�r urns that advicf� after th� hous� ha� �e�n largely uilt. Second , if the 8ZA upho ds the building division' s determination, Mr . Doty would like th� option to lower the grada fram wh t is shown on the pl�.n�.:� if this is what the neighbors want. � 5) Mr . Dcty is willi g to change the sxzstir�g gable roof line to a h ' pped roof line at his own expense. This would 1 �sen the impac� of the building on the AZlyns' prop�rty. When �tanciing rlose to the builr�ing, tha roof wo�_�ld r�t '�e visible; the highest p int visa.ble w��uld be the � eaves Uahich would be 2 ' S" abov� the e;<��t;.rg grad�, It would a1�:G leJ��:en t e ma�� f the hc�u�e ��r�en viewed from f�rth�r aw y. 6) Mr . Doty is also eeking a variance to p}�rmit a front yard :�etback o�F 3' . Again, the request for the vari�,rce is ba��ec� n the a��ert:ion that ha checked with the �uilc! ng division on more than one occ��ion to verify tha his plans were in canformance with the s tback requirem�nt� and was 4 ��" ��5 told that it was. �Mr . D ty claim� that requiring him to move th� hcuse ba k at this point �NOUId cause him substantial harc�ship. 7) The variance for fr nt yard setback is also justified by the fact th t the 1ot is vary sha�low. The lot is 93' deep comp red to 125' for a typical �t. Paul lot. 8) Mr. Doty is request ' ng a variance fior lot coverage so that he can ake changes to a deck which will leJJen its im�act o the neighbors. 7his variance was not neec{ed fior the house as originally planned. However , in di�cuJSing th� hou�e with the neighbor , both sides agreed that � cieck proposed fpr the {� ck of the house would have 1�JJ impact on the neig bors if it was lowered and maved away frnm the pro erty line. However, in �rder to move the deck ' t will �e necess�ry to bui1C a landing off the door ' nto the house and st��ps fr��m the landing down to the deck. This iwauld increase th� �ize of the deck en ugh to pu�t the house o�fer , the 30% lot covera�e li it. 1'he Allyns' and Mr . Dot agreeci to a height o-F 3.0' -For the lowar 1eve1 of he rear deck and that the upper level would not � oject more than 4.5' b�yond the rear of the house. Whareas, 8ased upon the above fiindings the Board or� Octo�er 27, 19�7 , by its res lution Number 10217 , granted the following variances for the ro�erty at 2108 We�t Hoyt Avenue and legally described as fo1 ows. �outh 93.55 feet of the nnrth 123.35 feet of Lot 10, Huditor's �ubdivision: ( 1) a maximum building height of 33. 5' subject to th2 applicant modifying the roof to "hip��d" r�oof as shawn in a'ttached Exhib � t A; (2) !� front yard setbaok of 13' ; (3) Max ' mum lot covera�e c>f 1.2Q s�uare feet. more than 3 % �ubject to the lower level deck proposed for the r ar of the house n�t ��ing more than 3.0' high(as �,�sureG fram the su�fac� of th� cfeck to the bottom af th� windows on the U:�est �id� of the ►-ear of t � ho�!se a� they were built as of Gctobar 13 , 19£37) a d thEa up�er- level of the deck nnt proj�cting mare th n 4 . 5' beyond the r�ar of the house. �,�)hereas, F�ursuant to t e provisions of �ecti.on 6� .205, El.iz�beth M. �olem, 2117 Du ley Avenue, �aint Paul , Minn. , on November 11 , 19�37 duly file with the City Clerk I�er app�al � 5 . C� �`�a� from the determinations made y the Bo��rd nf 2oning A}apeals, re�uesting a hearing before t e City Council for the purpose of considering the actions ta en� by the saic� �c�arci; Whereas, Actin� pursuant to Sections 64.2�5 through 64.208, and upon notice to ap ellant and other afifected property owners, including th Allyns and Doty , a public hearing was duly conduct8d by the City Council on December 22, 1987 where all interested par ies were given an opportunity to � be heard; and � Wher-eas, Ths Council , ha ing heard the statements made, and having considered the va iance application, th� report of staffi , the minutes and findi: gs nf th� E�o�rd af �c�ning f�ppeals, does hereby �esolve , That the Counc ' 1 of the City o-F �aint Paul does hereby find and det�rmir�e th t the goard did mak� an error of f�ct and law in granting the variance� relatin� to the lot coverage and maximum height f the building as �et forth in the Board's resolution numbe 10217 , adopted Qccober 27 , 1987 , for the following r�as n�: 1 ) Granting of the lo coverage vari�nce i� nnt supported by the eviuen e . Th2 �rovi�ior�� of the Zoning Cocle restrict th deveiopment of the lot to �0 percent of thp squar footage. 7he �;ubject 1ot is not unusual in �ize or to�aogra;�hy and a hc�.��e of reasociable size could e built on it. The owner propos�s ta build a de k r�nto his home , and th�t i� the c�u�e for requirin the variance. The hard�hip, in thi� ca�e, iJ Jel� reatec� and i� not in �eeping with the spirit or int nt of the Zoning Code. 2) Granting of the b ilding h�ight variance so as � to permit a height of 3'6" , which is 3'6" in excess 'B ofi the Code requiremen � is also not supported by the record. 7he exce� height wil.l imp�ir ti�e n�ighbor 's adaquate li ht an� air anci will �lter the essential character of th�: surrauncling area. The owner ha� indicated th t he can me�t th� Code height restricticns without t is variance, and ifi any hardshi� exists becau� , of th� way th� owner has prc�cQeded in b�ailding the hom� th� hardship wa�. created sol�ly by the owner therecf , Further Resolved, Tha the Cauncil of the City af aaint Pa�al do2s hereby affirm th finding� anci conclusions nf the ��-a ana doe� hereby rati y the granting of �he variance for the front yard setback so s to allow th� �tructure to b� 5 . (;F�� located only 13 feet from the street, subjpct to the following conditions: The roof of the hou b•� recons uct�d so that th� top, peak, r ridge ' s more tha 5 feet a ove the derside of he exi ting permost e e�. Th altera ' ons to be c mplete prior o the occ ancy of the dwel � ng. � The imney of t hou�e be cor��truc d to be lo red to a eight whi is two fee above t high t point the ro indicate buve. he altera ' ns to b compl te p ' or to the cupano of the dweil � g. �. `5�. ThQ �xisting patio door have acce�s tc� a landing and/or ,stairway not. to exceed S�1 inches projection from the ext rior wall . The hand and guard rails for this 1� ding and/or stairway to ba turned spindles and woo rai1J Jtai.npd to match the �iding or equivalent to minimize visual impact from adjacPnt �roperties. � , � 71�er� shall be no bove grade deck in .the rear yard space . Any improv ment sha11 be by gr�ur;d surface pat:�.o of concre e , ��rick, ston� or �:i:Tii.la:� materia'ls in direct c�n act v�ith the earth at its approximate existing gr c!e cr a wooden �latform not . t•o sxce�d 8 inches abov gr��e without perimet�r rail�, fer�cing or oth�r treatment above the r��:;k surface. ,.3 . �. The landscape �lan incorp�rating the following is attach�d and made a art hereof ; the {aurpo�e of the plantings is to red ce visual impact of h�ight, � mass and reciuced front ard of the existing ^tructure . . a. vertical ever reen �cr��ninc� at weG>t and south propQrty line�. b. p�rmanenc planting� in front ywrd. c. -Front st�,irw y and landir�g d�tail� and r�taining wall d�tails. . ' . '_ , : • ., ,.w c . _ : . � . . . 7 ..._. �.._._..., ,�,.,,�., �,.4 , .. ...:. , _ . . . , __ � , .,. :: :. __ , � ..� . . _. -,., . _ _ � " � . ��.�as� Whereas, The 8oard recon ened the hearing on File #1..0185 at its meeting on September 2 , 1987 , at which time �the Board was informed by the �taff of he Zoning Administrator that a survey was done on the front ard setback for the home in . question and it was determine from that �urvey that Mr_ Doty's home was built too clo e to the front property line than permitted under the provisions of the Zoning Code and __ that to remain in that locati n a zoning variance must fir�t be granted by the Baard, and that the parties requested further time to continue to ork out their differences, and the 8oard moved to continue he hearings until October 13, . 1987, and Whereas, Douglas Daty, n �eptember 24, 19s7, made application (_�"..il_e___#102_17)_.____to the Boar� o-F Zoning Appeals for variance� for the home at 21 8 W. Hoyt, the said variances being for the building heigh , lot coverage and fi ront yard �etback; and Whereas, 7he Board cond cted its hearing on both the Allyns' appeal (File #10185) and the D�ty's appeal (File #1.0217) on October 13, 1987 , and the �Following testimony wa� considered by the Board: On September 23, 1987 , he Zonin� Acfministratc�r noti�Fied Mr. Doty that e could bring his home into conformance with the Zo ing Code provisions if he did three tMingsc ( 1) btain a buildin� permit to mave the hcme back from the front property line between 8' and 10' ; (2) eliminate any deck on the snuth side of the home bove the ground flaor l�v�l ; and (3) keep the height of the home to a maximum of 30' as mea�ured fram t e average finished grade. The neighbor, Mr. Ally , objected to the home b�ing moved back from th� st eet a� it would block th� light and air from his own adjac�nt home, and that h� preferred that the ome r�main in it� present location if the roof w re reduced in height anc€ no deck constructed on th re�r of the Dcty home. That aft�:r much discus inn among the two appellants- neighbor°s, the Soard w s advised that a cor�,�romi._,e solution satisfactory o them was reccmm�nclad far � adoption by the Board, the compromise as f alload�: 1) The home not be moved back from the str et. 2) The roof on the Doty hom would be "hipped" rather than e a "gabled roof" _ 3) The deck ould not exceed 4- 2 ' . �� lf 2 feet in he � ght frnm grae[e. 4) The necessa y lot covera�e variance would. be granted. Whereas, based on the above ccmpromise agre�m�nt and the proposed acceptance thereof y the Baard, the ap�>eaI (File #1.0185) of Richard and Clair Al1yn was withdrawn by the said " appellants; and Whereas, Based upan the testimony rec�ived by. the Board � and upon the recommendation f the Planning Staf-F , th� 8oard of Zoning Appeal� did adopt ' ts final action on the ap�lication for variances ma e by L�ouglas Doty, based upon the following finding� made by t � said Soard and as cont�ine� ir� its re�olution #10217 , adopt d October 2'� , 1987 . 1) Mr . Doty, the appl ' cant, i� building a 3-�t�ry single-family house at 108 l�Jest t-�oyt Avenue. St. Paul 's Building Inspect ' on and Design Divisicn issued a building permi for th� house in Ma�ch 1g87 and work is currently i �rogress. Th� hou�� has been framed in, includi g the raof . T'he building division a proved the height �fi the hou�e based on plans an elevation� submitted to them by the applicant w en he applied f or a building . permit. 'fhe building d vision followpd its star�dard practice and m�de it� i itial det�rmination nf the height of the building y mea�urin� from the architect'� scale dra4�a. gs. These drawings indicate the ground level with a dashed ].ine but do nat specify whether this is an existin� grade or a proposed change of grad . Alth�ugh it is not . apparen�t in the drawing, the c�ashpo line indicating proposed ground level i about 6' above the exi�ting � grade on the �ite on th e��t and front sid? of t.he house. 2) The height of th� buildin� when measur�d by staff in �eptember ti�as 33' 6" measured fror� the current c�rar�e to the mid-p�ini� of the roof base�� on the average c�f all faur �id�� . (The heighu m�a�ur�c+ on the we.�t and b�ack �id� , wh�re th° IO�hiE.'P' �LVel i� at �raa� , was 35'4" ) . To meet the height lim � t of 30' s�t by the Zoning Code the grade would h ve to be rai�ed 3'6" on a].l four �ides. However , ' t is r�ot poJJible t� raise the gracle significantl on the west and back �ide because of the locatio of doors and winuawJ JV InO�t 3 � . ��-6�s � f the grade changes woul have to occur on the frnnt and east side. 3) 7he Allyns' , neighb rs t� the e�st, appzaled the decision of the buil ing division to grant the building permit to Mr. D ty, saying that the building height should h ve been determined from the grade that existed on si e before cons�ructic�n began rather than the propo�sd gradss shown on the — architect's plans. 7his appeal was later dropped as � part of a compromise bet een Mr. Doty and th� Allyns, which is reflect d in the conditions of this . variance: The building Givision re uested mo�e detailed information from Mr. Doty in August about �xactly how he propo�ed to grade the site to meet the building height limit but tl-�is was nat submitt�d. 4) Mr. Doty is reques ing a variance for building h�ight to permit a buil ing 33'6" hiah. He still contends that he can me t the 30' height limit ._.et by the Zoning Code. P-lo ever, hp i� rsquesting a variance for two r�ason . First, he says that he elied on advice provided him by the buil�ing divi�io in deterinining the hei�ht of the house and thdt h would suffer undu� hardshiF now if the 8ZH now over urns th�t advic� after th� house has been largely ui.lt. �econd, if the SZA upho ds �he building division's datermination, Mr. Doty would like the option to ].ow�r the grade from wh t is �hown on the plan� if this is what �he n�ighb rs want. 5) Mr , Doty is willin to change the existing gable roof line to a hi ped roof line at his own expense. 7his would le sen the impact of the building on the Allyns' prvperty. When standing close to the building, he raof would not �e visiblec the highest. po ' nt visible w,�uld be the eaves which would be 25'5" abovn the ex��tin� grade. Tt wnuld alsa lessen th mass nf the Yiau�e wh�n vi.ewed trom fart.her awa . 6) Mr. L�oty is also �eeking a variance ta p�rmit a frnnt yard �etback of 13 ' . Again, tf�e request fior the variance is base� n the a�sert:ian that he checked with the build ' ng division on more than one occasion to verify tha hiJ �.Ll:111J were in conformance with the s tbacLc requirernents and wa� 4 ��-��s . tnld that it was. Mr. oty claims that requiring him to mova th� hou�e back at this point wauld cause him swbstantial hardshi . 7) The variance fior front yard �etback is also ju�tifiied by the fiact t at the 1ot i� vary shallow. � The lot is 93' deep com ared to 125' fbr a typica� St. Paul lot. . • 8) Mr. Doty is reques ing a variance for lot coverage so that he can make changes ta a deck which will lossen its imqact n the neighbars. This varianc� was not n eded far the !�ou�e as originally planned . Ho ever , in di�cussi�g th� house with the neighbor , both �ic(es agresd that � deck proposed fnr tf�e b ck of the house �-�ould hav� less impact on the neig bors if it was lcwered and moved away from the pro urty line. However, zr� order to move the �ecl. � t will be nece�s�ry to builc� a landing cff the door ' ntc� the housr and step� fr�m the ].anding down to the Ceck . This u�auld increase the size of the deck en ugh to �ut the house over the 30% lot covera�� li it. �C'ha Allyns' and Mr . D�t agree� to a height of 3.0' for the low�r level of he re,�r deck and t_hat the up�er level would not � oject more thar� 4 .5 ' beyond the rear nf the house. Whereas, 8ased upon the abc�ve findinss th� SoarC on Octo�aer 27 , 19�57 , by its ras lution Numb�r 14217, grar�t�d the following variances for the roperty at 2I08 �1est Hoyt f�vent�e . and legally described as fol ows: south 93.55 fest of the north 123.35 feet of Lot 10, Puditor-'s subdivisio�: (1) a maximum building height ofi 33_5' subject: to the applicant modifying the roof to "hipp�d" r-aof as shown in attacha� Exhib ' t A; (2} A �ront yard setbac�c of 13' ; (3) Max ' mum lot coverage af 12Q �quare fae�. mor� than 3 % subject to the l��er �e�ei �eck propo�ed for the r ar of the house not ��ing more than 3.0' high(as ��sur�ed from the �urface of the �ec6c to the bottom f t;h� �vi�rdou�s on tha Haest sid� n�f tl��a rear of th ho�.!se as thsy were built a� of Octc�ber 13 , 1987) �n t.h� .��er- �.eve:1 of tt�e �eck not �rojecting more tha 4 . S' beyond the r�ar of the house. Whereas , I�ursuant to th provisions of Section 6�t.20�, Elizabeth M. �ol�m, 2117 Dudley r�venue, Saint Paul , Minn. , ,on NovEmb�r 11 , 1957 duly filed with the City Clerk her appeal 5 ..., , .. , , .. . _; . �� .,.. . _ _._ _ _ � �.�as from th� determina�ions made y the Bo�7rd of Zoning Appeal�, requesting a hearing before t e City Council for the purpose of considering the actions ta en by the said 8oard; Whereas, Acting pursuant to 5ections 64.2v5 through 64 .208, and upon notice to a pellant and other affected property owners, including t e Al].yns and Doty, a public hearing was duly conducted b the City Council on Decembe.r 22, 1987 where all interested pa ties were given an o�partunity to be heard; and Whereas, The Council , h ving heard the st�.tements made, � and having considered the va iance app2ication, the report of staff , the minutes and fiindi g._, of th� 6oard of Zoning Appeals, does hereby Resolve, 7hat the Counc � l of the City of S�int Paul does hereby find and determine th t the 6oard did make an error of fact and law in gr-anting the variances relating tc the Zot coverage and maximum height f the building as set forth in the Soard's res�lution numbe 10217, adopted Qctaber 27, 1987 , �or the foll�wing rea� ns: 1) Granting af the lo coverage variance is not su�.�parted by the �w�ideri e. The provisior�s of the Zoning Code restr�ict th de�✓elopment of the �ot to 30 percent of the squar -Fa�taqe. The sub,�ect lot i� not unusual in size r topography and a hause af reasonable size could k� built on it. The owner proposes to build a d�c �nto his home, and that is the cause for requiring the variance. 7he hardship, in this case, iJ JG�� created and is not in �ceeping with the spirit or int nt of the Zoning Code. 2) Granting of the building h�ight varia�ce so as to permit a height of 3'6" , which is 3'6" in exce�s of the Co�e raquiremen s is als� not suppQrted by the record, `fhe exces height wiil impair tMe neighbor 's adequate li ht and air and will aiter the ��ential character of the surrounding area_ The owner has indicated th t he can me�t the Co�e height restrictions without t is variance, and if any h�rdship exi�ts becaus of th� way th� owner has . proc�eded in building he home the hardship was created sol�ly by the wner thereof , Further Resolved, 7hat the Cauncil of �he City of �aint Paul does hereby affirm the finding� and conelu�ion� of the 8oard and does h�reby rati.fi the grar�ting of the v�riance for the front yard setback so a to allow the structure to b� � 6 (�� located only 13 feet from th street, su�ject to the fo�lowing conditions: �he roof of the ho s b� rec�ns ucted so tf�at th� top, peak , r ridge is more tha 5 feet a ove the darside of he ex sting permast e es_ Th altera ' ons to be c mpl te prior o the occ ncy a the dwei ng. Th� imnay of t hou�e be aonstruc d to be . lo red to a eight whi is two fee above t high t point the ro f indicat� bove_ he . altera 'ons to b compl te p � or to the cup3nc af the dwell ' g: �. `"5�. Th� existing patio door have acce�s to a • landing and/or ,stairway not. to exceed 54 inch�s pro.jection from the ext rior wall . ThE hana a�td �uard rails for this 1� din� and/or stairv�ay to be turnecl �pindles and woo railJ Jtain�d ta ma�ch the siding or equivalent. to minimize visual im�act *rcm adjacent pro�ertie�. o� , `� 7here shall be no above grade �eck in tF,� .-ear yard spac.�. Any im�ro ement. shall be by grcur:� sur�face patio o-F conc� t�, ��rick, stonE. or si:niia- materials in diract co tact �dith tf�e edrth �t it•� a�proximate Qxisting g acf� or a wuoden pl�t�f�rm not to excee�� inches abo � grads without pe��im�t�r rails, fencing or oth� treatm�nt above th� dee:4c surface. .3 . �. The landscape �la incorp�ratinc the follow�ng is attached and made a part hereof ; the pur,�ose of the plantings is to re uce visual impact of he�ght, ma�s and reduced front yard of the axisting . . struc�ure. _ a. vertical eve green ..,creening at west and south propert line� . b. perman�nt p1 ntings ir� front yard_ c. fr�ont st�airw y an�� landing details and retaining wal datail�. � � . _. � . . � . � ' • � .,t e.._. 4� . . . . � . .. . 1� ., . . _ . 7 ._...,. _ . . . . _., . ,._ ... . _ � ,.:, ,. - , : �,_ _,. . „ :. .. . . .. _ _ _;:. _, -_;' :v_ - --:� ,. _ . _ , .. , ..... ., . ., M. . . . . ,i• . yc: � , . ...v ..— .. .' .�. - � -.:;. . .... .. :...... .� . . . . 'a: . .. . . �;' .. .. � ....,.. . . .,. . . � - .... . � . � . . , . . � .. . y".. WNITE - CITY CIERK ' . L� . � . . .. . .. � COUflCIl � - � . PINK - FINANCE � GITY O��F AI.NT PALTL � 1 Q � "�d�S� CANARY - OEPARTMENT BLUE - MAYOR . . � Flle NO• � � � Council Resolution � , : � Presented By ` � -.,, Referred To � Co '�ee: Out of,Commit�ee By Date , � founda c�n pia�t x�.th tr�i s's �-r or iv�rl�n vertic 1 e Ata at t � Nall th of he � ry floo ��►Qai�t e�cisti bcicks, or aplaCir� brick Ki.th Ist�. aiding a�t upp�r leve ot tirast Ma2T to . �, red�ea� t:ha a�o�t �t solid briaic Ma�l. e. 4�her irtdicati o� surface tre�at- ,aanta and plantinga a►r reaai�r crf lot area. The ,p2anti�s �ui cronst ic� ir�ieated s�ve shsll� ,:� �e, c�o�plet+ed Mi�hi� o�e y r of �n�Y ��' the c#re]:IfnQ. 'i'�e Zonir� 1� �i�trater a�all strietly► � en�'Qr�e tl�e �nditi<ms 1 hro�h S above �s a ca�ditic�rn �►f the gran�i�g of tbe fror�t y:rd va�riar�ee tv a2lovr t�s struc�ur�e �o re�aain at it� eacist�g � � lc�ativ� or� °�la�e lo�. r: _ F�THBR RSSOLY�H, Th�t �i�+y �lerk �ha12 �til a c4gy f this r�sol�tios� to Slisabeth 2ea, Dauql�as Do�r, Ric�ard a�d C2airte -�i1l:lqn, and th� �a�in� inistrator �nd the Dc�ard of � Z�triir�g APPea3:�. � . , 8. ' , COUNCIL MEMBERS '`Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays �"`flimond �.�� _� [n Favor . ""�('�osswitz � �;� Against BY Sonneu�''� ��V�{*ilson MAY — 3°��Uf) Form Approv � b `City At�orney Adopted by Council: Date � � � � ` g ,�: �'. ` �'�. , ) Certified P Gounci! r Y Sy , Approved y �Vlavor. Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Co cil By By . WMITE - UTY �CLEtiK , �� + CQuACll � ` PINK - FINANCE GITY OF AINT PAUL 1 �' �r�� CANARY -�EPARTMENT BLUE AYOR . �Flle NO. Council Resolution Presented By _ � .y � . _ , �� ,,,, �,� �-, � Referred To �`-_ Com�it�ee: Date �`' ' Out of Committee By Date R d. f�anda'�on piar�►t re� �itt� trel�:�a•� ` - or�°�quiva2en�-.vertie � e�eMnt� at �t Mai I ��th .of the en ry docilr_ aqaix�st i . - exlsting bricks, or pla�cirtq brick Nith .�s�t siding at upper leve of �at xall to � raduce the a�c�unt of �olid brick xall. . e. othar i�licati a� aurfsae treet- . went,s mnd pi�ting� or re+�s�ruiear of ` lot arta. Th� plantir�s and con�st tion ind�l�satt�ci abova �ha12 De cowpleted M�.Lhir► c►ne y ar v�' oac�ncy of t.he �llir�q. ?he Zoninq A�o strator sball st�ictly e�forc� the cc�nditians 2 5 abov� as a cond3tion of t,tae grantir�q c►f tt�e frc�sit yard varimnce to a�.l,oN tt�ar structure to r�main a� ita e�c3ating locatic� a�t t.t�►e Iot. FURTHSR 1�30LVSD, That th City Clerk shal2 sa#I a coPY �#f this rssaluti+on to 82isabeth 1aa�. Do��qles` Doty, Aichard and � Claire �tllyn. a�d t2�e �oning iatrator and the Bc�ard of Zonfang Appeals. ; a. COUNCIL MEMBERS � Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays �imond �.o� � in Favor Re�nma�'"'�` ,� � ��;�-- _ Against BY �, Sonne�^ � �ilson i ! �AY — 3 ��t7 Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date � i Certified P�_ ad y ci�r5e�r "' By ! By, �� , Approved by Nlavor. Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Gou�cil By BY i �°_��a 5 Re ocate 5" Locus from backyard ' ' � ' � . � Spreading • � Sod e err � 24" Yews 24" , . � Keystone ' , _ , �e � . Retaining � ' � � I Wall ' � � 4 ��' � d Dogwood � �" Globe Arborvitae 36" t Pyramidal - � I Arborvitae i I+ 8-10 ' � • + • Trelli w/ Boston ivy � + � t I+ � . + . � t ; Globe Arborvitae 36" i t ( .� i � Colorado Spruce 10-12 ' � Sod � � -� i + ` Pyramidal � Arborvitae { NORTH `�" 8-10 ' � _ r ` -r -r ( �t- , .y. t _ ^ _ � Scale 1"= 10 ' MUl,�FINGER � SUSANKA ARCHITECTS S�ite 308, 1501 Universiry Ave. SE, Mi neapolis, Minnesota 55414 Telephone#: (612) 379-3037 11 April 1988 Doug and Debbie Doty 1612 Woodside Court Fridley, MN 55432 Dear poug and Debbie: I have site observed your new home on 2108 Hoyt Avenue in St. Paul for the pur ose of giving you counsel on the aesthetic and/or vis al merits of alterin� your current hip roof to that of modified mansard with maximum height of five feet rom eaves. I understand that this adjustment is being ought by your neighbors in exchange for their concurrenc with setback variances you need to comply with city ord' nances. Althou�h I can appre iate that such a change would bring you into closer comp iancies with height ordinances , and may have some impact on nei�hbors who see your house from some distance away i the winter, I believe this would have a minor impact rom curb side or for immediate neighbors to the sou h. Your current 8/12 and 12/12 hip has the roof recedin away from the observer at a slope that tends to negate the value of the upper half of the roof . As to the aes hetic implieations of either hip or mansard, both are at variance with the originally desired and appropriate gabl s and are of ne�ligable difference as a design resoluti n to the amalgamed forms and surfaces of the hous . My opinion is tY�at t a greatest improvemen� that could be made in reducing the visual height of the house would come from appropriat landscaping, particularly berming. Landscaped berms on oth the south and west facades would �. achieve much the sam results that has been achieved to the north giving the structure a two story rather that a three story appearan e. Although the hill would be somewhat artificial , it does connect in scale to the hill twa lots to the east. Concern must be given in making berm and landscaping appear reasonably natural with a minimum of retainin� walls exposed to the neighbors . (See sketch) I Doty 11 April 1988 � Page 2 , . , „ <w __._ � _.__� _:.__ � If I can be of some h lp in your discussion of these matters with your nei hbors, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Dale Mulfi ger; IA Associate o ssor School of Architectur and Landscape Architecture University of Minneso a DM/wn word/1tr0411 i { � , . . - ,`' R . �aG,. .P �.�. e ..� '.t u� � 1 i�E��-.. . . y ��:�� i � ...J.r.L r.... 1 ��,._,� yh1 .ti. ��. 1 ;��.. . Ct ;y t ... . .. �' ,;,"�. -�`+ � ( i� � ! �� .��`�� .a.fi��i�+��.` ,,.,�-, ,. �'+r l, � , i�.+► � �-f a ,� c ,aai�w�-�"—,. ^r w�.u.....a - , ��=[�'lClilll:li;lllllllll:f II:IIIIItIII:I�IlE.1 � I I �I I � �� R ,I�JIi(I�Il�llllll(�I�IIIe� �,��IIII(IIIIIIIIIIIIClI.1111i_I.l,l�lll,l�l�ll�,ll �� .�;�� Dii:`�lli ll ,I►'';�;; � �e �� I �� , �.: �. ; },�� r �+a�',g�� ! ,y;j; � I s,, � :��,��nuu��ai� �� s ' .;� � �� r , - � � � . 1 I� ,,'' f. _ wQ I I��I I� ��i .. '� �.��, . ,..�� I �1 .y�fY �Y�I��Wll�:e� ` ? : r`��= �,i,ai��i��iu�iiG�.�r� � s �; �` f� fs�� sk+i_�'Y"'I""'f'I'�','�!! . 3 t f� .�, , t � ,��w�� '��"� � `��.�r�r..��ur��r �.I' � �` 1 � , '�;,�j � ;� .: ,� � f � � �� i�il �.�.� ��E: j � � � j`�. .:��1 � � ��llilllllil�ilii,llii � ► � �i� `� ' ''�T{ ,� � � �� ' . ! . I � ;�y! �' �, ,:.,��a��a�i�+- ;-s j � � j � � �� 1 y. � _ __. . I � �.� ` � � �� , �� :�;� ��o�,i , ! I � , � � �s ,,. �, ,: .,.� µ� � �. s,�; ; ; , ap � �; •� �'�li�i��:',i� �� ' i�►�yitc��a�l�i�:�t►'� � � i. 'I i y ... r �� i i ",,� i ` � , r � 7L :r�.S'.. . —�_ 'y'!• � � i y, � 1 /��:; I'�rwrrvrw�Ni ��`_ ` ,' � � ' ' I� �.i9'� � � � . ' .+ � --� �}� '.� ..; ,�. �1 I � i9��.g�s^ � : r , � ��.1' � x ,_f�li1AS![@K!l�ri� � �` �!p {'�`�� ,��li��i�'��,�.�� ' • �1�r� . t tj - '�F�ij� ,• � � � t ;,�`�� ... v� -- -- - � � , , i } ;a+ , , i k..,��r., ;� . ; � r J;.. � --�'� � � 7 !�' � � TdWYits 3fiafi � , 'E �'' � • f t � �+ � {� i ;r; �' �R Ql�lrtil / i1 -�� ,�� :,. ��.� �r��,{.��_.,! � ; ± ¢ii�' �,. � � ,� ��•�i �� i r`t � T�;�1.� �4 � � , ;� i� 11 �� ;��,r3auxsti� ! .1 � s��`�t�' ,ti t ' �� _. � ,I' �i�� I� '� '• l; ��I �: � ,'i��1� — ;�K !f,i�.�ae�o�i; I {� ,R ,: , �. , ::� , ` y- - - — �*`��Iy.�Arr��YW! I �� 1 i•�.1�� 1i7��H��"I,I..'�� ,'A,� . �';Y ��M W � � �, � c :,� i � r . I � 'I � �� ' �� g'.i,��!�'�i I � ��`�';�:�� >� � ,��,,,, �__.� ;�� ' � �. � � 1�Ij,��;.;.i �� ! �� ,�' - w' �a ,;�_:� ' '� �� .,��um�nc��i�a� � �'1 I �,� �i< :��t�,�.�;'��r � �i� � �I'----.—�;,jt � �I � � � I . �'(� ; t�.�� 'j�._or�u�sae�rviy�rll � � N I{ll �� ./��l�u��HU(��i�� : �� ,� � �� '��Illtl�lllllll�l��l_JII�� i��.�� _— ,� {� '4 i 5��'I� I � �1 ;.. �r�r�wa�b��.'« � ! { ;;� �`I''!'' ' � �1.i�liill��71Y�111[ ;:: � �,j \ ��I ' t�",I�'"II��"'i','�"�/��1�� 'I! I . i �� II �. : �t[e�.z,�a.ettt,ieutril�1«; � ' , �� x.. �,s:�� y � �7 ' i I �I�� i � i t`�^�y�'�+.'�a,t M � (� ',- 5 ,�, 1 � ,. �9, + ' �e�rtarrs��a�eri��/� �l.�� i :�. 1 "'� ' ?!� , ��,�. � .,�, i :'F I t i�i� ' � �': � , ,i I ,: I� '��. �� '.�1��i�:c i . i i � '. �, � � � � �/. �.�' � � �� •� �Yrrrr�Kf11CiLii�it�'' ►�t�Y: �,�... � � �'t, "ay'y.' ♦ . �VI�/�IIIAA►. ��`�� .w:t,�"�,` ,s �IQ��( y{�y�.s'r-..y`1 . "�':'r.�ww'�'Mari.�:4s+.:a11WA!Q'�p , Yf.p4` �/�•1'�ry Y _ . �w � '�� h�i q V � Y 1�. ; J�.r !..� ��,� y�� `.I,-- �l!�(�i ,,.�* ;;�S�y'r `�� .v�� '�S � ♦ � `'!Y'�INM!�MI��_n"Z'r+��.. 1��''w4.��r'r�'�.��`Y "�r�• ��N�� .y� �.i t,• -��yw ' �1fi.. i � , � � , , . . . . ._ . ._ ___ ....____.__... . .. . , . \� �_ o � ►.J . � }� . �v , _ � � � � , : � y _. . � � �-- _ �- � � � � � � T � -�o � _ . � . � � - � w � , . � � �� , _ . _. . ..:__..._�..._ . � z � � � -- u� _ � � . � � �� ; � � � � 7 . � � � _ �7�� -- d � . . � � �t � . , . , . --- t-r�::•, ::,. .. ,�., A • �� /!� I ' � '�t � i � i - - --- --- - - ! . � � : - -_ � � � -+...,._. . I � ' , . � �--�.- ' � . � _ - �___�_�:-. ; � � � ; . � � � �� r � ' �� ,�. � s Z I , , � � r � � � .�. � . . -_ ___� � �( ; � - , ' � �� ` r � �' C� � ► � � ! � < - - - 7 Il -..___�- � . I � � _ . � ; i � � , � � � � , , --� . � 1 � ( � - - � � _ � ( \ � � ,�� . �� . . � _� �t- _. r . .enr.. � :�aO :r'_ . .. . . .. . . . .r r � ' ► � �, , ;1 . , � � . � — .��., � ��t/�� 1 ► 'I ' � " ! ;— �; �" �� I :- ?�"' 1 .-;=; �,,, I I.�� ;n�■ _; � --- , � ■n � � I �� __._'"_ �� s I �� ■�� '� - --��- -�! �!� 1111�1�11111 i� � � _ . , � �. ' , � � • � � ► , ----., I ; � .. . , ... .�,.. , .�.. � ��!�: � :s:�:� ! .��:�! r r ' ---� -: i ' � R ��: � ��. �' ` rw � � l�i��l� ■��f�iii� �1��1��1�1 � � I� i�i�i; �i �� , �!�►��■f � �► ■�Ii�■ : n 1 I , � � ��i ��■ ■A■ ■ �� , � 1 � � �a■ �� _ ■�� i li■ i■ � �� / � � I 1 � ■� ►.� .� ■. _� � ,r� ____!___ , �_._ , , � iillil � ��1�1�� 1�� + ��---� ► 'il I ° .�� i __ _ _ _ _i�i � � I..D� � �53 n j� ,�----� � �,�� f � WMITE - C�TY CIERK P�NK _ F�NAN�E CITY OF AINT �AUL Council (ti ,�/_�— C1INARY - DEPARTMENT u � BIUE - MAVOR File 1\O• d �O Council Resolution ;- �'; �-� � � Presented By .��i� ',��' Referred Committee: Date Out of Commit�tee By Date \ WHEREAS ;�..Richard and Clair Allyn appealed a decision of th2 - Zoning Adminis�rator to the Boa d of Zoning Appeals , which de- cision determined that the home under construction at 2108 West Hoyt Rvenue , Sain� Paul , Minnes ta, conforms to the height re- strictions of the Zt�n�ng Code a d that the correct method of measurement of the heagnt of th house is from the finished grade of the site rather thah ;�^e ori inal grade of the site ; and WHEREAS , The Board conduc-_;: d a hearing on this appeal (File No. 10185) at its meeting on Au ust 25, 1987 , at which time it heard testimony fro�a the owne�� f -che house in question, Douglas Doty, from the a;�,�ell a.zt :�ich�r Allyn, their respective attorneys , and from concerne� rES�._�.;er.ts , t e testimony primarily relating to the height of the house at 2108 W. �-?oyt and the method of ineasure- ment applied by �he Zoning A�t��i ist�ator; and the Board layed over the hearing on the appeal for a per'�od of two weeks for the pur- pose of allowing the parties an oppo�-�unity to arrive at a com- promise solution to their conce ns an roblems and present them at the next Board meeting, whic the pa ties indicated a willing- ness to so do ; and WHEREAS , The Board reconve ed the heari on File No. 10185 at its meeting on September 8 , 987 , at which ime the attorney for the appellants requested th t the Board lay over further discussion until September 22 , 987 , so that addi ional information requested by the Zoning Adminis rator could be obt ined and so that the parties could have fur her opportunity to gotiate a compromise position, which requ st was granted by the Board; and \` � � � COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of: t Yeas Nays Dimond �� [n Favor ca�� Rettman Sc6eibel A gai n s t BY Sonnen Wilson Form Approved b ity Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by Mavor: Date _ Approved y ayor for Submission to Council By _ BY Whereas, The Board reco vened the hearing on �_ile_....,#1_01_85 at its meeting on �eptember 2, 1987, at which time the Board wa� infarmed by the staff of the Znning Administrator that a survey wa� done an the front yard �etback for the hnme i.n qu�stinn and it was det�rmin cl fram that survey that Mr . Do 's home wa� built �ee cl �e� tn the frant propei-ty line than permitted uncler the pro isinn� of the Zaning Cnde and that o remain in that lncat on a zoning variance mu�t -First be grar�ed by the Board, and that the parties requested further �k,ime to continue to ork nut their differences, and the Bnard��noved to continue he hearings until Qctaber 13, 1987 ; and �.,. �,y� Whereas , �'�ouglas Doty , n �eptember 24 , 1987 , made , applicatinn (.F_�_�-`..°�......_�_1_�_�_�_7..).........�o the Bnard of Zoning Appeals for variances for the`��,hnme at 21 8 W. Hoyt, the said variances being for the buil�,,�ng heigh , 1ot coverage and frant yard setbaok ; and "�k, 'ry,i Wherea�, The BoarcP�a,,conduoted its hearing on bo�h the Allyns' appeal (File #lq� 85) and the Doty'� appeal (File #10217) on qctnber 13, 19�7 , and the follnwing testimony was considered by the Board: �°'=�, V5� � Qn aeptember 23, 1987, t Zaning �ldministrator notified Mr. Doty that h ` auld bring his home inta canformance with the Zon � ng ode provi�ions if he did three things: ( 1) n tain a building permit tn move the home back from he fro t property line between 8' and iq' ; (2) liminat any deck on the south side of the home a ove the g nund floor level ; and (3) keep the height f the home o a maximum nf 3Q' as measured from the average fini ed grade . The neighbar, Mr . Allyn, objected tn the ome beinci moved back from the �tre t as it would b10 the light and air from his a n adjacent home, ar� that he preferred that the ho e remain in its pre� t location if the raaf wer reduced in height an �,t.no deck constructed on the ear of the Doty home. �a,,� �.J�1 !� 1 � 7hat af ter much l.A.i JVUJJI n among the two appellant��,k neighbors, the Board was advised that a compromi�e '`��,, solution satisfactory to them was recnmmended fnr adoption by the Board, t e compromise as fnllows: 1) 7he home n t be moved back from the �tree . 2) 7he roof on the Doty home ould be "hipped" rather than be a "gabled roof" . 3) The deck would not exceed �K� ��- 2 1J2 feet in h ight from grade. �) The neces� ry lot coverage variance woul be granted. Wherea�, ba�ed on the a ove compromi�e agreement and the proposed acceptance thereof y the Bnard, the appeal (File '�•.,#10185) of Richard and Clair �llyn was withdrawn by the said ��pellants; and � `'�� Wherea�, Based upon the testimony received by the Board and �n the recommendation f the Planning �ta-Ff , the Board of Zon ng f�ppeal� did adopt ' ts final actian on the applica ' on fnr variance� ma e by Douglas Dnty, based upon th� following �Findings made by t e said Board and as contained in it� re�nlu ' nn #10217 , adopt d October 27 , 1987 : 1 ) Mr . Doty , the appl � cant , is building a 3-�tory single-fa ' ly house at 108 West Hnyt Av�nue. �t. f�aul 's Buil ing In�pectinn and Desi�n Divisi.on issued a bui ding permi fnr the house in March 1987 and work is c�rently i progres�. The house ha� been framed in,\inaludi g the rnof . \ The �uiiai�,� di.vis�,,on ap roved the height of th� house based on p1an��and elevatians submitted ta them by the applicant h n he applied for a building permit. 1'he building�, ision follawed its st�naara practice and made its in tial determination of th� height af the building b easuring from the archi�ect'� �ca1e drawin J. IIIG�J4 drawings indicate the ground level with a ashe line but do not specifiy whether thi� i� n exi.� ing grade or a proposed change of grade. Hlthn h it is not apparent in the drawing, the dash line indicating �ropased ground 1eve1 is abaut 6' a ave the existing grade on the site on the east and fro t side of the house. � 2) "fhe height of the b ilding when mea��,,red by staff in �eptember was 3 '6" measured from�- he current grade to the mid point of the roof b�,sed on the average af a11 four ides. (The height m��ured on the west and back sid , where the lnwer leve'�� is at grade, wa� 35' 4" ) . To meet the height limit of 30' �et by the Zoning Code the grade would hav ta be rai�ed 3'6" on all four side�. Hnwever , it is not possible to rai�e the grade significantly n the west and back side because of the location f doors and windaws �o most 3 of the grade changes wo ld have to occur nn the front and east �ide. 3) The Hllyn�' , neigh nrs to the ea�� , appealed the decision of the bui ding divi�inn to grant the building permit to Mr. oty, saying that the building height shnuld ave been determin�d from th� �rade that exis�ed on � te before con�truction began ther than the propnse grades �hawn on the ar hitect's plans. Thi appeal was later dropped a� par of a compromise be ween Mr . Doty and the �lly , which is reflec ed in the conditian� of thi� varian e. The build' ng division r quested more aet�i�ea infarmatio from Mr . Do y in Augu�t abnut exactly hnw he propo�ed to grad the �ite tn meet the building heig��t limit b t this was not submit.ted. � kq 4) Mr . Doty is'*,�reques ing a variance for building height to {aermit �r�,buil ing 33'6" high. He still contends that he ca� me t the 30' height limit set by the Zoning Code. '��lo evsr, he is requesting a variance for two rea�o�s. First, he says that he r �,ied on advice provided him by the building division i'i"� determining the height of the house and that he wnu`'�d �uffer undue hardship now if the BZf� now overt rns ��at advice after the house has been largely b ilt. �,� � Second, if the BZ(� uphol � the bui ding division'� determinatian, Mr . Doty ould like e optian to lower the grade from wha is �hown on'`a,,the plans if this is what the neighbo s want. �_� �. �'� 5) Mr. Doty is willing to change the exi`"�wting gable roof line to a hip ed roof line at hi�,�awn expense. This would leu en the impact of th�`°�,, building on the A11yns' roperty. When �tandi� close to the building, t e roof would not be �;,, vi�ible: the highest poi t visible would be the �� eaves which would be 26' " above the exi�ting grad�,� Tt wnuld also 1WJJen the �I��JJ of the house when �4 viewed �rom farther away ��`'Fd� 6) Mr. Doty is alsn se king a variance tn permit a fi�'µ'`�, front yard setback of 13' . Again, the request for the variance is based on the assertion that he checked with the buildi.n division on more than ane accasinn to verify that is plans were in cnnformance with the set ack requirements a.nd wa� 4 tald that it wa�. Mr. oty claims that requirina him to move the hou�e b ck at this point wouia cause him substantial hardshi . 7) 7he variance for f ont yard setback is also ''�, justified by the fact t at the lot is vary shallow. � The lnt is 93' deep com ared tn 125' for a typical at . Paul lOt . ) Mr . Doty is reques ing a variance for 1ot c erage sn that he can make changes to a deck which wil lessen it� impact n the neighbors. ,� 7his v riance wa� not n eded fnr the hnuse as origina y planned. Ho ever , in discus�ing the house wit the neighbor , bnth �ides agreed that. a deck propo� d for the b ck of the hous� would have 1e�� impact the neig bor� if it was lowersd and moved away fro�i the pro erty line. Mowev�r , in order to mave t� deck � t will be neces�ary tn build a landing nff th�door ' nto the hou�e and steps from the landing dawn t �the deck. This wnuld increa�e the �ize nf the deck�w.,en ugh to put the hou�e nver the 30% lot coverage �� it . � The Allyns' and Mr . Dotyw"�greed to a height of 3.0' far the lower level of the�°�-ear deck and that the upper level wnuld not pr jec'�mare than �4 .5' beyond the rear af the house. � � � � Wherea.�, Ba�ed upon the bove fa.n ing� the Board on October 27 , 15�87 , by its resn utinn Nu�r 10217 , granted the following variances for the p operty at 2"�8 Wes� Hoyt Avenue and legally described as fo11 ws: south 9�'�SS feet of the north 123 .35 -Feet afi Lot 10, uditor 's subdi�.��ion: �,,� { 1 ) a maximum building eight of 33. 5' sul�'ect to the applicant modifying he roof tn "hipped" „,ronf as �hnwn in attached Exhibi H; (2) A front yar�m, setkaack of 1�' ; (3) Maxi um lot cov�rage of 120`�� quare feet mare than 30 subject to the lower l��rel deck propo�ed for the re r of the house not being "�,� more than 3 .0' high(as m a�ured from the surface ofi��; the deck to the bottom o the windows on the we�t �'�4� �ide nf the rear of the hnuse as they were built ac �>� af October 13, 1987) and the upper level o-F the deck �i�� not projecting more than �t.5' beyond the rear of the ''�p h o u s e. "�,,, Wherea�, Pur�uant to the pro�✓i�inn� nf �ectian 64 .205 , Elizabeth M. �o1em, 2117 Dud1 y Avenue , �aint Paul , Minn . , nn November 11 , 1987 auiy filed ith the City Clerk her appeal 5 frnm the determinatinn� made by the Board nf Zoning Hppeals, r�questing a hearing before the City Council for the purpo�e of considering the actinn� t ken by the said Board; Whereas, Acting puruuan to �ections 6�.205 through �4 . 208, and upon notice to a pellant and other affiected property owners, including t e Allyns and Doty , a public earing was duly conducted b the Ci�y Council nn December 22, 1 7 where all intere�t�d pa tie� were given an opportunity to be eard; and ereas , Th� Council , h ving heard the �tatements made , and havi g cansiaerea the va iance application, the repor-t nf staff , th minutes and findi g� of the Board of Zoning Hppeals, d s hereby Resalve,�hat the Counc ' 1 of the City of �aint Paul does hereby find and �etermine th t the Board did mak� an errnr of fact and law in g�nting the variances as �et forth in t.he Bnard's resolution °�umber 10 17 , adnpted October 27, 1987 , for the following reason�s r �ij 1) 7he granting 'af th requested front yard setback variance so ` s a permit the home to be located only 1� feet�- m the �treet is no� �upported upon sufficie t facts so �s to meet th� required �findings �et �fo h in section 64 .2q3 nf the Zoning Code. The justific ion made by the Bnard in granting thi� variance w s t at th� lot in question was "very shallow" becau e th lot wa� only 93 feet deep a� compared to a ty ical c�ty int being 125 feet deep. Mowever the acts pre�ented ta the City Council establi�h that t e owner cc'�Mld have placed the hnme with the requir d set back �'x�hout any hardship. The owner ha� created the rdship himself in that he chose ta can�truct t`t�e hnme as clo�e to the street as h did, and it app"�ars that he misled the city's ins ection division w`I�,en he stated on his building p rmit application ti�t hi� lot was 120 feet deep in tead of the actual 9'�a feet {permit Number 032393, d ted 3-3-87 , and signec�ti�by Doug Doty) . 2) Granting of the lot coverage variance is not supported by the evidenc . 7he provisions of the Znning Code restrict the development of the lot �o 30 percent of the �quare footage. The subject lot i� not unusual in size o topography and a hause of reasonable size could be built on it. The owner propose� to build a deck onto his home, and that i� the cause far requiring he variance . The hardship, 6 _ _ _ --- _ __ _ _________ __ _ --- i — WMITE - CITV �LERK PINK - FINANCE COUIICil CANARV - DEPARTMENT G I TY OF SA I�NT PAU L /P� �� BI.UE - MAVOR File NO. 4 � � Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date in this case , is self cre ted and is not in keeping with the spirit or intent of the Zoning Code. 3) Gra ing of the build'ng height variance so as to permit height of 33 ' " , which is 3 ' 6" in excess of the Code equirements ' s also not supported by the record. he excess h ight will impair the neighbor ' s ade ate light and air and will alter the essential ch acter o the surrounding area. The owner has indi ated t at he can meet the Code height restrictions itho t this variance , and if any hardship exists b cau e of the way the owner has proceeded in buildi the home , the hardship was created solely by th owner thereof. FURTHER RESOLVED, That th cision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter be and is h eby reversed, and the appli- cation of Douglas Doty for variances or property at 2108 West Hoyt Avenue are hereby denied; and, be ' t FURTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of lizabeth M. Solem be and is hereby granted; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Clerk sha mail a copy of this resolution to Elizabeth Solem, Douglas Doty, Richard and Claire Allyn, the Zoning Admini trator and the Bo d of Zoning Appeals. 7. COUNCIL MEMBERS Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: �i Dimond :� �ng In Favor Goswitz Rettman B Scheibel __ Against Y Sonnen Wilson Form Approv d b City Attor Adopted by Council: Date Certified Yassed by Council Secretary BY— By Approved by Ylavor: Date _ Approve Mayor for Submission to Council By _ BY ��'- ��--. ��~°�� CITY OF SAINT PAUL �-�'��ct** ��`'W, -�'� �'=''= OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK �� ; ;: �� ,,,� _ ALBERT B. OLSON, CITY CLERK V�a""1mR��'�� 386 City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 612-298-4231 GEORCE LATIMER MAYOR �� December 22, 19s� D E C N 8 1987 +,a,�..�s �.�_��,ta��;� + e r.J�1 d� Mr. Ed Starr City Attorney Room 647, City Hall Dear Sir: After public hearing today, the C'ty Council granted the appeal of Elizabeth t7. Solem to a decisio to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the construction of a single f ily home at 2108 Hoyt Avenue. �9i11 you please prepare the proper resolution implementing this action. e ly yo rs, �. A rt B. Olson City Clerk ABO:th cc: Planning Staff, Zoning Secti n . �� ^.-- ST. PAUL a �-� � COl�l�iCl� PUBI.IC HE RING NOTICE Z NING - To Property Owners within 350' ; FIL E N 0. 10233 Representati ves of Di stri ct 12 PAGE PURPOSE The City Counc 1 will hear an appeal of zoning variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals for construction of a single-fa ily home. LOCATION 2108 Hoyt Avenue (Southside between Cleveland & Grantham) PETITIONER ELIZABETH P1. SO EM H E A R I N G Tu�$day �ecember 22, 19s7 9:OO A.M. • Cit Council Chambe s, 3rd Floor City Hall - Court House Q U E S TIO N S Zoning 29s-4154 (T m Beach) �. Contact the Zoning ection of the Pl�nning and EconQmic Development Departm nt, Room 1101, City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th Street, S . Paul, MinnesoLa 55102 Legal Oescription: On file Notice aent 12-11-87 . ��f` � O��/� t F• G1T7 01 � �°` �, CITY OF SAINT PAUL ? �� „� ; DEPARTME T OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT `,� �S=� �� o' � � ' DIVISION OF PLANNING ' � 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 ,�s• 612-22&3270 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR _ � R�CpVED December 14, 1987 h�� e77 Albert Olson, City Clerk Room 386 City Hall �C� Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File 10233 - Elizabeth So em Property located at 2108 West Ho t Avenue Cit Council Hearin • Tuesda December 22 1987 PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of a ecision by the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances for the constructi n of a single-family house. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECISION: Ap rove variances with conditions (5-0) October 13, 1987 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with c ditions SUPPORT: None OPPOSITION: Fifteen letters and a pet tion received, eight people testified Dear Sir: On October 13, 1987, the Board of Zoni g Appeals held a public hearing on a request by Douglas Doty for variances o permit construction of a single- family house. Variances were granted or building height, front yard setback and lot coverage on condition that the applicant modify the roof of the house and move a deck in the back yard. On November 10, 1987, an appeal was fi ed by Elizabeth Solem. The appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 22, 1987. Please contact me by December 21 if an Council member would like slides presented at the public hearing. BACKGROUND A building permit was issued for this ouse in March 1987 by the Building Inspection and Design Division after t ey reviewed plans submitted by the builder, Douglas Doty. Work was begun on the house. 4 The house first went before the Board of Zoning Appeals when Richard Allyn, who lives next door to the house, fil S for 'an Administrative Review, contending that an error had been mad in issuing the permit because the house exceeded the 30' height limit set by he Zoning Code. The appeal said that the building height should have been easured from the existing grade whereas the Building Division was allowing Mr poty to regrade the site and measure from the finished grade. Planning st �ff recommendation was that the Building Division was correct. The Board of Zoning Appeals held its irst public hearing on the case on August 27. Public testimony was take and the BZA voted to lay the case over to give both sides more time to try t reach a compromise. Mr. Doty continued to work on the house. At a BZA hearing 2�eld September 22 th Building Division reported that based on a new survey taken of the site, th house was S' too close to the front property line and that it would have o be moved back or a variance for front setback obtained. Work was ordered t mporarily halted by the Building Division. Mr. Doty applied for variances on Sep ember 24 for building height, front yard setback and also for lot coverage (to allow him to move a deck on the back of the house.) The BZA held its final public hearing on this matter on October 13 to consider both the original Administrative Revi w and the new request of variances. They approved the variances sub3ect t Mr. Doty rebuilding the roof of the house from a gable roof to a hipped r of to minimize its visual impact and also lowering a deck in the back yard. As part of this compromise� Richard Allyn agreed to withdraw his request or an Administrative Review on the issue of how the building height was determ ed. An appeal of the BZA's decision was fi ed by Elizabeth Solem on November 10. Mr. Doty has continued to work on the ouse and has modified the roof to a hipped roof. A more detailed chronology of the case is provided in the attached information packet. Sincerely, � �� Tom Beach Zoning Section cc: City Council Members Jerry Segal, City Attorney's Offic Wendy Lane, Building Division � STA REPORT TABLE F CON�ENTS 1 Chronology of case 3 Appeal by Elizabeth Solem and s pporting materials 21 BZA Resolution granting varianc s 24 Minutes from BZA meetings 42 BZA staff report 45 Application for variance filed y Douglas Doty 49 Building elevations and lot su eys 54 Application for building permit filed by Mr. Doty 55 Official correspondence 66 Location map � _ _ _. _ . . . TIMELINE FOR DOUGLAS DOTY'S HOUSE AT 10 WEST OYT VENUE 12/14/87 3/87 Building Inspection and Des En Division reviews plans and issues building permits for poty's euse. (These plans include elevat' ns of the house which stiow a building height of 30' when measured rom the finished grade. However it is not apparent from these ele tions that the finished grade is 6' above existing grade.) 5/87 Richard and Claire Allyn (ne t door neighbors at 2100 Hoyt) discuss house with Doty. 6/29/87 The Allyns' writes a letter o Doty covering their concerns about size and height of house. 7/7/87 The Allyns' write a letter t Building Inspection and Design Division requesting that co struction be stopped. 8/5/87 The Allyns' file an appeal t have the Board of Zoning Appeals review the Zoning Administra or's finding that the house will meet the 30' height limit if fini hed grading is done. (Zoning File 10185) 8/14/87 Tom Beach (Planning staff) m ets with Richard Al1yn and Eileen Roberts (the attorney repres nting the Allyns') at the house and measure the height of the ho se based on the grade as it is at that time. (These figures are gi en in the staff report.) Work continues on the house. 8/25/87 BZA holds first public heari g on the Allyn's appeal. (By this time the house is framed in, the oof is up and insulation board is on the walls.) Staff report recommends fin ing that the Zoning Administrator was correct and that the house c meet Zoning Code height requirements. Public testimony taken from ighbors and Mr. Doty for 90 minutes. BZA votes to lay over until 9 8/87 to give both sides a chance to meet and try to find a compro ise. 8/27/87 Ed Locke� Building Inspection and Design Division, writes Doty requesting him to provide a r gistered survey of the property, a plan showing finished grades or the site, and details on any retaining walls and exterior alls that will be below grade level. 9/8/87 BZA holds second public heari g and lays case over until 9/22/87 so additional information reques ed by Ed Locke can be obtained and to give more time for neighborho d and Doty to reach a compromise. 9/9/87 Doty has a new survey done fo his property. (A previous survey from 1986 was not accurate.) 9/?/87 Doty says he is willing to mo ify the roof of the house from gable to hipped style. Z _ ---�- __.__ ._ .. _ _ . _ _ --- _ .___ _ _.` , _ _ ... --. . 9/22/87 BZA holds third public hear ng. Wendy Lane, Building Inspection and Design Division, reports th t based on new survey, the house is too close to front property lin and must be moved back or a variance for setback obtained. BZA ays the case over until 10/13/87. 9/24/87 Doty appl�ies for variances or his house: 1. Height variance 2. Front yard setback 3. Lot overage to permit a modification of a deck off the rear of the ho se. (Zoning File 10217) 10/1/87 District 12 Physical Planni g Committee votes to oppose the variances. (The full counc 1 votes against the variances on 10/14/87� the day after the BZA approved them.) 10/13/87 BZA hold fourth and final p lic hearing on the case, considering both the original Administr ive Review for the Allyns and the variances requested by Doty, Staff report recommends approval of the variances. BZA hear 90 inutes of testimony and closes the discussion. BZA votes 5-0 to approve the variances requested by Doty on condition that he rebuild th roof as a hipped roof rather than a gabled roof and that he lowe the deck planned for the back yard to no more than 3' high. As part of this compromise, he Allyns' agree to withdraw their request for an Administrativ Review of the Zoning Administrator's original ruling on building eight. 10/27/87 BZA passes formal resolution approving variances for poty's house. 11/10/87 Elizabeth Solem, 2117 Dudley files an appeal to the City Council of the BZA's decision. 11/87 Doty continues to work on ho se and changes roof to hipped style. 12/22/87 City Council scheduled to he r appeal 'APPLICATION FOR APPEAL ZONING OFFICE USE ONLY _ CITY OF SAIN�I��D _ File # f�.Z. 3� a t a-e NOV 10 1�87 APPlication Fee S , Tentative Hearing Date 1Z 2��T ZONING , . Application is hereby made for an Appeal to he � under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , aragra h of the oning ode to appeal a decision made by the � Board o oning Appeals • � 1g�7 Plannin Comnission on , _ Zoning dministrator (date of decision) Plannin Administrator Other A. APPELLANT Name L�� d ��v►'I Daytime phone �36--//�� Address Zip Code ��b B. DECISION BEING APPEALED ..�c Zoning f i le name d/ Zoning Fi le � �D�J '7 Property Address/Location � • Legal description C. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Use additional sheets if necessary.) (Explain why you feel there has been an e ror in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offi ial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made y the Board of Zoning Appeals or th Planning Comnission.) �-- If you have any questions, please contact: Applic t's signa ure St. Paul Zoning Office 1100 City Hall Annex � C � 25 West Fourth Street 4 Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102 Date City agent (298-4154) 9/82 _ _ _ . _ _ ._ _ . , .t .� . r A � ' Zoning Appeal--File No. 10233--Page 1 � GROUN 'FOR APPEAL for -Zoning File No. 10 33 filed November 10, 1987 by Eliza eth M. Solem I am joined in this appeal by s veral neighbors who are sharing the costs with me. We appeal the variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) on October 27, 1987 for the building un er construction at 2108 West Hoyt Avenue. We request that the City Council rev ke all three variances granted by the BZA. In summary our reasona are: t at the BZA did not give valid justifications for any of the varian es (see Point 1 below), that all close neighbors and District 12 opposed th variances, and that Mr. Doty's economic hardships (if any exist) were of his own making. In more detail, our grounds for this appeal are based on the following errors in facts, procedures and find ngs by the BZA in its Resolution of 10/27/87: . . 1. Use of arguments inconsiste t with the St. Paul Zonin Ordinances. Our principal ground for asking for evocation of all variances is based on Chapter 64 of the Zoning Ordinances hich require that tt�e BZA must receive . evidence and make a specific finding that the "property in question cannot �be put to ressonable use under the stri t provisions of the code." This Chapter further requires that "the plight of the land owner is due to circumstances �� uni ue to his property and these cir umstances were not created bY the land owner." (Ch. 64.203(1),(2); emphasis ours). These sections of the Ordinance clearly indicate that any pleas for economic hardship must be tied to "c rcumstances unique to his property." Obviously, there can be no verbal as urances by anyone, including the Building Department, which can change the nat re of the propertq. The builder takes ultimate responsibility for hie own ctions. � In this case, there is no eviden e on record before the BZA that Mr. Doty cannot use his property in a reasonable manner if he is denied the variances. He can have a house on this site that is not too tall, not too near the street, and not projecting an excessi ely large deck. The BZA findings (Item 7 of the Resolution) that the lot is hallow is irrelevant to the request for � � variances since it is quite possible o build s house appropriate for the lot with living space more typical of hou es in St. Paul and smaller than the 4000 plus square feet of Mr. Doty's curren structure. In addition, Mr. Doty's so-calle "plight" is entirely of his own making � and is not dictated by any particular physical feature of this building site. He is a professional building develop r who: (1) built his house approximately 10 feet too close to th street, (2) built a three story house which is over 40 feet high on the sou h and west (as measured to the peak of the roof) and is only less so on the ast and north because he added fill dirt from off the site, and (3) has planne to build a large deck which would extend from the second story of the h use at a height of approximately 10-12 feet above the ground. All three of hese conditions, for which he now seeks / . _ , ,� , • Zoning Appeal--File No. 10233--Page 2 � variances, were crested by Mr. Dotq nd are not necessary for a reasonable house on that site. � The code also requires that eac of Mr. Doty's variances be "in keeping with the spiri and intent of the code and is consistent with the health, safety, c mfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the city of St. Paul," (Ch. 64.203(3)) and that each varian e "will not impair an adequa e supply of light and sir to adjacent property, nor will it alte the essential character of the surrounding area or unreas nably diminish established property � values within the surround ng area" (Ch. 64.203(4)). As with the require ents of (1) and (2), the BZA received no evidence nor made a specific finding that these conditions had been met. In fact; evidence was presented oth orally and by petition from representatives of all nesrby neighbo s, that the granting of the variances would violate the spirit and intent o the code, to-wit: height, setback and size limitations. In addition, the c nstruction of this building with the configuration permitted by the varian es would be wholly outside the essential character of the surrounding area. • In brief, no justifications were given in the findings of BZA Resolution to show that the "property in questio cannot be put to reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code." urthermore, the other requirements discussed above were also not met. erefore, the B2A made errors in finding by not fulfilling the "reasonable use' conditions, by giving inappropriate consideration of hardship without a d monstration of "circumstances unique to his property," and by failing to meet the other requirements of the code. ' 2. Misrepresentation and uncoo rativeness � Mr. Docy• The BZA Resolution makes several references t Mr. Doty claiming that the Building Department approved his plans. The Building Department, however, was acting on inaccurate and incomplete informat�on from Mr. Doty. As earlq s with his initial application for a building permit, the lot size was mis epresented by Mr. Doty as being 120 feet deep when, in fact, the depth is only 93.35 feet. Mr. Doty also claimed that he was building a two story structure ven though the building is clearly 3 stories tall as is acknowledged in the BZA Resolution. In additfon, Item 1 of ' the findings of the BZA Resolution cle rly state that Mr. Doty did not give adequate information for making a reas nable jndgment of the planned • ' building height. As additional eviden e of Mr. Doty' s uncooperativeness, � the BZA resolution, dated October 27, inds (Item 3) that "The Building . Division requested more detailed info ation from Mr. Doty in August about exactly how he proposes to grade the s te to meet building height limitations but this has not been subm tted." Obviously, Mr. Doty cannot base h s hardship arguments on the Building Department's permission to proceed whe he gives erroneous information and is uncooperative in supplying the accurat documents needed for considered � . . ._ --- _ : ��`�.:�� ; f, Zoning Appeal--File No. 10233--page 3 � judgments. Mr. Doty's misrepresen ations 8nd unresponsiveness reinforce the � conclusion in Po�nt 1 above that h s " created by the land oi,�ner." Alight . . . is due to circumstances . . . T h e r e o r e, t h e B Z A coann itted an error in ? findinR by taking into account Mr. Doty's self-inflicted hards ih p Since Mr. Doty refused to sho how he planned to grade the lot to meet the height requirements, the BZA al o committed an error in proceduze by making decisions -without having the proper alternatives to consider. 3. Non-consideration of the neral interests of the neighborhood. The BZA Resolution makes no mention of oncerns by other neighbors besides the Allyns. However, as noted at the b ginning of the minutes of the BZA meeting of 10/13/87, District 12 was opposed to the variances. Also, at noted on page 7 of the minutes, David Fan presente a petition to the BZA signed� by 46 neighbors opposing the variances. A 1 but 2 si nere o The signatures represented all prope ty owners 5 lots toothe EastV(thenend.of the street) and 6 lots to the West o Mr. Doty, both on West Hoqt Avenue and on Dudley Avenue, the side of Mr. Do obtained from all neighbors in Falco yHeights facing MrgnDotyes housea1sThe failure to act on or to address the oncerns of District 12 and the other neighbors constitutes an error in r cedure. 4• Ru1in� on he_ i�ht• As noted n the Case History of the BZA Staff Report dated 10/13/87, Mr. Doty proce ded with his building on the basis of a permit issued despite the fact that h gave no explanation of how he could meet the height limitation. As noted in Point 3 above, this explanation had not been given as of October even tho gh construction had begun in the spring. Clearly, the building permit should n t have been issued without such an explanation and the issuance of the p rmit constitutes an error in decision by the Building Department. The BZA c mmitted an error in findin� �,,hen it used an error by the Building Departme t as justification for Variance 1 on . building height. As noted in Point 1 bove, the owner and not the Building Department is responsible. 5. Ru_ lin�q on d=ck_ Hr. Dotq's d sire to build a large deck above grade level behind his house clesrly violate the limitation on maximum square footage set forth in the Code (Ch. 61. O1). Variance 3 granted by the BZA would permit a deck 4-1/2 feet above th bottom of the windows on the west side of the rear of the house. Mr. Dot and the Allpns agreed at the BZA hearing on October 13, 1987 that the he ght of the deck would be no more than 3 feet (pages 10-11 of the minutes). T e variance as issued is at odds with the findings from the BZA hearing and t erefore constitutea an error in fact. �— ____-- Furthermore, � v8riance whatsoev r granting Mr. Doty the right to build the deck above grade level is totally u justified by hardship or conditions , . not of Mr. Doty's own creation. The BZ received no evidence nor made any findings that a�n + of the conditions prec dent for a variance for this deck vere present. Therefore, by granting th height variance, the BZA made another error in findin�. / _ _ _.. __ , .. _ _ . _ __ ___ _ �_ _ , ` r ' � Summary of Reasons for Requesting EVOCATIONS for ALL THREE Yariances for 2108 West Hoyt Avenue b longing to Mr. Douglas Doty � Brief Chronology: Mr. Doty purchased 108 W. Hoyt as an empty lot. He received a building permit in March 19 7 and proceeded to build. Potential problems with excessive height were di cussed at a Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) hearing on 8/25/87. Evidence al o surfaced at this hearing that his front yard setback was approximately 1 feet too close to the street. On 9/23/87 the Building Division issued a "red tag" pending clarification of these issues and the additional issue f excessive surface yard coverage. In response, Mr. Doty requested variances to permit the insufficient setback, and the overly large height and surface ar a. The BZA granted all three variances on 10/27/81. Ms. E. Solem filed an ap al to the City Council on 11/10/87 requesting the revocation of all three ariances. Reasons for �Re ue�stin Revocations Cha ter 64.203 of the Zoning Code lists 6 � conditions, ALL— of which must be met fo a variance to be granted. None are, so ALL THREE variances should be REVOKE . The 4 relevant conditions are: Condition 1: "The property in question cannot be put to reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code" (Ch. 64.203 (1)) Condition not met: The lot is of reasonable size, shape and topography for building a reasonable R-3 house. Condition 2: "The plight of the landow er is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances w re not created by the landowner" (Ch. 64.203 (2)) C Condition not met: Mr. Doty has b ilt on his lot but the building is of his own creation so this building is a " ircumstance created by the landowner." It is irrelevant that he p ceeded with a building permit since the builder has ultimate responsibility (Jasaka v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota Supreme Court ruling, 1981). esides, the permit was obtained on the basis of Mr. Doty's misrepresentatio s to the Building Division. When asked for crucial information, Mr. Doty imply did not supply it. Condition 3: "The proposed variance is n keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the ealth, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the city o St. Paul" {Ch. 64.203 (3)) Condition not met: The variances a e not consistent with the "welfare of the�bitants of the city of St. Pa 1" since District 12 was opposed and since 46 nearby neighbors signed a p tition opposing the variances with 44 opposing all three variances. Condition 4: "The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of ig� air to adjacent property, nor ill it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably iminish established property values within Lhe surrounding area" (Ch. 64.203 (4)) Condition not met: Mr. Doty's building upsets the front yard setback of the street, is a full story taller tha surrounding houses, and covers a mucfi ]arger percentage of the lot than su rounding houses. Page 7 , . � Reasons for Re uesti Variance Revocations � � Chapter 64.203 of the Zoning Cod lists 6 conditions, ALL of which must be met for a variance to be granted. In its resolution of 10/27/87, the 8ZA did not show Lhat all relevant condi� ens were met. In fact, the first 4 conditions are NOT met for ANY of the variances and the remaining 2 conditions are not relevant to this case. There ore, NONE of the requisite conditions for ANY of the variances is met and A L THREE variances should be REVOKED: ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- EXCERPTED FROM: CHAPTER 6 . ZONING COOE-ADMINISTRATION ( - AND ENFORCEMENT; AMENDMENT; • � MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS • 64.203. Variances. An appl' tion for variance ma.•be Ciled by thE owner of the affected prope ��t sny time. � The board of soning appeals sh ll ha�e the power to grant varianoes �om the atrict enforcement f the proviaions of this oode upon a finding that: (1) The property in questio cannot be put to a reasonable �e . under the strict provisio cj�the code; i=) �e pli�ht ottbe lando �' due to circumstanas unique to his property.and these ' mstances�ven aot crsated by the tandowner;and (�) The pTOposed�ariance is i}R keeping rvith the spirit and intent of the oode.and is cons' nt with the bealth.utety,comfort, nnorale and welfare of inhabitants ot the city ot Saint Paul; and (�) The propoud variancr w 1 not impair ar►adequate�upply ot . light and air to ad}acent roperty.oor wri11 it alter the essen- C tial character of the s nounding area or unreasonabl�• diminish established pro rty values within the surroundins area; �ad (t) T6e v�tiance.if�rantsd. ould not permit�ny use t2ut u not permitted undcr the psov' ions ot tbe oode!or tbe property in the distrid wrhen the � lard ic louted. oor wouid �t ; �Iter or chan�e the sonin`d�trict clauificatioa otthe proper. . �� . (6) The requeat for variance ' not basedpnm an'ly on�desire to increase the value or inco e potential of the parcel ot land. Hudship�dacribed in findir►a 1)shall include the need!or acass to direct sunli�ht toT solu cn r�y systerns. ln�ranting a varia�ce,the boud ay attach th�rcto such conditions as it decm�reaaonable to pro adjacent propertiea,to ensure a compliance or to turther the rposes ot the codc. ln Qanting a variance,the board ihall statc the�rounds upon wtich it justifies the �rantine o[a variance. A tee to be establishcd by tcsolut on of the ciq•council shall be paid to the soning administrator by the applicant w��en the reQuest for varisnce is tled writh the boar o!soning appeala.Such resolution may'provide!or aaiver or re d o!�uc?� a tee under specific cir- cumstances. (Or+d 17038,Jul. , l983.) Pa ge R •, ��+ �� -.. .e �.... - .. . ...�� ' _ ...= . � _ . .� � . - �c. .:.. = • "'ia, n M" -.�.' " .. �_-.�..�_ .. ..� ""...:.��.�.�r.��_ �ec .- � . ... � - .J.�:v . . . .� ... .. ... .. ...�. _ _:�_�_ ..�.�.��v. . _�'.... . • ._"' " �� ". .. � .._� 'r . _ .� ..w.. . . ... �I ... . . � Condition 1: "The property in questio cannot be put to reasonable use under the st ct provisions of the code" (Ch b4.203 (i)) Condition not met: The permissib e building area on the lot is 30% of lot of about 6000 sq. ft. , or 1800 sq. ft. Therefore, a 3 story house of 5400 sq. ft. can be built. There is no unu ual topography or iot shape so a reasonable house can be built to Lhe s ale of the lot with the required front setback of approximately 25 feet. The SZA resolution of 10/27/87 notes a shallow lot but does not show the lot s too shallow for reasonable use. Supporting evidence: --Survey shows a rectangular lot 4.15-64.28 x 93.35 feet . --Photo shows almost flat lot bef re construction _,._ . ._ ... . .. . � ^_ _ _____+ . �_ �[omparrles _ ..Y:,,�„�.., , ,.�_.� �•,� ,�.. �._w►, .,. .M..,. ,��: .��: .��. �.;��►� . SUBURBItN ENGINEER/lVG. IN[. �:.•►•",..—." ,—.�...� `'. ,�...^•,.�' "'�•:•.��, ,►.,:� Y��,.s,o • .. •!...�,-r��..........r'I..�.r•...y 1....1.r. ...y • !r..��«....y • .•4r.� = - - � �D�-Y to l� u� Rcnr�n�y �A�,.•. A�e• �•:ti��w.•A O T1cnuLel ��u�� !1vu�M•nt a Denoten /'nu��dat a.,n iurnrr t�f fset tuke. i1.EYATIOMS s Ocnotes l:it+tinK F.I��atiun Qi Deoutes Propu�r�1 F.Ir•w�lun Top of dlock � :_' �+ Denotes Oirr�:tion of Surt:.�e Grei ige /�• Fl�or a.::. ?S --------- U�notea Ilisiu�gr and Ccilit�r f�s�• nt �:ar�se Floor ,— � -- _ .._ _.. ..- -- --�— - — • ° �� o y`t' ve � � � � J ,,' . _ 104./ — '" �'I � �'' � � � , ;,� :! . P� I .. _ _s—�--- % _• 8 O J • � `�M•�•T Ni_ � � . j: �.O S , �'i :. ,� ?• .. 9 ` .. �S .� � . � �� i' � :'� • ` ! � ' � � _ °�k� � - � : . M�: ; � �, . t' L- S orzy �•` � � , � � . ^ � . i � r f 4MC- ° N M � � J . • �` � � M t , , • . �1 M . ' a° `' � I � ... . ,j � , : �r • J► , N � � .,:f. 9 35 % a.►'o. , ti .� t 5celd � �� 20� � ( , , � , � - . � .;�� . � � . . , � _ (�4.2s - • I � T.h�e . S ou��t'h 93.35 �ee�� o� 7'he � . ��--r�: 1� 3. J� �e -r o� �.o�t' 10 � � Condition 2: "The plight of the land wner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances ere not created by the landowner" (Ch. � 64.203 (2)) Condition not met: Mr. Doty ha� tiilt on his lot but the building is of his own creation so-this building is a "circumstance created by the landowner" and any-plight due to the b ilding cannot be considered. Supporting evidence: � --Two important points are made i the 10/14/81 ruling of Jasaka v. City � of St. Paul by the Supreme Court of Mi nesota permitting St. Paul to order the removal of a radio tower which was 90% completed: --"The issuance of a permit y a municipal planning commission . . . . in violation of existing zoning ordina ces . . . does not estop the city from halting construction when notified of uch violation." (Minn. , 309 N.W.2d 40) Therefore, the City Council can stop t e construction of Mr. Doty's structure even though a permit was granted. --"It was the duty of Jasaka o determine for itself the propriety of the proposed construction it underto k" (Minn. , 309 N.W.Zd 40) Therefore, any "plight" of Mr. Doty cannot be atti uted to the building authorities. --Mr. Doty made misrepresentations to and was uncooperative with the 8uilding Division. --Display of Mr. Doty's build ng permit application claiming the lot � was 66 x 120 feet not 64.15-64.28 x 93. 5 feet. The falsely claimed larger size would make the size variance unnec ssary. Also, the building permit claims a 2 story fiouse when the appropr ate interpretation is a 3 story house ("Mr. Doty, the applicant, is building a 3-story . . ." Finding 1, BZA resolution of 10/27/87). --Display of the left elevatio showing window wells and a retaining wall above the base of the lower windows. The retaining wall is to keep dirt between the wall and the house so that t e grade could be artificially nc�reas�ed to meet t�e�ieig�imitation. This wall was never intended to be built since photos shows that the buildi g structure has fiber sheathing on a wooden frame. This surface is unsuitabl for supporting dirt. --When asked, Mr. Doty simply id not supply information requested - by the Building Division on the height o the building: "The 6uilding Oivision requested more detailed informa ion from Mr. Doty in August about exactly how he proposes to grade the sit to meet the building height limit but this has not been submitted." (Find ng 3, BZA resolution of 10/27/87, two months later) Page � . • I�1 r;.��I�.'.i , ! . . �� , � BUIL�ING INSPECTI N i DESIGN�IVISION ' � ' 15 W. KELLOGG 8LV . I ' �45 GTV HALL � C ST. PAUL,a1N 55t02 � O 3 9 3 � � , � Permit N . '-' � � . � /� �-� . PLA NO.L � �� . DESCRI TION Of PROJECT ,.~ ` � ' ' • ' DATE � OwNE �' ` OWNERS A�ORES � ' C � ❑Ol0 TYPE OF �. . � NE1N TYPE C NST.• � OCCUPANCY ' G AOING STUCC �OR ,�] BU1L� ❑A D EXC. ❑ PLAST R ❑DRYWALL ❑FENCE ' ' ❑ AD�ITION ❑ALTER ❑R PAIR ❑MOVE ❑WR�CK • NUMBER STREET $ip£ CROSSSTREETS � � Z% � . ` I �_ G� ��,.• � -5 (,�.��rC�-ti � WAAO LOT . BLOCK AOOITION OR TRACT .. . .. . S.�J3.3s%er ;ii. 0 � _ . ._vtS�t►t_��n1 � --- I :;:�.� �.1�%�r' L; SQ �h`l , M�1.e •! � �„�e�:�1., �^�+�,•. � - -- � � , , WIOT OEPT S�OE LOT IEARANCE �IO�NG L�NE i fiiONT� REAR . _ lOT � � 'Z ' .'"' i +•••=;.: w OTr. LENGTh1 �1EIGN7 .STOR�ES STRUC- . TURE C � �Zt • Z \ ESTIMATED VA UE BI►SEMENT •TOTAL FLOOA AREA C-�. . ' ' I��,�� rE5 ❑NO SG.FT. �NCLUOE BASEMENT . � OETAI�S 6 REMARKS: ' • '% � �f '� �Z- '/ "«' •L� �,;:�..:1 .... . _. . 5 � - 3�� ' TEL.NO. � . . ' ARCMITECT � � �CONTRACTOR\ � � ! AOORESS d 21V IMASONR�I� '` � � ' - '� n E r ' IERMIT fEE f , . �� VAlUAT10N ��G`i.,� '7 7 � I 1 I:,`:�{�t ILAN CMECK �f . �3 . I � \STATE � • � �SURCFI/►RGE I �' TOTAL FFE �3 t � '-' � . `` _�� . A1'PLII:ANf l;Lll�ll-Il� IfAt AlL IN + �j � fUHMATIUN 15 C()11Ht T ANU THA� � ALL PERTINENT STATE EGULATIONS CASHtER USE ONLV � � A`G' ANO GTY ONUtNANC[S �LL UE COM M�HFN VALIOAikO iN�S 1`'a �QU(1 PERM�T � �EV, �' PLIEOWITHINPERFORMI GTHEWORK �� .� fOR WHICH TNIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. — � �� St. Code �• _��--..,�.�� i \ ADORESS �I O l. �. / �/,� OF JOB�;LJ— -- '- AUTIIONIZI.l)•i�1.NAT VH I \ � � 1 �I I ��- I�� 1 ��. / � � � � 1, I � � . � 1 �� , � '�U■ �� 1 I � , - rl� � � � ._ � � s�; �..-�� ,ol!!� _-- - �i ��; -_. , i�:� � � � .-�; I� �i ` '" - � . �]� � . --__ � ___ � ` w. � 1� , � � , ; . � ! �I , , � � 1 '■'�"".I ; �-T.. � I � li��i � i .� I I � � _� � , , __ -- , , , , , I� g� , ,_ _ ,� __ i , I � � � _J _ _ -1- � � � I � ��_� � �� ► � � � � �� ..� � 1 � � �o- � ' _� ' , , .�� 1 ■ii � � �� -- --- - ---L-- , 111 �� n� � ��_. _ - -. , ��— �1 �II 1 11 . � d��' - ��s- .. , . - - � . , . o� ` � � . � � � . ' � - -- , - t--- � , = c�v � � . , � � . . � . •r � [l� M � . ' � � �, . • •� - . . � �� _._' ".� ' �; V ,� �' i u'�. � � 1 �-�- E .. � , � � - � � , = _ � J � — Z �l �1. � ' d �` � d� � - t- - � - � — � � _ q , � � �- � � _ �' � � - � 7 �. - — — — ' -- .�� U � �u) � � u.�� " . � r ' �� 7 �� . � � �--�� ' . � o � I� . ._ _ _ .. _ - -- - -- �, ;� . o � e , . �M y � . �� , _ - b4./5 — '� — – ' ' � � _ `' • • " � � E�ptN�Ntr � - - . /� , • •s W 1"<<r�.. �,1. o' � P ' � � •-= • , , . � Y:��• T� . 1 0 A � � �' ' 1 � ___,9 ,.�_�--- � - . � � F � LI � D IRT . :.,�.o S -- , : . �� '��' ' -•'9 � '•• �-�� T� �� FE �� N�o /• '� � d �Z �,. w t /, _ ' +, M1 El.l " ; : M�, . , �. ' =' Z- S�o rzY , �'' ` � r � � ; � � ; ti <<Q MC- ° � N M • , . l� � '�' + �� - 0� : � l . ` . M ' , • • i , �, � � M ' � � . 8 � �• � � � � � �.:..�..� .; � ; � 4.1'• �: ` . � � //; � , -.-- :g. �39 35 , � i t.o` . . . � , . GROUN � . L� V � L: � , i�e ut�D tN � 1 S 3� , Qut�DiU� � TAININ� 1'h�� Ot� G-R.OUND � 1�1� 1 Gt1T • �! LL: ' � E ��SS H� l.�V�.L 3S � �T � �0 B�ILDIN ' Z�B�IC.DINCr �� IGµ"t _ , • , . DE FI N E D A S NF IGNT � � ' - . 2s - - � � A �ov� Av E. o r • � 4�R1 M�i ER . � 3�So AV�: BRcK = o� . � Rt�t�T , p' FRoNT = to� S O�,t ��T � IO! `t'h 93. 35 �ee o� `rhe ` � � : , � 5 -- �r� .1.� �. JJ �ee-t' � �.0� I(� ��su�;: ,� • �ERM�z �D � iro�� - s��Q � vis � �v ��0 63 M �x . b� , � 3 0 �� . � ��,� � . ,........ ._�__ . --- --- , _-- , � . w . �`�, � � ,�, � . .•�� M � - - • � .• $ �� . �, E ~ � � , .� � � $ t- - � �IL �� t � , • � ,c, � c .. �. � E ._ . � ( ; w �W g - '� . ,�- .�,,W � . � _ _ . - � � I i, N �� , � I I . i � � � � �� .� � � : � � - - -r, �_._.._--- � \ _ � , � � � , � ,� � �� , ' . '� . � � .�L , . � - l � . �� r . � � ' , � 2� °� t � r •'� �� r�� j�. � �� . � � N '` " "-� � � ..�� , � � � , , � � . . �L � - � v � -_____ t� � � - �1 � , i - � � I . i � � : ` , �; � , �- � � . , _ � � l. � � � � f ` - . . h � � � - �. � . : � �- � - - � .�... ... . � ,, ....,. , � , Condition 3: "The proposed variance i in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with th health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the city of St. Paul" (Ch. 64.203 (3)) r ' Condition not met: Before the BZ meeting, 46 nearby neigh�oi•s signed a petition opposing the variances with� opposing all three variances. "District 12 sent a- letter in oppositi n." {Minutes of 10/13/87 'BZA meeting) Therefore, the variances are not consi tent with the "welfare of the inhabitants of the city of St. Paul ." Supportinq evidence: --Display of the petition and a ma showing all property owners near 2108 W. Hoyt who signed. Page (7 , _ ,. _ _ . � PETITION TO THE BO RD OF ZONING APPEALS regarding Zoning File No. 1 217� Zoning File Name: Doty with hearing on Ostober 13, 1987 We, the undersigned, are all neig bors in the vicinity of the house under � construction at 2108 Hoyt Avenue, the roperty of the Zoning File mentioned above. We support 'the decision by the Oistrict 12 Community Council of the City of St. Paul to oppose the varianc s requested by Mr. ooty in that Zoning File: 1. Allow a maximum building heig t of 33.5' � 2. Al1ow additional lot coverage of 120 square feet beyond the 30X permitted to allow a deck in the rear 3. Allow a front yard setback of 13' . . -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- � Name Address Phone Oate Variances Opposed (Optional ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' � 2l��D 0�., SIOQ� 6�f6�L6 � +o%olp�- �, ��3 ( y ti y � u C�Q�� 1 �7 �s�o� t��3�2� ��I F� � �2 �3 �,�^�^^' ` � Z � . � , • �. � ��a� 4'�-3�g io i g7 �, r ,�-r�o g G�cc-3s-�� i � /a 7 �� Z� 3 Q � � � �.�..9 � �G�-�.�✓a1� � �o7S ��(t o(g7 �,L� 3 L��..�.1� ISa� �� 3�1D� � � r a �e �7 � � -3 ��• 2/ o � D 4 � sj�,� 6�� .3°y2-/� / � � L �.%.f,��SM � Q D /�u / � s's iv F 6y r-�0� L I�/��'7 �• l� 3 � � � �� ( �� -�55�� Y?�.�3 c��n�8 7 �� ,� , �„_- z��c �•--� ��sL��l , � j,�js� ,,2, 3 � , G�1 � �� .�.. ' a ��:�� ,,, ��s -�q� _�- ►e-4� t, � , s . s.�os? t.. ��10 ��1�7 Gy►�•3:zu 16/cle'7 i��.�3� 2� O �0 � W• � (��S0�t4 '��o�f�] y �16-3 9 la��o�e� �,�, 3 �, c.� a 339 C�c-�¢. 6 q 6 d�ao ��!e.�i� � f�`�-� Yy ��ia�7 � � 4.� (,YS=000P io f,o%7 1, �, 3 � �,�, a,a�o w k� � j �� a r�o Cv• Cl,� . ( 4 5 -e�v S /%o�� I, z, 3 . �c�`1^�`° _ �,f �v/i a fr 7 t, z, 3 � �� !�-y /�'U 2 W h.f- !o Y S � l +�:� . ` �. 6 4 5-.2�� /o�iv�87 �• 2� 3 ,�.�'j.�.eQe,t,� 02.«/ l� Nt:ames on other sheets for a total of 46 (Or ginals with Board of Zoning Appeals) . . , . L d t f �"� . anuany ��aM�o� � � , _ . � d � �� m � anuany puouuCeb �o � .-o � 3 N �O Y O ' �--O � � N N Q N C O ' - •� N � H � � G=.4 � E C . a 4! u'f �p t.-i N O 2 i p p.-r •� i..i:. C O . C .. ..dN �N . _cG� mN . r � d : � � :ib...:..�� . . � . •y ' •. • Q - - . �t C : N •- :. �:, ' � „n. �•'n � W •� . ^..i. p � � .. ' :.: � Q k . ' � " Z �.i - d!� _ . _ _. „ a t.=i. _.._ ,x w�s y., � x _ J r- .+ ► � O Q � ."'i +� tn '15F 41 - t� r N - y� C•� ,�' r' . �. ' � " � b r„� . . ..:��=^'��+, � ' H 3 I�L N ' "- - =r` '',�,'. 3 '. � � - _ - - -...... ...rt,�w G W ' . , ; �� = ., ,-_._... ,. .--. . .. . _ __ • `+ ! . d _ . . _ . - .. ... � - __ C ?�� 6 O� 07 - � c� � O �-+C'C N .� _ � � d^ Q�O y � �r-1• �N 3�c ai r,,, s,�,.� � � .a� =N� . � V1N mc� 0 ^ � - •----- GCl f- N � � � � . , -_ . . � -_ -....��: � =�;� �aaa�S a4��H � . � c . -�, . � �a. m •—--�- = � �N -�.-- --. -. ._ ... _ . �� ra �-+ O = d N J N_ � �M t � Y N � O N � � . . � N C � C � N � ]L N �1 N g N O�D N II . . _ ' Condition 4: "The proposed variance ill not impair an adequate supply of ig� ht and air to adjacent property, �o will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonabl diminish established property values within the surrounding area" (Ch. 64.2 3-(4)) Condition not met: Mr. Doty's pr posed building does alters. "the essential character of the area." Supporting evidence: -Setback variance: His structure is too close to the street, changing � the uniform setback of all houses. Pr viously, the only exceptions were garages, not living space, permitted f rward of the standard setback. This problem is especially serious since there are still six unbuilt lots near Mr. Doty's building. It will be difficult o align new houses to give the street a pleasing standard setback. � � --Height variance: Mr. Doty's bui ding is too tall . It stands a full story taller than all surrounding house as measured by using grade of the surrounding area. In order to require variance of only 3.6 feet instead of much more, Mr. Doty has already artific a11y increased the grade of his front and side yard by moving fill dirt from ff the lot and piling it against the building. This procedure is highly uno thodox and alters the standard procedures for landscaping in the surro nding area. The granting of the variance would compound the problem of xcessive height. --Surface coverage variance: Mr. oty's proposed structure covers too large an area. Other houses in the nei hborhood typically cover far less than " 30� of the lot area, the maximum accordi g to the building code. Page 2-� CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEA S RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER: �o2i DATE: Decembcr 8, I987 � WHEREAS, Douglas Doty has applied f r a variance from the strict application of the provisioas of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to building height, lot coverage and front yard setb ck in the R-3 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zon ng Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 13, 1987, pursuant to said appea in accordance with the requiremcnts of Section 62.204 of the Legislative Code; and � WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zon ng Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflecte in the minutes, made the following findings of . fact: 1. Mr. Doty, the applicant, is building a -story, single-family house at 2108 West Hoyt ' Avcnue. St. Paul's Building Inspectio and Design Division issued a building permit for � the housc in March 1987 and work is urrently in progress. The house has been framed in, including the roof. The Building Division approved th� h ight of the house base on plans and elevations submitted to them by the applicant w en he applied for a building permit. The Building Division followed its standard practic and made its initial determination of the height of the building by measuring from th architect's scale drawings. These drawings iadicatc the ground level with a dash d line but do not specify whether this is an existing grade or a proposed change o grade. Although it is not apparent in the ' drawing, the dashed line indicating p oposed ground level is about 6' feet above the existing grade on the site on the east nd front side of the house. 2. The height of the building when meas red by staff in September was 33' 6" measured from the current grade to the mid-poi t of the roof based on the avorage of all four sidcs. (The height measured on the ea t and front sides, where the lower level is partially below grade, was 31' ]0". T height raeasured on the west and back side, � where the lower level is at gradc, was 5' 4".) To meet the height limit of 30' set by he Zoning Code the grade would have to be raised 3" 6" on all four sides. However, it is ot possible to raisc the grade significantly on the west and back side bccause of the loc tion of doors and windows so most of the grade changes would have to occur on the f nt and east side. 3. The Allyn's, the neighbors to the east, appealed the decision of the Bn�t�;.,a n:.•:�=-- -- Araat the buildin� �PI�` �y11�- �t� ��'�� -L- ' �-- � _ . , File #10217 Page Three Tif�1E LIMIT: No order of the oard of Zoning Appeals permittiog the erection or slteration of a 6 Idta� or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period long r than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or altera ioa is obta[aed withln such period and such erectton or altera iou Is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permlt. The Boa of Zoning Appeals or the City Couacil may grant an extension not o exceed one year. In granting such extensioa, the Board of ZoninE ppeals may decide to hold a public hearin�. APPEAL: Decisions of the oard of Zoniag Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Counc 1 withtn 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. CERTIFTCATION: I, the underslgned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the Clty of Satnt Pau , M[nnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the for oing copy with the original record [n my office; ' and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said or[ginai and � of the whole ther of, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoaing ppeals meeting held on October 13, 1987 and on record In the Sain Paul Planning Division Office, 25 West Fourth Street, Saint Paul Mlnnesota. . SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS -�='`�''� --------- � Secretary to the Board . 1 � � ` � � ► , � 1 . � , 1 , � ! ' �� { ,1 '� , _ d��l: . .. � � �.�{ r! .� � n . 'N� � � ��.;iFt--' VCi`�; ( ` � ��, } `""%��';h�: � �,�� ' ` �1ii�' ,•• .Z,- ';�1a, . �i"�, t � 'N ,�, ,p. � �M .�.�.;...�...�� - +t!'�t'' ij��• � 1�;,r�� .f �• ��'�•��.�+''�"T^_ � ��Y r ;Y�- ` ��q� � fl tia � �v�+7 ��7`�'t�71 ��`�1�♦ s. t�' � !_� �+y�. 1 t .� . 11 ia.a��s�� tii ,t.' l�'� �s :� �: �� ...�� ' -`.-� •� � d� t�� '"��' � � ��_ .� ...� iasw.. `'• � �r �'r: +' f�. +i..��ti3!:?q!':' r�' C,yA:e��,,, ii►�. ' ' .?fl'Y��'.• .�...rr..'aJ1ar�+r� i •� F- ',�il� .i y 'c v{�r � ^ � ��r.�.M+ri��.Y�+r.Y .�,h`)• i�w�a�f�'�":: -=`1� _ "-�R • '� � ' � ' • ��-�IIIiIIIIII1Jllllllllllllllllllll(1�1 ! I�i� � II�� I�IIIII� . 1�11(111111111111�11111 �lllllll(IIIIIIIIIIII(Illlll. JII(III�I I 1 c� � �'� � t � ��u ��.- :�� ,,. � � . ��!_.. � .�:_ , , ' �. �.� [(I ,.• i��,' . . =''��" , ! � �� 1 - �s � f�,_� ��:��_..�� 7 . ; I( � r� I r.� �l � � f � f,r-,� r,� �` �It.��nrr�vrr�r��i�l�,� f M I I j � ;1 �',�� r!a►n�i�auiuiGii��i• �I�I 4 � ; , � ,��` ��III1111111111111l�� I � , , �� i � I S � , � �:�r�.nuui�Nr�.s :� 1 � ';�' � ll � �� ` f.l � � � i� � ri. �i11') � t. ' «`.i• : � ' - i i i � i }�� 4''1 ��,'�Itiali!l�ttlSittl\rt�$� � ` i . �� I . , �,� i�� {��iiiiiiiiiniii�� ; , � . ; ; . I .�,.....��....:sa�oi,. . � � � �' �� --- --- I i i 1 ' � j � � � ; � n: �:.�-�=��.�:Y��,� t�t�l : i , � � (I 7�� i'tS �!V�r'w t� .. 1� I , .€ ',�: , ' {l"=�°_L:-_~.. _.,�3�� . � � f � -- � �� l�l;�►:• ; �!„�,.�rt„n;�i:..,,.; �.� 1 � . . ,� I� . ..••�_ �a � , � 1 i � I '► I � �.)�f'.I��YY ��j,�. , � , ,�� :�`r ; { y �' �P ,�r. , ! - � `; � . , _.. . .. . ....... .. ,_. . , . . .... ... _ _ _ ._ .._ .,_. . . , �. ��-- to� . MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE B ARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN , CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ST. PAUL� INNESOTA, AUGUST 25, 1987 RESENT: Mme. Maddox; Messrs. Grais� Kir , Osborn, Woods, and Horak of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Se al, Assistant City Attorney; Ms. Lane and Mr. Gasterland of the ivision of Building Inspection and Design; Mr. Beach, Ms. Synstega rd and Mr. Soderholm of the Planning Division Staff. B� SENT: Mr. Zimniewicz. The meeting was chaired by Sam Grais, Chai an. RICHARD AND CLAIRE ALLYN (#10185) : The ap licant is appealing a decision of the Zoning Administrator that a new single family house being constructed at 2108 West Hoyt meets the building heigl�t 1 mit set by the Zoning Code. The applicant contends that the Zoning Admliila �rator should have measured the height of the house from the existing grad of the site rather than the proposed finished grade. The applicant was present. There was oppo ition present at the hearing. Mr. Beach showed slides of the site and re iewed the staff report with a recommendation that the Board of Zoning Ap eals uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and find that the hou e does meet the 30' height limit set by the Zoning Code when the height is easured from the finished grades proposed for the site. Five letters were eceived in opposition. Mr. Gasterland stated that the plans submi ted to the Building Department were used in determining his deci.sion. Mr. Dot could add another 4' of fill if he wished. It is not unusual to raise the e sting grade while building. Eileen Roberts, representing Richard and C aire Allyn, showed pictures of the Doty's home to the Board. She stated that the home is an unusugl burden to the Allyn's. The reason for the appeal is because the house violates the Zoning Code. She urged the Board to put halt to the construction. No other home in the area reaches the 30' height li it. Mr. Beach was present while she measured the height of the home. The ast facade of the home measures at 31' 6". A lot of grading will have to be one. There is already fill around the existing trees which will probably kil them. She questions how they can put more fill in when there are windows cl se to the grade level. The west facade of the house measures 35' 4" . The arage doors and windows on this side are on grade level also. No filling ould go in on the south or west levels because of the windows on grade le el. On the plans it shows a retaining wall next to the Allyn's proper The wall would have to be 7' for all the fill that would have to go in. is retaining wall will be 2' away from the Allyn's walkway. Staff was give the wrong information, the building permit and site plan drawing have many di ferences. The permit states 2 stories, it is clearly a 3 story home. S e asked how the grade was measured. She was told many times when questioning out the home that the final grading will take care of all the problems. The rinciple of ineasuring when the work is completed doesn't work on this lot. Z� _ _. _ _ � ,, . File #10185 Page 1�,►0 Mr. Joseph Michael� 2183 Hendon Avenue� tated that he was requested to examine Doty's house by the Allyn's. He stated that this home is a dramatic change compared to t�e rest of the neigh orhood. The general grading of site drops down from the front of the house. In examining the plan he noticed that the grading would have to be brought up onsiderably on two sides of the house. Originally it was recommended to build up the elevation 4' , grading now has to be built up to 6' . There is nly 8' between Allyn's and Doty's homes. Building up Doty's lot with fill will not work. It should be a gradual incline� Doty's would have to ha e a dramatic incline. You would need 7' of fill. The trees in the front yard would die with fill put in. The setback requirements are not met here. e average setback on the lot is 22' , Doty's is 15' . The house really stands ut. The front porch couldn't possibly be built and the rear porch wou d not be permissible. Allen Yuel, 2318 Commonwealth, stated th t he measured ell the setbacks on the lot and one home is 3' from the street. He stated that the Board should go out and see the house, its looming prese ce is something. David Fan, 2115 Dudley, stated that he h s been very concerned of the size and height of the house. He presented a pet tion to the Board with 22 signatures. Elizabeth Fan, 2115 Dudley, stated that e Zoning Administrator should revise the Zoning Code. She stated that sinc� tl�is house has gone up, her friends and relatives who visit her ask if it is n apartment house or hotel. The second question they ask is if there are oning requirements in the City of St. Paul. Mr. Woods stated that the testimony is we 1 presented, and suggested the Board hear the other side. David Newman, 6401 University Avenue NE, ridley, representing Mr. Doty, stated that Mr. Doty did not do anything e should have not done. The staff has been out to the lot and informed Mr. oty that he does conform to the zoning requirements. Furthermore, he has received letters stating that he conforms to the zoning requirements. Ask ng Mr. Doty to modify the home now is unfair and possibly illegal. Mr. Doty s home will conform with the Zoning Code when it is finished. Mr. Doty has s own his plans to the Allyn's and tried to meet with the other neighbors. Mr. Segal asked if Mr. Newman would care o comment on the statements regarding the fill. Mr. Newman replied t at there is a dispute of the height. Mr. Doty realizes that a retaining wall w 11 have to be built. Some adjustments may have to be done when cons ruction is completed. Richard Allyn, 2108 W. Hoyt Ave. , stated at the Doty home is a real problem for him and his neighbors. There is also legal problem. To add as much fill in as necessary would defeat the 30' eight limit. He believes the home is too tall and asked the Board to recomme d that construction be stopped. The home is not beyond the point where som thing can be done. �S File #10185 Page Three Barbara Preese� 2120 Hoyt� stated that _ e view she sees from her home is the 40' high Doty home. If the Zoning Code tates 30' , clearly the code is not being followed. • Frank Preese� 2120 Hoyt� stated that the Doty home does not conform to the Zoning Code. Mr. Grais stated that the Board has hear every point there is and there is no need to hear anymore. Mr. Grais asked Mr. Gasterland if he ati 1 stood by his original decision� Mr. Gasterland replied yes. Mr, Woods asked if there would be a poss bility of laying over the matter to allow the appellant and Mr. Doty to comp omise. Mr. Grais asked Mr. Doty and Mr. Allyn i there would be a possibility of compromise. Mr. Doty stated that the home is already constructed and compromising would mean tearing it down. Mr. Allyn stated that there are modifica ions that can be made and there must be room for compromise. He stated that e went to Mr. Doty and urged him not to build the home over 30' high. Mr. Newman stated that Mr. Doty would be willing to listen to Mr. Allyn's and the neighbor's ideas but it would mean t aring down the roof that is already up and that would be really expensive. r. Doty realizes that the Zoning Code does not allow him to go over 30' in lic�l 1►t. Mr. Allyn stated that he wishes the Boar would resolve the issue as it sounds like Mr. Doty is not willing to compromi e and urged the Board to stop construction. Ms. Maddox moved to layover the case for 2 weeks to allow Mr. Doty and his neighbors time to make a compromise and hat construction be stopped during this period. Mr. Woods seconded the mot on. Mr. Newman stated that he objects to the motion that the construction be stopped because of financial reasons. P rhaps Mr. Doty would be willing to do that voluntarily. Mr. Gasterland stated that if the constr ction was stopped the mortgages and points could amount to thousands of doll rs for Mr. Doty. He stated he is always in favor of parties working thing out. Mr. Osborn stated that it is outrageous r the Board of Zoning Appeals to order construction stopped. Ms. Maddox withdrew her motion. � _ . _ __ _ .,_..._�� -_ .. _ File #10185 Page Four Mr. Horak moved to layover the case unt I September 8 to allow Mr. Doty and his neighbors time to make a compromise. Ms. Maddox seconded the motion� which passed on a roil call vote of 6 t 0. Hearing no further testimony� Mr. Grais closed the public portion of the meeting. Submitted by: Approved by: �.. Tom Beach Sam Grai � ._.. . �... .. . ... . � . _ ._ . . . . � • . . _ . . . . � �.,� . � _ ._. . _ . . . .. . . . . . . . _- ��/ �� MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF E BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ST. PA ; MINNESOTA, SEPTEMBER 8, 1987 RP ESENT: Mme. Maddox; Messrs. Grais, Kirk, Osborn, Woods, Osborn and Zimniewicz of the Board of oning Appeals; Mr. Segal, Assistant City Attorney; Ms. Lane of e Division of Building Inspection and Design; Mr. Beach, Ms. Syns egaard and Mr. Soderholm of the Planning Division Staff. B�, SENT Messr. Horak. The meeting was chaired by Sam Grais� hairman. RICHARD AND CLAIRE ALLYN (#10185) : Th applicant is appealing a decision of the Zoning Administrator that a new si gle family house being constructed at 2108 West Hoyt meets the building heig t limit set by the Zoning Code. The applicant contends that the Zoning Admi istrator should have measured the height of the house from the existing ade of the site rather than the proposed finished grade. The applicant was present. There was o position present at the hearing. Mr. Beach stated that this was layed ov r from August 25, 1987 to allow Mr. Doty and his neighbors time to compromi e. Eight letters were received in opposition. Mr. Grais asked Mr. Doty and his neighb rs if they had made a compromise. Hearing no further testimony, Mr. Grais closed the public portion of the meeting. Eileen Roberts� 1800 International Cent e, representing Richard and Claire Allyn, stated that the the Allyn's, Mr. Doty, and the neighbors are requesting a layover until September 22� 1987, so hat additional information requested by the Zoning Administrator can be obta ned and so the parties can have more time to negotiate a compromise. Mr. Gr is asked Mr. Doty if he agreed to this, Mr. Doty replied yes. The layover until September 22, 1987, p ssed on a unanimous voice vote. Submitted by: Approved by: ; � Tom Beach Sam Grais Z� MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF T E BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN � CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS� ST. PAU L MINNESOTA� SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 = R SENT: Mme. Maddox; Messrs. Grais, irk, Osborn, and Woods, of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Paul McCl skey, Assistant City Attorney; Ms. Lane of the Division of Buil ing Inspection and Design; Mr. Beach, Ms. Synstegaard and Mr. Sode holm of the Planning Division Staff. BA SENT: Messrs. Horak and Zimniewicz. The meeting was chaired by Sam Grais, sirman. �tICHARD AND CLAIRE ALLYN (#10185) : The pplicant is appealing a decision of the Zoning Administrator that a new sin e family house being constructed at 2108 West Hoyt meets the building height limit set by the Zoning Code. The applicant contends that the Zoning Admin strator should have measured the height of the house from the existing gr de of the site rather than the proposed finished grade. The applicant was present. There was op osition present at the hearing. Mr. Beach stated that this was layed ove from September 8, 1987, to allow Mr. Doty and his neighbors time to compromis . Nine letters were received in opposition. Ms. Lane stated that the applicant is req esting a layover until October 13, 1987. Mr. Osborn asked what is happening in the issue between the applicant and the appellant. Ms. Lane stated that Mr. Doty is working with the Allyn's to make alterations on his house to compromise. n addition, a survey was done on front yard setback and it has been determ ned that Mr. Doty's home is too close to the front property line. A vari nce will be required for this. Mr. Osborn stated that the Allyn's home i closer to the front property line than Mr. Doty's. Mr. Kirk moved to lay over the matter unt'1 the October 13, 1987, meeting to allow Mr. Doty and his neighbors more time to compromise. Mr. Woods seconded the motion, which passed on a unanimous vo'ce vote. ,. Sub tted by: Approved by: � i" � � r J -- �z,(,�.( /(�';,� � � / �_ Tom Beach - Sam Grais ✓ Z r MINUTES OF THE MEETING 0 THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ST. AUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 13, 1987 PRESENT: Mme. Maddox; Messrs. Kirk _Osborn, Zimniewicz and Horak of the Board of Zoning Appeals; r. McCloskey, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Mr. Gast rland of the Division of Building Inspection and Design; Mr Beach, Ms. Synstegaard and Mr. Soderholm of the Planning Division taff. ABSENT: Messrs. Grais and Woods. � The meeting was chaired by James Kir , Vice-Chairman. RICHARD AND CLAIRE ALLYN (#10185) : e applicant is appealing a decision of the Zoning Administrator that a new ingle family house being constructed at 2108 West Hoyt meets the building he ght limit set by the Zoning Code. Nine letters were received in opposi ion. DOUGLAS DOTY (#10217) : Variance for building height, lot coverage and front yard setback. District 12 sent a letter in opposit on. The applicants were present. There as opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Beach showed slides of the site nd reviewed the staff report of 10185 and recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and find that the hous does meet the 30' height limit set by the Zoning Code when the height is m asured from the finished grades proposed for the site. Mr. Beach reviewed the staff report f 10217 and recommended approval of the variances requested by Mr. Doty. Mr. Beach stated that Mr. Doty is re esting that if the Administrative Review is decided in his favor he would like the option of not raising the grade much more because he feels it would be be er for Mr. Allyn. Mr. Doty's second variance is for lot coverage. Mr. Do y proposes lowering his deck to get it farther away from the property line. To do this he will need to add a set of stairs and a landing which will put h m 120 square feet over the 30$ maximum lot coverage. Mr. Kirk stated that the Board would ecide file 10185 first, unless the Allyn's and Doty's had made a comprom'se. Mr. Kirk stated that the hearing had been closed a number of times on his issue but if anyone has anything that can help the Board decide on the issue and is not repetitious, and if the Board chooses, they will hear them. e Board voted to hear the testimony. Eileen Roberts, 1800 International Ce ter, representing Richard and Claire Allyn, stated that she is not sure wh t is happening here. Her client's appeal from the issue of the building permit is still on. By considering her client's appeal first, she wants to m ke sure that a vote against their appeal does not mean that Mr. Doty's request is approved. 3a . File #'s 10185 and 10217 Page Two Mr. Kirk stated that the Board is no _cansidering the appeal. Ms. Roberts asked that the Board defer voting on that until they consider the issues involved in the variance. She state that her response to those variance requests are the saane as the adminis rative review and the Board could avoid hearing the same testimony twice. Mr. Kirk stated that the Board will ear all of the issues and then they will make a decision. She asked the Boar if they would like to hear her presentation first or Mr. Doty's. M . Kirk stated that the Board will hear Mr. Doty first. Dave Newman, 6401 University Avenue, N.E. , Fridley, representing Mr. Doty, stated that the evidence presented a the August 25th hearing was that at all times Mr. Doty has been consistent i the plans he has presented to the City as to the design of the home. The s aff has indicated that the means they are using to calculating the height is c nsistent with past practices. It is his belief that the original elevation o the home was that the side nearest the Allyn's, the elevation was approxima ely 8' above the street level. The elevation on the west side is approx ately 1 1/2' above the street level. It is Mr. Doty's intention to increase e grade by the Allyn's home by about 1' and to make it a uniform elevation a ong the front of the house. He and Mr. Doty have had many discussions with r. Allyn. Mr. Allyn has indicated that he is not sure that he wants to have high elevation on his property line. Mr. Doty wanted to preserve the righ to use a lower elevation if that was the desire of Mr. Allyn. It is his belief that a variance on the height is not necessary. They believe that the Zo ing Administrator's original decision was consistent with the past practices. owever, in the event that the Board were to over rule the Zoning Administrato � Mr. Doty wants to get the variance before the Board so he can proceed wi h construction. He believes it would be extremely unfair, and illegal for the City, in the middle of this process, to apply a new set of rules in calculati g the height of a building. The plans were submitted to city staff in adva e and approved. They would like the option of altering the grading on the Allyn's side of the property so that if the Allyn's wish to have a lower ele tion, they can accommodate them. The front yard setback has never been fo ally discussed. Mr. Doty's awareness that he was in violation of front yar setback surfaced after the first hearing. Before Mr. Doty ever made a application for a building permit, he contacted the City by phone and inqui ed as to what the front yard setback requirements were. He was advised t t the front yard requirements were 25' and that they were measured from the urb of the street. In following up that phone conversation, Mr. Doty had a si e plan prepared and did a miniature sketch of what his house would look 1 ke. He brought the plan in and met with a member of the city planning staff. They reviewed the front yard setback requirements. Mr. Doty was advised t at the front yard setback requirements were 25' and measured from the sidewa k. Mr, Doty explained to the staff person that there wasn't a sidewalk a d inquired as to how that should be measured. At the end of the discussi n he was advised that the measurement should be taken from the curb. In re iance upon that information Mr. Doty had formal plans prepared. Mr. Zimniewicz asked who the zoning s aff person was. Mr. Newman stated he was not sure and Mr. Doty does not re ember the name. Mr. Doty can describe the individual. 3► --- _ . .. . _ . .. , __.. __ >_____ __. ... _. �� . File #'s 10185 and 10217 Page Three After the plans were prepared they w �� submitted to the city for review. After the building permit was issued Mr. Doty met with Ed Locke to review it • in detail. Again, a discussion occu red of the front yard setback. Mr. Doty informed Mr. Locke that the house wa placed 30' from the curb and that there was a 15' easement along the street. Mr. Locke explained to Mr. Doty that it is customary to measure the setback rom the sidewalk. Since there is no sidewalk, the measurement should occ r from the curb. Mr. Doty applied for his building permits and commenced c nstruction. When they were setting the forms to construct the foundation, a building inspector came out to measure the location of the forms. Mr. All expressed to Mr. Doty some concern that the forms might be dangerously close to a large oak tree that the neighbors would hope would be preserved. To a commodate the tree, Mr. Doty moved the forms back another 1 1/2' to provide additional buffer to protect the tree. The city inspector came out again an measured from the curb, and the city issued a certificate indicating that the forms were in conformance with the setback requirements. Substantial c nstruction had occurred up to the time of the first hearing on August 25th. Mr. Zimniewicz asked if at that time, if a schedule was prepared for the city administration to issue a building p rmit. Mr. Newman replied that the information was in an earlier packet sent to the Board. Mr. Osborn stated that the site plan is included in the packet. Mr. Newman stated that the site plan in an earl er packet was submitted to the city staff. The site plan in the packet was prep red subsequent to the August 25th hearing. A week after the first hea ing Mr. Gasterland asked Mr. Doty to prepare a new site survey. A new si e survey was prepared September 9th after all the construction had occurred. en the first hearing occurred a member of the city staff again visited the ite and took measurements of the home. At the August 25th hearing there was o concern of the front yard setback. When the site survey was prepared at r. Gasterland's request, Mr. Doty became aware of the fact that he had not me the proper setback requirements. The reasons for the hardship is firs the reliance upon staff information. Secondly, Mr. Allyn's home is set fu ther forward than Mr. Doty's. Mr. Allyn received a variance for his home. ird, the living room of the Allyn's home extends behind the Doty's home. Mr. oty is prepared, if necessary, to move his home back to conform with the fr t yard setback requirements. But if that is required, the impact that yo will see, will be a greater adverse impact on the privacy that the Allyn's have in their back yard. At the last hearing there were a number of neigh rs who voiced opposition on the location of the Doty's home. Where the board is on the home, in the slide of the back yard, is where Mr. Doty had proposed to put his deck. He had nwnerous discussions with Mr. Allyn trying to esolve this. To compromise, Mr. Doty offered to move the deck further awa from the Allyn's home and to lower it. In order to get from the patio door the deck it would be necessary to construct a landing and a series of steps coming down. The steps would run along the side of the house, city co indicates that there has to be a maximum pitch to the steps, the deck as to be at least 6' above the ground, so that the steps can connect to the landing and still conform to the building code. 3Z File #'s 10185 and 10217 Page Four Mr. Doty has tried very hard to work izh the neighbors and has not been successful at it. On August 25th Mr. Doty voluntarily halted construction. There has not been any significant c struction since then. The city red tagged it when they became aware of e setback requirements. Since then some siding has been done. At this time o the year Mr. Doty must keep moving forward. There has been some gradin done on the basement floor. Mr. Doty proposed, at his expense, to alter th roof line from a gabled roof to a hipped roof. This proposal was not a ceptable to the neighbors. It was suggested at the August 25th hearing hat Mr. Allyn's architect might have some ideas as to how the problem coul be addressed. The only good idea was that the roof be torn off for a flatt r roof. This would be extremely expensive and Mr. Doty does not belie e he is required to do that. Mr. Doty offered to reduce the height of the d ck. The deck as proposed, conforms with the zoning requirements. This was al o not acceptable. Mr. Doty has incurred. significant legal fees. He would lik to compromise and work something out with the neighbors but if he cannot d that he would like to go back to the original proposal. Mr. Horak asked if the 30' height whi h is required on this, change any with the gable roof, or the hipped roof, o would it still remain the same. Mr. Newman replied that he believed that he height would remain the same. Mr. Horak stated that it is his under tanding that at the present time the home does not meet the 30' height req irement with the in-fill grade. Mr. Newman stated that when the home is b lt in conformance with the plans shown to Building Staff, the home will meet he requirements. It does not now because there has been some excavation done. Mr. Newman stated that no matter what he final decision is Mr. Doty will more than likely be facing litigation. It s financially impossible for Mr. Doty to proceed and make the proposed modif cations to the home and to bear the cost of the decision of the courts. Mr. Kirk asked Mr. Beach if he could e lighten the Board on any compromise that might have been made. Mr. Beach tated that staff feels the compromise could help the situation somewhat. In recommending approval of the variance, staff is suggesting a hipped roof as t ey feel it would somewhat lower the mass of the building. Mr. Zimniewicz tated that the height of the home would still be the same. Mr. Soderholm stated that it would mea ure the same but from the Allyn's side of the house you wouldn't see that mas . Mr. Newman stated that with going to t hipped roof you create greater exposure to the neighbor's property. Ms. Roberts distributed excerpts from t e zoning ordinance to the Board and pictures. She stated that the Allyn's ppose all three variances. Mr. Allyn opposes the staff report because it is rong. They have nothing to do with the intent of the ordinance or the visi ns of the St. Paul Zoning Ordinances. To approve the variances Mr. Doty is re uesting would be a disservice to the Allyn's, the neighbors, District 12, as well as to this Board. The staff report speaks in terms of the variances being consistent with the intent of 33 File #'s 10185 and 10217 Page Five the ordinance, Mr. Allyn disagrees. presentation Mr. Newman has made regarding reliance on staff, is not ir to staff. The ordinances are published and available to everyone. A defense based on ignorance of the law, or alleged misinformation is not gro nds for a variance. In Chapter 64 it states, "property in question cannot e put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code." Tha was raw land and zoned R-3 and could have had a house that conformed. A1 o in Chapter 64 it states, "the plight of the land owner is due to circumstanc s unique to his property and these circumstances were not created by th land owner." This is clearly not true. From the day the construction starte , the Allyn's talked to Mr. Doty and contacted the City. The house is no sided and windows are in. These are problems of Mr. Doty's making. The uilding permit application that was part of the first Board's packet, you wil see that the lot size was originally represented by Mr. Doty as being 66' by 120' and that he was going to build a two-story house. Mr. Doty has a thr e-story house, the lot is 99.5' deep. The city staff did not have the info ation it needed. Do not base any findings today on presumptions of wh t staff did. There is another version of the setback issue, and in the discus ions with Mr. Doty, that she has been told by staff is that when there was a question asked about how should the house be placed on the site a dimens on was quoted with the presumption that it was being measured from the sidew lk. 1'his neighborhood does not have a sidewalk. The law makes it very cle r that the setback is 25' . In Chapter 60 of the Zoning Code in the definition it states you measure setbacks from the lot line. If spirit and intent of t e code is to protect property values, this is clearly not consistent here. The staff report states that homes in this area are 1 to 1 1/2 stories, th s is a 3-story home and is not consistent with the neighborhood. It would be mpossible to make findings on this situation that would meet the tests or issuance of a variance under the law. Ms. Roberts showed slides she brough to the Committee. She stated that the permit application was incorrect. is is a minimum sized lot. Mr. Doty voluntarily bought a minimum sized 1 t. From day one Mr. Allyn told Mr. Doty that if he exceeded 30' he would fig t him. Mr. Gasterland sent Mr. Doty a letter requesting information regard ng elevations of the north and east face so that he could review it. No one as ever seen an elevation of the front of the house. If there is hardship on nyone, it is on the Allyn's, the neighbors and you the Board. The va iance Mr. Doty received earlier was for a garage. In the compromised discussi ns with Mr. Newman they talked about hipping the roof, lowering the deck own to within 3' of grade. They could not get that compromise. When they irst started talking about this home it was a foundation, when they came be re the Board in August it was a framed house, and now fill has been added, tilities are being connected and Mr. Gasterland has suthorized siding of the house. A petition has been circulated since they were before the Board last. Ms. Roberts showed a sketch of the 46 ' property owners who have signed the etition and passed out copies to the Board. The neighbors are now being asked with the variance requests to live with this home. This is not what t ose zoning ordinances are for, and are not what the variance standards say. A hardship suffered by Mr. Doty are by his own actions. 3� . ��_ �as File #'s 10185 and 10217 Page Six Mr. Zimniewicz asked if the mean lev 1 �as been decided. Ms. Roberts stated that as far as she knows, no. Mr. H rdwick stated that the finished grade is that the average grade will be dete ined after the finished grade is established. This will be after the fill has been put in and the sod is put on. Mr. Zimniewicz stated that his quest on is how is the mean level established. Mr. Hardwick stated that after you f nish the grade you take the perimeter of the building and the average of the rade level around the perimeter of the building and that is your average gr de, This cannot be done until after the finish grade is established. Mr. Ha dwick stated that Mr. Doty did submit some drawings in response to the Zon ng Administrator's request. Mr. Beach stated that the drawings that the Bu lding Department received were the ones he showed in the slides. Ms. Roberts stated that when she, th Allyn's and Mr. Beach went out to measure the height in August, fill h d already been placed on the property so no one knows where the original grad was. From the peak of the roof to the grade at that time it was 36' 9". e ad�usted height was 31' 6". The height on the west the day they measured wa 40' 7" so the ad�usted height was 35' 4". If the average height on all fo r sides cannot exceed 30' this leaves 5' 4" to be accommodated on the north a d east face. If you put fill in on the east side to bring it to 30' it woul put dirt over the windows. According to Allyn's architect it would be very d fficult to put this fill in as it would put dirt in over the door. The fill on the Allyn's side would be 7' to 10' . This house does not conform to the c de. It is impossible for the home to measure 30' and if you wait to meas e when the sod has been layed it will be too late. Mr. Zimniewic2 stated that his ques ion is if someone wants to determine the mean level, where is it. Ms. Rober s stated that it can't be established until finished grade is put in. Te nically Mr. Doty could put 50' of fill in and build a 30' house and be in con ormity. The fill Mr. Doty will be putting in is above what the neighborhood h s as a standard. Mr. Osborn stated that there are st ndards. He stated that he must ob3ect to the �naccuracies that Ms. Roberts i giving to the Board. Illusions of 40' when the house is not 40' high, in alking about the neighborhood standard of grade, there is no neighborhood sta dard of grade. He stated that he must object to Ms. Roberts statements th t she continually makes. Ms. Roberts stated that she did not mean to mis ead the Board. She stated that she was trying to answer the question of wh re the mid-point or median level is. This cannot be determined until the fini hed grade has been put in place. That is the result of how the law reads. Mr. Horak stated, that Ms. Roberts ndicated, that there is no way to establish finished grade. He asked Ms. Roberts if she meant they can't set up a builders level on the lot site an shoot in some grade on the sides of the building and establish finished gra e line. Ms. Roberts stated that maybe staff can respond to that, she woul like to hear the answer to that to. 3S File #'s 10185 and 10217 Page Seven Mr. Kirk stated that the Board has h d -testimony on both sides. This issue has to be settled. Mr. Kirk called n Jan Gasterland to give the version of the Building Depar�ment. Mr. Gasterland stated the finished g ade is established by the construction documents. The construction documen s that the he has show a retaining wall and -fill are required. The exact gr des haven't been specifically addressed. He asked for a plan as to how they w uld apply with a 30' height requirement and he was assured that the house wo ld be 30' but he did not see the documents. Mr. Kirk asked Mr. Gasterland to giv the Board the dates he first asked Mr. Doty to come by and if he has. Mr. asterland replied that the original letter requesting information was Au ust 27th, at that time he asked for a registered survey of the lot. He st ted that the Building Department offered their service as a mediator. He sta ed that no matter what the decision, the Building Department will be sued by ne of the parties. Mr. Kirk stated that the Board must irst decide on whether or not the Zoning Ad.ministrator erred. Ms. Roberts stated that there is ano her choice� and that is to remove the house. The house was built in viola ion of the laws. Mr. Osborn asked Ms. Roberts if she s recommending that the house be removed. He asked her what her ultimate solut on is. Ms. Roberts stated that the house does not conform to the laws. The A lyn's are entitled to the protection of the laws. She has not seen anything that shows her that the house can conform with the ordinances. If it does not conform, why should it be allowed to stand? Mr. Osborn stated that it is rather unusual to condemn homes and ask that they be removed. He knows it h s been done, and this Board has done that, but it is highly unusual. Ms. Roberts stated that she is not asking the Board to condemn the house. David Fan� 2115 Dudley, presented th petition that Ms. Roberts spoke of to the Board. He read the petition to e Board. He presented letters to the Board from neighbors and read senten es from each of them. He stated that he ob�ects to the decrease in the setba k from the normal distance of approximately 25' because there are unconstructed lots surrounding Mr. Doty's house. In the staff report r garding the recommendation to permit the setback on grounds that the lot is o ly 93' deep, all lots on W. Hoyt lost 30' from the front before any houses wer constructed. Therefore, Mr. Doty's property is no different from any ho eowner on W. Hoyt. The economic impact is not a grounds for a variance. Mr. Doty's hardship is self infiicted. Mr. Hardwick stated that in a letter the Building Department sent to Mr. Doty on September 23rd, they informed Mr. oty that the negotiations were still going on with the neighbors. They i ormed him that he could bring his building in compliance with the city rdinances if he did three things. (1) obtain a building permit to move the ouse back between 8' and 10' away from the street; (2) eliminate any deck on the south side of the house above the ground floor level; and (3) keep the eight of the house to a maximum of 30' Z G File #'s 10185 and 10217 Page Eight as measured from the average finished_ ade. If those three things were done the Building Department could lift the red tag and the construction could go on without any variances on the buildi g. Mr. Kirk asked Mr. Hardwick if the Bui ding Department received an answer to the letter. Mr. Hardwick stated that he answer they received was to continue negotiations with the neighbors. Mr. Newman stated that Mr. Doty is in greement with that. If the variance request for the front yard setback was denied� Mr. Doty is prepared to move the home back. At that point the ord ances required that the deck be at grade level otherwise it would be enc oaching the back yard. Mr. Zimniewicz stated that the statem nt made by Mr. Hardwick was that if you eliminate the deck on the south side. Mr. Newman is saying not to eliminate it, but to revise it. Mr. Newman sta ed that to bring it into conformance with the city code you need to put th deck on ground level and you will be in conformance with city code. Mr. Hard ick replied that is correct. Mr. Newman stated that while Mr. Gast rland was on vacation Mr. Doty met with Ed Locke and presented the plan on ho he planned to address the elevation. Ed Locke reviewed it, asked Mr. Doty o present it to Wendy Lane, Ms. Lane did not do anything �urther with the plan. Negotiations on trying to settle this hit an impass. We have no problem of providing Mr. Gasterland with appropriate documentation to verify ere the front elevation will be. Ms. Roberts stated that they have tr ed in compromising not to have the house moved back. Moving the house back w uld make the situation worse. Moving the house back puts it in the Allyn's ba k yard. If that is the resolution, Mr. Allyn has no choice but to try and s op that by whatever means are available. Any problems now with meeting the he ght requirements, would be even more so with moving the house back because t e lot drops off. Elimination of the deck is what Mr. Allyn has been asking fo . In compromising they have asked if the deck could go to grade level ox no m re than 3' above grade level. Mr. Allyn has tried to work this out so fie doe not have to go to court. Mr. Doty will not compromise with the deck. Mr. Allyn stated that they are not t ying to kick Mr. Doty out of the neighborhood. All he had stated to r. Doty in the beginning was that his home was blocking the light and sir to his home. He does not understand why Mr. Doty can put up a retaining wal , fill in dirt, and say that is where the grade is for measuring the height o the home. The problem is the way the finished grade is being interpreted. Mr. Doty's home is only 4' away from the Allyn's home with a 7' to 8' high r taining wall. Mr. Osborn stated that staff has in icated that there are 3 things that could be done to bring this home in compl ance with the building code. If this is done, he has heard from staff that he Allyn's would then sue. He stated that he would like clarification on this If the house is moved back 10' the Allyn's say they are going to court Why, if the house is in compliance, would they be going to court. He s ated that he is getting the feeling that regardless what is done here they a e going to court. He stated he would like � a response to this. 37 _ File #'s 10185 and 10217 Page Nine Ms. Roberts stated that the last th ng -they want to do is go to court. They want to work this out. They have n t been able to achieve a compromise. If the house is moved .back, the lot is lower than it is at the front of the lot, the height problem would be even gr ater. The fill that would have to be brought in to bring the home into c nformance would destroy the Allyn's home. It would visually block light and a r, living within 2' of an 8' to 10' wall. At this point Mr. Allyn would have o challenge the measuring system. It leads to the result of fill and a r taining wall against finished building surfaces. Mr. Osborn asked Ms. Roberts why sh opposes the variance to where the house is now. He stated that the Allyn's are opposed to the variance and moving the house in conformance. Where is the spirit of compromise if the Allyn's are opposed to the variance of leaving he house where it is and moving the house to be in conformance. Ms. Roberts tated that when the Allyn's had talked to Mr. Newman about a compromise that ould be something they could work with, they discussed leaving the house wh re it is, hipping the roof and lowering the deck within 3' of grade. The A lyn's were told that it would not work, the deck had to be 6' above grade t accommodate the needs of Mr. Doty. This is where the spirit of compromise b eaks down. If Mr. Doty moves the house back he looses the deck to be anyth g but grade level. The Allyn's asked if the deck could be at grade level wh re the house is now and they were told no. Ms. Roberts stated that leaving the ouse where it is now� no deck above 3' , and hipping the roof is a compromise the Allyn's have agreed to. There are some neighbors that do not agree to his. Mr. Kirk stated that the Allyn's are the individuals that asked for t e Administrative Review and that is all the Board is concerned with. Ms. Ro erts stated that the variance proposal affects all neighbors. Mr. Soderholm asked if they were to ove the house back, can the design be changed so that the basement is part ally below grade and the top of the house does come down 1/2 story. Mr. Newman stated that it would be e pensive enough moving the house, with the basement being grade level on the ba k side. If Mr. Doty has to start excavating, it would be very expensi e. They had looked at that but the garage is a tuck-under. They design d it so that it was 18" above the street level so there would not be flooding in the garage. To lower the home would require redesigning it. Mr. Soderholm stated that although M . Doty has given assurances time after time that he can meet the requiremen s, he has not submitted information that Mr. Gasterland asked for, and the Bo rd has been told that he is going to have to put fill in above the level of th front door, or above the concrete blocks on the side of the house in order to achieve the grade. That will be artificial. ZQ . . ,K_�- . _ , __..,... _ --.._ . .. __,. __ _ _ . _--- ---._ _ .� ._- ._ _ . _._ . _._.. _ :___ . ��` °� __ _ ..�. . ,�- . File #'s 10185 and 10217 Page Ten Mr. Newman stated that Mr. Doty did p� vide that information while Mr. Gasterland was on vacation. They were lead to believe that the information they provided was adequate. If the Bo rd affirms the decision of the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Doty is comfortable with the Board adding the stipulation of providing whatever documentation th t Mr. Gasterland requires to assure that the home will be brought to the a propriate elevation. � Mr. Soderholm asked how high the retai ing wall is along the Allyn's property on the plan. Mr. Newman replied he di not know. When Mr. Doty designed the home he did not expect these problems. A number of things can be done with the grade. Along the south side of t e home, the windows can be modified so that the grade can be raised. On the est side of the home, modifications can be made to increase the grade. That ill impact on how much grade is added. Mr. Doty had met with staff and thoug t he had addressed their concerns on that issue. Regarding the compromise the problem Mr. Doty has in lowering the deck to 3' is that to get the sta rway that comes off the landing, that gets down to that elevation, you will end up with a stairway that has a couple of twists and turns and will use up t e entire space of the deck. When he spoke to Ms. Roberts yesterday he was under the impression that after a neighborhood meeting Mr. Doty's propo al was not acceptable. The greater concern was the roof. Mr. Soderholm stated that staff does ot have any plans on how the grading will work. Richard Mather� 2091 Dudley Avenue, tated that what is agreeable to the Allyn's is agreeable to him. Jennifer Sorenson, 2101 Dudley Avenu , stated that when the neighbors had their meeting it was brought to thei attention that Mr. Doty could meet all 3 of the stipulations if he had to. e of those was moving the house backwards. They thought, as long as he is picking the house up, he might as well move it off the site. They did 't see how Mr. Doty could meet the height requirement. Mr. Osborn stated that he did not be ieve the statement that was �ust made, was pertinent. Mr. Newman stated that he has been peaking with Mr. Doty, and he has said that if lowering the deck to 3' abo e grade results in a compromise he will find a way to do it. He was under he impression with talking to Ms. Roberts yesterday that the Allyn's were sti 1 concerned about the roof. What she has said today has lead him to believe hat it is the question of the deck. Mr. Kirk asked Ms. Roberts if she w uld consider continuing the negotiations. Mr. Fan stated that he would like t reserve judgment on his opinion as to whether that is acceptable to him. Mr. Osborn stated that tearing do the house or moving it is not an item that he is considering. He does not co sider that compromise acceptable. . � , File #'s 10185 and 10217 Page Eleven Ms. Roberts stated that she spoke to M� Allyn and he has stated that if the roof is hipped, the deck is no more han 3' above grade, preferably at grade, and the house is nat moved back, he ould accept the compromise. When she says grade, she means existing grade and not filled on the south side. Mr. Horak asked if that point is cle r to Mr. Doty. He stated the Board must define existing grade. Mr. Beach stated that you could dete ine grade as 3' above the first floor elevation. Mr. Newman asked if everyone was agr eing that the existing grade is the bottom of the existing windows on th back of the home. Mr. Kirk stated to Mr. Newman and Ms. Roberts, that he would appreciate if if they stepped out into the hall and re ched a compromise. Mr. Newman and Ms. Roberts stated tha the Board has their compromise. Mr. Newman stated that his understand ng of the compromise is that the height requirement would be granted, Mr. Dot would hipp the roof, Mr. Doty would work with Mr. Allyn in determining th final elevation along the common property line, Mr. Allyn would not ap ose Mr. Doty's front yard setback variance� and Mr. Allyn would not opp se the variance to exceed the lot coverage, and that the deck off of th existing doors at the 2nd level which will be approximately 5' high and fro that landing there will be a stairway going down to the deck. ' Ms. Roberts stated that she believes at they talked about before on the dimensions was 4' . The slope of the h pped roof would be as depicted as the plans previously submitted to Mr. Gast rland. Mr. Newman stated he thinks they had talked about the deck being 5 above grade level because Mr. Doty has to be able to get furniture over the r iling. Mr. Osborn suggested 4 1/2' . Mr. Newm n and Ms. Roberts agreed. Hearing no further testimony, Mr. Kirk closed the public portion of the meeting. 10217 - Mr. Zimniewicz moved to approv the proposition that was proposed by Mr. Newman and Ms. Roberts. Mr. Osbor seconded the proposition, which passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 0. Mr. Osborn suggested that case #10185 b comes a mute issue, and moved that it be tabled. Un _�� .. _ , � t File #'s 10185 and 10217 - Page 1t,ielve Mr. Soderholm suggested that the Boa d -ask the Allyn's� in the spirit of compromise, to withdraw their applic tion. Ms. Roberts withdrew the application. . Submitted by: Approved by: Tom Beach James Kirk . !.� I . �- , � ;�i;� f : BOARD OF Z ING APPEALS S�AFF REPORT " FILE #10217 Ik '.;, � -{:� 1. APPLICANT: Douglas Doty DATE OF HEARING: 10/13/87 , , ; ,:';,, 2. CLASSIFICATION: Ma3or Variance ��'`` , 3. LOCATION: 2108 West Hoyt Avenu (south side, west of Cleveland) : ,� .,, i �"�� 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The south 9 .55' of the north 123.35' of Lot 10, Auditor's �s,; �1 , Subdivision :..,�� _ 5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 !;�; ?:�.:, " 6. PRESENT ZONING: R-3 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101 `'i�i �':,' .`. „�:�,� 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: October 5, 1987 BY: Tom Beach ;;� a:'!i :.;��; ; � �'�� A. PURPOSE; To consider variances o permit construction of a single-family home. ;;-:�. ' Variances are requested for: _.`.!,i, `�.�: :,�;;, �;;'-; 1. Building height; 33.5' reque ted, 30' permitted. �;�� 2. Front yard set back: 13' requ sted. .;�::. ;;'r. 3. Maximum lot coverage by the b ilding: 120 square feet beyond the permitted ;?�'h 30$ lot coverage. :'N,i: ��;i, B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: Lot ar a is 6,000 square feet (64.28' x 93.35') per ,:;�;;i the survey dated 9/7/87. A new s ngle-family house is currently under :;, '1 construction on the property. Th property was vacant prior to the present i '�;, construction. The house is 13.9' from the front property line; 35.5' from the �.�' back property line (not including a proposed deck) ; 5.5' from the east property �::,: '"�� line and 19.2' from the west prop rty line. .c �: .;�:: ' The land currently slopes up from the street in the front. yard approximately 5' `"�'��'' on the east side of the lot, putt ng it at roughly the same elevation as the '1:': ad�jacent property to the east. ( e grade has been altered during construction `r;-�: and staff was not able to determi e where the grade was before construction :�A� :. � began.) The west side of the lot and the back yard are lower and are only ;^' ;;;; slightly higher than the street. 1 ;S .j. '�.�r The propertv to r_ha ofl�* �� _ _� � - __ I , , ` .� � � , ZONING B - ONING FtLE 02 APPL1 CE CITY OFSAINT PAUL � �t � � i � ' ��.I� ,, r / / A VARIANCE OF ZQ iNG CODE CHAPTER � ,SECTION�PARAGRAPH IS REQUESTED IN C NFORMITY WITH THE OWERS VESTED FN�HE BOARD OF ZON�G — ' , ...__�: �7-^ ,.. ` PEALS TO PERMIT T E 5f� drA�++fD -7`�' 1� ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW. ___ __ __ _ __ __ � _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _. A. APPlicent: NA E i)out�ul5 S �ort . j . AD RESS (rN0 1 U N�v�.s i'+'"�f 14v� 1� E ��.�us y - _ DA TIME TELEPHONE NO. -`�7 I � (c�-I�I ZIP CODE 55Y 3 7 1. Property int est of applicanL• lowner,contract purchaser,etc.) pWNf'� 2. Name of ow er (if different) B. Property Descripti n: ADDRESS a/OLS �E�r �yT �veNv£ . .sOvl� `�3.55� GF rr�E HI-�K-'f}! �z3.Ss�OF �.Ci� ��/ fa.,�l,n;r.� S�b�(. L�3 1. Legal descrip ion: LOT BLOCK ADD. 2. �ot size: Pr'ko�c. �ny.l S�c 5'3, S" _ � _ 3. Present Use �f� C�►��1'W�i�Q+� Present Zoning Dist. �-� _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. C. Reasons for Requ st: - . _:..__ "'4�ill`=NT�iI.-. 1. Proposed use 5 i N�� F A m��Y K , � 2. What physi characteristics of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses � in your zone (topography,soil conditions,size and shape of lot,etc.) I � I i ` 3. State the spe ific variation requested,givi�g distances where appropriate. b GG�,.� AriMVrw 3�,t�i�� N4��1..�' oF 33.5" �s r As c��{�NS�. � p A J�ttGn�A�. wL' cfi✓fR-l� E Or IZG �� bgvvr�c� �1.d�v{sn>cr . _ _. ..0►{LLOW. . Qs�M�PTt D 30�10 LOT c�feZA E. � . .. - 3� Au.Gw YR2-a s:rF�ACK- �F I3�� 4. Explain how our case conforms to each of the following: I a. That the trict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordiance would result in peculiar f or except onal practica�difficulties,or exceptional undue hardships. � �c a�7�-`t��' ( � i CASHIERS USE ONLY � b. That the ranting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to k public go d or a substantial impair- ��;/i�i��`��„�1��,'f�i Ct..EF:t; d � ment of he intent and purposeof � the Zonin Ordinance. `�`��``' `�t��'�w�;'�� *f�`�•� I S '_,T-i�i. *.7'�.il_l t�t�:"��; TF!:� �;7�.C�j ,' C;;�^l;�� '�.i1Ci � I NOTE: WI L NOT B ESS ITHOUT A COMPLETE SITE PLQN!/�� i �f: � Signature _ � ;� �i IO S Date Received �"��.:� � .. . , r� . �� i BOARD OF ZONI G APPEALS STAFF REPORT :�ik FILE #10217 �y.. � �:� 1. APPLICANT: Douglas Doty DATE OF HEARING: 10/13/87 ��•� , :- � 2. CLASSIFICATION: Ma�or Variance •;;��- ��'''� 3. LOCATION: 2108 West Ho t Avenue .i.�� y ( outh side, west of Cleveland) ��,.":'1 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The south 93.55' of the north 123.35' of Lot 10, Auditor's �� Subdivision '::i� ��'` � . 5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 :fF 'a:'.':: ��t; 6. PRESENT ZONING: R-3 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101 �.,., �:;; ;;;, "�,� 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: October 5, 1987 BY: Tom Beach .,� `:;� �°�: ,.a, ;� , ,�,� � � `'.�` A• ��U$�4,�: To consider variances t permit construction of a single-family home. �''�. Variances are requested for: �:: . '';,,,i �f;'; 1. Building height: 33.5' reques ed� 30' permitted. '� �� 2. Front yard set back: 13' reque ted. ;,�::�, ;'k,; 3. Maximum lot coverage by the bu lding; 120 square feet beyond the permitted '`'p�C 30$ lot coverage. r�: :,�,, ?<�:i' B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: Lot ar a is 6,000 square feet (64.28' x 93.35') per �;�!'�i ' the survey dated 9/7/87, A new s ngle-family house is currently under � construction on the property. Th property was vacant prior to the present ,�.: !��'; construction. The house is 13.9' from the front property line; 35.5' from the ',i',' back property line (not including a proposed deck); 5.5' from the east property ''�� line and 19.2' from the west prop rty line. .�;� ;,'.: ,�: ;; The land currently slopes up from the street in the front. yard approximately 5' ;�'�;' on the east side of the lot p , putt ng it at roughly the same elevation ,as the �'% adjacent property to the east. ( e grade has been altered during construction r:,ti: and staff was not able to determi e where the grade was before construction ,,, .a began.) The west side of the lot and the back yard are lower and are only ��-- 5 slightly higher than the street. �� The property to the east has a si gle family house. The property to the west is ,..;: ^:.i vacant. The neighborhood is sing e-family residential. Most of the houses are -.:; 1 and 1 1/2 stories tall. °�?i � C. CASE HISTORY: r'.y. �'� 1. Mr. Doty, the applicant, is b iJ.ding a 3-story, single-family house at 2108 >� West Hoyt Avenue. St. Paul's uilding Inspection and Design Division issued ;:: a building permit for the hou e in March 1987 and work is currently in "� progress. The house has been framed in, including the roof. L�, � The Building Division approve the height of the house base on plans and u} elevations submitted to them y the applicant when he applied for a building '�' permit. The Building Divisio followed its standard practice and made its �� initial determination of the eight of the building by measuring from the '�� architect's scale drawings, ese drawings indicate the ground level with a .�, dashed line but do not specif whether this is an existing grade or a �.� nroposed change of grade. A1 hough it is not apparent in the drawing, the � dashed line indicating propos d ground level is about 6' feet above the '� existing grade on the site on the east and front side of the house, N� � 2. The height of the building as it stands now, measured from the current grade '� to the mid-point of the roof s 33' 6"� based on the average of all four .� sides. (The height measured n the east and front sides, where the lower i ' level is partially below grad , is 31' 10". The height measured on the west � and back side, where the lowe level is at grade, is 35' 4".) s 5 a �. � � � r r � � s k�► .�t�; � , ��-�a s-. r :� i.::;� : r';.:�� File #10217 ,�...�., . . - Page 1`wo .�"�.: �:,� '�''�`' To meet the height limit of 30' set by the Zoning Code the grade would have �-�� to be raised 3" 6" on all four sides. However it is not :.,s; � possible to raise :;�� the grade significantly on the est and back side because of the location of ,};.., ;�- � doors and windows. Therefore e grade on the east and front sides would ''��,ra need to be raised approximatel 7' for the building to meet the 30' height �� limit. �''.� 3. The neighbors have appealed th decision of the Building Division to grant ��r= t;± the building permit to Mr. Dot , saying that the building height should have ,'.�` been determined from the grade that existed on site before construction �;;,; began rather than the proposed grades shown on the architect's plans. '�'`�' (Zoning File 10185) :;,;. �:�� . '' The Building Division requeste more detailed information from Mr. Doty in ;';`; August about exactly how he pr poses to grade the site to meet the building �a:Y height limit but this has not een submitted. .� y r'.;� n. 'F INDINGS: � ; i " 1. Mr. Doty is requesting a varia ce for building height to permit a building �;,5 33' 6" high. He still contend that he can meet the 30' height limit set by �:�-; the Zoning Code. However, he s requesting a variance for two reasons. :';- �'" First, he says that he relied n advice provided him by the Building <`�; Division in determining the he ght of the house and that he would suffer �'� undue hardship now if the BZA ow overtuzns that advise after the house has ?r`` been largely built. z,,, , ``' ' Second, if the BZA upholds the Building Division's determination� Mr. Doty '�.�; would like the option to lower the grade from what is shown on the plans if '�F'" this is what the neighbors wa ��,, . :k: '�� 2. Mr. Doty is willing to change the existing gable roof line to a hipped roof ,�,:� �:i; line at his own expense. Thi would lessen the impact of the building on ''i'``:�' the Allyn's property. When s anding close to the building, the roof would '"�; not be visible: the highest p int visible would be the eaves which would be '�;;':: 25' above the existing grade. It would also lessen the mass of the house A�� when viewed from farther away, ;.�j 3. In addition to the hipped roo � landscaping would help to soften the impact ;�;'' of the house and requiring ad itional landscaping as a condition for the !" variance would be in keeping ith the intent of the Zoning Code. ;;';': '..' 4. Mr. Doty is also seeking a va iance to permit a front yard setback of 13' . n` Again� the request for the va iance is based on the assertion that he :�{� � checked with the Building Div sion on more than one occasion to verify that ;?' his plans were in conformance with the setback requirements and was told '`'� that it was. Mr. Doty claims that requiring him to move the house back at i�; this point would cause him su stantial hardship. :.�: ,.:i ;;<; 5. The variance for front yard s tback is also 3ustified by the fact that the lot is very shallow. The lot is 93' deep compared ta 125' for a typical St. :•;� Paul lot. ;,� 6. Mr. Doty is requesting a vari nce for lot coverage so that he can make ''' changes to a deck which will essen its impact on the neighbors. y;; "� This variance was not needed or the house as originally planned. However, ,�! in discussing the house with he neighbors, both sides agreed that a deck �� proposed for the back of the ouse would have less impact on the neighbors if it was lowered and moved ay from the property line. However, in order to move the deck it will be cessary to build a landing off the door into the house and steps from the landing down to the deck. This would increase ;:� the size of the deck enough put the house over the 30$ lot coverage :-;; limit. �s'i • ' 7�: �:� ,�` a� Itt �}� � �Ny • '��V A� 'i �" r . � �� . `"� `�`� Yi.. ] `{ ' . ��i''t�o°�'`'' =----_ ;= ,:.;;; �:��.�-� '�.,,i • ��` �' File #10217 .ij i:: •.�,; Page Three :e.. �;' t•; ��•.I`r . �. `.'�';" Both sides agree that the dec can be moved further from the property line. ;�`;�? However, they do not agree on how high it should be. The deck as originally _, ' proposed would have been 10' igh, measured from the surface of the deck. ::��:'' i The neighbors would like the eck to be no more than 3' above the ground. �'',�':` Mr. Doty says that given the ocation of windows and doors in the house it ;;`i?a is not possible to build the eck lower than 6' or 7' . �;. '�::'�,; ,'�'' � Staff believes that the varia ce can meet the intent of the Zoning code on ..: ;y;�;� condition that either the dec is lowered to 3' or a 6' screen be built on ''�:�;'' the east side of the deck. e screen must be opaque for at least the lower :�,. � ��:;,� 4' but the top portion could e a non-opaque lattice. ,'},�,. �,�;; '�;: E. STAFF ANALYSIS: Given the histo of this case, staff believes that the ''i'� applicant will suffer undue hards ip unless these variances are granted and that �•�,; �'!;' the variances meet the intent of he Zonin Code to ',;;;;;,, g protect neighboring property ,:,..; owners if the conditions listed ove are attached. ;�::::' ' '` F. STAFF RECOI�iENDATION: Based on indings 1 through 6 and staff analysis, staff `'��" � recommends approval of the varia es as follows: ,,;; , :'•, "�� 1. Building height of 33' 6" pe itted sub3ect to the applicant changing the �:,;�' ;;�>'; roof to a hipped roof and pro iding additional landscaping especially on the `.��:� east side and front of the ho se. :';:� 2. Front yard setback of 13' pe itted. ,.4, �'�� 3. Lot coverage 120 square feet n excess of the 308 limit sub3ect to the deck :� being lowered to a height of ' or provided with a 6' screen on the east `'':;:,, ' side which is opaque for at 1 ast the lower 4' . ;:;:.� ;�' �:, :::x rii4 I':';1i :�i :i� 'I i,.A i!.'.A ;"r'.i !."r' fi��S F i;� p:t !i`:I ;,, i;:r :�� c,� � � �� 1.`! �� {jr n G� k�: ,;. iL: �I:: 1.` 1:: �fi E� i+ ;e � i� �'?; :� F+ .s l r' r �z �f �'a �. f.i 7 i+ F 2 ' � 2 � � S �g I � � _ . _ _ _ . � ,,� In re: Variance Application of ouglas S. Doty, 2108 West Hoyt Avenue Permits for: � 1. To allow the constructio of a single family residence within 13 feet of the fr nt property line. 2. To allow a maximum build ng height as defined Uy the city code of up to 33.5 feet. 3 . To allow 120 square feet of additional lot coverage beyond the requirement o a maxi�um of thirty percent ( 30$) lot coverage so as to permit the construction of a multi-level deck in the ear of home. Questions 2 and 4 (a) . The pplicant has already completed many aspects of constructing a s ngle family residence on the property in question. The home as been completely framed in, the roof has been completed, bui t-rite has been installed on the exterior of the home, the interi r walls have been framed and some plumbing has been installed All of this work was done pur- suant to a building permit issue by the City of St. Paul. On August 4, 1987, the neigh or to the east, Richard B. Allyn and Claire Allyn filed a Notice f Administrative Review with the St. Paul Planning Department. T e basis for this appeal was their contention that the home e ceeded the maximum height " requirements permitted under cit code. In a report filed by the city staff on August 18, 1987, t e staff indicated that they did not believe that the proposed ho e exceeded the maximum height requirements and further indicat d that the staff 's method in determining the maximum height u ed in this present case is con- sisent with the past practices o the city staff. During the course of the var'ous hearings held by the St. Paul Zoning Appeals Board regard'ng the application filed by the Allyn's, it was determined that he foundations supporting the home were located approximately 3.9 feet from the front yard property line. At the time that the owner, r. Doty submitted his building plans to the City for initial re iew he was informed by a member of the city staff that the front yard set back was 25 feet from the street or the average of the front yard set backs on the same block, which ever was less. Mr. Doty repeated this to the staff member to reassure himself that in fact the front yard set back was calculated from the street nd the staff inember assured him that in fact this was true. Du ing the course of construction a city staff inember inspected the site and issued a report indi- cating that in fact the home wa located in such a position as to conform with the front yard set back requirements for an R-3 District. At the request of th city staff, Mr. Doty had the property surveyed and provided he survey to the city staff on September 10, 1987 . Z�i�� FILE �oz1 � �_ . i In positioning his home M . Doty relied upon the explanation which he received from the ci staff as to how the front yard set back was measured and furt er relied upon the subsequent report he received when the si e was inspected by a city staff member. In reliance upon this information which Mr. Doty received from the �city st�aff, here has now been substantial work done in the course of construc ing the home and to require him to either move the house or to te r it down would cause Mr. Doty susbstantial economic hardship In the event that the Zoni g Appeals Commission grants the relief sought by Mr. Allyn in is application and determines that the city staff has been incorr ctly calculating the maximum height of structures in an R-3 District, then Mr. Doty seeks a variance from the height requi ements. The basis for this request is that Mr. Doty has relied up n the advise provided to him by the city staff and city staff as indicated verbally and in writing that their method of i terpreting the maximum height used in the present case is similar to the method that the staff has used in the past. If the Zoni g Appeals Comrnission were to now adopt a new approach for calcu ating maximum building height and to retroactively apply it to M . Doty, this would cause undue hardship to Mr. Doty and would be unconstitutional. In an attempt to solve the difficulties with the neighbors Mr. Doty has indicated that he ould be willing to modify the grade to a lower elevation if so desired by the neighbors. In the alternative that the Zoning Appeals Commission upholds this staff inethod of calculating maximum building height then Mr. Doty seeks a variance from a ma imum building height of 30 feet so as to allow him to reduce th elevations if so desired by Mr. Allyn. Fina�ly, in further effort o negotiate a resolution with the neighbors, Mr. Doty has propose lowering the height of the deck he has proposed for the back of his home. Without the need for a variance Mr. Doty could constru t a deck of 10 feet by 12 feet. However, if in fact Mr. Doty do s negotiate a settlement with the neighbors then part of the prop sal is to lower the height of the deck so that it will be approxi ately 6 to 7 feet above ground level. In order for this deck o connect to the house it will be necessary for there to be a lan ing, approximately 4 feet deep extending out from the home at he point where the doors leading to the deck are located, and th n for there to be a series of steps leading down to the main ection of deck. Because of the need to construct this landing nd steps, the total size of the deck will now exceed 120 square feet thereby requiring a waiver from maximum lot coverage of th rty percent ( 30$) . If in fact a compromise is not reached with he neighbors then this variance will become unnecessary. By making these application Mr. Doty is not waiving his position that the home does con orm to the city code in all respects and is entitled to be ermitted to continue the ��'� ��E �� . _ ' � ' , �' . construction of his home in acco dance with the plans and speci- fications which have been previo sly approved by city staff and for which a building permit has een issued. However, in the event that Mr. Doty is able to n gotiate a resolution of the dis- putes with the neighbors, then M . Doty is seeking these varian- ces so that there can be a final determination binding upon all neighbors that his home does con orm to city code. � Z�i�1�6� �ILE �= � 1 _ , � : � ' 1 -� ' ► ; , � � . � � i + .� ► � � ,! � ' '' , �a.aall: . � �:�� ,1 � M 1'�� ' `.��`^� ','�"-�,� et�: ; �'��+',, M t'�a' �1 ��T� ....� ��.��:. K � L`n ` i •q .?� x s, � .,,, �� r;', ,'! Y�i F ' t .�. � t,��/ • 'y,l�_ 1 �� .. �w w. � , ��,nheyl,.a�� '•� }, t�i '�� .�'�h ls".� i+ ` .1M�, '^;�,y�ti'�'��,'.� v� "��`�` F�`i��j , � � , ,�.�w.�r.rr'�•�� .r. ,,�, .p, ar. ' :1'S� ,�a .;`�� ,`. �* . . :� '��,'��t,s'-.a%, ' T� +t.f.ti� �. � ��y •*rc wE' � �� '#a '`7 ..r.r«.r•'... p� ,�� j. � �F �� r►�"-"""``... y, � � tw.'t ^ � i3 ��Sµ, ♦ � ,. � � YG�i✓�i�, w�_��►1+ ��w1.., a W� � �• • r� xy � '�`� �' � .. �+� S`,F: .. w'`t.�p�� «.,:.:._."�..«s�?�/»�,. �yS' �1 v;�r"f 4��" i�� :r;�� w�' �' i n.�< 4� �� r,�^ [' r�� ^��MX�'."' •.,�..� � ,n� i:. ''�� .� +; .f� � 4 � � t, .� t.� .�» ' F.. u..�r'�"'�'.. �""4M4' ..'` .. � . �il�� I _+_, �}"w•'�� ► � IrW1Yr ��a ��, _ � , �t. , ' I � � :�;� �� .��ii��!� ��I��I�IIII�llllll(ITI(II�I� ��ll(lIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIl1111.(J,I�(Illrl�ll�lilllli,�:.:. �� , ��i' � � �� i ;;�,(c 1 't��l� �1� ':'�� I�:-�a"��'�.��l��1 �'i 3'.'��" t �''� r , `;, � , . �t y.`� A,' �i ; "7:�' , ` �,,..i� � I� ,1�r�a 1 (j�r��i�uu��s�r�� ' � � � ��, * ��''PJ� � °, R� � I � ��.� a R�4'c �I��i��L.if:i��, I .il �,.. � :��_��.. . I111 Y � � ' ' auu�,�.��..i.�.i��;.r. � I�►�1{ ,, i � � `Cy; w;��;'' a;��l�ll�l�lllllillll�� '(� ,-� I y(� � II ^tt'';(; ,:iiY�� C -=-_-.�� _. _. I .1 y I '�la. ' • ,G�:.� � I�,�M`nr.YWrww�sw��;w , � � � ! �.� �, I ' ,� �� i ; � �� i�t; i ; � f; �fi R;�. � y ti;,r. �t.�,��i W l�� ; , — � I � ��;,, � �� •.oetire��t�c:�r��r. ;? � s� � � � - __— - �. . �� . ; � � � ;,; �1� ' � . ' ' ( '��Y �� `, ��e��{��{I � � , ��:. I ' ! � � � 1 :i�`� ��, I �� ..��air�s�::.�ac�� I i � f 1 + l: �� . � I � 1 ' �. I ; .�t �. ...- __-,. '�...��.,�,,� :�--,,,. . �: 4 . ' , ,: � ;. +i ( � n ��! ( 1 1� I 1. ' 'I'M:?I i� I' i'�� Sii[��''�t ��f` U�� ' ' �' 1�I�` �}� .. - �N '(� � � �� i �� `' ��+ � ,� . il ' 1 �11��P,V.i�V �: !i . ilt.-l►iirs�l�7r�.��r.lti� p�,�� } � �t . . ,. ti i� f �' , �; .,l° � rti3., ' � ',►4_ I ; � ' �. � ` � 1 �b �.A .. I �.w�.wa�rr�iiri.� `,�i;�� . , i �`'�r�l � �!� - � �,,. , � - � r: � i �1 �� i � i" iI Y : a{7�;l ��j��`tD i I .fi�,. I } . ,\ 1 I� � �,.� � 1 . . ,.I �, /�'..'.:.'.'�, "'..' �0 .r 1 `9:/ ' �r� . I 1�• . �� ; t 1 � � ,� IDiil�l�/IYi6n36�lI � �y', �V�v* 1 jj i ( � ';R � 'Gy' '� 1 � � +, �; �,��.;�.�ii �i,��l�z�lM;�.�.l,t� _ _. . . � __ .. _ N � . � ..�, ,. ,. - � � --_� � .��l1��1 t�l,� ��.--,-'�'---,�. � ', � ,,,p,�._.,� _ -- - - - -- - ��-��_( r n � .�.�. _ . - � -- -- - -.--. -� -- - - �� _�, ,` �_�_��- =- " � •- .�-:___. __. ---C�.C.�, �.-.�x3�— . . — . - - ��- �,��,� . I Z 2 a��m.��D�;o+++��"� � - - -�d��r� � -,�-� - . la -- , � � � I � � 2� � � ; . —_�—_ � ��, —- �•. � - �q" � � � � ` . p'� i • �� ,,� � , • . � � � `v� ��E'.�S � n : :,�� .t----�_ °��-p � -- -- -- ---� ; ��: N� :d � �� ---- � __ � - --- — - _ --_ - f` � � � -- ( . ' �I¢.� , ; - /� -- _ � - ' i � �/ ` � V� � i � � � / ! 1 � -- -� - �__ _.- . : � � -� e�� c.�� ... � , i , � -- . -- i � .. --�- . � � , , _ j �. _.. , .. 1 . _�_.�� . . - .. �� / �1 . t1...� � �� _ � . ya —�-�- _ ,-- � , . __ . . ._ _ . . _ .. _ . . _ . . . . � _ _ __ . . . _ . _ . _ � . . . . . . _. . . .. _ .. .. _ . .. . . _ ._ . : . _ - _ .. . � . . . _ _ . o . �,�,,,r�,�.- • .w �..'.i ;.� �� yP��: }�t' �� k��Y r�y�>N"b` ��1[),�i�i.�: {� . • � � � � I t � � { t.11; ��I NY��' � � � � � y(K'� � �•�� ~�:��'. .�i-.�; ...1 i�• � � ��i,��j1i ��}IM�J� •� � �, , . , .� . ' .� •. .. . �� r � - . .� � �l�.F.b� 1-F'.+ f. , �7. ' ; � . �..� . � . ' ' . �_'� ""'1^. � �, , ,.�r w Fy � .. ? � ' � ,� s.' If " ;tr i..r i e' �.��ty•r t��1if �'�K,f•, ' , �:. t .�;� . V�� 'G;'`,�s.r;�l ►�", I'' � . , ; � :` • .��r .}�."�y�r',��!�'�>i:+�� i ,'��.�� ' . . . i' . �� . . �3 ��, r{��( 7'�iA:r ��4�v,��t#y��i.��, -"' � �, , 11 y� ! 3��' ,�r 1 Z�{•�'j�+��'Wit{}.�`�.�~, ,y� , ',1 pi� S i i.�,i1� ��s {,�u� ��t,. �I � �( �" i �.N%� �L: i N..��f �'t�� 1 � • , ' � ._ � . .. �l � ,� ,` �n'� , ! . �I � � .�'1� 1 e � '�� Y�1'i�� y�� K`�4 � ' . . .._ ...._.. .. �� 1 .'� ��'� 1 ;_�l'..P4.� � �1 . �,: � , y �,,,,��; ,��: �; � � z� :�:�,1. � � � `4. .j�' .�� .�'jli. . . . /:. ' . . � �, � ,i�l '1f•4`'ItiS • � • •• ; . '. , �C• � 1 *� .�; �;�`�i ,, , ; � i , . ' ;��;',��;��'ri:� ' � ' --- �- ��! !�',!'��1��''.''�hl� � ' ,r ;�'� .;�,i•� . � , � � : ? ,� � � .� ;° ,.: ;.;�, �� ..:.._ _ ' � ' , . • '� �► , ' :�',+��,tyi , ,ZCi • • ' � y . ;, 1 �` � ^• � ,y `,� 1`, '�1 . � . T._ . 11 . �. f , � � W i . '.� . .. •.''• . 1 � �: 1. � . � � . . ' ... ,i . I ` , '� . , ' I _ ��:i� , . ?�� _ . y� ;: ;� � _ T�._ .� ` . 7' . � � . --� ; � � �� , u� , � � � � . , . � , _ _ _ , q , ; ; � ' � � . ; , . � ' . _ �. . , - � , �� . . . __ - �� , � i ' � W � ' f�` . � �� ? , 7 u.z�� • . ' � � w � ' � ' � . � ��s � - �;. � � a � . � . � . 4 �� n � : � _ __ _ , ; I ,� • _ --- .. . :-:�,��.. . ,�=�.F•..y .�:;�;r;.. � ..1,'J:i1r' .__...__ � .. '``� ZONING FILE 2� :� . . �-_ � f i�'�i[ompanles i �,K!�f liyluuuy FiFi N F NO. H��r:i'L.30N hlinnr�ipuh� A1N 5593� Ih1 Yl 571 (�1166 . :l' � SUBI/RBAJV ENG/1VEER/NG. I11FL. �`�''''s N"„n,•„`„� '„ "„„��u�.. ^�"�s:t�t� �n�r�rrv��nsto . . !q�d.Alu�ucq.ul.ti f�nua�.nmm�ld knl4Me�w�y • I.unJ w�w,•my • l und 1•Innn�np • J.;J Guup ios /-�Q�?� I✓��l Heerings Shovn Are Assumed o llenutea Irou MonumenC � Denotea F'ounJat►c,n l:orner ffset Stake. F1.EYATIOMS Y Denoces F.xisting F:levution Q Aenotes Propused F.levetiun Top of Block 3�;�,•^` �+ Denotes Dlrection ot Surf� e DrainAge /�'�Floor �!.2�4 S ----�---- Ik:notes Dteinagr and Utili y fvsement Cu�age Floor ��y,� � ,��o ______ ________ ' � � Y�/ 0 � � { K` y _ r, �r � � r,, , _ .!5 -- ,,, ..i, . +� � / e, ' a. O� � � 1 .O .Y ��Y��•\\ 1 0 � � � �. 19J� � � � �� 1.0 -5�� 1. � .ii9.4 29 2c, ��7� � i � �� j, � � . , � - , � � , '� , �,, � ; ;, � I �, , � ,� � � . � �" � Z- S io2�/ 'r l� \ Q�1 �� m : �, l'l� �� N N f/lAMC- ° ;' c� ' � �� _ �- � � cT : � M � . 1 � ( C { , , , �, c� M , � � � 8.o v � � \ p� � 5 �. �� :.� � , I ; 4.1'-�: ` . _,s. � ,39 35 „ . ,.,-, ! �o:� � � . SI.Q/d � ��` 20� � ,r+e.�•...wr�r�'wi.u�►«� • ..�.. , . .^.., . .}��}rr•!iVrw?^�w�riYt�9�Ydh4tfulNN . eylri�fM.t11�p�N'�furtl�fi+Ax�S+Rtc�F�r!t�:�t�lc�.��•ao�.^�-. ..;.��r••,?.'n4rrWWr.d.•.•r.,�.,.w��i 1 � 1 � 0� . ��' . ,: � . / � � . . ; . . . . . ; . . . . . . -_-_ . . � t-bs�c�-+ 1.�Nvs c�P wr�Q � . , .i ' /'�. . —(� .,%.kior- r.�t� : . I i,p' � Q� �� I �l`• i►^:\ • � �' 3Oo, �\ ��R� ,. . : �� . �. � � . � -��+.�,-H t_�Nec o� -.-..,.s . 3/.' ' tS/T° A-L a0 C-S. _�1A�4'�t_�o.^o F��rrr o F �.aT 10 . �,o.�� So. � . . . a�i� ►�w„a. ; ._ 5►._oP�c `a�...'�,- ' 1 �.o!� , �' QtaG. No� 1M1�3v � . '. 40�- n" � �\ - � Zo� 9 ,�. �, . � • - --- . i . i . TRf�GT A � � . . 'i j � �•� �R.�'• '� � � �. j ( � N � � V� , � � � , � � � i 1 r • � ;� � � �a�4f�. I . . . . r `, I ' `rl ,,J�� I ��•�, . � I� '' � �% � . �+ �k . ,. `�; ' : . � . , �ouz'�t L�N� aF-c�-16 I . -;• + •�. ,.� LE F1�. OEBCRIR�ZO�i AB PROVII?EDt '�,� .NcsRT`�i l9.�l�� '�' - .,: e<< , .. ' i• '� . ' 'N�g'4. � 3Pa"W ` . .�•t� ot 30 AUD�TOR'¢ •,$UBDI.VIBION NO. 63, , � . :'p . • Ramaay Caunty� � MiTinosota �xc�pt tho � . . ' ' �. ,;%� � .�'(y�rr- Nor-th 30 fR�t tti�rr�o��: ,: ' , ' ; .. (��1 .o« 1.�3�'''� � .t•.►�t• . �'�: � . . .. . , F{2►.MIC 11 .r . . �f`;;: : �. • �'�'�i6 • F'ROPUBED DEBCRIPTION 7RACT A�, .; �;��' � . Tha Bouth 93. 9� fo�t of tha North . ;•,;;~� I � i23.3s foet of Lot l0, AUDiTOR's :�' :� _�"�••..—��. ..___ � ..__w. ._BUODIVI9ICM1_-NCI.---_ 6�,_.-R��e_,Gp�n�v,_ . 1 �� _"` �_.�'.__"�_� " ' . �,�ann�AOtV� . . , C t0 . � • � � .2 ��Y M ' �" � � F�t�^Q ��q.�4� _ .ri _ _�Elntzla�Gt� nctzra*o-r:n.L__Tnnn_r_�__ _ .:r , . . �,, . � � ,.,�1 ,, �: . ,� �. �. . `y ;� i � . . . � . --- - _. GENERAL tSUl�uii�� ERnniT �,��a� � CITY OF SAINT PAUL � DEPAR �nENT I BUILDING INSP C710N & DESIGN DIVISION ( � � 15 W. KELLOGG BLVD. � - 445 CITY HALL � ST. PAUL, MN 5 102 � O 3 9 3 iPermit N . �V PLA NO.� �/ ' D SCRIPTION OF PROJECT - :__.5 DATE � – , OWNE ` c C -- OWNERS AD RESS d-` +_ C �' ❑ OLD TYPE OF . � � NE�N T PE CONST.� ^ - �—.OCCUPANCY i GRADING STUCC OR ' ,(�] BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLAST R ❑ DRYb'VALL ❑ FENCE ❑ ADDITIO ❑ALTER ❑ R PAIR ❑ MOVE ❑WRECK NUMBER STFEET SIDE CAOSSSTREETS _ Z/�O� GL ` s l.i.,t,��'<<-ti�_ WARO LOT B OCK ADOITION OFi TRACT .5,�l3.3!s%cr �� 0 � ___ �_ Jti��cN. ��r+1 '� __ . = �- �.N•�'` 1 U S� Ct�h� � (�'�I�.2 7� .Lh� �:n��1.� Zr'�+-�, .,�r-%�i�.Y�.?i � - WIDTH OEPT SIDE LOT CLEARANCE ILDING I.INE f RONT� fiEAR - LOT �� `"� � ____- WIOTH , LENGTH �iEIGHT .STORIES � STRUC- TURE [1C � �'Z� Z T � ESTIM TED VA�UE 'BASEMENT !TOTA� FLOOR AREA I S� ) O� � VES ❑ NO SQ. FT. � �7 INCLUDE BASEMENT DETAII.S& R MARKS: :-% � _�' Z— _� —GC.-/`'�J -- _ ':�:::.�:a � : S � � - 3�'7� T E l.. N O. AFaCHITECT � �i ` CONTRACT fi` < AODRESS&ZIP . MASONRY ` � C PEFiMIT FE � fj� . VALUATION ✓ �G/�-�i7. � � C � _. - _ '`.' PIAN CHE K f D � �� i -:n-:°r -..`:�yi \ - . 7 . `STATE yQ _ � `SURCHAR E (J • } . TOTAL F E 3 6 � `�- i "l qPPUCANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL IN- 1 /�� `V�,-F FORMATIOII IS CORRECT AND THAT �ASHIER uSE ON�v i �- ALL PERTI ENT STATE REGUlAT10NS �yHEN VALIDATED THIS IS VOUR PERMIT � �[ ♦ � AND CITY ROINANCES WILL BE COM- � ��r� PLIEDWITHINPERFORMINGTHEWORK � FOR WHIC THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. ,\ / St. Code ��. �t' ADDRESS f� �_ � OF JOB � = . AUTHORIZ D SIGNATURE £+!LJ .._ -_ ;:::�S " � � ' ...�,** o, ' ' CITY OF SAINT PAU L DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES • ;4 ,; �'��' :6 BUILDING INSPECTION AND DESIGN DIVISION �,o: ^° City Hall,Saint Paul,Min�esota 55102 ' �... 612-298�212 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR September 23, 1987 Douglas Doty 876 - 18th Ave. SE Mpls, MN 55414 RE: 2108 W. Hoyt Ave. Dear Mr. Doty: As discussed in our meeting yesterday, there continues to be unresolved issues regarding the referenced proper y. The Administrative Review filed by the Allyns with respect to the heig t of the building was laid over to October 13, 1987 by the Board of Zonin Appeals. The house is located eight . (8) feet too close to the front proper y line, and as of this morning, a "red tag" has been issued, meaning all construction must cease. You indicated that you would be submi ting an application for a zoning var- iance. If submitted before the end o the week, it will be scheduled for the October 13, 1987 meeting of the B ard of Zoning Appeals. The variance requested would be from the minimum r quired front setback, height of build- ing (depending on the final grading p an), and lot coverage (depending on the final deck plan) . It is my understanding that you will e meeting with the Allyns and other concerned neighbors to see if a mutua ly agreeable solution can be reached with regard to the roof design, deck ocation, grade, and front setback. The District 12 Community Council, ac ording to their community organizer Bobbi Megard, is will'ing to help faci itate a neighborhood meeting. Her phone number is 646-8884. If you want to bring the house into c mpliance with all zoning specifications, the "red tag" will be lifted. This i cludes: 1) obtaining a building permit to mo e the house back a minimum of 8 feet and a maximum of 10 feet, 2) eliminating any deck on the south side of the house above the ground floor level, and �� September 23, 1987 Page 2 RE: 2108 W. Hoyt 3) keeping the height of the house o a maximum of 30 feet measured from the average finished grade to th midpoint of the ridge and eaves. If you have any questions, please co tact me. Sincerely, 1 ('� L�l1L•�`�t.t.l `�-ti`-�� Wendy Lane . Zoning Specialist WL:krz cc: Jan Gasterland David Newman Eileen Roberts Bobbi Megard Councilmember Sonnen --Tom Beech Jerry Segal Rich Thompson . �� -�� , CITY OF SAINT PAUL .•``�T' �': DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES : �'�'�'" '6 BUILDING INSPEETION AND DESIGN DIVISION �'• " City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 ,••• 612-298�212 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR August 27, 1987 Douglas S. Doty 876 - 18th Ave. SE Mpls, MN 55414 RE: 2108 W. Hoyt . Dear Mr. Doty: A question has been raised regard ng your front yard setback and finished grade around your building. Addi ional informatioa will be required to determine your compliance with th Zoning Code. Please provide the following prior to the Board of Z ning Appeals meeting for September 8, 1987. � 1) Registered survey of your lot showing the property lines and the location of your house on the property including proposed exter- ior grades at corners of he structure. ^ 2) A plan showing the finish d grades around your house and height of structure verifying compl'ance with 30' height limitation. 3) Design and location of an retaining walls on your property. 4) Revised plans for exterio wall treatment below grade, including window area well size an design. If you have any questions, pleas call me at 298-4212. Sincerely, �� G G•O� � Edward E. Locke �' Plan Examiner EEL:krz �7 . �, CITY OF SAINT PAUL �,*= e. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES +♦` • BUILDING INSPECTION AND DESIGN DIVISION , •G �� '�uo ;6 City Hali,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 ab� � 6t2-29B-1212 '� ,..• GEORGELATIMER MAYOR ' July 31, 1987 Eileen M. Roberts 1800 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3394 gE: 2108 West Hoyt Dear Ms. Roberts: It is my interpretation from the docu ents submitted for building permit that the height of the residence lallows�(Section 6�1.101tand 60e202B St1gPaulhZoning is the maximum the ordinance Code) . In crude measurements taken at the s te on July 30, 1987 it appears the building et in conformance with the p ans as submitted. (The plans .indicate a is not y � our clients property than higher backfill against the exteriou disa reeathat "established grade" as noted , currently exists) . I understand y S ia the definitions refers to grade e tablishedro�osed tocbeeraised lessithan for the permit. In Mr. Doty s case the grade is p p 4 feet (by our crude measurements) hich does not seem extreme or in excess of normal construction practice. Orders can be issued to Mr. Doty to tandgthis tonberunsatisfactoryntoryoureclient. the documents submitted but I under Please use this letter as the base lsf my official interpretation if you wish to appeal to the board of zoning app Sincerely, � • Jan P. Gasterland Building Official JPG:1� cc: Wendy Lane - � Morris Keapproth �� r s Douglas S. Doty ��G Paul McCloskey � _ .._. , _.. __.— _. .,,.... ROBINS, ZELL , LARSON £� KAPLAN FOUNDEO IN 193 AS FOB�NS� DAVIS 6 L'�ONS ATT RNEYS AT LAW ATLANTA�GEOaG�w iNCLUDING TF�E iOR Efi FIRM OF STAC1lER 6 RAVICM o��s,rex•s 1800 INT RNATIONAL CENTRE MINNEAPOl15.MINNESOTA 900 SEC ND AvENUE SOUTH NEwGORT BE�.CM,CA�IiOFNIA MINNEAPOLIS, INNESOTA 55402-3394 SAINT PAUL.MINNESOTA TELEPH NE (612)349-8500 WASMINGTON�o.c. TELEC PIEtt(G12)339-4181 TW 9io-57�-2737 E(LEEN M. ROBERTS wELLESIEY,M�SSACNUSETTS (6i2) 349-9724 Jul 28, 1987 VIA MESSENGER Mr. Jan Gasterland Supervisor of Code Enforce ent City of Saint Paul Ramsey County Courthouse Room 445 15 West Kellogg Boulevarc� St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: Construction of esidence by Douglas S. Doty on Property Adja ent to 2100 West Hoyt Avenue, St. Paul Minnesota • Our Clients: R' chard B. Allyn and Clare Allyn Our File No. : 1 000-8102 Dear Mr. Gasterland: I am sending this le ter in response to your request, communicated to me b telephone this morning, for clarification of the iss e which we are appealing to the Board of Zoning Appeals n connection with the referenced mattzr. It is our position hat the manner in which the City measures building height f r purposes of determining whether a residential plan is in onformity with St. Paul Ordinance Section 61 .101 is arbitra y and capricious and in violation of the spirit and inten of the City's zoning laws. We believe building height sh uld be measured from the existing grade on a site as det rmined prior to commencement of construction on such site rather than from the top of any fill or other materials pl ced on the site in connection with the new construction. y your own admission, the latter practice, if taken to its ogical extreme, would permit a lot t`�� fG FlLE ot �s s1 w } �GI v �� Mr. Jan Gasterland July 28, 1987 Page Two owner to artificially raise •the grade of his site by filling to 50 or 60 feet, and then place a 30 foot residence on top of the new fill. That woul result in a new home with a roof line 80 or 90 feet above t e pre-existing grade level, which I believe you would agree i well beyond the building heights contemplated under Ordinanc s Section 61 .101 . In the Allyns ' case, the peak of the roof of the home being constructed by Mr. Doty is at least 40.33 eet above the original grade line on his property, which exc eds by more than 10 feet the 30 foot height limitation es ablished by Ordinances Section 61 .101 for R-3 one-family r sidential districts. This excess is having a significant adverse impact on the Allyns' property, by impeding the ccess of air and light to their home. I hope this clarific tion of our position is adequate for your purposes. If not kindly contact me immediately so that we can further discuss this matter. Very truly yours, f � ,� ' , ,� : ��en M. R erts EMR/gd cc: Richard B. and Clare llyn Paul McClosky, Esq. zo�� Fi�.E o S �r , • ROBINS, ZELLE, LAfZSON £� KAPLAN f'�'� � �� FOUNOED IN 1938 5 ROBINS, OAVIS 6 lYONS �� 7 1 �" '� ATTOR EYS AT LAW Q�/ , ATLANTw,GEOAGIA INCIUD�NG TME �ORM R FIRM OF STACKER b RAVICM q�/��/!� �, � DA�LAS.TEXAS �^<<r��-'�� 1800 INTE NATIONAL CENTRE . ,.'�y,��T�j,,, MINMEAPOL15.MINNESOTA 9OO SECO D AVENUE SOUTH " NEWPORT BEACH,CAlIC017N1A MINNEAPOLIS, INNESOTA 55402-3394 s��Nr PAUL.MINNESOTA TELEPHO E (612) 349-8500 w.s��rvcTON,o.c. TELECOP ER (G12) 339-4181 TWX 910-57G-2737 ElLEEN M. ROBERTS wELtESIEr,rn�SSACNU5ETT5 (6I2) 34g-B72s August , 1987 Mr. Jan P. Gasterland, � � � Building Official City of Saint Paul Department of Community Servic s Building Inspection and Design Division City Hall St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: Appeal to Board of oning Appeals in Connection with 108 West Hoyt Avenue, St. Paul , M'nnesota Our Clients: Richa d B. Allyn and Clare Allyn Our File No. : 10000 8102 Dear �Ir. Gasterland: Thank you for your let er of July 31 , 1987 (received August 3, 1987 ) , stating yo Department's position in the referenced matter. This 1 tter is my clients' response thereto, and is accompanied y our law firm' s check in the amount of One Hundred Seventy and 00/100 Dollars ( $170. 00 ) to cover the cost of filing the Allyns ' appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. I understan this appeal will be considered by the Board at its August 25, 1987, meeting. A. Summary of Facts. Clare and Richard Allyn live at 2100 West Hoyt Avenue, St. P ul. Douglas Doty owns the lot immediately adjacent to the llyns' west lot line. r1r. Doty, whose property is commonly k wn as 2108 West Hoyt Avenue, is building a three-story house thereon. The Allyn property and the Doty property are within an R-3 (One-Family Residential) Zoning District. Pursuant t Section 61 .101 of the St. Paul Zoning Code, the minimum sid lot setback in an R-3 district is 4 feet. Mr. Doty is bu lding his house 4 feet west of the Allyn-Doty property line, and _t-,'�e Allyns' house is built 4 feet east of that line. ZC��1P�G FILE �� s �� '� Mr. Jan P. Gasterland August 4, 1987 Pa ge Two Section 61 . 101 of the St Paul Zoning Code provides that the maximum height of struc ures in an R-3 district is 3 stories, or 30 feet. Section 60 .202.B of the St. Paul Zoning Code defines "building height" as " [t]he vertical distance measured from the establish d rade . . to the average height between eaves and idge for gable . . . roofs" (emphasis supplied). The A lyns' measurement of the Doty house as it is currently ing constructed indicates the distance between the establ ' shed, i.e. , existing, grade on the Doty property and the mi point of the gable roof on the Doty house is 35.25 feet, wh ch exceeds the height permitted by the St. Paul Zoning ode by 5.25 feet. Allyns measurements further indi ate the distance from the established grade on the Doty property to the top of the roof of the Doty house is 40.33 fe t. Despite these facts, th Building Inspection and Design Division, Department of Commu ity Services, City of St. Paul, issued a building permit to r. Doty for construction of the house just described, and c nstruction of the Doty house is now in progress. It is ap arently the City' s position the Doty house complies with the 30-foot height limitation for ,an R-3 District because the di tance between the fill Mr. Doty has added or will add to is property as depicted in the building plans submitted to he City, and the midpoint of the roof he is constructing, is 0 feet. B. Statement of Posi ion. The Allyns are appealing from the City' s issuance o a building permit to Mr. Doty because the City' s current rocedure for measuring building height is arbitrary, capric' ous and violative of the spirit and intent of the St. Paul Zoning Code. The City should rescind the Doty permit and require Mr. Doty to reduce the height of the subject house so that the midpoint of its roof is no more than 30 feet abo e the original elevation of the Doty property. C. Reasoning. The above-quoted definition of "building height" under th St. Paul Zoning Code requires height to be measured from the "established" grade. That requirement is violated by the City's current practice of determining building heigh only af ter a landowner has "improved" his site by add' ng fill to it. Carried to its logical extreme, the City' s way of ineasuring building height means a landowner may add 30 feet or more of f�Il to his property, then build a 30-f ot house on top of the fill, and still be in conformity with he height limitations applicable to an R-3 District. It also means individual lot owners with adjoining parcels can each select a different elevation to which to fill their propert , and that the person who builds Z� �N� F1 LE �c� ��. Mr. Jan P. Gasterland August 4, 1987 Page Three a 30-foot house on the exist' ng grade risks having 10, 20, or 30 feet of fill added to th lots on either side of his, and 30-foot houses built thereon The likelihood of flooding and washout for the house built at grade is strong, and it is a certainty that light and air to the house would be significantly impeded. Th se are the same problems the Allyns will face if cons ruction of the Doty home as currently planned is carrie out, and that is why the Allyns are bringing this matter to he Board. Legal precedent as we 1 as common sense militate in favor of the result the Ally s seek. Since at least the turn of the century, Minnesota ourts have recognized that the major purpose served by a city' s zoning ordinance is promotion of uniformity and aesthetic harmony and preservation and enhancement of property values. Another reason [ for zoning restrictions] is that giving the p ople a means to secure for that portion of a ity, wherein they establish their homes, fit nd harmonious surroundings, promotes contentm nt, induces further efforts to enhance the a pearance and value of the home [and] foster civic pride. . . It is time that cvurts r cognized the aesthetic as a factor in life. Beauty and fitness enhance values in public nd private structures. But it is not suffici nt that the building is fit and proper, standi g alone; it should also fit in with surroundin structures to some degree. . State ex rel. Twin Cit Buildin & Im rovement Co. v. Houghton, 176 N.W.2d 159, 1 2 (Minn. 1920) . Restrictions on the height of buildings re among the oldest forms of American land use controls. The primary purposes of height restrictions are to protec access to light and air and to promote the aesthetic appe 1 of the regulated property. N. Williams, Jr. , American La d Plannin Law, Sections 67.01 , 67. 13 ( 1985) . Height restr' ctions by their nature require a baseline from which to me sure the height of the proposed structure. In cases in whi h fill is used to build up a lot, the question arises whethe the height is measured from the land in its natural state or from the land in its filled condition. P. Rohan, Zoni and Land Use Controls, Section 42.02 ( 1986} . A search of innesota case law reveals nothing directly on point on this issue. However, it appears the majority of jurisdictions w ich have addressed the issue rely on the natural state of th land -on which construction is to occur or the natural state f a nearby permanent improvement. See, e.g. , State De art ent of Ecolo v. Pacesetter ZQ�i�lG FILE ��- G� . ��°_ �,�.� � � Mr. Jan P. Gasterland August 4, 1987 Page Four Construction Company, Inc. , 5 1 P. 2d 196, 201 (Wash. 1977) (hei.ght restriction must be m asured from the average grade level in the natural state of the land) ; LaForce v. Bucklin, 273 A.2d 144, 145 (Md. 1971 ) ( ertical distance measured from the level of approved street g ade opposite the middle of the front of a building) ; Berr v. District of Columbia, 32 App. D.C. 96, 98 ( 1908) ( in no ca e shall a building exceed 90 feet in height on a residen street, nor 110 feet on a business street) . The only ase located in support of the City of St. Paul' s interpr tation of the definition of "building height" is a Calif rnia decision which has been strongly criticized by legal commentators. See, Williams, supra, Section 67.14, citing K tcher v. Home Savin s and Loan Association, 53 Cal. Rptr. 923 ( 1966) . D. Conclusion. The B ard of Zoning Appeals should rescind the building permit ' ssued to Mr. Doty because the height of the house being bu 1t pursuant to it exceeds the letter and spirit of the St. Paul Zoning Code. Common sense requires a conclusion that he Code' s height restrictions must be measured from the riginal elevation of the Doty property, rather than the art' ficial elevation which Mr. Doty himself has created. L gal precedent supports that conclusion, and the Board of Zoning Appeals should find in favor of the Allyns. If you have any question or comments about this letter, please call me to discuss t em. The Allyns and I will be present at the August 25 eting of the Board of Zoning Appeals to discuss further t e Allyns' position. Thank you for your attention to this ma ter. Very truly yours, ROBINS, ZELLE,: LARSON & KAPLAN Y� ^ -- `/. ' f�//�G% '•"-- '�-,�/ �.� S�� B�� -��- � '\,��eri P4. Roberts EMR/dj C cc: Richard B. and Claire A lyn Paul McCloskey, Esq. ZU�4a �1G FILE -�'D-�- �� , , RICHARD B. ALLYN 1800 iNTGRtiATiONAL CL•NTRE ASIN\EAPOLIS, At11IvL50TA 55402 June 29, 1987 Mr. Douglas S. Doty 6401 University Ave ue N.E. , #208 Fridley, MN 55432 Dear Mr. Doty: I think you know al eady that Clare and I want to be good neighbors and have ooperated with your construction efforts. However, we want to express to you immediately our concerns about the apparent eight to which your house under construction is pla ned to go. The other day you showed me the plans and told e that you thought that the house would be at least 33 feet high in some places. As you probably know, that exceeds he St. Paul City' s building code height. � While we don't care to cause problems for your construction, the fact of the mat er is it should be apparent to you that the higher you buil the house the more you are blocking out what little light w will have on the west side of our house. The situation is ag ravated because you have placed your house on your lot v' rtually as close to the property boundary as the law permits. I don' t quarrel with you for doing that but would ask that ou modify your plans so that the house does not have to be any higher than is legally permitted. While we wish you h dn't decided to build such a high house - it will be by far he tallest house on the street for at least .two blocks - we can ask no more than the house be constructed in str' ct conformity with the building code. You mentioned that your plans have been approved by the building departmen . I expect that the building department isn' t aware that y u decided to build three floors from grade level up than havi g a basAment part way u*:der ground like most homes. In an event, Doug, we would appreciate it if you would consider these concerns. V truly yours, C �. �.PJ Dick and Clare Allyn �C��V 1 i�JIG ��i.E �or�s cs . i � � � , � FQIconN � hts 9 . � � - � ��l � � � � J C/TY L/M/ S � a � � 0 � 0 � � p � _ O P 0 o O O O O o o O o O p O o 0 0 � AV E . � p O O O O O ♦�OP7 � � -� O O 0 wa�EA � � � O O O O � � - �� o O O °� 4 � �c � I � O s � �� o £ o o -'- o . o � o AGRIC o _ o o z o � , o; s o o -° - o o� o _ �_ � o, p � o 0 0 0 0 � ' � ' NGhdon � . _ �,�� - o r -� �-� _°_--_- , o� .., � � R . d �� . y�, / � .�° 013409 ��rt /`'1 GK�M►G�,I DEPARTMENT . - - - - - CONTACT NAME PHONL � . nATE . � . � ASSIGN NUMBER FOR<ROUTING ORDER: (See rever e side.) _ Departmerit Director � Mayor (or �lssis�ant) _ Finance an� Management Services Director _ Ci Clerk _ Budget Director _ City Attorney TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATtiRE PAGES: (Clip all location or signature.) V T 0 C ? (Purpose/Rationale) l�o„�,'�►j N�e�dr�� ,'� �tC,,,�c}, Z I�7, ��,I�o�l �t�'c � 7� o•�-�►a/t , a��1 d�- �c�►'�r �-pl"�`.a/J c�.-+� �e�►)► v�� t �: �r o�«-� �r,�,,y#`- u 7� ?�a� � w` �i7 T�'�',��,c� T�y►,� ��r�,,�� u�«r,� �� c�+��t� � n-�R. 4ti 1�► �4/Ntt �'dr /�'�IN'�R. I/iIK„�'�i CrF- �i�iA'�+ �/""+� �" 't��'" �(� 71�i'��s « � � v COST B N DG TARY ND E S L I P C TIC D: �o` . �� s 9,Q1 �d,.�h, NANCING SO ACT V NUM R G D OR C ED: ,98� C�,��r (Mayor's signature not required if under $10, 00.) ' Total Amount of Transgction: Activity Number: Funding Source: � ATTACHMENTS: (List and number all attachment .) ___ ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES _Yes _No Rules, Regulations, Procedu es, or Budget Amendment required? _Yes _No If yes, are they or timetab e attached? DEPARTMENT REVIEW CITY ATTORNEY REVIL�i _Yes No Council resolution required? Resolution requiredY _Yes _No _Yes _No Insurance required? Insurance sufficient? _Yes _No Yes No Insurance attached? � s�,:�- ^,� t "� -,;r- r c>,,, �t'�. �4 a �, a �` s ,.� '3� �' f.�' . �c .� n i .:t --� rx ) ♦ � 1'- h �8� f 1 - � � vr,� 1 _. F -, h #ye � �� ;9.. � 6 � t a� i`,��,`l. k.�� ' F 5 - Y �Y� ' Y r : /�y� � ! y��4 �` �.�. � 1� �a��^ {,,y�,�/' �k�� s. ? 1 � ° �Y � � r` '� 'xt I�j y(!�'^� S A.: '��' r .. : { . , „ti . � . �'4 r,., t 'v d k V �. y '� • ., f � �� : ,: y� _ .-. ,s Y W� � '� ,- t ., �-'� .. r�� s . 1 )4 C Y . �.�' s 3 . � I•. .r �. ;' r t � +_ �{ "S 1' $ ' . 4 f r I. �I � ` �. i. ;,�,� } >% E r� a',�� ^ i � ,�"'s t r 1 �� " � � ° / '� �r � � 'k 1 fF�°�� .c < � F �Y � � �:� f � � wa 5.' f. � � f � � ��a r � ' r < . , ` y K . . _ �� a _F. '` � �. k � .,� ;� ,�s y td ,1 ..4 ! � _ o+ <,; * v ' �t'.Yr.,t�� ' � t �'. �; } � .'; . , ' 1 r � ; '� � ✓ , a ' _ '`% * � ` ` - � ,��"�� - _ A � _ 'c s, �� a r .. �� + � ��I �� F M1 ! ' � . ..� . , s �� : � + y • � r. . . � � , l . . �, , ��.. . ,-:.�. , ..-,- 1 .. �. »: .�� - . ` - "'rr - .' . ' ", . " , ..:>, ,. . ' . _. _ ..., '''. , '. , ._: , , .. ` �...., � , �. �� . �,i..� -- ,::� � ,. �.at r y .r.' - t � .. �� f ��y� M � . i :.� ' � $ � � �� + ��, �� t .; � ��i �x��' At�tG�� '�.�G4?, �C##�y��.l �, . ,: y. �` ' � .� � k DI�; ��"S �� . � ; e' � � ; � � , i _ ��? .�b1�C l�kr�n$ i�;. "t�e 'Lyt'�i.1 r,�'� �r.�a�l. " - �� " �:. �� , � - O� �.�Z�@�!1 M. :3016GI;.CA 8,:C��,� �3 � �3� �3...� ��' � ` ' ��''r.-�e��Ar��C�c�n i>f � si�;��r faY�:3��i at �.t�8;`��<<�e�up�� ;,' i s `� _�f�:'�.�:r.,�al+iea� ��'a i�er r��aa�;i�.+�t� �►i�� `�a,.� - � � , . , . . . , . , , ,, . . . , , ; , „ ;. _ , ..s: ,. . . �'3�- �'S��'y' ` - _ .' .. , . � � . . _ . . . - � � �.�� S; c� � �, . .Y�. � � t �-��@1 �� i i, ..J kj :. �� ,' J:, r � , , , s . .-_ ._ . , . �. , a � % . `� � 1 y r .�. ��i.[7 �� i � , � �. i:� 1�".i- $l�i'1Q a.'�!/ ?+f�'1�1g.�li�3. � -; � , � � , �g ' 1 ' . " ' :£� 1 1 \.. ' x � 1 � o ,µ � ic i i � r � _ •. , . �r � �'� - �� rt �� ': , � �. . ; . . � � � . - �., - .. . .� � �� z� ,. . . �� . . . ..� . , . . . , .. . , ",: o . ; . -. . �., .. ��. �� , �� .... , ,. ..r. �. :�� . , ��.. , . r:r r i / i. � � + '� � �,,�' � '� , _ - . , , - . _ _ , ,, ,: �. . - . • � A ,,' ... : � �' � � ,i � . . . �,�� I��'. . .. . - . . .:.. , - .. �.. , . . .,, . : . , . . � ' . . � , ., . --: . ;.;'. - ..._ ., �.,� .� : , , �,�.., . :.�. . � . �_. � :�t _ ,� � �� b � s •'r_ �� . : � + E. � a , , . . ��. . . , .. . �... .; ., .�. ... . _�.:' :.. ... . � -.�: � . �.,. .... . .. ,. ��.. ' . . • ,' . . .. . �C� . , , _ � . � 1 �� 1� . , ,� :� . ,.. � � - , ��- , .� � ��" - � i _ _ y,_ �' �� Y �Y� � � 1 Z�'�. ` � . � •' . . �.... , ' � ' �. , .t i .. :- . . . i, ,. " \' , -��. . Y �.t ' ' .'J '. . ": R . � � .h t } ,�t. . . . ,.. .. ._ � . .' . . _ .:. . .. t . .. . . .� .:. .. +� . .�.� •�,�,;., :�,: �� :. .r.. .� . . ., . .,� ...:, $. : c _ • �� .�. .� ..; . ::" , '. ` . . :t ., . , :�, . _ . . . . . . , �. � , � , ..� . . . .:� _�`,. �l � t ,f't': . , . y � n i , " � s `` <. � .. . .._ .,. , . � F �; l k± � �r �, i" � :r t � 1� l 'r � �' � ip. ;:� t� %�". '; s +� t �= ' �� ? � �, k a s' .�` �'` V 8t ) �.� � �' � ' - # t.: �,'� . � � °t5.r e.. . �._ . �_ . . . .., ., a' +...a ._, ✓ ,, .n�« . .. . � . _.. . . . ...^vl c ,..- ,._ .5 n� ,a<.r cn�< .. .. . ._.. � >_. za .... . sm � � �� ' _ �P��•**a.� CITY O SAINT PAUL ��— �°Z� o � ; OFFIC OF THE MAYOR � 'i°iim ; V� �C 3 7 CITY EiALL .... SAIN7' PA L, M[NNESOTA 55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612) 298-4323 RECEII�ED MAYOR JAN 141988 January 12, 1988 CITY CLERK President Scheibel and Members o the City Council 386 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: 2108 West Hoyt Avenue (Doug as Doty's House) Dear President Scheibel and Coun il Members: I am writing to express my conce ns about the December 22 vote by the City Council to overturn the variance granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the house under construction at 2108 West Hoyt Avenue. This is obviously a complicated ituation with no easy resolution. However, I am concerned that any decision imposed without further agreement between the neighbors nd the builder could well result in one or more lengthy and probably cos ly legal battles which nobody wants to see. Even supposing the courts ultima ely uphold the Council's decision, the Building Inspection and Design D'vision tells me that Mr. Doty can make his house conform to the Zoning ode by moving it back eight feet farther from the street and reducing the eight by sinking the new foundation or by raising the back yard. This uld make the house conform to the Zoning Code but would be very expensive or Mr. Doty and would do little to address the neighbors' concerns out the impact of the house. Therefore, I have asked Larry Sod rholm of the Planning Division to arrange a meeting of the neighbor and Mr. Doty to see if any new compromises are possible that cou d lead to a better resolution. I realize that there have been prev ous meetings but I think that your decision may have changed some of the bargaining positions. I am asking you to give the staff 30 days to xplore all the options one more time before committing the City to a p sition on this matter. Very truly yours, � e rg Latimer Mayo GL:rm cc: Ken Johnson Peggy Reichert Dougla Doty Larry Soderholm David ewman Jan Gasterland Elizab th Solem Jerry Segal Distri t 12 Council �r•46