The URL can be used to link to this page

99-262ORIGINAL RESOLUTION CITY OF SA1NT PAUL, MINNESOTA Council File # � � �+ Green Sheet # ��S ZS � Presented By Refened To 2 WI�REAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.300(.� 3 Ronald J. Severson, in Zoning File 98-275, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's 4 decision to deny site plan approval for the construction of a combination carriage house and 5 gazage on properiy located at 420 Portland Avenue and legally described as "except the southeast 6 132.8 feet, Lot 6, Auditor's subdivision number 38; and 7 8 WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Pau1 Plauning Commission [the 9 "Planning Commission"], in accardance with the requirements of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 10 64300, conducted a public hearing on October 29, 1998, after having provided notice to affected 11 properry owners and at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard in; and 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3Q 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the October 29, 1998, public hearing, the Zoning Committee moved to deny the said appeal and submitted its recommendation to the Planning Commission; and WFIEREAS, the Planning Commission, by its resolution 98-72 adopted November 6, 1998, decided to deny the said appeal based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. Ron Severson submitted plans for site plan review of a proposed development of a one-unit carriage house and four car garage on May 28, 1998, and later submitted revised plans which did not require any variances for construction on the 420 Portland parcel. The revised proposal also included two additional surface pazking stalls. 2. The site plan was denied approval by the Zoning Administrator based on advlce from the City Attorney that the 19901ot split was not valid because the lot spiit was not given the public hearing required by § 673Q6 of the Legislative Code. Lot splits meeting all the conditions listed in § 67304 can be approved admuristratively. § 67306 requires that lot splits require any vartance from one or more of these conditions may not be approved until a variance is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals following a public hearing. The lot split in question leaves the lot at 415 5uminit with an inadequate rear yard setback and therefore does not meet the conditions set for the in § 67.304. 1 3. The deficiencies in the lot split occun•ing on the pazcel at 415 2 Sumuut could be resolved by a variance by the Boazd of Zoning 3 Appeals. Such a variance must be applied for by the owners of 415 4 Stunmit (the Nathan Hale Condomuuum Association). Mr. 5 Severson alone does not have standing to apply for this variance. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 4. 415 Summit was not made nonconforming by splitting its parking area off for the pazcel as pazking for the units at 415 Swnmit must be provided at 420 Portland according to a covenant placed on the deed of 420 Portland. According to this covenant, two spaces must be provided for each unit at 415 Sutninit for a total of eight spaces. § 62.104(2) of the Legislative Code allows required multi-family pazking to be provided on an abutting lot. 5. § 62.108(c) of the Legislative Code states: "site plan review and approval. In order to approve the site plan, the Plauning Commission shall consider and fmd that the site plan is consistent with: ...(2) applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul." Given the decision that the lot split creating this property in 1990 was not done in accordance with § 67306 of the Legislarive Code, the site plan is not consistent with the ordinances of the City of Saint Paul. a 9 _ a��- WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § b4.206, Ronald J. Severson duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the deternunation made by the Plaiuiiiig Comxnission and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City Council [the "City Council"] for the purposes of considening the actions taken by the said commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on February 3, 1999, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEI2EAS, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and of the Planning Commission, the City Council does hereby; RESOLVE, to grant the appeal of Ronald J. Severson and to approve the site plan based upon the following findings and conclusions of the Council: The Council finds that the record demonstrates that the Planning Commission enoneously denied the appellanYs site pian application. 2. The Council finds that a variance of the backyard setback requirements for the building at 415 Sumxnit should have been applied for at the time the lot split application was first received and a public hearing pursuant to Leg. Code § 67306 should have been conducted for the purposes of determining whether to grant a variance and remove the nonconfonning status of the building at 415 Suuunit. The Council concludes, based upon the entire record, that approval of the underlying lot split which did not satisfy the requirements of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 67.304 should not now bar approval of the appellants site plan. i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Reguested by Department of: ay: e�o1 r�.�.'�-- Form ApprO d by City Attorney % gY: �� LJl1�,ti,e-� 3-/.r_ 4 q Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY: �--_` , 1 �� By: Approved by Ma or Date /(/ 9 By: 4. The Council, based upon the recard before it and acting pursuant to its broad authority provided under Legislative Code § 64.207, fiu•ther concludes that any backyazd setback variance necessary to remove the non-confornung status of 415 Summit Avenue would be approved by the Council if the appellant were required to make such an application, and is therefore deemed approved as noted above. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Ronaid J. Severson be and is hereby granted; and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk sha11 mail a copy of this resolution to the Zoning Administrator, the Plamung Commission, the Appellant and any interested party who requests a copy of the resolution. Adopted by Council: Date �� .�.. �� iqVq \ Adoption Certified by Council Secretary R�L -'ad.z- DEPAR7MENT70FFICFJCOUNCIL DATEImTV.TEO c�t coun�� 3/16/99 GREEN SHEET No 63525 CONTACT PEF2&7N & PHOtJE �nwalmaN Inkwmats Jerry Biakey, 266-8610 � �.�� MUSS BE ON WUNCIL AGQmA BV �QqTq AIISlcrl MIAIBERFOR UIYAT�OIOEY CRYCIFNN RO{I71qG � RNRIItLLaExvlCESOIR AIIII+C1�1LaExV/uLic ❑r�vortlort�a.9sTYR) ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PACaES (CIIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION REQUESTED Finalizing City Council acCion taken on February 3, 1999 granting the appeal of Ronald J. Severson for property located at 420 Portland Avenue. RE MMEN ATIONApprove A)aRe�eU( ) PERSONAISERYICECAN'[AAC[SfAUSTANSWERTNEFOLLOWIN6QUE5SSON5: 1. Has this persoNfirtn ever wo�ked untlx a cantract for this tlepartmeM? PLANNING CAMMISSION VES NO CIB COMMRTEE z. Has mis persoNtirm erer been a ctty empwyee? CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION vES NO 3. Dces this persanKrm possess a sldll not nwmallypossessetl by any current city employee? YES NO 4. Is Mis pe�son/firm a targeted vendoY7 YES NO E�qflain alf yes ansv�e�s on sepa2te sl�eet antl attach ta green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORNNITY (Who, What, When, Where, Why) ' ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED y?suar+;°�s� �u^��eT,w�n 8`?�°;xc.( �...<..h,.... �. - s�, ., r . .� ��,��.� � � 1�R9 DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED D{SADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVE6 TO7AL AMOUNT oF TRANSAGTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGHTED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FlINDiNG SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlNANCW.INFORMATON (IXPWIQ OFFICE OF TF� CITY ATTORNEY Clayton qq.�`� CIT'Y OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor Civil Division 400 Clty Ha11 I S Wesi KeUogg Blvd Sarnt Paul Minnesota 55102 Telephone: 657 266-8770 Facsimile: 65I 298-5614 FIAND DELIVERED Nancy Anderson Council Secretary Council Chambers Saint Paul City Hall RE: Appeal of Ronald J. Severson Zoning File 98-275 Council Heazing Date: February 3, 1999 Deaz Nancy: Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the Febnaary 3, 1999 decision of the Saint Paul City Council to grant the appeal of Ronald J. Severson for property located at 420 Portland Ave. Please place this matter on the Council's consent agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any addirional questions, please call. Sincerely, �� Peter W. Warner Assistant Ciiy Attorney attachment DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �-ZL1f 3a- CPTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coteman, Mayor January 12, 1999 Division af Planning 25 West Fou,th Sveet Saint Pau1, MN SSIO2 TeZephane: 672-2666565 Facstmile: 612-228-3314 a � � � �� LrC.�`��i4va IZC:,��. �•• •�v :� Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: ,, ., , � -,, I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday February 3, 1999 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan. Appellant: Ronald J. Severson File number : 98-275 Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for a carriage house and garages. Address: 420 Portland Legal Description of Property: See file. Previous Aarion: Planning commission recommendation: Unanimously (13-0) upheld Zoning Administrator's denial. (Vaught did not vote) Zoning commirtee recommendation: Unanimously (6-0) upheld Zoning Administrator' denial. (Vaught did not vote) My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the 3anuary 20, 1999 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6559 if you have any questions. Sincerely, � �/// �'/�� ames Zdo City Pla er -�<`� •�srrsux• � . .- - - - - 1VOTICE OF PIIBLLC HEARING - - cC: $le #9$-2�S The Saint Paul City Council w511 conduct a public hearing on Wednesday. Pat11 DubiiCl February 3, 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor. City Hall- �Court House to consider the appeal of Ronald J. Severson to a decision of the CaY01 MBttiriOaU Planning Commission upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for PetOi W8Cne1' a carriage house and garages at 420 Port7and Avenue. Dated: January 13, 1999 - � , _ NANCY ANDERSON ` � � Assistant Ciry Covncil Secretary - � , - � - (Janvary 15, 1999) � � . CI'TY OF SAINT PAUL No�m Coleman, Mayor January 13, 1999 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Counci( Room 310 Ciry Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 DEPARTMEI3T OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENI' Dtvision of Pkuuung ZS iVest Founh Srreer SairstPau[, MNSSIO2 olq.Z� � Zelephone: 612-266-6565 Facsiml[e: 612-228-33I4 IZE: Zoning File # 98-275 Ronald J. Severson City Council Hearing: February 3, 1999, 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeai of a Planning Commission decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for a carriage house and garages at 420 Portland. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Unanimously (13-0) upheld Zoning Administrator's denial. (Vaught did not vote) ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Unanimously (6-0) upheld Zonin� Administrator' deniaL (Vaught did not vote) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold Zoning Administrator's denial SUPPORT None OPPOSITION: 3 residents spoke in favor of the denial. Dear Ms. Anderson: Ronald J. Severson is appealing a Plannin� Commission decision upholdin� the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for a carriage house and gazages at 420 Portland. The Zoning Committee of the Plarmine Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning on October 29, 1998 and voted 6-0 to uphold the Zoning AdministratoPs deniaL The Planning Commission, on November 6, 1998, unanimously upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on February 3, 1999. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, � � �'I � 4`wJ�.,�. U %James Z� " City PYanner cc: City Council members Attachments APPLtCAT10N FOR APPEAL Department ojPlm:ning and Economic Developmenr Zonir:g Sectia: 1100 Cit'l� $all Annex ZS Tf'est FourU: StreeY Saint Paul, M[\'S5102 266-6589 APPELLANT F� rsEng'c►�ce use anEy - - � no :_ � �� :1 � �.�c� ��°- • �tat�ve_heanrig date ZipSJ)e, Daytime phone ?,r-Gl77 PROPERTY LOCATION TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: = Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the �=arJr ]o, Ci;rnm�Sye,� on A�;'t�m��%,�(� . 19 9c� File number. � 9r -�7.5� (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Exptain why you fee( there fias been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusa( made by an administrafive official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. 5"° • �t��.� -�.,� s�f-� Attach additional sheet if Applicant's sig dafe la - � - y City qq . �c.� � GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OF 420 PORTLAND AVE. REQUEST FOR A BUILDING PERMIT 420 Portland Ave. is a 5,400 square foot lot currently used as parking for the condominium at 415 Summit Ave. My wife and I purchased this lot in 1496 with the intent of building a single-family house for our residence. In 1990 the City of St. PauPs Zoning Department approved a request by the developer to split 420 Portland Ave from 415 Summit, thus creating a separate buildable lot. Also in 1990, a public hearing was held on a request for a building permit on 420 Portland to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carriage house requiring seven variances. The request was approved but the project was not built. In 1992 a second request ��as submitted for an expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requiring additional variances. This plan was also approved but not built. In 1996, a permit was issued and a rivo-car garage was built or, this lot. Three building permits have been issued on this property since it was split into a separate lot. In May of 1998, I submitted a site plan requesting a permit for a 936 square foot sin�le family carriage house with four tuck-under garage spaces. This plan met a11 city site plan requirements and needed no variances. The Heritage Preservation Commission had already approved this carriage house plan. � The St. Paul zoning office declined to issue a building permit based on their cunent position that the 1990 approval for the lot split was not legal since no public hearing was held. T am appealing this decision for the following reasons: 1. The lot on 420 Portland Ave. was a sepazate buildable lot when I purchased it in 1996 according to the records of the City of St. Paul. My building permit application met a11 city code requirements at the time that it was submitted to the zoning office. The "ille�al" lot, that was created in 1990, is not the 420 Portland lot. The illegallot is the 415 Summit lot, since it is that lot with its main house, which does not meet the required rear yard setback. 2. The City administratively approved this lot split in 1990. Any error in creating the lot split was solely the responsibility of the City staff. I relied on the City's actions when I proceeded with the development oFplans to build my carriage house. The ZoninQ Board has held five public hearings on requests for building permit variances on this lot and approved three building permats. At. Each public hearing, 420 Portland was represented and reviewed as a separte buildable lot. The city should not now use this 1990 "error" as the reason for denial of my nonvariance building permit request. The � 1990 administrative approval of this lot split should be affirmed and allowed to stand. 3. The owners of units in 415 Summit purchased their units after 420 Portland was split � into a sepazate buildable lot. Owners were aware of and accepted this lot line as the Association's property line when they signed their purchase agreemenTs. Approval of the building permit does not deprive 415 Summit owners of any of the space or rights provided by their purchase agreements or the Association Declaration. The site plan, �vhich I submitted, to the zoning department provides two off-street parking for each unit owner plus access to those parking stalls as required by the Declaration. The site plan also meets the city code for parking lots. Please be aware that nothing in this appeal should be interpreted as a criticism of the zoning staf£ I greatly appreciate all the effort and assistance that has been provided to me by Mr. Hardwick and Mr. Beach. I understand the difficulty of the position into which they have been placed by This unfomuiate turn of events. I simply disagree �i2th and have difficulty understanding their refusal to issue the requested building permit. `� � �9 -2-61 � Saint Paul Planning Commission City FIall Conference Center 15 Kellagg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 6, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Mmes. DuaRe, Engh, Geisser, Morton, I�TOrdin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs. Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Mardell, Margulies and Vaught. Mmes. `Faricy and Messrs. *Johnson, *Kong, *McDonefl, *Nowlin, Sharpe *Excused � �_� Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Beth Bartz, Nancy Homans, Larry Soderholm, Lucy Thompson, and Jim Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; Tim Agness from Parks & Recreation; and Ken Greenberg, Director, Saint Paul Design Center. I. Approval of Minutes of October 23, 199& MOTION: Commissioner Kramer rrroverl approvn7 oJtlte minutes oJOctober 23, 1998; Conzmissioner Marde!! secnnded tl:e motioft. II. III. Commissioners Vaueht and Field added corrections to the minutes of October 23, 1998. Tlte motion on theJloor approving tlre corrected minutes of October 23, 1998 carried trnanimotrslb� on a voice vote. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that Commissioner Geisser has graciously offered to chair the holiday party this yeac Commissioner Geisser added that this is a special holiday party because four of the Plannin� Commissioners will be retiring from the Commission at the end of the year. The date for the holiday party is December 18, 1998; the PlanninQ Commission meeting that mornina �vill be shifred to a later time and the parcy will be a luncheon. Each member will contribute $2�. Chair Morton announced that there will 6e a Steering Committee meetins at 7:45 a.m, November 20, 1998. Plannin� Administrator's Aunouucements Mr. Ford apologized for the packets anivine later Than usual due to equipmen[ not beins operable durina the movin� procedure in PED. Mr. Ford announced tha[ the Livable Communities Advisory Committee of the Metropolitan or: a voice vote. #98-275 Ronald J. Severson - Appeal of the deniat by the Zoning Administrator of a site plan for a carriage house & garage at 420 Portland Avenue beriveen Arundel & Western Avenues (Beth BaRZ, 266-6580). MOTION: Commissioner Field moved to deny tke appea! of the dei:ial by the Zoning fSdministrator oja site plan jor a carriaae horrse and garage af 420 Portlanrlflvenue between ffrunde! and Western.4venues. Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission that he �vould not vote on this issue; he would no[ paRicipate in any discussion regarding this issue; he has not participated in a discussion on this issue in any �vay; and he has not discussed the substance or the procedural issues of this matter cvith any member of the Commission prior to the vote. Commissioner Treichel asked if the applicant can correct the 1990 lot split? Ms. Bartz responded that the only �vay Yo make the !ot spliY vaGd woutd be for the property owners of415 Summit Avenue, which is the remainder of the parcet, to apply for a rear yard variance, which would then bring thai structure into conformance. The condominium association that orvns that piece of property has not been willing to come fonvard and do that. T/te motion nn tlie f7oor carried tenanimously on a voice vote with Con:missioner Vaught not YDZllte. #98-277 U.S. West Wireless - Special condition use permit to allow construction of a PCS �vireless communications antenna suppoR s}'stem at 218 Kiplin� Street bem•een Hilldale Avenue & Lower Afton Road (Martha Faust, 266-6572). MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the reguested specia! condition use permit to allow construction of a PCS wireless commtenications antenna support system at 218 Kipling Street, wkic/r carried ursanimously on a voice vote. �98-261 Louie's BiIliards Inc - Special condition use to allow a billiard hall business at 1990 Suburban Acenue (Martha Faust, 266-6572). Commissioner Field informed commissioners that Mr, `Vamer is workine on a resolution for this case. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved for an extension of two weeks for this cnse so that the appropriate reso[ution ean be written and reviewed Commissioner Vaught stated that he voted against the Committee's decision because he feels tltere is not evidence to suppoR the decision of the Committee inasmucfi as it �vas based on the a(IeQation that someho�1 the presence of this particular facility at that (ocation �vould be detrimental to the general health, �veifare and safety of the communih. There was a lot of anecdotal discussion includine some discussion ofthe Police Chiefat a district councii meetine. �~luch wasn accompanied b} am factual basis. There «ere a iot of alle�ations ofthe all ofthe e� ils that «ould come from this particular biliiard hall at this iocation, but there �cas a decided absence in the record of an} hard facts. Commissioner L'aaaht statzd that he did find the parkina to be deficient and he thinks that the shared parkin� aareement. which the Zoning Administrator approeed, doesn't conform with the code. He said hz couldn't persuade any of � � �J ag -1�� city of saint paui planning commission resolution file number 48-72 �te November 6, 1998 WHEREAS, SEVERSON, J. RONALD, file R 98-275, has applied for an Appeal of the zonino administrator's decision under the provisions of Section 64300 (j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the purpose of obtaining site plan approval to construct a carriage house and garaaes on property located at 420 Portland, legally described as Except the southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision #38; and WHEftEAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on 10129/98, held a public hearing at �vhich a!! persons present were given an oppoctunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the folloeving findings of fact: � 1. Ron Severson submitted plans for site plan review of a proposed development oE a 1-unit carriage house and 4-car garage on May 28, 1998 and later submitted revised pfans which did not require any variances for construction on tne 420 Portland parcel. The revised proposal also included 2 additional surface parking stalls. This site plan �vas denied approval by the zoning administrator based on advice from the City Attorney that the 1990 lot split was not valid because the lot split was not given the public hearing required by Section 67.306 of the Legislative Code. Lot splits meeting alf the conditions listed in Section 67.304 can be approved administratively. Section 67.306 requires that lot splits requiring a variance from one or more of these conditions may not be approved until a variance is granted by the Board oi Zoning Appeals following a public hearing. The lot split in question leaves the Iot at 41 � Summit with an inadequate rear yard setback and therefore does not meet the conditions set forth in Section 67.304. 3. The deficiencies in the lot split occurring on the parcel at 47 5 Summit could be resolved by a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such a variance must be applied for by the owners of 47 � Summit (tne f�athan Hale CondominiUm Association). Mr. Severson alone does not have standing to apply for this variance. moved by Field * secot��ded by -- in favor 13 (Vaught did not vote. ) against � 4. 415 Summit avas not made non-conforming by splitting its parking area off from the parcel as parking for the units at 415 Summit must be provided at 420 Portland according to a covenant placed on the deed of 420 Summi[. According to this covenant, Z spaces must be provided for each unit at 41 S Summit for a total of 8 spaces. Section 62.iO4(2) of the legislative code allows required multi-family parking to be provided on an abutting lot. Section 62.708 (c) of ihe Legislative Code states: "Site plan review and approval. In order to approve the site plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with: ... (2) Applicable ordinances of [he City of Saint Paul." Given the decision that the lot split creating this property in 1990 was not done in accordance with Section 67306 of the Legislative Code, this site plan is not consistent with ihe ordinances of the Ciry of Saint Paul. NOW, THEREFOfZE, BE iT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authori[y of [he City's Legislative Code, the decision of the zoning administrator is upheld and the site pian review for 42D Portland Avenue is denied. � � MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, October 29, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. �q-Z�.�^ • City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor Ciry Hail and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, Morton, Vaught and Wencl EXCUSED: Gervais OTHERS PRESENT: Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, Beth Bartz,Geri Boyd, Martha Faust, Larry Soderholm and Jim Zdon of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. RONALD J. SEVERSON - Zoning File 98 - 275 - Appeal of the denial by the Zoning Administrator of a site plan for a carriage house and garage. Commissioner Vauqht stated that he will not be voting nor taking part in any of the discussion of this case due to conflict of interest. Commissioner Vaught further stated that other than a brief conversation with the Cha+r he has discussed neither the substance nor the procedures for this application with any member of this committee, or any member of the Planning Commission, either at today's meeting or elsewhere. Beth Bartz, PED, gave a slide presentation and reviewed the staff report. Ms. Bartz stated staff recommended =nial of the appeal. Ms. Bartzfurtherstated that the Ramsey Hil1 Association and the Summit-University Planning ouncil also recommend denial. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Bartz stated that she beiieved all of the applications from previous years would have been invalid if the lot split probfem had been raised. Ms. Bartz further expiained that a member of the Ramsey Hill Association raised the question of the lot split; he is a former aide to a city council member and given his understanding of the code and procedures, he questioned the validity of the lot split. in response to Commissioner Gordon, Peter Warner explained that the Zoning Committee and Pfanning Commission have no authority to correct the lot sp{it, however the Board of Zoning Appeals coufd. He further stated that the P{anning Commission does not have the authority to review decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ronafd Severson, 415 Summit Avenue #2, appeared. Mr. Severson explained that there had been 3 building permits issued on the property at420 Portland Avenue, to build 2 carriage houses and a garage. He fiurther stated that neither of the carriage houses were buiit because the developer ran into financial probiems, and subsequently put the property up for sale. At that time Mr. Severson purchased the property with the intent to put up a single family carriage house as a retirement home for himselfi. He worked with the Heritage Preservation people and came up with a plan that was approved by them. John Miller, attorney, Suite 300, 50 East 5'" Street, appeared on behalf of Mr. Severson. Mr. Miller asked if the city can prohibit the construction of a conforming building on a parcel on the basis that correct procedures were not followed by city staff when that parcel was first created. This is what the staff is recommending today, he said. r. Miller respectfully disagreed that the site plan is not in accordance with the applicable city ordinances. Mr. ilier submitted that the interpretation given in the staff report casts an overly broad net and that the language in the code is directed more towards whether a current proposal on a current lot meets the necessary performance standards, and is not infended to go back and review whether or not the creation of the lot was valid or invalid. Zoning Committee Minutes October 29, 1998 Ro�ald Severson (98-275) Page 2 � Mr. Milier stated that at some point, in a situation such as this , the city has to take responsibility for and be bound by the actions of its employees whether they are correct or incorrect, especially when a party such as Mr. Severson has relied upon their action in making an investment. Mr. Miller further stated that Mr. Severson has spent a lot of time and money during the period of his ownership making various submissions trying to develop the parcel. The question was asked by Mr. Miller, what are the consequences of an action taken by the city, whether by an empioyee or by city council, when that action is not in conformance wiih the requirements of an ordinance? Mr. MiUer submitted that in a case such as this, the original action should nof be void or even voidabie uniess there is specific language in the ordinance stating that action taken contrary to the ordinance (the original IQt split) is void or voidabie. In summary, Mr. Miller stated that he is �ot being criticai of sYaff. On the contrary, he stated the staff has been extremely helpfu! in answering questions and providing information. He simply thinks that the conclusion they have reached is incorrect. Responding to Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Miiler stated that no variance has been applied for by the owners of 415 Summit t Avenue. To get a resolution of the lot split, Mr. Miller stated that they will probably have to end up in court. In response to Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Miller explained that Mr. Severson has a separate tax iderttifcation number for the property. The lot at 420 Portland was recorded at Ramsey County. Carol Clark, 415 Summit Avenue, appeared. Ms. Cfark stated that on more than one occasion the condomi� association has offered to buy Mr. Severson out of the property at 420 Portland Avenue. Ms. Ciark further stated thaf they were witting fo pay fuft market value in order fo bring 415 Summit back to the original state by conso(idafing the two properties. S(te said fhat Mr. Severson has not been wilting to se(i to the association. Ms. Clark continued that their condominium documenfs state that each owner has two parking spofs on the property at 420 Portland. Mr. Severson plans to provide those spaces, however one of the spaces on the plans is for a compact car. Ms. Clark said that Mr. Severson can not mandate or assume fhat anyone fn the association wifl own or drive a compact vehicle. Ms. Clark said that Mr. Severson, was in fact, aware of aII of the problems before purchasing the property. Questioned by Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Ciark replied that if the condominium association could purchase the property, they wouid ensure that everyone has the appropriate parking, would workwith the neighborhood on the design of 2 more garages, wouid do landscaping, and would not do anything to harm the park next door. Mark Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, Chair of the Ramsey Hill Land Use Committee, appeared. Mr. Voerding explained that he is the person who raised the lot split issue that has brought the case to this point. Mr. Voerding stated that he does not believe the lot split occurred legaily in 1990 and does not believe the site plan presented by Mr. Severson today is on a legal lot. Mr. Voerding explained that without the due process that the legisiative code required in the lot split case, the action never legally occurred. He further stated that the staff person who stamped and signed the lot split document had no authority to do so; the person falsely left an impression that the !ot spiit had occurred. Mr. Voerding said that this is a legal matter between Mr. Severson, the seller and perhaps something involving the city or city employees. Sharon Schwartz, 415 SummitAvenue, appeared. Ms. Schwartz sfressed that the residents at 495 Summit a blanket easement for access rights across the property at 420 Portland. She further explained tha association has issues around density, snow removal, green space and landscaping. Ms. Schwartz expressed concern over maintaining their rights regarding these issues. °lq -Z� � Zoning Committee Minutes � �ctober 29, 1998 onald Severson (98-275) Page 3 Mr. Severson reappeared to give rebuttal comments. He explained that the association claims that they would pay him fair market vaiue for the property. But the value of the lot depends on what can be built on it. If the propeRy is found to be unbuildable, Mr. Severson stated that he would loose a great deal of money. He further stated that he had agreed to place $5,000 in an account with one of the association members to establish and maintain landscaping around the proposed building. Mr. Severson further stated that regarding parking, his proposals have always met city parking code standards. No one else spoke, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gordon stated that both Mr. Severson and also the individuals who testified in opposition had valid points. However, given the status of the lot split issue he moved approvai of the staff recommendation to deny Mr. Severson's appeal. It was seconded by Commissioner Wencl . There was no further discussion, and the motion was called recommending denial of the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. Adopted Yeas - 6 (Vaught did not vote) Nays - o � afted by: Geri Boyd Recording Secretary Submitted by: Larry Soderholm Zoning Section Approved by: Litton Field Chair l� ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT FILE # 98-275 7. APPLICANT: SEVERSON, J. RONALD DATE OF HEARING: 10 /29/98 2. CLASSIFICATION: P.ppeal of zoning administrator's decision regarding site plan 3. LOCATION: 42a Portland 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 S. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Except the southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision #38. 6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: Section 64.300 (j) 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: Odober 19, 7998 BY: Beth Bartz 8. DATE RECEIVED: 09/30/98 DEAD!!NE FOR ACTION: 11/29/98 A. f:� PURPOSE: Appeal of denial by the Zoning Administrator of a site pian for a carriage house and garages. PARCEL StZE: 5428 square feet C. EXISTfNG LA(VD USE: The parcei is currentfy used for parking by the 4-u�it condominium at 415 Summit (the parcel immediately south of 420 Portfand}. A two-car garage was recent(y built on the site. D. SURROUNDING CAND USE: NortF�: Singfe family and dupiex in an R7-2 district. East: Natt�an Hale Park in an RT-2 district. South: Four-unit condominium in an RT-2 district. West: Multi-family condominium in an RM-2 district. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 64.300 (j) of the Legislative Code states: "The grant of denial of approval by the planning or zoning administrator is subject to appeal to the planning commission by any person, firm or corporation, or by any office, deparrment, board or bureau affected by a decision of the planning or zoning administrator within thirty (30) days after the decision appeafed from shalf have 6een served wither in person or by mail upon the owner of the property which rs Ehe subject matter of the decision. The planning commission shall conduct a hearing on the appeal within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the appeal by the planning commission." ❑ � � R`l � Zoning File #98-275 Page 2 Ii1STORY/DISCUSS{ON: In 1990, the City (Planning Division staf� approved a{ot split that separated this parcel from the south end of the parcel at 415 Summit. Later in 1990, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved variances to construct a new carriage house unit with a 5 car garage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This dec+sion was appealed to the City Council by the Parks Department. The Council upheld the variance but modified the conditions. The proposed carriage house was not built. In 1992, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances to construct a two-unit carriage house with a 4-car underground garage. In 1993 the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a one year extension of these variances. Again, the proposed carriage house was not built. In 1994, the owner applied for variances to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 garage stalls under the carriage house and detached garages. The application was withdrawn before the BZA took any action. In 1995, Mr. Severson applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances to construct a carriage house unit with 3 parking spaces beneath the unit and 6 surface parking spaces. . 7his application was denied. A two-car garage was constructed on the site in 1996, prior to the sale of the property. The app�icant purchased the property in 1996. In 1997, the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a plan for construction of a one- unit carriage house with a 4-stall garage underneath and 3 additional surface parking spaces. The City Council upheld this approval on appeal. In 7 998, an application for the variances required for the HPC approved plan (with slight modification) was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The City Council upheld this decision. A slightly revised site plan requiring no variances for construdion was then submitted for site plan review. The site plan was denied based on advice for the Ciry Attorney that the lot split was not legal. G DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The Summit-University Planning Council's recommendation was not available at the time this report was written. The Ramsey Hiif Association recommended denial of the 1997 HPC approval and of the variance request in 1998. The Summit-University Pfanning Counci{ also recommended deniaf of the 1998 variance request. � Zoning File #98-275 Page 3 H FINDINGS: Ron Severson submitted plans for site plan review of a proposed development of a 1-unit carriage house and 4-car garage on May 28, 1998 and fater submitted revised plans which did not require any variances for construction on the 420 Portland parcet. The revised proposal also included 2 additional surface parking stalls. 2. This site plan was denied approval by the zoning administrator based on advice from the City Attorney that the 1990 lot split was not legaf because the (ot split was not given the pub(ic hearing required by Section 67306 of the Legis(ative Code. Lot sp(its meeting afl the conditions listed in Section 67304 can be approved administrativefy. Section 67.306 requires that (ot splits requiring a variance from one or more of these conditions may not be approved until a variance is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals foltowing a pubtic hearing. The (ot split in question leaves the lot at 415 Summit with an inadequate rear yard setback and therefore does not meet the conditions set forth in Section 67304. • 3. The deficiencies in the lot split occurring on the parcel at 41 S Summit could be resolved by a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such a variance must be applied for by the owners of 415 Summit (tfie Nathan Hale Condominium Association). Mr. Severson a(one does not have standing to appfy for this variance. • 4. 41 S Summit was not made non-conforming by spfitting its parking area off from the parcet as parking for the units at 415 Summit must be provided at 420 Portland according to a covenant placed on the deed of 420 Summit. According to this covenant, 2 spaces must be provided for each unit at 47 5 Summit for a totaf of 8 spaces. Section 62.104(2) of the legisfative code allows required mu(ti-family parking to be provided on an abutting lot. 5. Section 62.108 (c) of the Legis(ative Code states: "Site plan review and approval. fn order to approve the site plan, tl�e p/anning commission shall consider and find tf�at tf�e site plan is consistent witF�: ... (2) App(icabfe ordinances of the City of Saint Paul," Given the decision that the lot split creating this property in 1990 was not done in accordance with Sedion 67.306 of the Legislative Code, tF�is site plan is not consistent with the ordinances of the Ciry of Saint Paul. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on Finding 5 above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the zoning administrator and deny the site plan review for 420 Portland Avenue. � � a -s��- C� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department oJPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Seclion . 1100 Ciry Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MNSSIO2 266-6589 APPELLANT f Na Address �15 c5u�tnm� *� � City ,�}. � St.,�ZipJ"S/o Daytimephone3�-o�77 ,� �oa-. PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATION Address/Lc 1� S� � � � TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: 6� Board of Zoning Appeals ❑ City Council ��r.- �"�d Co,M.�-�-i sa�� under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 3�0 , Paragrapf�� of the Zoning Code, to appeal a d>cision made by the �c�.,�;�vc on �� l,/ g� � 19 � (dafe of decisi� File number: GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative officiat, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. �. � �.,� � ��Qc� Atfach addrfional sheet ApplicanYs City agent� GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OF 420 PORTLAND AVE. REQUEST FOR A � BUILDING PERMIT 420 Portland Ave. is a 5,400 squaze foot lot currentty used as parking for the condominium at 4I5 Summit Ave. My wife and I purchased this lot in 1996 with the intent of buiiding a single family house for our residence. In 1990 the City of St. Paul's Zoning Departrnent approved a request by the developer to split 420 Portland Ave from 41 S Summit, thus creating a separate buildable lot. Also in 1990, a public hearing was held on a request for a building permit on 420 Portland to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carriage house requiring seven vaziances. The request �vas approved but the project was not built. In 1992 a second request was submitted for an expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requirin� additional vaziances. This plan was also approved but not built. In 1996, apermit was issued and a t�vo-car garage was built on this lot. Three building permits have been issued on this property since it was split into a separate lot. I have requested vaziances for ttivo plans but both tivere denied. Tn May of this year, I submitted a site plan requesfing a permit for a 936 square foot single famzly carriage house with four tuck-under garage spaces. This plan met a11 city site plan requirements and needed no variances. This carriage house plan had already � been approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The St. Paul zoning office declined to issue a building permit based on their current position that the 1990 approval for tfie Iot split was not legal since no public hearing �vas held. I am appealing this decision for the following reasons: 1. My building permit application met all city code requirements at the ticne it w�as submitted to the zoning office. The "illegal" lot which was created in 1990 is not the 420 Portland lot. The illegal lot is the 415 Summit lot, since it is that lot with its main house which did not meet the raquired reaz yazd set-back. If any action (or denial of any requested action) is taken by the City, it should be in the form of prohibiting any further bnilding into the setback of 415 Summit. Contrary to the implication that issuance of the requested building pertnit will "compound" that error, the opposite is true. Not issuing the permit wili compound the enor by prohibiting me from building a no-variance required carriage house on a buildable lot. 2. Any error in creating the lot split was solely the responsibility of the City staff: The deerl evidencing the lot split was stamped and recorded. It is important to understand that I justifiably relied upon the assumption and representation that the lot split was correct. There is no legal or practical obligation upon the purchaser of a lot to go back and look at � the mechanics of the creation of the lot and draw conclusions as to their validity. � fi��i�� .� �8•_ a7s � �tq - a,t�- � The administrative approval of a lot split is the functional equivalant of a municipal staff issuing any kind of a permit. That is, if a permit is issued (or in this case, approval of a lot split) in error, and a third party justifiably relies upon, and incurs costs and expenses based upon that reliance, the city should be estopped from raising the error as reason for denial of a building permit. It is inequitable and without any legal precedent to restrict the o�vner of a legally conforming lot from developin� it in conformancy �vith the city code. Although no confirmation has been provided, the zoning staff has indicated that there may also have been a problem with the occupancy density of 415 Summit. If this is the case and since the fourth condominium unit was added after the lot split, it �vould seem to make as much sense for the City to take action against 415 Summit and require a do�vnward adjustment of the number of dwelling units as to refuse a conforming building permit on 420 Portland. I am not su�gesting that this actually be done, but this serves as an example of the unreasonable results which may occur if an eight year old illegal lot split is used to support City action or inaction at this point. 3. I have not been provided with evidence that the original lot split did not meet the necessary procedural requirements. Nor is there evidence that if the required variance had been requested and a public hearing held in 1990, that the variance would not have been granted. The end result of the procedure may well have been ihe granting of the variance, particularly since, at the time, both parcels were under common ownership. It is � speculation to assume that the variance would have been denied and to base the refusal to issue the requested building permit on speculation is arbitrary. Even if no public hearing was held at the time of the lot sepazation, five public hearings, including one in 1990, have since been held by the zoning department in response to building permit requests on this lot. At each public heazing, 420 Portland was reviewed as a separate buildable lot. 4. The owners of units in 415 Summit purchased their units after 420 Portland was split into a separate buildable lot. Purchasers were aware of this boundary as the Association's property line when they si�ed their purchase agreements. Approval of the building permit does not deprive 415 Summit owners of any of the space or rights provided by their purchase agreements or the Association Declaration. The site plan which I submitted to the zoning department provides two off-street pazking for each unit owner plus access to those pazking stalls as required by the Declazation. The site plan also meets the city code for parking lots. Please be awaze that nothing in this appeal should be interpreted as a criticism of the zoning staf£ I greatly appreciate a11 the effort and assistance that has been provided to me conceming this project. I understand the difficulty of the position into which they have been placed by this unforiunate turn of events. I simply disagree with and have difficulty understanding their refusal to issue the requested building permit. � � ��.��7► ��.E qa•27 OFF[CE OF LICET:SE, (`7SPECT[O�'S ht'B ' EtiVlROti�SE\,7AL PROTEC7IOV Roberl Kess!¢r, Dir¢tror � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, hlayor September 4, 1993 LO�fRY PROFESS/ONAL BUILDLVC Suite 300 350 St. Peeer Stree! SarnlPaul, blinnesofa SSlO?-ISIO Te(ephone: 611-266-9090 Fectilnife: 6!I-?66-9099 612-?66-9!?� Ron Severson 415 Summit Avenue Saint Paul, MD1 55102 RE: 420 Portland Avenue Dear Mc Severson: Ear[izr this year, the Ciry Councii uphetd a decision by the Board of Zonin� Appeals to the deny setback vaziances you had rzquested for the property at 420 Portland Avenuz, At that time the City Counci[ atso instructed the Ciry Attomey's office to look into the question ofwhzther the lot spiic that ori�inatiy created this pazcel w� legat. Lot split The City Attomey has determined that ihe ]ot split was not legal. The lot split needed a variance since it created a � noaconfocmin� rear yard setback for Yhe ezistin� condominium at 415 Sununit Avenue. It may have zlso created a nonconforzreing eondition for developmenY density but staff needs information about the size oF the uniu in 415 Summit to verify this. The Zonin� Code states that any lot split requiring a variance must have a public hearing before it can be approved. However, the lot split was approved in 1990 by City staff without a public heazing. Site plan Since the City Council denied your variance request, you submitted a revised site plan for the properry. You reduced the size of ihe carriage house and eliminated a pazkin� space so that a variance would not be needed and requested that the City approve the site plan. However, based on the determination that the lot spli[ that created this lot wu not legal, the City cannot approve the site plan. Your options If you wish to continue your efforts to obtain City approval to build on this site you may apply for thz variances needed to legalize the lot split. Or you may file an appeal by October 8 of the determination that the City cannot approve your site plan. Either option would involve a public hearin� before the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. If you have any questions, you can reach me at 266-9086 (phone) or 266-9099 (fzx). Sincerely, �� l r�� Tom Beach Zonin� Specialist cc: CouncilmemberBlakey Mark Vaught � � �'C��l�� F�L� �qa•z7 � �'� y• � NEbV A ^/' /� �-�/Dft;VEWAY �R�� Gt��O�`�Y � � J H�'�� r�EE 9 ' eo 9 LF � A�ROWS I��lDiCATE � � G �FL qQ ��F DRAINAGE SLO°� �2� �O � �� D � 2 C� Q F.� � �� NEN! �� O � SftEE o J ��. Q/ \(.�� Q Tp � ' \ 4 , Q� / � Q . } �'. �cXfSTWG' \��.� � P� PV '� 1 /�� a �°,� � , TR�E ? �� 1 � �C'�� / � � S' p 4 � ^ �O/ O �� P Q- ` O / � / F � i9 C� �,�° om�'� �i coNC. oR--e a p. � � � ASPHALT � CO 'C. �VALK � �—PAVEtiIENT Q (� & TEPS N:/ � Q IR �V RAILIPi^v > Q & ATE 3 !2� � / Q Q �. EX: i;NG /* r° /`' �'� PRO�OSED � �� Cs / G/jRAGE & � b� � � LOFT N � ,' � ( �n � / � � / � � � �i � / � � � * � � � ��. I 4' � �pT i 9 � 9 �� \ � � �, � . � � p �j` r C F �P�V � � � "� � l o � h',9 ��C�� . � � � y a4.�P � -- —-- y ` � O y ^ PROPEP.TY LINE � HEDGE , , � �{�— — � 90.00' . . ,� � N52°52'25°E � ' �� PATIO q ' ` � u i W � •� z BASEM�NT - I � � � STAIRS � { � PORCH w I "� �� o� ' S G � a � � � N � w � ;� `� s 415 SUMMIt AVE. � o^ � � 2 }/2 STOftY �° � 3 Nt00D FRA�AE BU�LDIHG � `�n � � Wl N _ �� '� M �o I � �h � � � :n � � I � �� i SITE PLAN � � � I 7/16" = 1'-0" I �,� , � >< � � `�'� - l o� � =_ � 8�...,�U i`w�b� a � � ' I = 6 j � . �, � .� 3 t_ io 3fWNtl pNV11210d o aay � N , . . �-,wa�s y 0 -{� N � u s � -� � � � � � � 1 y � � � � V � � vi 4 L H � � � - 1 L --� � � � I � i � � �� V -� I N o N — �l _ ' 1 I � � L' ti" � YSYffi � ,, y � ror\ e�'�� r :� � � <` �`� � 6_ � �-�. _ .� � � h N �A 0' W .� 8� � � � � � � N t� -� � � .iI I � ��_ ac�- • 9r zaa Il li :e:e l `�� V�'eST ELEVATION � \�i/ Ci_ .—�� K vr.r � 4- °— — � z�,c_ � 9r \ � —Y ��em rze i I I i Y�nppn BOx S(:HEIAL 3>' I 1839 I9:D � x oaacc*rox P-EP"i5 Ss�x P-9W6 ,: � o_�a on 9�- � _. � �-aas \ � I \ \� _ � j �� J �e I ' IE3a = � I I e_a � .--- -- � u�_� [ I ❑ n I ❑ L U � U Qa a.__ � �'� FAST ELEVATION � - 28:b � �P_W�6 ze_e � i� � —__ � \ I _ � u�OEPifN OB:- 1ry1� SiIN�(HI" n� ,�� .�o , _ SCHE�I� 3X !�� wor[: s ewv_oo: o CMi(c (.�BIC wOVtJ PLOVIPC H.i.C. A�PPOVI: CEO i $ww0.:2 O�0 u�µ GUrtER ) s : °Oi : °n ssa x � Ca D_ppfi0 �HOERSCH 05�_ XUNG MN� tt0 3xJ M 5 1/j Ildu BJ�aD$ 6' CORNER eo�os 5 �rz' Imu BOwO �-BO�d $:pMG k iRIY [p 4AL�N H�tJSC DRIO (�v i/� S 6 iRlu BO � �P COUR5C5 HOC� GeCE BlN �n�� P-8018 ON �SZa p t Sx� x i ov 39:0 P- �� NNErtSEM 0°t_ J Hue� w�n� , �T. ZMD �LR � s �n m,� eouos 6' CORrvE� BWaJS 5 �R' fqiu BGV+O S��u: h �'+v t0 WICN N�E Daw Gi v.zsrx eo � aoa ri% e� � $ �k { N� � �� , � T 's� � � � � � y "� -`ai � ,_ -,� ^,-- , ; , a,a ; � - �azs� :azs i iacs, �—, � I � /� NCMM1 N/ C�:LXa� I � I i ��1 /' 3UYP-CVi d 6RCHLu l �� ( � _ L_ U — ' �I L� � �— � �% I �— i I ccn' � z�za � �:cca 1 � � ��''`` f �_ � � SICf\G k iFN � i0 W:Cn NCUSc aa � , r-- - sc;��-�� .�c �\ NORTH ELcVa7;ON �J y"'�� SC�=h^- .;`< � SOUTH ELEVATIO� � �.. � �, � � N � 33�i ,.� .d„ t3. � � .� � � � C� • n U OFFICE OF LICE\SE, NSPECTIO`S A.�D �� EyVIROtiME\'TAL PR07ECTiON Roberf Kessler, Dtrector • CITY OF SAINT PAUL horm Coleman, bfayo� October 7, 1998 � Ron Severson 415 Suminit Ave, #2 Saint Pau1, Mn. 55102 LO1i'RY PROFESSfO�'AL BUILDL�"G Sui�e 300 350 St. Pefer Slreet Saint Paul, Minnesota 5510?-1�10 Re: Proposed Variance Request for 420 Portland Ave. Dear Mr. Severson: Te]ephone: 61I-266-9090 Farsimiie: 612-2b6-9099 612-266-912J Recently you submitted a request for site plan approval in order to construct a new single family home on the property known as 420 Portland Ave. That site plan was denied by the Zoning Administrator based on an opinion from the City Attomey that the parcel known as 420 Portland was illegally spiit from the property at 415 Summit. On September 30, 1998 you submitted an appeal to that site plan denial, which will be handled by the Planning and Economic Development Department (PED). At the time of your appeal application, you stated that you also wanted to submit an application for a variance in order to construct a new single family home on the pazcel known as 420 Portland Ave. I informed you that we could not accept a variance application for constructing a new single family home on the property because there is an administrative action pending (your appeal) to determine if the property is a separate, legally created parcel, or if it is sti11 part of the properiy at 415 Summit Ave. If it is deterznined throu�h the appeal process that 420 Portland is a separate parcel, you may submit a vaziance application to build on the properiy. If it is determined that it is not a sepazate parcel and is still part of 415 Summit, then only the o�vners of 415 Summit may build on the property or apply for a variance to build on the property. If you have any further questions regarding this matter you may contact me at 266-9082. Sin er ly, � ^ ` John Hardwick • Zoning Specialist c: Beth Bartz, PED Peter Wamer, City Attomey Wendy Lane, Zoning Manager 4 ��s��;�� .� Re'2?5 � � SUhL'7IT-UNIVERSITY DISTRICT 8 N� .-��rt" x `" ' 0°O _ "� '� z� �H �� e�� V �� i °lq �a-C �-- 1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD 2. HAZEL PARK T3ADEti-PROSPERiTY HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PAYNE-PHAI.EN 6. I�IORTH END � THO��IAS-DALE SUMMTT-LJNIVERSITY WEST SEVENTI-I 10. COMO ii. HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. ST. ANTHONY PARK 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXI�TGTON HAMLINE•SNELLING HAMLII�`E 14. MACALESTER GROVELAND 15. HIGHLAND 16. SUMMTT HII.L � 17. DOWNTOWN ZONING FILE '�? CITIZEN PARTTCIPATION PIANNING DISTRICTS s � 0 � ��SOt1 PURPOSE ' ` FILE k � �� DATE PLNG. DIST�_ MAP # �v � �� . l.�v LEGEND .�� zoning district boundary � subjec[ property n" orth 0 one family • . � comme� � twofamily ♦ a..� indust:ial �-�Q muitiple tamily V vacanc ��.. . . '�w�.!�ifia- - - -- -- r�°l .,u�-- Februazy 1, 1999 Mr. Ronald Severson 415 5ummit Avenue, # 2 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Mx. Severson: We, the majoritq members of the Nathan Hale Mews Association, would like to formalize our previous offer to purchase the property you own at 420 Portland Avenue at a mutually agreed upon and fair market value. It is the Association' s intent to reunite the properties at 420 Portland Avenue and 415 Summit Avenue. Therefore we would like to arrange to meet with you to discuss our proposal as soon as possible. Please contact either Tricia Leonard or Greg Glark to schedule a time to meet. Sincerely, Sharon Schwarz, President Caml Clark, Treasurer Tricia l,eonard, Secretary Greg Clark, Associatian Member cc: Sharon Schwarz Tricia Leonard Carol & Greg Glark MARIf VOERDING Il3 FARRINGTONSTREET SA7NT PAUL, MN 55102 Februuy 3, 1999 Mr. President and Mensbers of the City Council, ° ' 2�-�`� Due to a previous coinmitment I am unable to attend tonighYs public hearing regarding the appeal of the Planniug Commission's denial of a site p3au for 420 Portland Avenue. However, since I am also the person respons�'ble for raising questions about certain actions by city staff as well as the legality ofthe 1990 "lot split", I am compelled to write regarding this appeal The facts m this case aze not in dispute. As proposed, the original lot split required variances and, as a resutt, did not meet all ofthe conditions required for the plavniug administrator to grant approval Therefore, under the ]aws of this city in effect now and at that time, the Boazd of Zoning, AppeaLs wouid be required to hold a public hearing to consider the variances and � g�ant those variances and a lot split upon ma.king required findings. No public hearing was held, the BZA did not consider any variances for the proposed lot and no required Sndings were adopted. At the City CounciPs request the City Attorney has reviewed this matter and made a deteiinivation that due process had not been followed and a legallot split had not occurred. The issue befare you today is not the desigu of the proposed structure, its location on the site, the size of the structure or the cjiiality of construction. The quesrion before you is whether or not a site plsn can be approved by the city. Clearly, since a legal lot split did aot occur the owner does not have control of a truildable site and the city cannot approve a plan to build on that site. Because a legal lot split did not occur there are also new questions about the ownership rights of the condominiiun a"ssooiation at 415 Sumwit, the property from whicfi this lot wasto be split from, that need to be addressed in a different venue. A vote in favor of this appeal sends a, message.that, regardless of intent, staffmay ignore the laws oftlus city and the Council will be in support. Tlus, I beJieve, is not and never has been the position of the Ciry Council and I am certain that iC is not the message you want to send to the citizens of Saint PauL A vote to deny this appeal a�rms the laws and legai processes of this city. Finally,'mistakes cost. In this case an-error in judgement by staffwill likely cost the city financially. This is unfortunate since ik is the propezty tas payers, including you and I, who will nitimately pay the price for tfiis mistake. However, neither the price of this enor nor the time that has elapsed can outweigh the decision to uphold the taw and legal due procesa Therefure, based on the City Attomey's determination and your desire to stand by the laws of this city I ask that you deny the appeal. Hopefiilly, the appellant will then pursue one of the many other options available to lum Respectfiilty, �� Mark Voerding ORIGINAL RESOLUTION CITY OF SA1NT PAUL, MINNESOTA Council File # � � �+ Green Sheet # ��S ZS � Presented By Refened To 2 WI�REAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.300(.� 3 Ronald J. Severson, in Zoning File 98-275, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's 4 decision to deny site plan approval for the construction of a combination carriage house and 5 gazage on properiy located at 420 Portland Avenue and legally described as "except the southeast 6 132.8 feet, Lot 6, Auditor's subdivision number 38; and 7 8 WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Pau1 Plauning Commission [the 9 "Planning Commission"], in accardance with the requirements of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 10 64300, conducted a public hearing on October 29, 1998, after having provided notice to affected 11 properry owners and at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard in; and 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3Q 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the October 29, 1998, public hearing, the Zoning Committee moved to deny the said appeal and submitted its recommendation to the Planning Commission; and WFIEREAS, the Planning Commission, by its resolution 98-72 adopted November 6, 1998, decided to deny the said appeal based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. Ron Severson submitted plans for site plan review of a proposed development of a one-unit carriage house and four car garage on May 28, 1998, and later submitted revised plans which did not require any variances for construction on the 420 Portland parcel. The revised proposal also included two additional surface pazking stalls. 2. The site plan was denied approval by the Zoning Administrator based on advlce from the City Attorney that the 19901ot split was not valid because the lot spiit was not given the public hearing required by § 673Q6 of the Legislative Code. Lot splits meeting all the conditions listed in § 67304 can be approved admuristratively. § 67306 requires that lot splits require any vartance from one or more of these conditions may not be approved until a variance is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals following a public hearing. The lot split in question leaves the lot at 415 5uminit with an inadequate rear yard setback and therefore does not meet the conditions set for the in § 67.304. 1 3. The deficiencies in the lot split occun•ing on the pazcel at 415 2 Sumuut could be resolved by a variance by the Boazd of Zoning 3 Appeals. Such a variance must be applied for by the owners of 415 4 Stunmit (the Nathan Hale Condomuuum Association). Mr. 5 Severson alone does not have standing to apply for this variance. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 4. 415 Summit was not made nonconforming by splitting its parking area off for the pazcel as pazking for the units at 415 Swnmit must be provided at 420 Portland according to a covenant placed on the deed of 420 Portland. According to this covenant, two spaces must be provided for each unit at 415 Sutninit for a total of eight spaces. § 62.104(2) of the Legislative Code allows required multi-family pazking to be provided on an abutting lot. 5. § 62.108(c) of the Legislative Code states: "site plan review and approval. In order to approve the site plan, the Plauning Commission shall consider and fmd that the site plan is consistent with: ...(2) applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul." Given the decision that the lot split creating this property in 1990 was not done in accordance with § 67306 of the Legislarive Code, the site plan is not consistent with the ordinances of the City of Saint Paul. a 9 _ a��- WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § b4.206, Ronald J. Severson duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the deternunation made by the Plaiuiiiig Comxnission and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City Council [the "City Council"] for the purposes of considening the actions taken by the said commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on February 3, 1999, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEI2EAS, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and of the Planning Commission, the City Council does hereby; RESOLVE, to grant the appeal of Ronald J. Severson and to approve the site plan based upon the following findings and conclusions of the Council: The Council finds that the record demonstrates that the Planning Commission enoneously denied the appellanYs site pian application. 2. The Council finds that a variance of the backyard setback requirements for the building at 415 Sumxnit should have been applied for at the time the lot split application was first received and a public hearing pursuant to Leg. Code § 67306 should have been conducted for the purposes of determining whether to grant a variance and remove the nonconfonning status of the building at 415 Suuunit. The Council concludes, based upon the entire record, that approval of the underlying lot split which did not satisfy the requirements of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 67.304 should not now bar approval of the appellants site plan. i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Reguested by Department of: ay: e�o1 r�.�.'�-- Form ApprO d by City Attorney % gY: �� LJl1�,ti,e-� 3-/.r_ 4 q Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY: �--_` , 1 �� By: Approved by Ma or Date /(/ 9 By: 4. The Council, based upon the recard before it and acting pursuant to its broad authority provided under Legislative Code § 64.207, fiu•ther concludes that any backyazd setback variance necessary to remove the non-confornung status of 415 Summit Avenue would be approved by the Council if the appellant were required to make such an application, and is therefore deemed approved as noted above. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Ronaid J. Severson be and is hereby granted; and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk sha11 mail a copy of this resolution to the Zoning Administrator, the Plamung Commission, the Appellant and any interested party who requests a copy of the resolution. Adopted by Council: Date �� .�.. �� iqVq \ Adoption Certified by Council Secretary R�L -'ad.z- DEPAR7MENT70FFICFJCOUNCIL DATEImTV.TEO c�t coun�� 3/16/99 GREEN SHEET No 63525 CONTACT PEF2&7N & PHOtJE �nwalmaN Inkwmats Jerry Biakey, 266-8610 � �.�� MUSS BE ON WUNCIL AGQmA BV �QqTq AIISlcrl MIAIBERFOR UIYAT�OIOEY CRYCIFNN RO{I71qG � RNRIItLLaExvlCESOIR AIIII+C1�1LaExV/uLic ❑r�vortlort�a.9sTYR) ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PACaES (CIIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION REQUESTED Finalizing City Council acCion taken on February 3, 1999 granting the appeal of Ronald J. Severson for property located at 420 Portland Avenue. RE MMEN ATIONApprove A)aRe�eU( ) PERSONAISERYICECAN'[AAC[SfAUSTANSWERTNEFOLLOWIN6QUE5SSON5: 1. Has this persoNfirtn ever wo�ked untlx a cantract for this tlepartmeM? PLANNING CAMMISSION VES NO CIB COMMRTEE z. Has mis persoNtirm erer been a ctty empwyee? CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION vES NO 3. Dces this persanKrm possess a sldll not nwmallypossessetl by any current city employee? YES NO 4. Is Mis pe�son/firm a targeted vendoY7 YES NO E�qflain alf yes ansv�e�s on sepa2te sl�eet antl attach ta green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORNNITY (Who, What, When, Where, Why) ' ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED y?suar+;°�s� �u^��eT,w�n 8`?�°;xc.( �...<..h,.... �. - s�, ., r . .� ��,��.� � � 1�R9 DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED D{SADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVE6 TO7AL AMOUNT oF TRANSAGTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGHTED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FlINDiNG SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlNANCW.INFORMATON (IXPWIQ OFFICE OF TF� CITY ATTORNEY Clayton qq.�`� CIT'Y OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor Civil Division 400 Clty Ha11 I S Wesi KeUogg Blvd Sarnt Paul Minnesota 55102 Telephone: 657 266-8770 Facsimile: 65I 298-5614 FIAND DELIVERED Nancy Anderson Council Secretary Council Chambers Saint Paul City Hall RE: Appeal of Ronald J. Severson Zoning File 98-275 Council Heazing Date: February 3, 1999 Deaz Nancy: Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the Febnaary 3, 1999 decision of the Saint Paul City Council to grant the appeal of Ronald J. Severson for property located at 420 Portland Ave. Please place this matter on the Council's consent agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any addirional questions, please call. Sincerely, �� Peter W. Warner Assistant Ciiy Attorney attachment DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �-ZL1f 3a- CPTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coteman, Mayor January 12, 1999 Division af Planning 25 West Fou,th Sveet Saint Pau1, MN SSIO2 TeZephane: 672-2666565 Facstmile: 612-228-3314 a � � � �� LrC.�`��i4va IZC:,��. �•• •�v :� Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: ,, ., , � -,, I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday February 3, 1999 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan. Appellant: Ronald J. Severson File number : 98-275 Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for a carriage house and garages. Address: 420 Portland Legal Description of Property: See file. Previous Aarion: Planning commission recommendation: Unanimously (13-0) upheld Zoning Administrator's denial. (Vaught did not vote) Zoning commirtee recommendation: Unanimously (6-0) upheld Zoning Administrator' denial. (Vaught did not vote) My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the 3anuary 20, 1999 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6559 if you have any questions. Sincerely, � �/// �'/�� ames Zdo City Pla er -�<`� •�srrsux• � . .- - - - - 1VOTICE OF PIIBLLC HEARING - - cC: $le #9$-2�S The Saint Paul City Council w511 conduct a public hearing on Wednesday. Pat11 DubiiCl February 3, 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor. City Hall- �Court House to consider the appeal of Ronald J. Severson to a decision of the CaY01 MBttiriOaU Planning Commission upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for PetOi W8Cne1' a carriage house and garages at 420 Port7and Avenue. Dated: January 13, 1999 - � , _ NANCY ANDERSON ` � � Assistant Ciry Covncil Secretary - � , - � - (Janvary 15, 1999) � � . CI'TY OF SAINT PAUL No�m Coleman, Mayor January 13, 1999 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Counci( Room 310 Ciry Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 DEPARTMEI3T OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENI' Dtvision of Pkuuung ZS iVest Founh Srreer SairstPau[, MNSSIO2 olq.Z� � Zelephone: 612-266-6565 Facsiml[e: 612-228-33I4 IZE: Zoning File # 98-275 Ronald J. Severson City Council Hearing: February 3, 1999, 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeai of a Planning Commission decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for a carriage house and garages at 420 Portland. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Unanimously (13-0) upheld Zoning Administrator's denial. (Vaught did not vote) ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Unanimously (6-0) upheld Zonin� Administrator' deniaL (Vaught did not vote) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold Zoning Administrator's denial SUPPORT None OPPOSITION: 3 residents spoke in favor of the denial. Dear Ms. Anderson: Ronald J. Severson is appealing a Plannin� Commission decision upholdin� the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for a carriage house and gazages at 420 Portland. The Zoning Committee of the Plarmine Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning on October 29, 1998 and voted 6-0 to uphold the Zoning AdministratoPs deniaL The Planning Commission, on November 6, 1998, unanimously upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on February 3, 1999. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, � � �'I � 4`wJ�.,�. U %James Z� " City PYanner cc: City Council members Attachments APPLtCAT10N FOR APPEAL Department ojPlm:ning and Economic Developmenr Zonir:g Sectia: 1100 Cit'l� $all Annex ZS Tf'est FourU: StreeY Saint Paul, M[\'S5102 266-6589 APPELLANT F� rsEng'c►�ce use anEy - - � no :_ � �� :1 � �.�c� ��°- • �tat�ve_heanrig date ZipSJ)e, Daytime phone ?,r-Gl77 PROPERTY LOCATION TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: = Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the �=arJr ]o, Ci;rnm�Sye,� on A�;'t�m��%,�(� . 19 9c� File number. � 9r -�7.5� (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Exptain why you fee( there fias been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusa( made by an administrafive official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. 5"° • �t��.� -�.,� s�f-� Attach additional sheet if Applicant's sig dafe la - � - y City qq . �c.� � GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OF 420 PORTLAND AVE. REQUEST FOR A BUILDING PERMIT 420 Portland Ave. is a 5,400 square foot lot currently used as parking for the condominium at 415 Summit Ave. My wife and I purchased this lot in 1496 with the intent of building a single-family house for our residence. In 1990 the City of St. PauPs Zoning Department approved a request by the developer to split 420 Portland Ave from 415 Summit, thus creating a separate buildable lot. Also in 1990, a public hearing was held on a request for a building permit on 420 Portland to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carriage house requiring seven variances. The request was approved but the project was not built. In 1992 a second request ��as submitted for an expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requiring additional variances. This plan was also approved but not built. In 1996, a permit was issued and a rivo-car garage was built or, this lot. Three building permits have been issued on this property since it was split into a separate lot. In May of 1998, I submitted a site plan requesting a permit for a 936 square foot sin�le family carriage house with four tuck-under garage spaces. This plan met a11 city site plan requirements and needed no variances. The Heritage Preservation Commission had already approved this carriage house plan. � The St. Paul zoning office declined to issue a building permit based on their cunent position that the 1990 approval for the lot split was not legal since no public hearing was held. T am appealing this decision for the following reasons: 1. The lot on 420 Portland Ave. was a sepazate buildable lot when I purchased it in 1996 according to the records of the City of St. Paul. My building permit application met a11 city code requirements at the time that it was submitted to the zoning office. The "ille�al" lot, that was created in 1990, is not the 420 Portland lot. The illegallot is the 415 Summit lot, since it is that lot with its main house, which does not meet the required rear yard setback. 2. The City administratively approved this lot split in 1990. Any error in creating the lot split was solely the responsibility of the City staff. I relied on the City's actions when I proceeded with the development oFplans to build my carriage house. The ZoninQ Board has held five public hearings on requests for building permit variances on this lot and approved three building permats. At. Each public hearing, 420 Portland was represented and reviewed as a separte buildable lot. The city should not now use this 1990 "error" as the reason for denial of my nonvariance building permit request. The � 1990 administrative approval of this lot split should be affirmed and allowed to stand. 3. The owners of units in 415 Summit purchased their units after 420 Portland was split � into a sepazate buildable lot. Owners were aware of and accepted this lot line as the Association's property line when they signed their purchase agreemenTs. Approval of the building permit does not deprive 415 Summit owners of any of the space or rights provided by their purchase agreements or the Association Declaration. The site plan, �vhich I submitted, to the zoning department provides two off-street parking for each unit owner plus access to those parking stalls as required by the Declaration. The site plan also meets the city code for parking lots. Please be aware that nothing in this appeal should be interpreted as a criticism of the zoning staf£ I greatly appreciate all the effort and assistance that has been provided to me by Mr. Hardwick and Mr. Beach. I understand the difficulty of the position into which they have been placed by This unfomuiate turn of events. I simply disagree �i2th and have difficulty understanding their refusal to issue the requested building permit. `� � �9 -2-61 � Saint Paul Planning Commission City FIall Conference Center 15 Kellagg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 6, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Mmes. DuaRe, Engh, Geisser, Morton, I�TOrdin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs. Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Mardell, Margulies and Vaught. Mmes. `Faricy and Messrs. *Johnson, *Kong, *McDonefl, *Nowlin, Sharpe *Excused � �_� Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Beth Bartz, Nancy Homans, Larry Soderholm, Lucy Thompson, and Jim Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; Tim Agness from Parks & Recreation; and Ken Greenberg, Director, Saint Paul Design Center. I. Approval of Minutes of October 23, 199& MOTION: Commissioner Kramer rrroverl approvn7 oJtlte minutes oJOctober 23, 1998; Conzmissioner Marde!! secnnded tl:e motioft. II. III. Commissioners Vaueht and Field added corrections to the minutes of October 23, 1998. Tlte motion on theJloor approving tlre corrected minutes of October 23, 1998 carried trnanimotrslb� on a voice vote. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that Commissioner Geisser has graciously offered to chair the holiday party this yeac Commissioner Geisser added that this is a special holiday party because four of the Plannin� Commissioners will be retiring from the Commission at the end of the year. The date for the holiday party is December 18, 1998; the PlanninQ Commission meeting that mornina �vill be shifred to a later time and the parcy will be a luncheon. Each member will contribute $2�. Chair Morton announced that there will 6e a Steering Committee meetins at 7:45 a.m, November 20, 1998. Plannin� Administrator's Aunouucements Mr. Ford apologized for the packets anivine later Than usual due to equipmen[ not beins operable durina the movin� procedure in PED. Mr. Ford announced tha[ the Livable Communities Advisory Committee of the Metropolitan or: a voice vote. #98-275 Ronald J. Severson - Appeal of the deniat by the Zoning Administrator of a site plan for a carriage house & garage at 420 Portland Avenue beriveen Arundel & Western Avenues (Beth BaRZ, 266-6580). MOTION: Commissioner Field moved to deny tke appea! of the dei:ial by the Zoning fSdministrator oja site plan jor a carriaae horrse and garage af 420 Portlanrlflvenue between ffrunde! and Western.4venues. Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission that he �vould not vote on this issue; he would no[ paRicipate in any discussion regarding this issue; he has not participated in a discussion on this issue in any �vay; and he has not discussed the substance or the procedural issues of this matter cvith any member of the Commission prior to the vote. Commissioner Treichel asked if the applicant can correct the 1990 lot split? Ms. Bartz responded that the only �vay Yo make the !ot spliY vaGd woutd be for the property owners of415 Summit Avenue, which is the remainder of the parcet, to apply for a rear yard variance, which would then bring thai structure into conformance. The condominium association that orvns that piece of property has not been willing to come fonvard and do that. T/te motion nn tlie f7oor carried tenanimously on a voice vote with Con:missioner Vaught not YDZllte. #98-277 U.S. West Wireless - Special condition use permit to allow construction of a PCS �vireless communications antenna suppoR s}'stem at 218 Kiplin� Street bem•een Hilldale Avenue & Lower Afton Road (Martha Faust, 266-6572). MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the reguested specia! condition use permit to allow construction of a PCS wireless commtenications antenna support system at 218 Kipling Street, wkic/r carried ursanimously on a voice vote. �98-261 Louie's BiIliards Inc - Special condition use to allow a billiard hall business at 1990 Suburban Acenue (Martha Faust, 266-6572). Commissioner Field informed commissioners that Mr, `Vamer is workine on a resolution for this case. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved for an extension of two weeks for this cnse so that the appropriate reso[ution ean be written and reviewed Commissioner Vaught stated that he voted against the Committee's decision because he feels tltere is not evidence to suppoR the decision of the Committee inasmucfi as it �vas based on the a(IeQation that someho�1 the presence of this particular facility at that (ocation �vould be detrimental to the general health, �veifare and safety of the communih. There was a lot of anecdotal discussion includine some discussion ofthe Police Chiefat a district councii meetine. �~luch wasn accompanied b} am factual basis. There «ere a iot of alle�ations ofthe all ofthe e� ils that «ould come from this particular biliiard hall at this iocation, but there �cas a decided absence in the record of an} hard facts. Commissioner L'aaaht statzd that he did find the parkina to be deficient and he thinks that the shared parkin� aareement. which the Zoning Administrator approeed, doesn't conform with the code. He said hz couldn't persuade any of � � �J ag -1�� city of saint paui planning commission resolution file number 48-72 �te November 6, 1998 WHEREAS, SEVERSON, J. RONALD, file R 98-275, has applied for an Appeal of the zonino administrator's decision under the provisions of Section 64300 (j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the purpose of obtaining site plan approval to construct a carriage house and garaaes on property located at 420 Portland, legally described as Except the southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision #38; and WHEftEAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on 10129/98, held a public hearing at �vhich a!! persons present were given an oppoctunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the folloeving findings of fact: � 1. Ron Severson submitted plans for site plan review of a proposed development oE a 1-unit carriage house and 4-car garage on May 28, 1998 and later submitted revised pfans which did not require any variances for construction on tne 420 Portland parcel. The revised proposal also included 2 additional surface parking stalls. This site plan �vas denied approval by the zoning administrator based on advice from the City Attorney that the 1990 lot split was not valid because the lot split was not given the public hearing required by Section 67.306 of the Legislative Code. Lot splits meeting alf the conditions listed in Section 67.304 can be approved administratively. Section 67.306 requires that lot splits requiring a variance from one or more of these conditions may not be approved until a variance is granted by the Board oi Zoning Appeals following a public hearing. The lot split in question leaves the Iot at 41 � Summit with an inadequate rear yard setback and therefore does not meet the conditions set forth in Section 67.304. 3. The deficiencies in the lot split occurring on the parcel at 47 5 Summit could be resolved by a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such a variance must be applied for by the owners of 47 � Summit (tne f�athan Hale CondominiUm Association). Mr. Severson alone does not have standing to apply for this variance. moved by Field * secot��ded by -- in favor 13 (Vaught did not vote. ) against � 4. 415 Summit avas not made non-conforming by splitting its parking area off from the parcel as parking for the units at 415 Summit must be provided at 420 Portland according to a covenant placed on the deed of 420 Summi[. According to this covenant, Z spaces must be provided for each unit at 41 S Summit for a total of 8 spaces. Section 62.iO4(2) of the legislative code allows required multi-family parking to be provided on an abutting lot. Section 62.708 (c) of ihe Legislative Code states: "Site plan review and approval. In order to approve the site plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with: ... (2) Applicable ordinances of [he City of Saint Paul." Given the decision that the lot split creating this property in 1990 was not done in accordance with Section 67306 of the Legislative Code, this site plan is not consistent with ihe ordinances of the Ciry of Saint Paul. NOW, THEREFOfZE, BE iT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authori[y of [he City's Legislative Code, the decision of the zoning administrator is upheld and the site pian review for 42D Portland Avenue is denied. � � MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, October 29, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. �q-Z�.�^ • City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor Ciry Hail and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, Morton, Vaught and Wencl EXCUSED: Gervais OTHERS PRESENT: Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, Beth Bartz,Geri Boyd, Martha Faust, Larry Soderholm and Jim Zdon of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. RONALD J. SEVERSON - Zoning File 98 - 275 - Appeal of the denial by the Zoning Administrator of a site plan for a carriage house and garage. Commissioner Vauqht stated that he will not be voting nor taking part in any of the discussion of this case due to conflict of interest. Commissioner Vaught further stated that other than a brief conversation with the Cha+r he has discussed neither the substance nor the procedures for this application with any member of this committee, or any member of the Planning Commission, either at today's meeting or elsewhere. Beth Bartz, PED, gave a slide presentation and reviewed the staff report. Ms. Bartz stated staff recommended =nial of the appeal. Ms. Bartzfurtherstated that the Ramsey Hil1 Association and the Summit-University Planning ouncil also recommend denial. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Bartz stated that she beiieved all of the applications from previous years would have been invalid if the lot split probfem had been raised. Ms. Bartz further expiained that a member of the Ramsey Hill Association raised the question of the lot split; he is a former aide to a city council member and given his understanding of the code and procedures, he questioned the validity of the lot split. in response to Commissioner Gordon, Peter Warner explained that the Zoning Committee and Pfanning Commission have no authority to correct the lot sp{it, however the Board of Zoning Appeals coufd. He further stated that the P{anning Commission does not have the authority to review decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ronafd Severson, 415 Summit Avenue #2, appeared. Mr. Severson explained that there had been 3 building permits issued on the property at420 Portland Avenue, to build 2 carriage houses and a garage. He fiurther stated that neither of the carriage houses were buiit because the developer ran into financial probiems, and subsequently put the property up for sale. At that time Mr. Severson purchased the property with the intent to put up a single family carriage house as a retirement home for himselfi. He worked with the Heritage Preservation people and came up with a plan that was approved by them. John Miller, attorney, Suite 300, 50 East 5'" Street, appeared on behalf of Mr. Severson. Mr. Miller asked if the city can prohibit the construction of a conforming building on a parcel on the basis that correct procedures were not followed by city staff when that parcel was first created. This is what the staff is recommending today, he said. r. Miller respectfully disagreed that the site plan is not in accordance with the applicable city ordinances. Mr. ilier submitted that the interpretation given in the staff report casts an overly broad net and that the language in the code is directed more towards whether a current proposal on a current lot meets the necessary performance standards, and is not infended to go back and review whether or not the creation of the lot was valid or invalid. Zoning Committee Minutes October 29, 1998 Ro�ald Severson (98-275) Page 2 � Mr. Milier stated that at some point, in a situation such as this , the city has to take responsibility for and be bound by the actions of its employees whether they are correct or incorrect, especially when a party such as Mr. Severson has relied upon their action in making an investment. Mr. Miller further stated that Mr. Severson has spent a lot of time and money during the period of his ownership making various submissions trying to develop the parcel. The question was asked by Mr. Miller, what are the consequences of an action taken by the city, whether by an empioyee or by city council, when that action is not in conformance wiih the requirements of an ordinance? Mr. MiUer submitted that in a case such as this, the original action should nof be void or even voidabie uniess there is specific language in the ordinance stating that action taken contrary to the ordinance (the original IQt split) is void or voidabie. In summary, Mr. Miller stated that he is �ot being criticai of sYaff. On the contrary, he stated the staff has been extremely helpfu! in answering questions and providing information. He simply thinks that the conclusion they have reached is incorrect. Responding to Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Miiler stated that no variance has been applied for by the owners of 415 Summit t Avenue. To get a resolution of the lot split, Mr. Miller stated that they will probably have to end up in court. In response to Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Miller explained that Mr. Severson has a separate tax iderttifcation number for the property. The lot at 420 Portland was recorded at Ramsey County. Carol Clark, 415 Summit Avenue, appeared. Ms. Cfark stated that on more than one occasion the condomi� association has offered to buy Mr. Severson out of the property at 420 Portland Avenue. Ms. Ciark further stated thaf they were witting fo pay fuft market value in order fo bring 415 Summit back to the original state by conso(idafing the two properties. S(te said fhat Mr. Severson has not been wilting to se(i to the association. Ms. Clark continued that their condominium documenfs state that each owner has two parking spofs on the property at 420 Portland. Mr. Severson plans to provide those spaces, however one of the spaces on the plans is for a compact car. Ms. Clark said that Mr. Severson can not mandate or assume fhat anyone fn the association wifl own or drive a compact vehicle. Ms. Clark said that Mr. Severson, was in fact, aware of aII of the problems before purchasing the property. Questioned by Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Ciark replied that if the condominium association could purchase the property, they wouid ensure that everyone has the appropriate parking, would workwith the neighborhood on the design of 2 more garages, wouid do landscaping, and would not do anything to harm the park next door. Mark Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, Chair of the Ramsey Hill Land Use Committee, appeared. Mr. Voerding explained that he is the person who raised the lot split issue that has brought the case to this point. Mr. Voerding stated that he does not believe the lot split occurred legaily in 1990 and does not believe the site plan presented by Mr. Severson today is on a legal lot. Mr. Voerding explained that without the due process that the legisiative code required in the lot split case, the action never legally occurred. He further stated that the staff person who stamped and signed the lot split document had no authority to do so; the person falsely left an impression that the !ot spiit had occurred. Mr. Voerding said that this is a legal matter between Mr. Severson, the seller and perhaps something involving the city or city employees. Sharon Schwartz, 415 SummitAvenue, appeared. Ms. Schwartz sfressed that the residents at 495 Summit a blanket easement for access rights across the property at 420 Portland. She further explained tha association has issues around density, snow removal, green space and landscaping. Ms. Schwartz expressed concern over maintaining their rights regarding these issues. °lq -Z� � Zoning Committee Minutes � �ctober 29, 1998 onald Severson (98-275) Page 3 Mr. Severson reappeared to give rebuttal comments. He explained that the association claims that they would pay him fair market vaiue for the property. But the value of the lot depends on what can be built on it. If the propeRy is found to be unbuildable, Mr. Severson stated that he would loose a great deal of money. He further stated that he had agreed to place $5,000 in an account with one of the association members to establish and maintain landscaping around the proposed building. Mr. Severson further stated that regarding parking, his proposals have always met city parking code standards. No one else spoke, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gordon stated that both Mr. Severson and also the individuals who testified in opposition had valid points. However, given the status of the lot split issue he moved approvai of the staff recommendation to deny Mr. Severson's appeal. It was seconded by Commissioner Wencl . There was no further discussion, and the motion was called recommending denial of the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. Adopted Yeas - 6 (Vaught did not vote) Nays - o � afted by: Geri Boyd Recording Secretary Submitted by: Larry Soderholm Zoning Section Approved by: Litton Field Chair l� ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT FILE # 98-275 7. APPLICANT: SEVERSON, J. RONALD DATE OF HEARING: 10 /29/98 2. CLASSIFICATION: P.ppeal of zoning administrator's decision regarding site plan 3. LOCATION: 42a Portland 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 S. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Except the southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision #38. 6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: Section 64.300 (j) 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: Odober 19, 7998 BY: Beth Bartz 8. DATE RECEIVED: 09/30/98 DEAD!!NE FOR ACTION: 11/29/98 A. f:� PURPOSE: Appeal of denial by the Zoning Administrator of a site pian for a carriage house and garages. PARCEL StZE: 5428 square feet C. EXISTfNG LA(VD USE: The parcei is currentfy used for parking by the 4-u�it condominium at 415 Summit (the parcel immediately south of 420 Portfand}. A two-car garage was recent(y built on the site. D. SURROUNDING CAND USE: NortF�: Singfe family and dupiex in an R7-2 district. East: Natt�an Hale Park in an RT-2 district. South: Four-unit condominium in an RT-2 district. West: Multi-family condominium in an RM-2 district. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 64.300 (j) of the Legislative Code states: "The grant of denial of approval by the planning or zoning administrator is subject to appeal to the planning commission by any person, firm or corporation, or by any office, deparrment, board or bureau affected by a decision of the planning or zoning administrator within thirty (30) days after the decision appeafed from shalf have 6een served wither in person or by mail upon the owner of the property which rs Ehe subject matter of the decision. The planning commission shall conduct a hearing on the appeal within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the appeal by the planning commission." ❑ � � R`l � Zoning File #98-275 Page 2 Ii1STORY/DISCUSS{ON: In 1990, the City (Planning Division staf� approved a{ot split that separated this parcel from the south end of the parcel at 415 Summit. Later in 1990, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved variances to construct a new carriage house unit with a 5 car garage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This dec+sion was appealed to the City Council by the Parks Department. The Council upheld the variance but modified the conditions. The proposed carriage house was not built. In 1992, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances to construct a two-unit carriage house with a 4-car underground garage. In 1993 the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a one year extension of these variances. Again, the proposed carriage house was not built. In 1994, the owner applied for variances to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 garage stalls under the carriage house and detached garages. The application was withdrawn before the BZA took any action. In 1995, Mr. Severson applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances to construct a carriage house unit with 3 parking spaces beneath the unit and 6 surface parking spaces. . 7his application was denied. A two-car garage was constructed on the site in 1996, prior to the sale of the property. The app�icant purchased the property in 1996. In 1997, the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a plan for construction of a one- unit carriage house with a 4-stall garage underneath and 3 additional surface parking spaces. The City Council upheld this approval on appeal. In 7 998, an application for the variances required for the HPC approved plan (with slight modification) was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The City Council upheld this decision. A slightly revised site plan requiring no variances for construdion was then submitted for site plan review. The site plan was denied based on advice for the Ciry Attorney that the lot split was not legal. G DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The Summit-University Planning Council's recommendation was not available at the time this report was written. The Ramsey Hiif Association recommended denial of the 1997 HPC approval and of the variance request in 1998. The Summit-University Pfanning Counci{ also recommended deniaf of the 1998 variance request. � Zoning File #98-275 Page 3 H FINDINGS: Ron Severson submitted plans for site plan review of a proposed development of a 1-unit carriage house and 4-car garage on May 28, 1998 and fater submitted revised plans which did not require any variances for construction on the 420 Portland parcet. The revised proposal also included 2 additional surface parking stalls. 2. This site plan was denied approval by the zoning administrator based on advice from the City Attorney that the 1990 lot split was not legaf because the (ot split was not given the pub(ic hearing required by Section 67306 of the Legis(ative Code. Lot sp(its meeting afl the conditions listed in Section 67304 can be approved administrativefy. Section 67.306 requires that (ot splits requiring a variance from one or more of these conditions may not be approved until a variance is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals foltowing a pubtic hearing. The (ot split in question leaves the lot at 415 Summit with an inadequate rear yard setback and therefore does not meet the conditions set forth in Section 67304. • 3. The deficiencies in the lot split occurring on the parcel at 41 S Summit could be resolved by a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such a variance must be applied for by the owners of 415 Summit (tfie Nathan Hale Condominium Association). Mr. Severson a(one does not have standing to appfy for this variance. • 4. 41 S Summit was not made non-conforming by spfitting its parking area off from the parcet as parking for the units at 415 Summit must be provided at 420 Portland according to a covenant placed on the deed of 420 Summit. According to this covenant, 2 spaces must be provided for each unit at 47 5 Summit for a totaf of 8 spaces. Section 62.104(2) of the legisfative code allows required mu(ti-family parking to be provided on an abutting lot. 5. Section 62.108 (c) of the Legis(ative Code states: "Site plan review and approval. fn order to approve the site plan, tl�e p/anning commission shall consider and find tf�at tf�e site plan is consistent witF�: ... (2) App(icabfe ordinances of the City of Saint Paul," Given the decision that the lot split creating this property in 1990 was not done in accordance with Sedion 67.306 of the Legislative Code, tF�is site plan is not consistent with the ordinances of the Ciry of Saint Paul. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on Finding 5 above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the zoning administrator and deny the site plan review for 420 Portland Avenue. � � a -s��- C� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department oJPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Seclion . 1100 Ciry Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MNSSIO2 266-6589 APPELLANT f Na Address �15 c5u�tnm� *� � City ,�}. � St.,�ZipJ"S/o Daytimephone3�-o�77 ,� �oa-. PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATION Address/Lc 1� S� � � � TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: 6� Board of Zoning Appeals ❑ City Council ��r.- �"�d Co,M.�-�-i sa�� under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 3�0 , Paragrapf�� of the Zoning Code, to appeal a d>cision made by the �c�.,�;�vc on �� l,/ g� � 19 � (dafe of decisi� File number: GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative officiat, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. �. � �.,� � ��Qc� Atfach addrfional sheet ApplicanYs City agent� GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OF 420 PORTLAND AVE. REQUEST FOR A � BUILDING PERMIT 420 Portland Ave. is a 5,400 squaze foot lot currentty used as parking for the condominium at 4I5 Summit Ave. My wife and I purchased this lot in 1996 with the intent of buiiding a single family house for our residence. In 1990 the City of St. Paul's Zoning Departrnent approved a request by the developer to split 420 Portland Ave from 41 S Summit, thus creating a separate buildable lot. Also in 1990, a public hearing was held on a request for a building permit on 420 Portland to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carriage house requiring seven vaziances. The request �vas approved but the project was not built. In 1992 a second request was submitted for an expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requirin� additional vaziances. This plan was also approved but not built. In 1996, apermit was issued and a t�vo-car garage was built on this lot. Three building permits have been issued on this property since it was split into a separate lot. I have requested vaziances for ttivo plans but both tivere denied. Tn May of this year, I submitted a site plan requesfing a permit for a 936 square foot single famzly carriage house with four tuck-under garage spaces. This plan met a11 city site plan requirements and needed no variances. This carriage house plan had already � been approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The St. Paul zoning office declined to issue a building permit based on their current position that the 1990 approval for tfie Iot split was not legal since no public hearing �vas held. I am appealing this decision for the following reasons: 1. My building permit application met all city code requirements at the ticne it w�as submitted to the zoning office. The "illegal" lot which was created in 1990 is not the 420 Portland lot. The illegal lot is the 415 Summit lot, since it is that lot with its main house which did not meet the raquired reaz yazd set-back. If any action (or denial of any requested action) is taken by the City, it should be in the form of prohibiting any further bnilding into the setback of 415 Summit. Contrary to the implication that issuance of the requested building pertnit will "compound" that error, the opposite is true. Not issuing the permit wili compound the enor by prohibiting me from building a no-variance required carriage house on a buildable lot. 2. Any error in creating the lot split was solely the responsibility of the City staff: The deerl evidencing the lot split was stamped and recorded. It is important to understand that I justifiably relied upon the assumption and representation that the lot split was correct. There is no legal or practical obligation upon the purchaser of a lot to go back and look at � the mechanics of the creation of the lot and draw conclusions as to their validity. � fi��i�� .� �8•_ a7s � �tq - a,t�- � The administrative approval of a lot split is the functional equivalant of a municipal staff issuing any kind of a permit. That is, if a permit is issued (or in this case, approval of a lot split) in error, and a third party justifiably relies upon, and incurs costs and expenses based upon that reliance, the city should be estopped from raising the error as reason for denial of a building permit. It is inequitable and without any legal precedent to restrict the o�vner of a legally conforming lot from developin� it in conformancy �vith the city code. Although no confirmation has been provided, the zoning staff has indicated that there may also have been a problem with the occupancy density of 415 Summit. If this is the case and since the fourth condominium unit was added after the lot split, it �vould seem to make as much sense for the City to take action against 415 Summit and require a do�vnward adjustment of the number of dwelling units as to refuse a conforming building permit on 420 Portland. I am not su�gesting that this actually be done, but this serves as an example of the unreasonable results which may occur if an eight year old illegal lot split is used to support City action or inaction at this point. 3. I have not been provided with evidence that the original lot split did not meet the necessary procedural requirements. Nor is there evidence that if the required variance had been requested and a public hearing held in 1990, that the variance would not have been granted. The end result of the procedure may well have been ihe granting of the variance, particularly since, at the time, both parcels were under common ownership. It is � speculation to assume that the variance would have been denied and to base the refusal to issue the requested building permit on speculation is arbitrary. Even if no public hearing was held at the time of the lot sepazation, five public hearings, including one in 1990, have since been held by the zoning department in response to building permit requests on this lot. At each public heazing, 420 Portland was reviewed as a separate buildable lot. 4. The owners of units in 415 Summit purchased their units after 420 Portland was split into a separate buildable lot. Purchasers were aware of this boundary as the Association's property line when they si�ed their purchase agreements. Approval of the building permit does not deprive 415 Summit owners of any of the space or rights provided by their purchase agreements or the Association Declaration. The site plan which I submitted to the zoning department provides two off-street pazking for each unit owner plus access to those pazking stalls as required by the Declazation. The site plan also meets the city code for parking lots. Please be awaze that nothing in this appeal should be interpreted as a criticism of the zoning staf£ I greatly appreciate a11 the effort and assistance that has been provided to me conceming this project. I understand the difficulty of the position into which they have been placed by this unforiunate turn of events. I simply disagree with and have difficulty understanding their refusal to issue the requested building permit. � � ��.��7► ��.E qa•27 OFF[CE OF LICET:SE, (`7SPECT[O�'S ht'B ' EtiVlROti�SE\,7AL PROTEC7IOV Roberl Kess!¢r, Dir¢tror � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, hlayor September 4, 1993 LO�fRY PROFESS/ONAL BUILDLVC Suite 300 350 St. Peeer Stree! SarnlPaul, blinnesofa SSlO?-ISIO Te(ephone: 611-266-9090 Fectilnife: 6!I-?66-9099 612-?66-9!?� Ron Severson 415 Summit Avenue Saint Paul, MD1 55102 RE: 420 Portland Avenue Dear Mc Severson: Ear[izr this year, the Ciry Councii uphetd a decision by the Board of Zonin� Appeals to the deny setback vaziances you had rzquested for the property at 420 Portland Avenuz, At that time the City Counci[ atso instructed the Ciry Attomey's office to look into the question ofwhzther the lot spiic that ori�inatiy created this pazcel w� legat. Lot split The City Attomey has determined that ihe ]ot split was not legal. The lot split needed a variance since it created a � noaconfocmin� rear yard setback for Yhe ezistin� condominium at 415 Sununit Avenue. It may have zlso created a nonconforzreing eondition for developmenY density but staff needs information about the size oF the uniu in 415 Summit to verify this. The Zonin� Code states that any lot split requiring a variance must have a public hearing before it can be approved. However, the lot split was approved in 1990 by City staff without a public heazing. Site plan Since the City Council denied your variance request, you submitted a revised site plan for the properry. You reduced the size of ihe carriage house and eliminated a pazkin� space so that a variance would not be needed and requested that the City approve the site plan. However, based on the determination that the lot spli[ that created this lot wu not legal, the City cannot approve the site plan. Your options If you wish to continue your efforts to obtain City approval to build on this site you may apply for thz variances needed to legalize the lot split. Or you may file an appeal by October 8 of the determination that the City cannot approve your site plan. Either option would involve a public hearin� before the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. If you have any questions, you can reach me at 266-9086 (phone) or 266-9099 (fzx). Sincerely, �� l r�� Tom Beach Zonin� Specialist cc: CouncilmemberBlakey Mark Vaught � � �'C��l�� F�L� �qa•z7 � �'� y• � NEbV A ^/' /� �-�/Dft;VEWAY �R�� Gt��O�`�Y � � J H�'�� r�EE 9 ' eo 9 LF � A�ROWS I��lDiCATE � � G �FL qQ ��F DRAINAGE SLO°� �2� �O � �� D � 2 C� Q F.� � �� NEN! �� O � SftEE o J ��. Q/ \(.�� Q Tp � ' \ 4 , Q� / � Q . } �'. �cXfSTWG' \��.� � P� PV '� 1 /�� a �°,� � , TR�E ? �� 1 � �C'�� / � � S' p 4 � ^ �O/ O �� P Q- ` O / � / F � i9 C� �,�° om�'� �i coNC. oR--e a p. � � � ASPHALT � CO 'C. �VALK � �—PAVEtiIENT Q (� & TEPS N:/ � Q IR �V RAILIPi^v > Q & ATE 3 !2� � / Q Q �. EX: i;NG /* r° /`' �'� PRO�OSED � �� Cs / G/jRAGE & � b� � � LOFT N � ,' � ( �n � / � � / � � � �i � / � � � * � � � ��. I 4' � �pT i 9 � 9 �� \ � � �, � . � � p �j` r C F �P�V � � � "� � l o � h',9 ��C�� . � � � y a4.�P � -- —-- y ` � O y ^ PROPEP.TY LINE � HEDGE , , � �{�— — � 90.00' . . ,� � N52°52'25°E � ' �� PATIO q ' ` � u i W � •� z BASEM�NT - I � � � STAIRS � { � PORCH w I "� �� o� ' S G � a � � � N � w � ;� `� s 415 SUMMIt AVE. � o^ � � 2 }/2 STOftY �° � 3 Nt00D FRA�AE BU�LDIHG � `�n � � Wl N _ �� '� M �o I � �h � � � :n � � I � �� i SITE PLAN � � � I 7/16" = 1'-0" I �,� , � >< � � `�'� - l o� � =_ � 8�...,�U i`w�b� a � � ' I = 6 j � . �, � .� 3 t_ io 3fWNtl pNV11210d o aay � N , . . �-,wa�s y 0 -{� N � u s � -� � � � � � � 1 y � � � � V � � vi 4 L H � � � - 1 L --� � � � I � i � � �� V -� I N o N — �l _ ' 1 I � � L' ti" � YSYffi � ,, y � ror\ e�'�� r :� � � <` �`� � 6_ � �-�. _ .� � � h N �A 0' W .� 8� � � � � � � N t� -� � � .iI I � ��_ ac�- • 9r zaa Il li :e:e l `�� V�'eST ELEVATION � \�i/ Ci_ .—�� K vr.r � 4- °— — � z�,c_ � 9r \ � —Y ��em rze i I I i Y�nppn BOx S(:HEIAL 3>' I 1839 I9:D � x oaacc*rox P-EP"i5 Ss�x P-9W6 ,: � o_�a on 9�- � _. � �-aas \ � I \ \� _ � j �� J �e I ' IE3a = � I I e_a � .--- -- � u�_� [ I ❑ n I ❑ L U � U Qa a.__ � �'� FAST ELEVATION � - 28:b � �P_W�6 ze_e � i� � —__ � \ I _ � u�OEPifN OB:- 1ry1� SiIN�(HI" n� ,�� .�o , _ SCHE�I� 3X !�� wor[: s ewv_oo: o CMi(c (.�BIC wOVtJ PLOVIPC H.i.C. A�PPOVI: CEO i $ww0.:2 O�0 u�µ GUrtER ) s : °Oi : °n ssa x � Ca D_ppfi0 �HOERSCH 05�_ XUNG MN� tt0 3xJ M 5 1/j Ildu BJ�aD$ 6' CORNER eo�os 5 �rz' Imu BOwO �-BO�d $:pMG k iRIY [p 4AL�N H�tJSC DRIO (�v i/� S 6 iRlu BO � �P COUR5C5 HOC� GeCE BlN �n�� P-8018 ON �SZa p t Sx� x i ov 39:0 P- �� NNErtSEM 0°t_ J Hue� w�n� , �T. ZMD �LR � s �n m,� eouos 6' CORrvE� BWaJS 5 �R' fqiu BGV+O S��u: h �'+v t0 WICN N�E Daw Gi v.zsrx eo � aoa ri% e� � $ �k { N� � �� , � T 's� � � � � � y "� -`ai � ,_ -,� ^,-- , ; , a,a ; � - �azs� :azs i iacs, �—, � I � /� NCMM1 N/ C�:LXa� I � I i ��1 /' 3UYP-CVi d 6RCHLu l �� ( � _ L_ U — ' �I L� � �— � �% I �— i I ccn' � z�za � �:cca 1 � � ��''`` f �_ � � SICf\G k iFN � i0 W:Cn NCUSc aa � , r-- - sc;��-�� .�c �\ NORTH ELcVa7;ON �J y"'�� SC�=h^- .;`< � SOUTH ELEVATIO� � �.. � �, � � N � 33�i ,.� .d„ t3. � � .� � � � C� • n U OFFICE OF LICE\SE, NSPECTIO`S A.�D �� EyVIROtiME\'TAL PR07ECTiON Roberf Kessler, Dtrector • CITY OF SAINT PAUL horm Coleman, bfayo� October 7, 1998 � Ron Severson 415 Suminit Ave, #2 Saint Pau1, Mn. 55102 LO1i'RY PROFESSfO�'AL BUILDL�"G Sui�e 300 350 St. Pefer Slreet Saint Paul, Minnesota 5510?-1�10 Re: Proposed Variance Request for 420 Portland Ave. Dear Mr. Severson: Te]ephone: 61I-266-9090 Farsimiie: 612-2b6-9099 612-266-912J Recently you submitted a request for site plan approval in order to construct a new single family home on the property known as 420 Portland Ave. That site plan was denied by the Zoning Administrator based on an opinion from the City Attomey that the parcel known as 420 Portland was illegally spiit from the property at 415 Summit. On September 30, 1998 you submitted an appeal to that site plan denial, which will be handled by the Planning and Economic Development Department (PED). At the time of your appeal application, you stated that you also wanted to submit an application for a variance in order to construct a new single family home on the pazcel known as 420 Portland Ave. I informed you that we could not accept a variance application for constructing a new single family home on the property because there is an administrative action pending (your appeal) to determine if the property is a separate, legally created parcel, or if it is sti11 part of the properiy at 415 Summit Ave. If it is deterznined throu�h the appeal process that 420 Portland is a separate parcel, you may submit a vaziance application to build on the properiy. If it is determined that it is not a sepazate parcel and is still part of 415 Summit, then only the o�vners of 415 Summit may build on the property or apply for a variance to build on the property. If you have any further questions regarding this matter you may contact me at 266-9082. Sin er ly, � ^ ` John Hardwick • Zoning Specialist c: Beth Bartz, PED Peter Wamer, City Attomey Wendy Lane, Zoning Manager 4 ��s��;�� .� Re'2?5 � � SUhL'7IT-UNIVERSITY DISTRICT 8 N� .-��rt" x `" ' 0°O _ "� '� z� �H �� e�� V �� i °lq �a-C �-- 1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD 2. HAZEL PARK T3ADEti-PROSPERiTY HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PAYNE-PHAI.EN 6. I�IORTH END � THO��IAS-DALE SUMMTT-LJNIVERSITY WEST SEVENTI-I 10. COMO ii. HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. ST. ANTHONY PARK 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXI�TGTON HAMLINE•SNELLING HAMLII�`E 14. MACALESTER GROVELAND 15. HIGHLAND 16. SUMMTT HII.L � 17. DOWNTOWN ZONING FILE '�? CITIZEN PARTTCIPATION PIANNING DISTRICTS s � 0 � ��SOt1 PURPOSE ' ` FILE k � �� DATE PLNG. DIST�_ MAP # �v � �� . l.�v LEGEND .�� zoning district boundary � subjec[ property n" orth 0 one family • . � comme� � twofamily ♦ a..� indust:ial �-�Q muitiple tamily V vacanc ��.. . . '�w�.!�ifia- - - -- -- r�°l .,u�-- Februazy 1, 1999 Mr. Ronald Severson 415 5ummit Avenue, # 2 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Mx. Severson: We, the majoritq members of the Nathan Hale Mews Association, would like to formalize our previous offer to purchase the property you own at 420 Portland Avenue at a mutually agreed upon and fair market value. It is the Association' s intent to reunite the properties at 420 Portland Avenue and 415 Summit Avenue. Therefore we would like to arrange to meet with you to discuss our proposal as soon as possible. Please contact either Tricia Leonard or Greg Glark to schedule a time to meet. Sincerely, Sharon Schwarz, President Caml Clark, Treasurer Tricia l,eonard, Secretary Greg Clark, Associatian Member cc: Sharon Schwarz Tricia Leonard Carol & Greg Glark MARIf VOERDING Il3 FARRINGTONSTREET SA7NT PAUL, MN 55102 Februuy 3, 1999 Mr. President and Mensbers of the City Council, ° ' 2�-�`� Due to a previous coinmitment I am unable to attend tonighYs public hearing regarding the appeal of the Planniug Commission's denial of a site p3au for 420 Portland Avenue. However, since I am also the person respons�'ble for raising questions about certain actions by city staff as well as the legality ofthe 1990 "lot split", I am compelled to write regarding this appeal The facts m this case aze not in dispute. As proposed, the original lot split required variances and, as a resutt, did not meet all ofthe conditions required for the plavniug administrator to grant approval Therefore, under the ]aws of this city in effect now and at that time, the Boazd of Zoning, AppeaLs wouid be required to hold a public hearing to consider the variances and � g�ant those variances and a lot split upon ma.king required findings. No public hearing was held, the BZA did not consider any variances for the proposed lot and no required Sndings were adopted. At the City CounciPs request the City Attorney has reviewed this matter and made a deteiinivation that due process had not been followed and a legallot split had not occurred. The issue befare you today is not the desigu of the proposed structure, its location on the site, the size of the structure or the cjiiality of construction. The quesrion before you is whether or not a site plsn can be approved by the city. Clearly, since a legal lot split did aot occur the owner does not have control of a truildable site and the city cannot approve a plan to build on that site. Because a legal lot split did not occur there are also new questions about the ownership rights of the condominiiun a"ssooiation at 415 Sumwit, the property from whicfi this lot wasto be split from, that need to be addressed in a different venue. A vote in favor of this appeal sends a, message.that, regardless of intent, staffmay ignore the laws oftlus city and the Council will be in support. Tlus, I beJieve, is not and never has been the position of the Ciry Council and I am certain that iC is not the message you want to send to the citizens of Saint PauL A vote to deny this appeal a�rms the laws and legai processes of this city. Finally,'mistakes cost. In this case an-error in judgement by staffwill likely cost the city financially. This is unfortunate since ik is the propezty tas payers, including you and I, who will nitimately pay the price for tfiis mistake. However, neither the price of this enor nor the time that has elapsed can outweigh the decision to uphold the taw and legal due procesa Therefure, based on the City Attomey's determination and your desire to stand by the laws of this city I ask that you deny the appeal. Hopefiilly, the appellant will then pursue one of the many other options available to lum Respectfiilty, �� Mark Voerding ORIGINAL RESOLUTION CITY OF SA1NT PAUL, MINNESOTA Council File # � � �+ Green Sheet # ��S ZS � Presented By Refened To 2 WI�REAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.300(.� 3 Ronald J. Severson, in Zoning File 98-275, filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's 4 decision to deny site plan approval for the construction of a combination carriage house and 5 gazage on properiy located at 420 Portland Avenue and legally described as "except the southeast 6 132.8 feet, Lot 6, Auditor's subdivision number 38; and 7 8 WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Pau1 Plauning Commission [the 9 "Planning Commission"], in accardance with the requirements of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 10 64300, conducted a public hearing on October 29, 1998, after having provided notice to affected 11 properry owners and at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard in; and 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3Q 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the October 29, 1998, public hearing, the Zoning Committee moved to deny the said appeal and submitted its recommendation to the Planning Commission; and WFIEREAS, the Planning Commission, by its resolution 98-72 adopted November 6, 1998, decided to deny the said appeal based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. Ron Severson submitted plans for site plan review of a proposed development of a one-unit carriage house and four car garage on May 28, 1998, and later submitted revised plans which did not require any variances for construction on the 420 Portland parcel. The revised proposal also included two additional surface pazking stalls. 2. The site plan was denied approval by the Zoning Administrator based on advlce from the City Attorney that the 19901ot split was not valid because the lot spiit was not given the public hearing required by § 673Q6 of the Legislative Code. Lot splits meeting all the conditions listed in § 67304 can be approved admuristratively. § 67306 requires that lot splits require any vartance from one or more of these conditions may not be approved until a variance is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals following a public hearing. The lot split in question leaves the lot at 415 5uminit with an inadequate rear yard setback and therefore does not meet the conditions set for the in § 67.304. 1 3. The deficiencies in the lot split occun•ing on the pazcel at 415 2 Sumuut could be resolved by a variance by the Boazd of Zoning 3 Appeals. Such a variance must be applied for by the owners of 415 4 Stunmit (the Nathan Hale Condomuuum Association). Mr. 5 Severson alone does not have standing to apply for this variance. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 4. 415 Summit was not made nonconforming by splitting its parking area off for the pazcel as pazking for the units at 415 Swnmit must be provided at 420 Portland according to a covenant placed on the deed of 420 Portland. According to this covenant, two spaces must be provided for each unit at 415 Sutninit for a total of eight spaces. § 62.104(2) of the Legislative Code allows required multi-family pazking to be provided on an abutting lot. 5. § 62.108(c) of the Legislative Code states: "site plan review and approval. In order to approve the site plan, the Plauning Commission shall consider and fmd that the site plan is consistent with: ...(2) applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul." Given the decision that the lot split creating this property in 1990 was not done in accordance with § 67306 of the Legislarive Code, the site plan is not consistent with the ordinances of the City of Saint Paul. a 9 _ a��- WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § b4.206, Ronald J. Severson duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the deternunation made by the Plaiuiiiig Comxnission and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City Council [the "City Council"] for the purposes of considening the actions taken by the said commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on February 3, 1999, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEI2EAS, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and of the Planning Commission, the City Council does hereby; RESOLVE, to grant the appeal of Ronald J. Severson and to approve the site plan based upon the following findings and conclusions of the Council: The Council finds that the record demonstrates that the Planning Commission enoneously denied the appellanYs site pian application. 2. The Council finds that a variance of the backyard setback requirements for the building at 415 Sumxnit should have been applied for at the time the lot split application was first received and a public hearing pursuant to Leg. Code § 67306 should have been conducted for the purposes of determining whether to grant a variance and remove the nonconfonning status of the building at 415 Suuunit. The Council concludes, based upon the entire record, that approval of the underlying lot split which did not satisfy the requirements of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 67.304 should not now bar approval of the appellants site plan. i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Reguested by Department of: ay: e�o1 r�.�.'�-- Form ApprO d by City Attorney % gY: �� LJl1�,ti,e-� 3-/.r_ 4 q Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY: �--_` , 1 �� By: Approved by Ma or Date /(/ 9 By: 4. The Council, based upon the recard before it and acting pursuant to its broad authority provided under Legislative Code § 64.207, fiu•ther concludes that any backyazd setback variance necessary to remove the non-confornung status of 415 Summit Avenue would be approved by the Council if the appellant were required to make such an application, and is therefore deemed approved as noted above. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Ronaid J. Severson be and is hereby granted; and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk sha11 mail a copy of this resolution to the Zoning Administrator, the Plamung Commission, the Appellant and any interested party who requests a copy of the resolution. Adopted by Council: Date �� .�.. �� iqVq \ Adoption Certified by Council Secretary R�L -'ad.z- DEPAR7MENT70FFICFJCOUNCIL DATEImTV.TEO c�t coun�� 3/16/99 GREEN SHEET No 63525 CONTACT PEF2&7N & PHOtJE �nwalmaN Inkwmats Jerry Biakey, 266-8610 � �.�� MUSS BE ON WUNCIL AGQmA BV �QqTq AIISlcrl MIAIBERFOR UIYAT�OIOEY CRYCIFNN RO{I71qG � RNRIItLLaExvlCESOIR AIIII+C1�1LaExV/uLic ❑r�vortlort�a.9sTYR) ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PACaES (CIIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION REQUESTED Finalizing City Council acCion taken on February 3, 1999 granting the appeal of Ronald J. Severson for property located at 420 Portland Avenue. RE MMEN ATIONApprove A)aRe�eU( ) PERSONAISERYICECAN'[AAC[SfAUSTANSWERTNEFOLLOWIN6QUE5SSON5: 1. Has this persoNfirtn ever wo�ked untlx a cantract for this tlepartmeM? PLANNING CAMMISSION VES NO CIB COMMRTEE z. Has mis persoNtirm erer been a ctty empwyee? CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION vES NO 3. Dces this persanKrm possess a sldll not nwmallypossessetl by any current city employee? YES NO 4. Is Mis pe�son/firm a targeted vendoY7 YES NO E�qflain alf yes ansv�e�s on sepa2te sl�eet antl attach ta green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORNNITY (Who, What, When, Where, Why) ' ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED y?suar+;°�s� �u^��eT,w�n 8`?�°;xc.( �...<..h,.... �. - s�, ., r . .� ��,��.� � � 1�R9 DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED D{SADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVE6 TO7AL AMOUNT oF TRANSAGTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGHTED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FlINDiNG SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlNANCW.INFORMATON (IXPWIQ OFFICE OF TF� CITY ATTORNEY Clayton qq.�`� CIT'Y OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor Civil Division 400 Clty Ha11 I S Wesi KeUogg Blvd Sarnt Paul Minnesota 55102 Telephone: 657 266-8770 Facsimile: 65I 298-5614 FIAND DELIVERED Nancy Anderson Council Secretary Council Chambers Saint Paul City Hall RE: Appeal of Ronald J. Severson Zoning File 98-275 Council Heazing Date: February 3, 1999 Deaz Nancy: Attached please find a signed copy of a resolution memorializing the Febnaary 3, 1999 decision of the Saint Paul City Council to grant the appeal of Ronald J. Severson for property located at 420 Portland Ave. Please place this matter on the Council's consent agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any addirional questions, please call. Sincerely, �� Peter W. Warner Assistant Ciiy Attorney attachment DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �-ZL1f 3a- CPTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coteman, Mayor January 12, 1999 Division af Planning 25 West Fou,th Sveet Saint Pau1, MN SSIO2 TeZephane: 672-2666565 Facstmile: 612-228-3314 a � � � �� LrC.�`��i4va IZC:,��. �•• •�v :� Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: ,, ., , � -,, I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday February 3, 1999 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan. Appellant: Ronald J. Severson File number : 98-275 Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for a carriage house and garages. Address: 420 Portland Legal Description of Property: See file. Previous Aarion: Planning commission recommendation: Unanimously (13-0) upheld Zoning Administrator's denial. (Vaught did not vote) Zoning commirtee recommendation: Unanimously (6-0) upheld Zoning Administrator' denial. (Vaught did not vote) My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the 3anuary 20, 1999 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6559 if you have any questions. Sincerely, � �/// �'/�� ames Zdo City Pla er -�<`� •�srrsux• � . .- - - - - 1VOTICE OF PIIBLLC HEARING - - cC: $le #9$-2�S The Saint Paul City Council w511 conduct a public hearing on Wednesday. Pat11 DubiiCl February 3, 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor. City Hall- �Court House to consider the appeal of Ronald J. Severson to a decision of the CaY01 MBttiriOaU Planning Commission upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for PetOi W8Cne1' a carriage house and garages at 420 Port7and Avenue. Dated: January 13, 1999 - � , _ NANCY ANDERSON ` � � Assistant Ciry Covncil Secretary - � , - � - (Janvary 15, 1999) � � . CI'TY OF SAINT PAUL No�m Coleman, Mayor January 13, 1999 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Counci( Room 310 Ciry Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 DEPARTMEI3T OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENI' Dtvision of Pkuuung ZS iVest Founh Srreer SairstPau[, MNSSIO2 olq.Z� � Zelephone: 612-266-6565 Facsiml[e: 612-228-33I4 IZE: Zoning File # 98-275 Ronald J. Severson City Council Hearing: February 3, 1999, 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeai of a Planning Commission decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for a carriage house and garages at 420 Portland. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Unanimously (13-0) upheld Zoning Administrator's denial. (Vaught did not vote) ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Unanimously (6-0) upheld Zonin� Administrator' deniaL (Vaught did not vote) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Uphold Zoning Administrator's denial SUPPORT None OPPOSITION: 3 residents spoke in favor of the denial. Dear Ms. Anderson: Ronald J. Severson is appealing a Plannin� Commission decision upholdin� the Zoning Administrator's denial of a site plan for a carriage house and gazages at 420 Portland. The Zoning Committee of the Plarmine Commission held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning on October 29, 1998 and voted 6-0 to uphold the Zoning AdministratoPs deniaL The Planning Commission, on November 6, 1998, unanimously upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on February 3, 1999. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, � � �'I � 4`wJ�.,�. U %James Z� " City PYanner cc: City Council members Attachments APPLtCAT10N FOR APPEAL Department ojPlm:ning and Economic Developmenr Zonir:g Sectia: 1100 Cit'l� $all Annex ZS Tf'est FourU: StreeY Saint Paul, M[\'S5102 266-6589 APPELLANT F� rsEng'c►�ce use anEy - - � no :_ � �� :1 � �.�c� ��°- • �tat�ve_heanrig date ZipSJ)e, Daytime phone ?,r-Gl77 PROPERTY LOCATION TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: = Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the �=arJr ]o, Ci;rnm�Sye,� on A�;'t�m��%,�(� . 19 9c� File number. � 9r -�7.5� (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Exptain why you fee( there fias been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusa( made by an administrafive official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. 5"° • �t��.� -�.,� s�f-� Attach additional sheet if Applicant's sig dafe la - � - y City qq . �c.� � GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OF 420 PORTLAND AVE. REQUEST FOR A BUILDING PERMIT 420 Portland Ave. is a 5,400 square foot lot currently used as parking for the condominium at 415 Summit Ave. My wife and I purchased this lot in 1496 with the intent of building a single-family house for our residence. In 1990 the City of St. PauPs Zoning Department approved a request by the developer to split 420 Portland Ave from 415 Summit, thus creating a separate buildable lot. Also in 1990, a public hearing was held on a request for a building permit on 420 Portland to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carriage house requiring seven variances. The request was approved but the project was not built. In 1992 a second request ��as submitted for an expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requiring additional variances. This plan was also approved but not built. In 1996, a permit was issued and a rivo-car garage was built or, this lot. Three building permits have been issued on this property since it was split into a separate lot. In May of 1998, I submitted a site plan requesting a permit for a 936 square foot sin�le family carriage house with four tuck-under garage spaces. This plan met a11 city site plan requirements and needed no variances. The Heritage Preservation Commission had already approved this carriage house plan. � The St. Paul zoning office declined to issue a building permit based on their cunent position that the 1990 approval for the lot split was not legal since no public hearing was held. T am appealing this decision for the following reasons: 1. The lot on 420 Portland Ave. was a sepazate buildable lot when I purchased it in 1996 according to the records of the City of St. Paul. My building permit application met a11 city code requirements at the time that it was submitted to the zoning office. The "ille�al" lot, that was created in 1990, is not the 420 Portland lot. The illegallot is the 415 Summit lot, since it is that lot with its main house, which does not meet the required rear yard setback. 2. The City administratively approved this lot split in 1990. Any error in creating the lot split was solely the responsibility of the City staff. I relied on the City's actions when I proceeded with the development oFplans to build my carriage house. The ZoninQ Board has held five public hearings on requests for building permit variances on this lot and approved three building permats. At. Each public hearing, 420 Portland was represented and reviewed as a separte buildable lot. The city should not now use this 1990 "error" as the reason for denial of my nonvariance building permit request. The � 1990 administrative approval of this lot split should be affirmed and allowed to stand. 3. The owners of units in 415 Summit purchased their units after 420 Portland was split � into a sepazate buildable lot. Owners were aware of and accepted this lot line as the Association's property line when they signed their purchase agreemenTs. Approval of the building permit does not deprive 415 Summit owners of any of the space or rights provided by their purchase agreements or the Association Declaration. The site plan, �vhich I submitted, to the zoning department provides two off-street parking for each unit owner plus access to those parking stalls as required by the Declaration. The site plan also meets the city code for parking lots. Please be aware that nothing in this appeal should be interpreted as a criticism of the zoning staf£ I greatly appreciate all the effort and assistance that has been provided to me by Mr. Hardwick and Mr. Beach. I understand the difficulty of the position into which they have been placed by This unfomuiate turn of events. I simply disagree �i2th and have difficulty understanding their refusal to issue the requested building permit. `� � �9 -2-61 � Saint Paul Planning Commission City FIall Conference Center 15 Kellagg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 6, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Mmes. DuaRe, Engh, Geisser, Morton, I�TOrdin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs. Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Mardell, Margulies and Vaught. Mmes. `Faricy and Messrs. *Johnson, *Kong, *McDonefl, *Nowlin, Sharpe *Excused � �_� Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Beth Bartz, Nancy Homans, Larry Soderholm, Lucy Thompson, and Jim Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; Tim Agness from Parks & Recreation; and Ken Greenberg, Director, Saint Paul Design Center. I. Approval of Minutes of October 23, 199& MOTION: Commissioner Kramer rrroverl approvn7 oJtlte minutes oJOctober 23, 1998; Conzmissioner Marde!! secnnded tl:e motioft. II. III. Commissioners Vaueht and Field added corrections to the minutes of October 23, 1998. Tlte motion on theJloor approving tlre corrected minutes of October 23, 1998 carried trnanimotrslb� on a voice vote. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that Commissioner Geisser has graciously offered to chair the holiday party this yeac Commissioner Geisser added that this is a special holiday party because four of the Plannin� Commissioners will be retiring from the Commission at the end of the year. The date for the holiday party is December 18, 1998; the PlanninQ Commission meeting that mornina �vill be shifred to a later time and the parcy will be a luncheon. Each member will contribute $2�. Chair Morton announced that there will 6e a Steering Committee meetins at 7:45 a.m, November 20, 1998. Plannin� Administrator's Aunouucements Mr. Ford apologized for the packets anivine later Than usual due to equipmen[ not beins operable durina the movin� procedure in PED. Mr. Ford announced tha[ the Livable Communities Advisory Committee of the Metropolitan or: a voice vote. #98-275 Ronald J. Severson - Appeal of the deniat by the Zoning Administrator of a site plan for a carriage house & garage at 420 Portland Avenue beriveen Arundel & Western Avenues (Beth BaRZ, 266-6580). MOTION: Commissioner Field moved to deny tke appea! of the dei:ial by the Zoning fSdministrator oja site plan jor a carriaae horrse and garage af 420 Portlanrlflvenue between ffrunde! and Western.4venues. Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission that he �vould not vote on this issue; he would no[ paRicipate in any discussion regarding this issue; he has not participated in a discussion on this issue in any �vay; and he has not discussed the substance or the procedural issues of this matter cvith any member of the Commission prior to the vote. Commissioner Treichel asked if the applicant can correct the 1990 lot split? Ms. Bartz responded that the only �vay Yo make the !ot spliY vaGd woutd be for the property owners of415 Summit Avenue, which is the remainder of the parcet, to apply for a rear yard variance, which would then bring thai structure into conformance. The condominium association that orvns that piece of property has not been willing to come fonvard and do that. T/te motion nn tlie f7oor carried tenanimously on a voice vote with Con:missioner Vaught not YDZllte. #98-277 U.S. West Wireless - Special condition use permit to allow construction of a PCS �vireless communications antenna suppoR s}'stem at 218 Kiplin� Street bem•een Hilldale Avenue & Lower Afton Road (Martha Faust, 266-6572). MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the reguested specia! condition use permit to allow construction of a PCS wireless commtenications antenna support system at 218 Kipling Street, wkic/r carried ursanimously on a voice vote. �98-261 Louie's BiIliards Inc - Special condition use to allow a billiard hall business at 1990 Suburban Acenue (Martha Faust, 266-6572). Commissioner Field informed commissioners that Mr, `Vamer is workine on a resolution for this case. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved for an extension of two weeks for this cnse so that the appropriate reso[ution ean be written and reviewed Commissioner Vaught stated that he voted against the Committee's decision because he feels tltere is not evidence to suppoR the decision of the Committee inasmucfi as it �vas based on the a(IeQation that someho�1 the presence of this particular facility at that (ocation �vould be detrimental to the general health, �veifare and safety of the communih. There was a lot of anecdotal discussion includine some discussion ofthe Police Chiefat a district councii meetine. �~luch wasn accompanied b} am factual basis. There «ere a iot of alle�ations ofthe all ofthe e� ils that «ould come from this particular biliiard hall at this iocation, but there �cas a decided absence in the record of an} hard facts. Commissioner L'aaaht statzd that he did find the parkina to be deficient and he thinks that the shared parkin� aareement. which the Zoning Administrator approeed, doesn't conform with the code. He said hz couldn't persuade any of � � �J ag -1�� city of saint paui planning commission resolution file number 48-72 �te November 6, 1998 WHEREAS, SEVERSON, J. RONALD, file R 98-275, has applied for an Appeal of the zonino administrator's decision under the provisions of Section 64300 (j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for the purpose of obtaining site plan approval to construct a carriage house and garaaes on property located at 420 Portland, legally described as Except the southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision #38; and WHEftEAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on 10129/98, held a public hearing at �vhich a!! persons present were given an oppoctunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the folloeving findings of fact: � 1. Ron Severson submitted plans for site plan review of a proposed development oE a 1-unit carriage house and 4-car garage on May 28, 1998 and later submitted revised pfans which did not require any variances for construction on tne 420 Portland parcel. The revised proposal also included 2 additional surface parking stalls. This site plan �vas denied approval by the zoning administrator based on advice from the City Attorney that the 1990 lot split was not valid because the lot split was not given the public hearing required by Section 67.306 of the Legislative Code. Lot splits meeting alf the conditions listed in Section 67.304 can be approved administratively. Section 67.306 requires that lot splits requiring a variance from one or more of these conditions may not be approved until a variance is granted by the Board oi Zoning Appeals following a public hearing. The lot split in question leaves the Iot at 41 � Summit with an inadequate rear yard setback and therefore does not meet the conditions set forth in Section 67.304. 3. The deficiencies in the lot split occurring on the parcel at 47 5 Summit could be resolved by a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such a variance must be applied for by the owners of 47 � Summit (tne f�athan Hale CondominiUm Association). Mr. Severson alone does not have standing to apply for this variance. moved by Field * secot��ded by -- in favor 13 (Vaught did not vote. ) against � 4. 415 Summit avas not made non-conforming by splitting its parking area off from the parcel as parking for the units at 415 Summit must be provided at 420 Portland according to a covenant placed on the deed of 420 Summi[. According to this covenant, Z spaces must be provided for each unit at 41 S Summit for a total of 8 spaces. Section 62.iO4(2) of the legislative code allows required multi-family parking to be provided on an abutting lot. Section 62.708 (c) of ihe Legislative Code states: "Site plan review and approval. In order to approve the site plan, the planning commission shall consider and find that the site plan is consistent with: ... (2) Applicable ordinances of [he City of Saint Paul." Given the decision that the lot split creating this property in 1990 was not done in accordance with Section 67306 of the Legislative Code, this site plan is not consistent with ihe ordinances of the Ciry of Saint Paul. NOW, THEREFOfZE, BE iT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authori[y of [he City's Legislative Code, the decision of the zoning administrator is upheld and the site pian review for 42D Portland Avenue is denied. � � MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, October 29, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. �q-Z�.�^ • City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor Ciry Hail and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, Morton, Vaught and Wencl EXCUSED: Gervais OTHERS PRESENT: Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, Beth Bartz,Geri Boyd, Martha Faust, Larry Soderholm and Jim Zdon of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. RONALD J. SEVERSON - Zoning File 98 - 275 - Appeal of the denial by the Zoning Administrator of a site plan for a carriage house and garage. Commissioner Vauqht stated that he will not be voting nor taking part in any of the discussion of this case due to conflict of interest. Commissioner Vaught further stated that other than a brief conversation with the Cha+r he has discussed neither the substance nor the procedures for this application with any member of this committee, or any member of the Planning Commission, either at today's meeting or elsewhere. Beth Bartz, PED, gave a slide presentation and reviewed the staff report. Ms. Bartz stated staff recommended =nial of the appeal. Ms. Bartzfurtherstated that the Ramsey Hil1 Association and the Summit-University Planning ouncil also recommend denial. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Bartz stated that she beiieved all of the applications from previous years would have been invalid if the lot split probfem had been raised. Ms. Bartz further expiained that a member of the Ramsey Hill Association raised the question of the lot split; he is a former aide to a city council member and given his understanding of the code and procedures, he questioned the validity of the lot split. in response to Commissioner Gordon, Peter Warner explained that the Zoning Committee and Pfanning Commission have no authority to correct the lot sp{it, however the Board of Zoning Appeals coufd. He further stated that the P{anning Commission does not have the authority to review decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ronafd Severson, 415 Summit Avenue #2, appeared. Mr. Severson explained that there had been 3 building permits issued on the property at420 Portland Avenue, to build 2 carriage houses and a garage. He fiurther stated that neither of the carriage houses were buiit because the developer ran into financial probiems, and subsequently put the property up for sale. At that time Mr. Severson purchased the property with the intent to put up a single family carriage house as a retirement home for himselfi. He worked with the Heritage Preservation people and came up with a plan that was approved by them. John Miller, attorney, Suite 300, 50 East 5'" Street, appeared on behalf of Mr. Severson. Mr. Miller asked if the city can prohibit the construction of a conforming building on a parcel on the basis that correct procedures were not followed by city staff when that parcel was first created. This is what the staff is recommending today, he said. r. Miller respectfully disagreed that the site plan is not in accordance with the applicable city ordinances. Mr. ilier submitted that the interpretation given in the staff report casts an overly broad net and that the language in the code is directed more towards whether a current proposal on a current lot meets the necessary performance standards, and is not infended to go back and review whether or not the creation of the lot was valid or invalid. Zoning Committee Minutes October 29, 1998 Ro�ald Severson (98-275) Page 2 � Mr. Milier stated that at some point, in a situation such as this , the city has to take responsibility for and be bound by the actions of its employees whether they are correct or incorrect, especially when a party such as Mr. Severson has relied upon their action in making an investment. Mr. Miller further stated that Mr. Severson has spent a lot of time and money during the period of his ownership making various submissions trying to develop the parcel. The question was asked by Mr. Miller, what are the consequences of an action taken by the city, whether by an empioyee or by city council, when that action is not in conformance wiih the requirements of an ordinance? Mr. MiUer submitted that in a case such as this, the original action should nof be void or even voidabie uniess there is specific language in the ordinance stating that action taken contrary to the ordinance (the original IQt split) is void or voidabie. In summary, Mr. Miller stated that he is �ot being criticai of sYaff. On the contrary, he stated the staff has been extremely helpfu! in answering questions and providing information. He simply thinks that the conclusion they have reached is incorrect. Responding to Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Miiler stated that no variance has been applied for by the owners of 415 Summit t Avenue. To get a resolution of the lot split, Mr. Miller stated that they will probably have to end up in court. In response to Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Miller explained that Mr. Severson has a separate tax iderttifcation number for the property. The lot at 420 Portland was recorded at Ramsey County. Carol Clark, 415 Summit Avenue, appeared. Ms. Cfark stated that on more than one occasion the condomi� association has offered to buy Mr. Severson out of the property at 420 Portland Avenue. Ms. Ciark further stated thaf they were witting fo pay fuft market value in order fo bring 415 Summit back to the original state by conso(idafing the two properties. S(te said fhat Mr. Severson has not been wilting to se(i to the association. Ms. Clark continued that their condominium documenfs state that each owner has two parking spofs on the property at 420 Portland. Mr. Severson plans to provide those spaces, however one of the spaces on the plans is for a compact car. Ms. Clark said that Mr. Severson can not mandate or assume fhat anyone fn the association wifl own or drive a compact vehicle. Ms. Clark said that Mr. Severson, was in fact, aware of aII of the problems before purchasing the property. Questioned by Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Ciark replied that if the condominium association could purchase the property, they wouid ensure that everyone has the appropriate parking, would workwith the neighborhood on the design of 2 more garages, wouid do landscaping, and would not do anything to harm the park next door. Mark Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, Chair of the Ramsey Hill Land Use Committee, appeared. Mr. Voerding explained that he is the person who raised the lot split issue that has brought the case to this point. Mr. Voerding stated that he does not believe the lot split occurred legaily in 1990 and does not believe the site plan presented by Mr. Severson today is on a legal lot. Mr. Voerding explained that without the due process that the legisiative code required in the lot split case, the action never legally occurred. He further stated that the staff person who stamped and signed the lot split document had no authority to do so; the person falsely left an impression that the !ot spiit had occurred. Mr. Voerding said that this is a legal matter between Mr. Severson, the seller and perhaps something involving the city or city employees. Sharon Schwartz, 415 SummitAvenue, appeared. Ms. Schwartz sfressed that the residents at 495 Summit a blanket easement for access rights across the property at 420 Portland. She further explained tha association has issues around density, snow removal, green space and landscaping. Ms. Schwartz expressed concern over maintaining their rights regarding these issues. °lq -Z� � Zoning Committee Minutes � �ctober 29, 1998 onald Severson (98-275) Page 3 Mr. Severson reappeared to give rebuttal comments. He explained that the association claims that they would pay him fair market vaiue for the property. But the value of the lot depends on what can be built on it. If the propeRy is found to be unbuildable, Mr. Severson stated that he would loose a great deal of money. He further stated that he had agreed to place $5,000 in an account with one of the association members to establish and maintain landscaping around the proposed building. Mr. Severson further stated that regarding parking, his proposals have always met city parking code standards. No one else spoke, and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gordon stated that both Mr. Severson and also the individuals who testified in opposition had valid points. However, given the status of the lot split issue he moved approvai of the staff recommendation to deny Mr. Severson's appeal. It was seconded by Commissioner Wencl . There was no further discussion, and the motion was called recommending denial of the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. Adopted Yeas - 6 (Vaught did not vote) Nays - o � afted by: Geri Boyd Recording Secretary Submitted by: Larry Soderholm Zoning Section Approved by: Litton Field Chair l� ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT FILE # 98-275 7. APPLICANT: SEVERSON, J. RONALD DATE OF HEARING: 10 /29/98 2. CLASSIFICATION: P.ppeal of zoning administrator's decision regarding site plan 3. LOCATION: 42a Portland 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 8 S. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Except the southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision #38. 6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: Section 64.300 (j) 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: Odober 19, 7998 BY: Beth Bartz 8. DATE RECEIVED: 09/30/98 DEAD!!NE FOR ACTION: 11/29/98 A. f:� PURPOSE: Appeal of denial by the Zoning Administrator of a site pian for a carriage house and garages. PARCEL StZE: 5428 square feet C. EXISTfNG LA(VD USE: The parcei is currentfy used for parking by the 4-u�it condominium at 415 Summit (the parcel immediately south of 420 Portfand}. A two-car garage was recent(y built on the site. D. SURROUNDING CAND USE: NortF�: Singfe family and dupiex in an R7-2 district. East: Natt�an Hale Park in an RT-2 district. South: Four-unit condominium in an RT-2 district. West: Multi-family condominium in an RM-2 district. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 64.300 (j) of the Legislative Code states: "The grant of denial of approval by the planning or zoning administrator is subject to appeal to the planning commission by any person, firm or corporation, or by any office, deparrment, board or bureau affected by a decision of the planning or zoning administrator within thirty (30) days after the decision appeafed from shalf have 6een served wither in person or by mail upon the owner of the property which rs Ehe subject matter of the decision. The planning commission shall conduct a hearing on the appeal within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the appeal by the planning commission." ❑ � � R`l � Zoning File #98-275 Page 2 Ii1STORY/DISCUSS{ON: In 1990, the City (Planning Division staf� approved a{ot split that separated this parcel from the south end of the parcel at 415 Summit. Later in 1990, the Board of Zoning Appeals approved variances to construct a new carriage house unit with a 5 car garage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This dec+sion was appealed to the City Council by the Parks Department. The Council upheld the variance but modified the conditions. The proposed carriage house was not built. In 1992, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances to construct a two-unit carriage house with a 4-car underground garage. In 1993 the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a one year extension of these variances. Again, the proposed carriage house was not built. In 1994, the owner applied for variances to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 garage stalls under the carriage house and detached garages. The application was withdrawn before the BZA took any action. In 1995, Mr. Severson applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances to construct a carriage house unit with 3 parking spaces beneath the unit and 6 surface parking spaces. . 7his application was denied. A two-car garage was constructed on the site in 1996, prior to the sale of the property. The app�icant purchased the property in 1996. In 1997, the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a plan for construction of a one- unit carriage house with a 4-stall garage underneath and 3 additional surface parking spaces. The City Council upheld this approval on appeal. In 7 998, an application for the variances required for the HPC approved plan (with slight modification) was denied by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The City Council upheld this decision. A slightly revised site plan requiring no variances for construdion was then submitted for site plan review. The site plan was denied based on advice for the Ciry Attorney that the lot split was not legal. G DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The Summit-University Planning Council's recommendation was not available at the time this report was written. The Ramsey Hiif Association recommended denial of the 1997 HPC approval and of the variance request in 1998. The Summit-University Pfanning Counci{ also recommended deniaf of the 1998 variance request. � Zoning File #98-275 Page 3 H FINDINGS: Ron Severson submitted plans for site plan review of a proposed development of a 1-unit carriage house and 4-car garage on May 28, 1998 and fater submitted revised plans which did not require any variances for construction on the 420 Portland parcet. The revised proposal also included 2 additional surface parking stalls. 2. This site plan was denied approval by the zoning administrator based on advice from the City Attorney that the 1990 lot split was not legaf because the (ot split was not given the pub(ic hearing required by Section 67306 of the Legis(ative Code. Lot sp(its meeting afl the conditions listed in Section 67304 can be approved administrativefy. Section 67.306 requires that (ot splits requiring a variance from one or more of these conditions may not be approved until a variance is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals foltowing a pubtic hearing. The (ot split in question leaves the lot at 415 Summit with an inadequate rear yard setback and therefore does not meet the conditions set forth in Section 67304. • 3. The deficiencies in the lot split occurring on the parcel at 41 S Summit could be resolved by a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such a variance must be applied for by the owners of 415 Summit (tfie Nathan Hale Condominium Association). Mr. Severson a(one does not have standing to appfy for this variance. • 4. 41 S Summit was not made non-conforming by spfitting its parking area off from the parcet as parking for the units at 415 Summit must be provided at 420 Portland according to a covenant placed on the deed of 420 Summit. According to this covenant, 2 spaces must be provided for each unit at 47 5 Summit for a totaf of 8 spaces. Section 62.104(2) of the legisfative code allows required mu(ti-family parking to be provided on an abutting lot. 5. Section 62.108 (c) of the Legis(ative Code states: "Site plan review and approval. fn order to approve the site plan, tl�e p/anning commission shall consider and find tf�at tf�e site plan is consistent witF�: ... (2) App(icabfe ordinances of the City of Saint Paul," Given the decision that the lot split creating this property in 1990 was not done in accordance with Sedion 67.306 of the Legislative Code, tF�is site plan is not consistent with the ordinances of the Ciry of Saint Paul. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on Finding 5 above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the zoning administrator and deny the site plan review for 420 Portland Avenue. � � a -s��- C� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department oJPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Seclion . 1100 Ciry Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MNSSIO2 266-6589 APPELLANT f Na Address �15 c5u�tnm� *� � City ,�}. � St.,�ZipJ"S/o Daytimephone3�-o�77 ,� �oa-. PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATION Address/Lc 1� S� � � � TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: 6� Board of Zoning Appeals ❑ City Council ��r.- �"�d Co,M.�-�-i sa�� under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 3�0 , Paragrapf�� of the Zoning Code, to appeal a d>cision made by the �c�.,�;�vc on �� l,/ g� � 19 � (dafe of decisi� File number: GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative officiat, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. �. � �.,� � ��Qc� Atfach addrfional sheet ApplicanYs City agent� GROUNDS FOR APPEAL OF 420 PORTLAND AVE. REQUEST FOR A � BUILDING PERMIT 420 Portland Ave. is a 5,400 squaze foot lot currentty used as parking for the condominium at 4I5 Summit Ave. My wife and I purchased this lot in 1996 with the intent of buiiding a single family house for our residence. In 1990 the City of St. Paul's Zoning Departrnent approved a request by the developer to split 420 Portland Ave from 41 S Summit, thus creating a separate buildable lot. Also in 1990, a public hearing was held on a request for a building permit on 420 Portland to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carriage house requiring seven vaziances. The request �vas approved but the project was not built. In 1992 a second request was submitted for an expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requirin� additional vaziances. This plan was also approved but not built. In 1996, apermit was issued and a t�vo-car garage was built on this lot. Three building permits have been issued on this property since it was split into a separate lot. I have requested vaziances for ttivo plans but both tivere denied. Tn May of this year, I submitted a site plan requesfing a permit for a 936 square foot single famzly carriage house with four tuck-under garage spaces. This plan met a11 city site plan requirements and needed no variances. This carriage house plan had already � been approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The St. Paul zoning office declined to issue a building permit based on their current position that the 1990 approval for tfie Iot split was not legal since no public hearing �vas held. I am appealing this decision for the following reasons: 1. My building permit application met all city code requirements at the ticne it w�as submitted to the zoning office. The "illegal" lot which was created in 1990 is not the 420 Portland lot. The illegal lot is the 415 Summit lot, since it is that lot with its main house which did not meet the raquired reaz yazd set-back. If any action (or denial of any requested action) is taken by the City, it should be in the form of prohibiting any further bnilding into the setback of 415 Summit. Contrary to the implication that issuance of the requested building pertnit will "compound" that error, the opposite is true. Not issuing the permit wili compound the enor by prohibiting me from building a no-variance required carriage house on a buildable lot. 2. Any error in creating the lot split was solely the responsibility of the City staff: The deerl evidencing the lot split was stamped and recorded. It is important to understand that I justifiably relied upon the assumption and representation that the lot split was correct. There is no legal or practical obligation upon the purchaser of a lot to go back and look at � the mechanics of the creation of the lot and draw conclusions as to their validity. � fi��i�� .� �8•_ a7s � �tq - a,t�- � The administrative approval of a lot split is the functional equivalant of a municipal staff issuing any kind of a permit. That is, if a permit is issued (or in this case, approval of a lot split) in error, and a third party justifiably relies upon, and incurs costs and expenses based upon that reliance, the city should be estopped from raising the error as reason for denial of a building permit. It is inequitable and without any legal precedent to restrict the o�vner of a legally conforming lot from developin� it in conformancy �vith the city code. Although no confirmation has been provided, the zoning staff has indicated that there may also have been a problem with the occupancy density of 415 Summit. If this is the case and since the fourth condominium unit was added after the lot split, it �vould seem to make as much sense for the City to take action against 415 Summit and require a do�vnward adjustment of the number of dwelling units as to refuse a conforming building permit on 420 Portland. I am not su�gesting that this actually be done, but this serves as an example of the unreasonable results which may occur if an eight year old illegal lot split is used to support City action or inaction at this point. 3. I have not been provided with evidence that the original lot split did not meet the necessary procedural requirements. Nor is there evidence that if the required variance had been requested and a public hearing held in 1990, that the variance would not have been granted. The end result of the procedure may well have been ihe granting of the variance, particularly since, at the time, both parcels were under common ownership. It is � speculation to assume that the variance would have been denied and to base the refusal to issue the requested building permit on speculation is arbitrary. Even if no public hearing was held at the time of the lot sepazation, five public hearings, including one in 1990, have since been held by the zoning department in response to building permit requests on this lot. At each public heazing, 420 Portland was reviewed as a separate buildable lot. 4. The owners of units in 415 Summit purchased their units after 420 Portland was split into a separate buildable lot. Purchasers were aware of this boundary as the Association's property line when they si�ed their purchase agreements. Approval of the building permit does not deprive 415 Summit owners of any of the space or rights provided by their purchase agreements or the Association Declaration. The site plan which I submitted to the zoning department provides two off-street pazking for each unit owner plus access to those pazking stalls as required by the Declazation. The site plan also meets the city code for parking lots. Please be awaze that nothing in this appeal should be interpreted as a criticism of the zoning staf£ I greatly appreciate a11 the effort and assistance that has been provided to me conceming this project. I understand the difficulty of the position into which they have been placed by this unforiunate turn of events. I simply disagree with and have difficulty understanding their refusal to issue the requested building permit. � � ��.��7► ��.E qa•27 OFF[CE OF LICET:SE, (`7SPECT[O�'S ht'B ' EtiVlROti�SE\,7AL PROTEC7IOV Roberl Kess!¢r, Dir¢tror � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, hlayor September 4, 1993 LO�fRY PROFESS/ONAL BUILDLVC Suite 300 350 St. Peeer Stree! SarnlPaul, blinnesofa SSlO?-ISIO Te(ephone: 611-266-9090 Fectilnife: 6!I-?66-9099 612-?66-9!?� Ron Severson 415 Summit Avenue Saint Paul, MD1 55102 RE: 420 Portland Avenue Dear Mc Severson: Ear[izr this year, the Ciry Councii uphetd a decision by the Board of Zonin� Appeals to the deny setback vaziances you had rzquested for the property at 420 Portland Avenuz, At that time the City Counci[ atso instructed the Ciry Attomey's office to look into the question ofwhzther the lot spiic that ori�inatiy created this pazcel w� legat. Lot split The City Attomey has determined that ihe ]ot split was not legal. The lot split needed a variance since it created a � noaconfocmin� rear yard setback for Yhe ezistin� condominium at 415 Sununit Avenue. It may have zlso created a nonconforzreing eondition for developmenY density but staff needs information about the size oF the uniu in 415 Summit to verify this. The Zonin� Code states that any lot split requiring a variance must have a public hearing before it can be approved. However, the lot split was approved in 1990 by City staff without a public heazing. Site plan Since the City Council denied your variance request, you submitted a revised site plan for the properry. You reduced the size of ihe carriage house and eliminated a pazkin� space so that a variance would not be needed and requested that the City approve the site plan. However, based on the determination that the lot spli[ that created this lot wu not legal, the City cannot approve the site plan. Your options If you wish to continue your efforts to obtain City approval to build on this site you may apply for thz variances needed to legalize the lot split. Or you may file an appeal by October 8 of the determination that the City cannot approve your site plan. Either option would involve a public hearin� before the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. If you have any questions, you can reach me at 266-9086 (phone) or 266-9099 (fzx). Sincerely, �� l r�� Tom Beach Zonin� Specialist cc: CouncilmemberBlakey Mark Vaught � � �'C��l�� F�L� �qa•z7 � �'� y• � NEbV A ^/' /� �-�/Dft;VEWAY �R�� Gt��O�`�Y � � J H�'�� r�EE 9 ' eo 9 LF � A�ROWS I��lDiCATE � � G �FL qQ ��F DRAINAGE SLO°� �2� �O � �� D � 2 C� Q F.� � �� NEN! �� O � SftEE o J ��. Q/ \(.�� Q Tp � ' \ 4 , Q� / � Q . } �'. �cXfSTWG' \��.� � P� PV '� 1 /�� a �°,� � , TR�E ? �� 1 � �C'�� / � � S' p 4 � ^ �O/ O �� P Q- ` O / � / F � i9 C� �,�° om�'� �i coNC. oR--e a p. � � � ASPHALT � CO 'C. �VALK � �—PAVEtiIENT Q (� & TEPS N:/ � Q IR �V RAILIPi^v > Q & ATE 3 !2� � / Q Q �. EX: i;NG /* r° /`' �'� PRO�OSED � �� Cs / G/jRAGE & � b� � � LOFT N � ,' � ( �n � / � � / � � � �i � / � � � * � � � ��. I 4' � �pT i 9 � 9 �� \ � � �, � . � � p �j` r C F �P�V � � � "� � l o � h',9 ��C�� . � � � y a4.�P � -- —-- y ` � O y ^ PROPEP.TY LINE � HEDGE , , � �{�— — � 90.00' . . ,� � N52°52'25°E � ' �� PATIO q ' ` � u i W � •� z BASEM�NT - I � � � STAIRS � { � PORCH w I "� �� o� ' S G � a � � � N � w � ;� `� s 415 SUMMIt AVE. � o^ � � 2 }/2 STOftY �° � 3 Nt00D FRA�AE BU�LDIHG � `�n � � Wl N _ �� '� M �o I � �h � � � :n � � I � �� i SITE PLAN � � � I 7/16" = 1'-0" I �,� , � >< � � `�'� - l o� � =_ � 8�...,�U i`w�b� a � � ' I = 6 j � . �, � .� 3 t_ io 3fWNtl pNV11210d o aay � N , . . �-,wa�s y 0 -{� N � u s � -� � � � � � � 1 y � � � � V � � vi 4 L H � � � - 1 L --� � � � I � i � � �� V -� I N o N — �l _ ' 1 I � � L' ti" � YSYffi � ,, y � ror\ e�'�� r :� � � <` �`� � 6_ � �-�. _ .� � � h N �A 0' W .� 8� � � � � � � N t� -� � � .iI I � ��_ ac�- • 9r zaa Il li :e:e l `�� V�'eST ELEVATION � \�i/ Ci_ .—�� K vr.r � 4- °— — � z�,c_ � 9r \ � —Y ��em rze i I I i Y�nppn BOx S(:HEIAL 3>' I 1839 I9:D � x oaacc*rox P-EP"i5 Ss�x P-9W6 ,: � o_�a on 9�- � _. � �-aas \ � I \ \� _ � j �� J �e I ' IE3a = � I I e_a � .--- -- � u�_� [ I ❑ n I ❑ L U � U Qa a.__ � �'� FAST ELEVATION � - 28:b � �P_W�6 ze_e � i� � —__ � \ I _ � u�OEPifN OB:- 1ry1� SiIN�(HI" n� ,�� .�o , _ SCHE�I� 3X !�� wor[: s ewv_oo: o CMi(c (.�BIC wOVtJ PLOVIPC H.i.C. A�PPOVI: CEO i $ww0.:2 O�0 u�µ GUrtER ) s : °Oi : °n ssa x � Ca D_ppfi0 �HOERSCH 05�_ XUNG MN� tt0 3xJ M 5 1/j Ildu BJ�aD$ 6' CORNER eo�os 5 �rz' Imu BOwO �-BO�d $:pMG k iRIY [p 4AL�N H�tJSC DRIO (�v i/� S 6 iRlu BO � �P COUR5C5 HOC� GeCE BlN �n�� P-8018 ON �SZa p t Sx� x i ov 39:0 P- �� NNErtSEM 0°t_ J Hue� w�n� , �T. ZMD �LR � s �n m,� eouos 6' CORrvE� BWaJS 5 �R' fqiu BGV+O S��u: h �'+v t0 WICN N�E Daw Gi v.zsrx eo � aoa ri% e� � $ �k { N� � �� , � T 's� � � � � � y "� -`ai � ,_ -,� ^,-- , ; , a,a ; � - �azs� :azs i iacs, �—, � I � /� NCMM1 N/ C�:LXa� I � I i ��1 /' 3UYP-CVi d 6RCHLu l �� ( � _ L_ U — ' �I L� � �— � �% I �— i I ccn' � z�za � �:cca 1 � � ��''`` f �_ � � SICf\G k iFN � i0 W:Cn NCUSc aa � , r-- - sc;��-�� .�c �\ NORTH ELcVa7;ON �J y"'�� SC�=h^- .;`< � SOUTH ELEVATIO� � �.. � �, � � N � 33�i ,.� .d„ t3. � � .� � � � C� • n U OFFICE OF LICE\SE, NSPECTIO`S A.�D �� EyVIROtiME\'TAL PR07ECTiON Roberf Kessler, Dtrector • CITY OF SAINT PAUL horm Coleman, bfayo� October 7, 1998 � Ron Severson 415 Suminit Ave, #2 Saint Pau1, Mn. 55102 LO1i'RY PROFESSfO�'AL BUILDL�"G Sui�e 300 350 St. Pefer Slreet Saint Paul, Minnesota 5510?-1�10 Re: Proposed Variance Request for 420 Portland Ave. Dear Mr. Severson: Te]ephone: 61I-266-9090 Farsimiie: 612-2b6-9099 612-266-912J Recently you submitted a request for site plan approval in order to construct a new single family home on the property known as 420 Portland Ave. That site plan was denied by the Zoning Administrator based on an opinion from the City Attomey that the parcel known as 420 Portland was illegally spiit from the property at 415 Summit. On September 30, 1998 you submitted an appeal to that site plan denial, which will be handled by the Planning and Economic Development Department (PED). At the time of your appeal application, you stated that you also wanted to submit an application for a variance in order to construct a new single family home on the pazcel known as 420 Portland Ave. I informed you that we could not accept a variance application for constructing a new single family home on the property because there is an administrative action pending (your appeal) to determine if the property is a separate, legally created parcel, or if it is sti11 part of the properiy at 415 Summit Ave. If it is deterznined throu�h the appeal process that 420 Portland is a separate parcel, you may submit a vaziance application to build on the properiy. If it is determined that it is not a sepazate parcel and is still part of 415 Summit, then only the o�vners of 415 Summit may build on the property or apply for a variance to build on the property. If you have any further questions regarding this matter you may contact me at 266-9082. Sin er ly, � ^ ` John Hardwick • Zoning Specialist c: Beth Bartz, PED Peter Wamer, City Attomey Wendy Lane, Zoning Manager 4 ��s��;�� .� Re'2?5 � � SUhL'7IT-UNIVERSITY DISTRICT 8 N� .-��rt" x `" ' 0°O _ "� '� z� �H �� e�� V �� i °lq �a-C �-- 1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD 2. HAZEL PARK T3ADEti-PROSPERiTY HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PAYNE-PHAI.EN 6. I�IORTH END � THO��IAS-DALE SUMMTT-LJNIVERSITY WEST SEVENTI-I 10. COMO ii. HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. ST. ANTHONY PARK 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXI�TGTON HAMLINE•SNELLING HAMLII�`E 14. MACALESTER GROVELAND 15. HIGHLAND 16. SUMMTT HII.L � 17. DOWNTOWN ZONING FILE '�? CITIZEN PARTTCIPATION PIANNING DISTRICTS s � 0 � ��SOt1 PURPOSE ' ` FILE k � �� DATE PLNG. DIST�_ MAP # �v � �� . l.�v LEGEND .�� zoning district boundary � subjec[ property n" orth 0 one family • . � comme� � twofamily ♦ a..� indust:ial �-�Q muitiple tamily V vacanc ��.. . . '�w�.!�ifia- - - -- -- r�°l .,u�-- Februazy 1, 1999 Mr. Ronald Severson 415 5ummit Avenue, # 2 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Mx. Severson: We, the majoritq members of the Nathan Hale Mews Association, would like to formalize our previous offer to purchase the property you own at 420 Portland Avenue at a mutually agreed upon and fair market value. It is the Association' s intent to reunite the properties at 420 Portland Avenue and 415 Summit Avenue. Therefore we would like to arrange to meet with you to discuss our proposal as soon as possible. Please contact either Tricia Leonard or Greg Glark to schedule a time to meet. Sincerely, Sharon Schwarz, President Caml Clark, Treasurer Tricia l,eonard, Secretary Greg Clark, Associatian Member cc: Sharon Schwarz Tricia Leonard Carol & Greg Glark MARIf VOERDING Il3 FARRINGTONSTREET SA7NT PAUL, MN 55102 Februuy 3, 1999 Mr. President and Mensbers of the City Council, ° ' 2�-�`� Due to a previous coinmitment I am unable to attend tonighYs public hearing regarding the appeal of the Planniug Commission's denial of a site p3au for 420 Portland Avenue. However, since I am also the person respons�'ble for raising questions about certain actions by city staff as well as the legality ofthe 1990 "lot split", I am compelled to write regarding this appeal The facts m this case aze not in dispute. As proposed, the original lot split required variances and, as a resutt, did not meet all ofthe conditions required for the plavniug administrator to grant approval Therefore, under the ]aws of this city in effect now and at that time, the Boazd of Zoning, AppeaLs wouid be required to hold a public hearing to consider the variances and � g�ant those variances and a lot split upon ma.king required findings. No public hearing was held, the BZA did not consider any variances for the proposed lot and no required Sndings were adopted. At the City CounciPs request the City Attorney has reviewed this matter and made a deteiinivation that due process had not been followed and a legallot split had not occurred. The issue befare you today is not the desigu of the proposed structure, its location on the site, the size of the structure or the cjiiality of construction. The quesrion before you is whether or not a site plsn can be approved by the city. Clearly, since a legal lot split did aot occur the owner does not have control of a truildable site and the city cannot approve a plan to build on that site. Because a legal lot split did not occur there are also new questions about the ownership rights of the condominiiun a"ssooiation at 415 Sumwit, the property from whicfi this lot wasto be split from, that need to be addressed in a different venue. A vote in favor of this appeal sends a, message.that, regardless of intent, staffmay ignore the laws oftlus city and the Council will be in support. Tlus, I beJieve, is not and never has been the position of the Ciry Council and I am certain that iC is not the message you want to send to the citizens of Saint PauL A vote to deny this appeal a�rms the laws and legai processes of this city. Finally,'mistakes cost. In this case an-error in judgement by staffwill likely cost the city financially. This is unfortunate since ik is the propezty tas payers, including you and I, who will nitimately pay the price for tfiis mistake. However, neither the price of this enor nor the time that has elapsed can outweigh the decision to uphold the taw and legal due procesa Therefure, based on the City Attomey's determination and your desire to stand by the laws of this city I ask that you deny the appeal. Hopefiilly, the appellant will then pursue one of the many other options available to lum Respectfiilty, �� Mark Voerding