The URL can be used to link to this page

280932 WHIT� CITV CLERK ('�J+��,( � PINK — FINANCE COUIICIl /" ��'+�� Cd�Nl,R�V -.,DEPARTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAUL +�i� � �' � BLUE — MAVOR File NO• � Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date (9) The developer shall be responsible for plowing, and if necessary, removing of snow in the alley behind the proposed structure. The developer agrees that the City may enforce the snow plowing provision by means of the abatement of a public nuisance as set forth in the Saint Paul Legislative Code and if the snow plowing is to be performed by the City, all costs in- curred by the City may be collected by means of an assessment to be collected with the real property taxes levied against the subject developed property. (10) All roof areas of the office/retail building shall not be accessible to the general public or tenants of the building to assure maximum privacy to the abutting residential property owners ; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Harvey Investment Company, Duane Kocik, the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals . 4. COUfVCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays � Fletcher Galles [n Favor Masanz Nicosia scnetbei _ Against BY Tedesc- Wilson SEP 2 91983 Form Approve b City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Pas ed ou cil Sec ta y BY B� App d by �Navor: �C Appr ed b Mayor for ission to Council g By PUBLISHED OCT $ 19$3 � � _ � _ _ , � � ; � ! , , , if.:�� / � , , , , , ; - , ,. . - ; ; � - , _ . . . , ,� , , _ , ;, , . .. . , , ' ' , , - . ,� . {_� -. , . � ; . , ' \ ,;: � . � , , , ;, . � . , � . , -� , �:.r. � , , _ � . , . . _ � . . ; , , . . . . , _ , , , . �� . ti , . . . . ; � � ` ,. , . , . :, . '�, : :, . 3,-M � � � � , . � . � � � ..' � . . � . � � _ . � �. . - � � �� . ��. . � ' � � .�� . . . . ' . ' � � � � . . � � . . �, - � . . � . . � .. . , . , . , . . , y - . ' . � , � . � , . 1 �, Oc•tQber. 5,� 19$3 � � � t . � . � , � , , _, ; • , � � • __ � , . Mr�.."(�eral2t :Fr3s¢h. � ' - ; � . . � ; �3$0 E,�,',7tli Stre�e� ' . . ' � ` - ; : � ` �t.-1�s�]�,� 1� ' S5126 , : ` , , , � ` �� rf�w^�l��,'Y�iN� � � ' � � 1 '� '�1� ��.��BW �T'�VB i . - `; � � �• - , , � . ; ; �loc�aing�ori. HI�t SS42p . , ` ,.. � � . , , . _ " . � ; ' - . ' , . 1 . 'Dear S�ra: � � , � ; , . - . , _,Z'�ana�ei.�ted tp yau herewith,as_ .repr"se�Cati�ve ;bf �Strvey I�tas�tt� . ; • _ . _; Cc+m�pany �ud Ihiane;Rocik, respectiviai�g��is: g cc�y of t°tt±� �St. Pai�3.�� , � - '• ,.Cttp Cou�ncil r�so�v�tl�on� C.F. �28Cf9��2 s Pe�rt�i�n�g ta► Che �aani� � � � .. � .` " ' , � rta�riat►ae' �tt the'north�st cb�s►ar erf l�c�td, Pa�&�g�and Fi#1 StiE`�t. Y ' , , �ar� �tzuly�youris:, • .l,' , . , , � : . , i j ,: l� f1 . . + ; ' �,� � � , . . , s., ' � �,�:1bAict .$� t�7.lO� ` , , E ,_ . , . ,`, . fi _ � � � � � - - � 4'�[y�� C3�1c;' ' �� , �`,� _ � �� - � � ; �-: ` , ,i _ � � , a , . �84#� � . ' - �.,�t�.'�r . . � i . � � � , � , , , �, ,. t , , . , _ � . , � . _ • � • . �.. �: �c t 7�ing��dmi�aietiratQr ' - . � -s '_.r , ' , ��# Z�a��ea�• ,� . -' I 4 ' r , ,1 . , , , . . . . .. _ . ,'4 . '. � ' .. � � ... . . ' . �. . . . ' ' , . � . . , , * , . . . . , � .: . .,�. -�. . � � , ' .. . � .. � � .. . . - . . . . . � . � ,. , .. . ' . .. . . . . . . � � y � . '. . . . . - .�. . , .`I . > . i,S� . . , .. . . . . . . , .+.` . f i.. . � � . . � �� , . . � . � ' . 1-� � . . , . � � , i ,. .. . . . � �� . � �..� . . . , . . ., � „ . . .. � . . � . . ' . ' . ', , . _. , .. . � j . . . � . .. . . _ . . -f J . - . . ' . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. :�. � /: . � .. , � . , . . . . ,. . . . . . . " � ' . � �. .. � . . , . . .• . .. . ' ' ' " . ' � ' � ��. ,� � . � . . , .. � . . , � . . . . . . � ' .� . - � .. . . . . . � . . . - � . � , .. a , I.�' , . . � . .. . _ . . - . -- . . - ' � . . . . ' . ' 'i . . � ' � . .. . ... � . .�. � �' �',4� ...,.,n.. ��. ;;`�,�* ,;�, CITY OF SAINT PA'UL -�' '-``'= OFFICE OF THE CITY CI.ERK '; �: ;� �iii�i i 1° >' %,,•� ,.�= ALBERT [i. OLSON, CITY CLERK '`'o, �••• ` 386 City Mall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 '"1�nP,.o.�C'`^ . CEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4231 MAYOR RECEIV�� SEP � 3 1983 cirY A�r��r September 22, 1983 Mr. Ed Starr City Attorney Room 647 City Hall � Dear Sir: The City Council today adopted a motion denying the appeal of Duane Kocik to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and granting the variance of Harvey Investment Company at the northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Finn in accordance with the compromise as outlined at today's City Council meeting. Will you please prepare the proper resolution implementing this action. Very truly yours, �1 .,..�( �+'�� Albert B. Olson City Clerk ABO:drm � C� O . . : .,. : � � . � :;;'� . � . . � � � .. , . . 1 � � �� . � . �. � - . . . ' f' ; ' .� .. - � r t'�-• ' � ., � .. . � .. .. � .'. �,. . . . � . � � . , . � � .. ... , � �� , _ .� , � . � ��.� ��` � , . . . . _ , � , , � , , 1 , � _ - . . . � _ ; , . . � , ` �, _. . r . � y � . . ' ' : ' ' -t \ > , ' ` � ' " 1Y i , , ! ' ! � > 1 � r;; . . . , , ., - .. " ,� . , . � ,.. '. , ` '' . , ;, , , - , � • ; ?: , , . , • ' � � I, �$t. �Q1 ��!� . - ` . , • � � „ , i , . � .:: ' { _ .. , . . . , . : . � , �, . , y: , , 4 ! � ti, F .3,, �, , , . Fre�l �ts�.der ' ,. e . - � � � � � �P�A �►�Zbiii�g �Sect3t»�, � � _" _ _ ' � � ;�' r i l�h Flt�oir - � , f` . � ' `l , _ . , . , �� . ,- - 4 � Dear 3irr ' , ` >; , � �. , . . . , . I.�. .. . . , . . �... . . , . :�,� ..., .' . ,. . '� .. . ._ . - ' .t.".. ..� , . .A'. ' . ' . . ' � .. , � . . � - '�. . � ' - N. , ,..:. �t@:,�.'�.'C�I'.�+OtIIIC�. CO(id3! a ,�'t� '�ip BNt�: .�$ �'�'`�1. i�# ".��' �l�x`��3$r . > i r 1 - � � � . ,, � '. • ,fo� �day, Septea�ber 20, 1�$3, a��,'��a�0 P��I.� to �c�i+�er':�-he �` '. .- � , , - ; , , _: appeal .o� Dwana Kocik to a �1ec�s#� o�`;-�tre �d af �ing :: , , , , A,p�e�]:.s l�r�r�p�oper�p;at the north w�ed� a�ir�,+��t Faatd ��ty z , � and Fit�. ,� � .F;''" i , , . ; ' .:, �,r . . ; , . . ,. , , ..� , _ j: 0es��ru��i'ya�t�e, '_ �, � J 'J'�� - .�� ;i ' , \ ' , .r. r i , ' � ;�l ; � ' � l�l.b+� B:` 0�.#atit' . ' ' � '� , . � City.�1�i�k � �� q` , . , , : ,• � . . , , 1 >; , . . . , _ � . -�,. ABOsdirm : � ,: ;- , - �; . , R , , ' . , , , . , �. - . ,, �� , , . , � ;,,� , , ` - - ' \. , �' "��'. �- �_ . , � . , � �� ,; � � � .y;� �e . �: ,! _ , , , � , ,. t , . t �, `. f ��`' r ',I. � � y� _ - . ' • �:;_ ' � . • : . - � . � , , � .. , � �. �. � . .. . . ' . ' . . . ' ,i,, — , \ -` .F_r i ' . . .. ' . . . . . . .. M-. . ' ` . � � . . � . � ( �.. .�� , . � . . . . . ..: � . . . . ' . ' .�. . r.. .. �;1 . . . . . � _ - � � . . � i , j � . . ` ' ' � �� - . . �. �. . . � ,R� � . . ' .. , . -, ` ,� . . � ,. . � . � . . . �, � - . �... . . ♦ '.� ��.- . ` . .. . � . � ,. .'� . �' �.. � . � � • '� �' �.-," .i�. � . :� . �.� .�. . . �. ' . . . . . ' . . . . ' . �,�'�. � .. . i 1.� _ � . ,. ..'. I\� ��. � , - . � . � . . �� , � �,'� . �. � � \ � . . 1 � . . �� ' � � � : .. ` *� �S ��1 � � . r, . . . . � '_� . �r .. � ri . .�: . , ' '" .. . a . � ... ...i . ' .. ` ! � .� . �� .� " . ' . ` .�. .. � �. ^ , ��; ^ ' I.. .. : .'_, ` . ..; � . . / �. .., - . . � •' .i ' ;.. •�� ..:, �•�, . . . . �. . . . . .. - � . ' . . �. - � ��. ��. , ` '.� . .. . ' :� ' i . .. . ' : . �.- . � - .�. �� .. , �. . ...'� . �� . .� �.. ..'� . t� � ' . . . � . � .. . . � ' � � , .. � .. �. _ ' 1 ,` �f �� . . .� . . . . . . . . . , . i . . . . . . .. 1 ::: . - . . � � � . . , . . . . . . . . � . 4 ' � � � . ' . . ' . . � . . . . . . - . . .. .� - . . . . � �. � _.. . , � ..i . ,` . .� � .. f`/TT �� ' ' I . .. ' • • CITY OF SAINT PAUL � ,z � . s`.. ; , �� ;: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECUNOMIC DEVELOPMENT ?�� __ �� o' DIVISION OF PLANNING � 2S West Fowth Street,Saint Paul.Mi�nesota 55102 ��'� 612-292-1577 GEORGE UTIMER MAYOR August 26, 1983 'rn: Victor Tedesco, President, and -r +h° f'1 tV COU11C1� Section � o ~ � � � � � � � � � �� " ` � m � � � � � the Board of Zoning Appeals to o �,* �� comnercial building and adjunct � � � N. Ford Parkwa� and Finn. He e� � o �uncil schedule the public hearing � � �' � o � e� �,.* � "� � s within 350 feet of the subjeci • �, o � b lic hearing. T he Ci ty Legis la tive � `° � conduct the hearing within 30 days � � � �e, the public hearing must be set � � , P.E.D. staff will be available � °° �d for members of the Council . � � convenient A D� R A m � �� µ � � � � � � ¢ � � O p' i�7 � � �+ � � � � . � � � � µ N � a° � � � ° � � l ` HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY FORD PARKWAY AT FINN STREET BUILDING PROPOSAL CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARIhG APPEAL OF HEIGHT VARIANCE SEPTEMBER 20, i983 7:30 P.M. cn c7 rn =-� -ro cn-c � --+c, ��' -n .., rn W r- C;.:N f'.....� � � ._s G� (� M O "'[7 --vt �;,, �� C� C� t'f't <--� a ' CONTENTS Transmittal of appeal to City Council .. . . . ... . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . i Application for appeal . . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . ... � Application for zoning variance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 3 Area map. . .. . .. . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . Zoning staff report. ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. . . ... ... . . . . . . . .. ... . . 5 Board of Zoning Appeals resolution.. . . .. . . ... .. .. . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . ... ... 12 Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, July 12, 1983.... 14 Correspondence and petitions opposing the variance.. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2� Petitions supporting the variance.. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .. 41 ��*• e� -4•` �;. CITY OF SAINT PAUL ° '`= DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -` � �� " N F ANNING • o- DIVI510 O PL ��'f.4 25 Wal Fou�th Slreel,SaiM Pwl.Minnesota 55102 �' '�'• 612-292-1577 GEORGE UTIMER MAYOR September 12, 1983 • Albert Olson, City Clerk Room 386 City Hall St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 � RE: Zoning File #9409 - Harvey Investment Company, Appeal by Duane Kocik City Council Hearing: September 20, 1983 PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of a variance granted to Harvey Investment Company permitting construction of an office/retail building and . associated parking ramp 46' in height at the northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Finn Street. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DECISION: Approve (4-0) . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deny SUPPORT: Petition signed by 23 representatives of the business comnunity; one person testified. OPPOSITION: Nine Tetters including a letter from the Southwest Area District Council ; 8 people testified. Dear Sir: On July 12, 1983 the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing on the application of Harvey Investment Company to consider a variance of the maximum height of buildings in a 6-2 zoning district to permit construction of an office/retail building and associated parking ramp with average height of 46 feet. Staff recomnendation was for denial of the variance. The Board considered the staff report, reviewed correspondence on the matter and heard public testimony. In his presentation the applicant stressed that the new parking ramp would provide free parking available to the general public and that this would help to alleviate a servere parking shortage in the area. He stated that the 46' building height was in line with the height of existing buildings - in the vicinity and was necessary to make the combination of office/retail and parking economically feasible at this location. Opposition to the variance was based primarily on the impact- of the proposed building on residential properties to the north. The building would shade adjacent residential properties completely during some portions of the day in the middle of winter and would shade rear yards all day long in the winter. Concern was also expressed over traffic circulation problems associated with the building. Several testified that there was no serious parking problem at this location and pointed out that there are spaces available in the parking lot which exists on the site presently any time of the day. 1 . � Albert Olson, City Clerk Page 2 Staff recomnended denial of the variance on the basis that there is nothing unusual in size, shape, or topography of the site and therefore no reasonable basis for a variance; strict application of the code regulations would not appear to result in exceptional practical difficulty or undue hardship; and the extra building height would have a substantial detrimental effect. on the neighbors' supply of light. At the close of the public hearing, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4 to 0 to approve the variance. A resolution finalizing that action was adopted by the Board at their subsequent meeting on July 26, 1983. On July 26, 1983, Mr. Duane Kocik filed an appeal of the Board's decision citing the following as grounds for the appeal : ' The grounds for appeal are because of substantial errors in procedure by the Board of Zoning Apeals as well as because of substantial errors of f act as presented by Harvey Investment Company and its agents in its presentation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The evidence presented at the hearing did not sustain the findings of the Board and the Board acted in an arbitrary manner. The Board based its decision on facts unrelated to the variance applied for and on factors not properly before the Board. The Board of Zoning Apeals decision was contrary to law and in direct contravention of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Code. This matter is scheduled to heard by the City Council on September 20, 1983. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the City Council public hearing or has other questions. Sincerely, .� enneth E. Ford Principal Planner, PED KEF/mb Attachments �� n ` . APPLICATION FOR APPEAL . __� , � .� ' ZONING OFFICE USE ONLY � CITY OF SAINT PAUL File � � � � ;� o0 Application Fee E 8� — ' Tentative Hearing Date Application is hereby made for an Appeal to the St. Paul Cit Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section2 0 5 , Paragraph of the oning Code to appeal a decision made by the X Board o�ng Appeals Planning Comnission on Julv 26 � 19$,3 Zoning Administrator (date of decision) Planning Administrator Other A. APPELLANT Duane Kocik 221 9418 Name Daytime phone Address 2124 Pinehurs� Zip Code 55116 St Paul Minnesota B. DECISION BEING APPEALED � Zoning fi le name Harvey Investment Comnany Zoning Fi le # g�0� Property Address/Location NW Corner Ford Parkway and Finn Legal description Lots 25-30 . Block S , st. Catherine Park�Addn. C. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Use additional sheets if necessary. ) (Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Comnission.-) The qrounds for appeal are because of subtantial errors in procedure _ by the Board of Zoning Appeals as well as because of substantial errors of fact as presented bv Harvev Investment Companv and its aqents in its presentation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The evidence presented at the hearinq did not sustain the findinqs of the board and the board__acted in an arbitrary manner.The board based its decision on facts unrelated to thevariance applied for and on factors not properlv before the board. The Board of Zoning Appeals decision was contrary to law and iri direct contravention of the intent and urpose of the Zoning Code. (SEE EXIBIT A If you have any questions, please contact: ��r{_ , c�z'l� Applicant' signature � St. Paul Zoning Office 1100 City Hall Annex � �D°� 25 West Fourth Street � as g3 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Da e City agent (298-4154) g�82 i � � ExHIBIT A Namely, 60.101 (1) , (2) , (5) , (6) , (7) , (8) and (10). In addition Applicant alleges that am�ng other factors Harvey Investment Catpany made a presentation which falsified the location of homes in relationship to the praposed building and further misrepresented the scale of its drawings . Other facts w�ere misrepresented such as a claim by the developer that only private funds w�ere going to be used for the develop�nent of the project when in truth and fact the developer intends to obtain appraval fram the city of St. Paul to prooeed with a tax-exempt revenue bond�d Further misrepresentations exist which will be shown at the time of the City Council hearing. As additional graurrls for appeal this applicant repeats all of the objections raised in the staff report of the Zoning Staff dated July l, 1983. and any further matters which may have been omitted by— aversight or which might c�ane to applicants attention prior to the date of the hearing. R�u�est is hereby made that this matter be set on for an evening cneeting of the City CounciL ��'u� ��3 � � 3� pJ`'G� � �,'1�W w�^ �• � � ' �: �� . _, .� ,��o�� ' �� VI I�i ! . ZONING BOARD � � I� L � �r !�) APPLICATION FOR ZONING ORDINQjL�I��kJ4�I�IVC 3 4 + CITY OF SAINT Pqr11�Y �LANNI�q��M , I \II ! A VARIANCE OF 20NING CODE CHAPTER�_,SECT,I�ON t.L�_PAARAG9RAPH v � ._ ....,.....,: . . .. - � IS REQUESTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE POV6ERS VESTED IN THE BOARO OF 20NING AP'� � PEALSTOPERMITTHE �F�� C��ynvv�I ! 1�Cs.�FZ-.i19, �!� ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW. ; A. Applicant; NAME:� 1 f� �1�� 7_iC.� � ADDRESS ZSI �• ��- � I ' DAYTIME TELEPHONE NO. �� '� 1�� ZIP CODESSI C I I . 1. Property interest of applicant: (owner,contract purchaser,etc.) I �UQ�G��1 I • ?. Name of owner (if different) I� . . �i 1 I�cc� e /�(� I I �fS s�,c_� Q..�S � . � B. Property Description: ADDRESS � 1. Legeldesc►iption: LOT ZS`�� BLOCK ADD:� C� F`�i�n� -=�x��------�--- r � . I 2. Lotsize: 2�' iC IZ�� = 3Uy�,6O � � i 3. Present Use��f�0-'t�'Z��`"rresent Zoning Dist. � �Z I - — ( C. Reasons for Request: i t. Proposed use � F ` i �'��<P / CGM YY`c.J'ci o._.5' ��11��✓� (��!- d`"(� � 2. What physical characteristics of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone7 (topograP . . . • ' e.�;,�, �,�� N� F I L E �_ ; �� 3. State the specific variation requested,giving diatancea where appropriata. Uo-�. :y-..�..�-� �e e s� ef �!o' � 3 0 � Ye��,Q� � �� (-�-(o r �0�7�S� i 4. Explain how Your case conforma to each of the following: i a. That the strict application of the proviaio�s of the Zoning Ordiance would result in peculiar j or exceptional practical difficulties,or exceptional undue hardahips. � i � , . �,�-(G �'�� t'''lt�c.{-� t�e�r -�o-��Z_u-r.� —' ✓E'_..1�v.( -r- i -� � � � _ .___ ____-- --__._ �F �`_P �J c c r' Y�.��U � Co w�,(�e �_ � � !i►- _- - �Q� 1-i>�.4c.,r� ( r t'fi�cc � a � �A►SHtF�AS US�qNL.�, � b. That the grar►ting o a variance will - - = - - -- not be s subatantial detriment to '`L`'��.I._�_ �_�,'_!!' ' public good or a substantial impair- -- --� -_-�,,;•� �'�' - . �i_ _ . .. . . ment of the intent and purpose of - - - the Zoning Ordinance. �� --„_ , '_ _," ' '+.. _. � _".fl�i'.,'`,'lj ��..Kv C�...� G{' � c{ ' ev�"�=-,°or ux _� �tito i ��, �w a�-� ��:� {-� �e N TE: 7H1,S�W�� ILL+NOT BE PROCESSE�WITHOUT A C�OMPLETE SITE P�.ANI �:� � a�-E � -, �1�e e':. r� f t,-� ��0-.,�6.�s�S , � � �� ,� ' Signaturo �.___�`�` �.:�{ - % �`-, 3 r Oate Received G�= '(;�_ oo ¢ 0000 0000000000000 o a plo o� d b �oo � �o . , ' � i � I � I i � � , � � � � � � I i i i � I � I I � i . � b �o c� b. oo � a � � b io 0 0 00 000o c} p 4 lo �� -$-- � ,� . 000c► 000 0000aoi � 141 �J4� 0 I� IO � C� � 000 b aoo � � . i � � � IIIIIL ' ' e . ;� d , �.:♦ ,. o� b � oi b o00 �� 0000�00000 � o00000000 ' u , _ URS �f INE U S AVE . u Z 000ry000 � 00000i i� 00000j p o o � 000v 'v v v o ,� �� _ _ _. W I � � 1_ .�. � z _ .. . . . , � ( I . R V � ! 1 ' ' � I A � c . • ♦F .D � � � L._I� v � I �F " � � F � i � G � i • ♦ � ' �R /�• - - P K w Y. � � o r2 � � u i 6 yi __ _ _ _ n�'+ . I • i o . �s ; ia� _ o0 6 16� � O 16 O 28 M 0 T Q R C 0 M PA N Y �e � o .P R 4 P E R T Y ��' �4 O ( 1 16 1 ) _ + � AREA MAP ' � LEGENO APPLICANT ---� � m ��-��'� �"' "— ZONfNG DISTRICT 80UNDARY PURPOSE r 1 � �ce./��aroro,; �G!l1.�1 SUBJECT PROPERTY • O ONE FAMiLY PIANNING � 4 ;1�_r_.�, � � OISTRIST ��- T W 0 FA M i LY FILE N0. � S � ��- Q MUL.Tf�'�.� FAMILY ' OATE I " � � o � COAAMER�CtAL � SCALE� i'�� 200' ,,G'NORT'W�. � °'� �' ��DUS7RiAL MAP N0. �� . S�'�INT Pi1L1L PI.ANNIt�� v��^3 i( . V 'VACAIVIT ___� ZONING STAFF REPORT �� fc� 9409 . i 1 . APPLICANT: HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY � DATE OF HEARING 7_12_8� , 2, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS . Rezoning ❑ Var�ance � Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review ❑ Dete rn�ination of Similar Use ❑ Other ❑ Change of Nonconforming Use � Other 3. LOCATION: Northwest Corner Ford Parkway & Finn 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 25-30, Block 8, St. Catherine Park Addn. 5. PRESENT ZONING: B-2 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61 .103(e) 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION 6 REPORT: DATE Jul_y 1 , 1983 _ BY Fred S. Haider A. PURPOSE: To consider a variance of the maximum height of structures in a corrrnunity us�ness zone. Code permits buildings to exceed 30 feet only if the structure is set back from all property lines a distance equal to the height whicM the structure exceeds 30 feet. Tn this case the proposed buildina has 0' sideyard setback and and a 46' average building height. . 6. PARCEL FRONTAGE AND AREA: 244` fronting Ford Parkway by 125' frontage along inn or , square eet of total lot area. C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is occupied by a commercial building (restaurant) an a par ing ot. e parcel has double street frontage and alley access. Land uses in the surrounding area include: Ford Motor Company (Ir�dustrial-Assembly Plant) to the south, single-family homes, to the North, and community businesses along Ford Parkway east and west of the site. D. ZONING CODE CITATTON: Sectiorr 61 .103(e) , Schedule of Regulations-Business is ricts, sets t e maximum height of structures at 30 feet except that "The height of the structure may exceed 30 feet provided the structure is set back from all property lines a distance equal to the height which said structure exceeds the maximum height of building allowed in the district. " E. ZONING HISTORY: April 1 , 1976: The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a special use permit to install a 73 car parking lot at the site. May, 1976: The City approved a proposal to construct a new building (Kentucky Fried Chicken) and the realigning of an existing driveway at the northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Finn St. F. FINDINGS: 1 . There is no physical basis upon which to grant a variance. The site is not unusual in size , shape, or topography. � 2. Strict application of the code regulations would not result in exceptional practical difficulty or undue hardship as distinguished from mere inconvenience by reason of the existing physical condition of the property. The desiqn of the structure can be modified to meet code regulations by either reducing the heiqht of the structure or setting the structure back 16' from all lot lines. The applicant's hardship appears self-created. � 3. It appears that allowing a height variance without a proportionate increase in building setback would result in overcrowding of the land and structure, would impair the intent and purpose of the code, and would be a detriment to the community. The construction proposed would exceed the maximum height of structures permitted in a B-2 zone by more than 50%. A variance of this magnitude is excessive and contrar� to the intent of the code. 4. The request for variance cannot be granted without substant�al detriment to the neighbors' supply of light and air. Staff has analyzed the imhact of increasing building heiaht on the amount of light provided to neighboring properties (see exhibit A) . A 5-story structure with b' setback would adversely affect the southerly solar exposure of single-family structures abutting the property. 5� I HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY (#9409) STAFF REPORT Page 2 F. FINDINGS CONT'D. • 5. The Plan for Streets and Highways corr�onent of the Comprehensive Plan of St. Paul • states : "One of the criteria for evaluating a street is the streetscape. The street- scape includes all the physical elements that affect the way the street looks and how it funcitons, and thus includes not only the right-of-way but facades of buildings which are near the street." Therefore building setbacks and the public boulevard together makeup the streetscape and influence the character of the site. A 5-story building with 0' setback is not consistent with other buildings in the community and would adversely affect the aesthetics of the streetscape and area as a whole. 6. The request for variance is not in substantial conformance with the Plan for Land Use component of the Comprehensive Plan intent to promote quality design that is sensitive to surrounding land uses. The Land Use Plan states, in part, "Most of St. Paul 's business land is on strips. Houses adjoin the commercial land with only a fence or alley between. Poor business design has a direct effect on the value and enjoyment of adjoining houses and the attractiveness of the neighborhood as a whole." "Whatever the future use of commercial areas, they must be designed and operated in a manner which makes them assets to the community in which they are located. Businesses which are operated in a way that is detrimental to the adjoining uses, especially residential uses, are a nuisance. " The Land Use Plan also states: "The city, through design controls, zoning and incentive programs, will encourage businesses to maintain the scale of surrounding development. . . ." "In many cases, a certain use may be prohibited in a particular zone because it is of an intensity which makes it a problem for surrounding uses. " G. STAFF ANALYSIS: A major tenet of zoning regulation is to confer like property with equal opportunity far development. The Zoning Code, Schedu�e of Regulations, may be relaxed in instances where unique physical conditions prevent development that would otherwise occur without variance. In this case, there is no unique physical circumstance that prevents development pursuant to the provisions of the code and granting this variance request could set a precedent that would diminish the significance of height restrictions of the code. Granting the variance in this case would permit development that is inconsistent with the surrounding land uses and would adversely affect the neighbors ' supply of light and air. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6 and the staff analysis, staff recommends the request for variance be denied. Co � . � T • ,• � �� _ . b� � O Z ' � W J � � � � — � � . O � j r– ,-. � � � ' .�-- z Q Z W , �-- � _ U w � ___ _ ---- --- - � �; - 0 - u� • ""� r 1�i� A � � � W o J ._.j , � R � «. M �' "1�--` o . � . � ) � � / � . �� N# �. .Y� �q �� . -. , ,, � � � ti� ; Q J . : �:� � o � _, a � � •-M � � 1� 1 . �� a � �� a� Q. '� oc:o � � _ � , j �, '� � • � ; l��il5 iviw� . �� - --- --� � -- - ul� - - - - --- ---- ------- —_ --- ---- 1 -�- � i v 11r11Y OMtt�x� f, �. } � - . ; ! , _ -� � ; '� - - --�- - . ..__ , i � O < ; 1 i * � � i . ,I - I �. �`i , , I � t � �. I � ( W - � . I I I � I , 1 I ' � ` � � , � � � r ��' �, � �� _ � � : � . � -; . .... . J .N --- .� , �� '- � � ! I � � ��_ � � I ' � I _.�� .,ry.�F . T1 . - - � ' / __.. __�. '�• � 1 l . __.� � f , �s � � � .�� cv ;�s . _ __ � p� � , � j I �„ � ,� . ; � � � W° �� fl � � --}- o . O , :� � , �- ( b � . � �� , M `!1 �. �iJ � � w� t� �c7 i � � . � ;� F,N�` .t�', . .,. . . . . . .. ' . � . .M . '.,� �: .--. _ " . .. .. . ��v� . .�r ...a�,��. ,� ✓ �,��'y-i ' �, •� � � � '�,.� � ♦ / , � � 'OM'01Y �iMO �».�,. �z��'i 3-2 blUS3t wr«••�«�ww�nwnr�Mw . �.w��.� �.N�wdo��n�a �dnn�� IIIA�N MY��M�MY��W Iq/U N � �� '�MMMMM�'MM�MM�M+a�MMrl W - -- --..__ _�_._ . _,_ _----. _ � —�— � ---� -----------_ .____.. __. _._-- --- � � I .I , � V } 1 �,. � _ i I � , � }_ i � . �- , ,�� W � t _l � � � } � � -J -- � � w � � � I I O �'1 1 ' _ � . � t �-j - � � �� .� � r ,. . ._ . .__ � .� �� ! � �� . . i J N .— � � _ _ I � � _ p I -_—` +! . � I � ~ � I ' � . J 1 �- I ~ W Q � _ w � " � . _ � W '� � s•«�rr— �� "� N l � o � _ ; _ � , \ . � __ I 4�-_..._.�I' , �� da `— - � � . _.t._ J � 1 Ll. � Wb � �a � r a � � ° M � � , Z I _ _ -, , . _ I h l . � ' i ' . i ' � i I i I � : . � I � � ' � ! I . _ •� .. � � Z O � � �� . � � � � W ; tn � , �t � N ^ � � . � � i I ! I ' " I I � , � � � 1 � � � � � � ; I � � ; � �p�-�i i I � _ i . ' I � � � � I } i � � � � � � � i � , � i � . � I � � � ; � ; � � � � � � � . i J � ' � ' ' -` �� M� '�'� �� ;0� - ll , � � � � i � � . , -1 i� � ,� 'N �� , . � I � �� I - j � i , � � � . � ► ► � I � ' i , � I I � � t � ,� � I I j I i + � 1 ._ i ._. � . . � , . ; i . . � '' ` � . . __.�. _. _ . �o� cc� '�i' � � �� I ; � � ' � i i .� I ' � I ' � . ! � � � tn � th � �- � '� � 'C7 i r-- - � �-- , �---' ;' ; � � � � � � - � � ► , � � i � . , � , � j ' ' ' � i i ' � � � I , , � � ; Y ' . � i � OC� I I � � � � ; ; � � � � I ' � I � � I � i . � � f I I ' � I � � � � I � I � � � i � � I ' ' � ; ( � � � � ; i ! � I � � � , ' �. � \ � -- _ ._� � . � _ _ . � _ ( K � !� - d � `- - � r � s � a.- � -� �L 6 Q1 C •r � � •r 7 � +� O O 4- � �O � E O i � C'3 .--� Z N � � N Q C 2 3 N ''7 � ,� y • . . ' �, � � ' , ' . ,J O � �, � C� N C 2 � D � N � ►--� N Z �+ C,7 �l � O 3 w O i '�1 O O ---I W C ►-� r 0 .-. z � � e z , � . r � , � � i I � i � ; � i � I 1 i I � ; � I i ; � � ' � , , ' I � I ' � ' { , � � I I I � 1 � I � ' i � ' � � � I i i � � � I � � �� ; t I ; � � � � ' � � � ' ' � ! ! , ► � � ' , i ' , � ' ( ; � I � . � _____1 : _ ' � _� � , ' ` i � T : � i � � I J I ; fl' ► � + � G`� ; t31 � �1 I �O. i � � , , , . � � � , � � � �� '� � �'' � �°: w a `` � � � ^ t�. , ,-c �� _ : � . + ,�, � ,�� 1 �, � t � � � N � �i f D = N �s =' � 3 ° : � �, � c � � � � � o 3 � � i � � O ` O \, -� 1 W C . '1 r 1 0 1 �-r h Z � � __ A � -_ 1 ` � - -- f" �- .. '� .(,:�(� � _. � � � � , � , . � t i I , � i I � I , I � � � � , � ; I i I � , � � � I � i � I � ' � � � � i � � � � 1� � I i � � � � � � � � I � I �� I , . i � � � � ► � � � z ' � � � � , � � , � ; i � � ' i � t . � ( I ' ' - - ' ------� -= ------- ' � ----- ---._ � _� � - - - - , a � a- I ..,. i W cr , � ; c� � , , , , � � ; � � , � . ' � � �. � � � __ �' _ �`' _�`' __ __, T_ " _ �I i . ,. � � � ` , . , . I I � • � i � � � ' � ' � ,' � . � � � n 0.. � o 3 � N � � 'n N � r-+ O 3 w O � � � � O O . � W C 1 � ►-'� "� r • v � N� Z � s s s I � � � .. � .y� � � � I I I � � i I I � , � , , i � � ' � � ' � � � i ' � � , I � ( � � � I ` i ' ' � i � : I } � ' � i I I i I � � .� � i � • I i � � ; , � � i I i i � � � � � � i ' i � ' � ( i i � � , ► � � � � � I ► , . � , � ; � i � i � i � 1 , � � I � I i j � , �' I Q "�' I W � � �1 I �O. � ' � � 1 ; , I � ' ' � I ' ► �b �' �". �' � . �' �°: T-- - - , � . . i , I � � w�' � i city of saint paul board of zoning appeals resolution � zoning file number 9409 � date �ULY 26, 1983 � WHEREAS, Harvey Investment Company has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61 .103(e) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to height provisions of buildings in a B-2 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing. on July 12, 1983, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.204 of the Legislative Code; and � WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1 . Section 61 .103(e) permits a 46' structure provided the building is set back 16' from all property lines. The request for variance of building height provisions of the code is based on the exceptiona�l physical condition of the property. The applicant will incur exceptional practical difficulty in providing a 16' setback on all sides of the proposed building or in limiting the building height to 30 feet by reason of the limited dimension of the site, and strict application of the code regulations would result in hardship as distinguished from mere inconvenience due to the existing ' physical condition of the property. ' 2. The request for variance can be granted without substantial detriment to � the community or intent of the code. Zoning Code_ Section 60.531 , intent, states: "the B-2 Comnun�ity Business District is intended to serve the needs of a consumer population larger than that served by the 'Local , Business District, ' and is generally characterized by a cluster of establishments generating larger volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.° The applicant is proposing to construct a 5-story parking ramp to satisfy an acute shortage of off-street parking within the business district as well as adjunct commercial development. The Land Use Plan identifies the sate as within a major retail cluster area and states in policy 4.2-1 : "the City will support a diverse commercial activity. . . ." , The proposed development is consistent with land use goals for cluster commercial areas and promotes cluster development that compliments small business development. 3. The request f or variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the neighbors' supply of light and air, health, safety or property values. 4. The request for variance does not appear to be based primarily on a desire for economic gain. It appears that a 5-story building is required to make the project economically feasible by reason of the exceptional development costs associated with providing a parking ramp, that is available for community use without cost. moved by Mr. Peterson y seconded by Mt_ S��mmers - __ _ in favor 5 _ against o � (1 abstention) SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR: TIME LI�tIT/APPEAL/CERTIFICATION "':-;i',��+ .lulv 27._19.$� �� . i �. ; , HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY (#9409) � Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 61 .103(e) be hereby waived to allow a commercial building to be constructed at the northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Finn Avenue (Lots 25-30, Block 8, St. Catherine Park Addition) with 0' front, rear - and side yard setback, and 46' building height on the condition that ingress/egress is in accordance with the traffic engineer's recommendation, that the developer continue to involve the District 15 Zoning and Environment Committee in establishing the aesthetic profile of the building exterior and providing privacy for neighboring property abutting the site on the north and that the developer guarantee that the parking will be free. TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or off-street parkinq facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the . City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 30 days by anyone affected by the decision. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul , Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in rr�y office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoninq Appeals meeting held on Jul 12 1983 , and on record in the Saint Paul Planning ivision f ice, 25 . Fourth Street, Saint Paul , Minnesota . ar i veney B man Secre y to the aint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals 13� MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBFRS, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, JULY 12, 1983 PRESENT: Mme. Summers; Messrs. Grais, Peterson, and Woods of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Ms. Lane of the Division of Housing and Building Code Enforcement; Ms. Beseman, Mr. Ford and Mr. Haider of the Planning Division Staff. ABSENT: Mme. Morton; Messrs. Kirk and Osborn. The meeting was chaired by Sam Grais, Vice-Chairman. HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY (�9409): Request for variance of the maximum ui ing eig t provisions o t e code to permit construction of an office, retail and parking ramp facility with a 46' average building height at the northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Finn. The. applicant was represented. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Haider showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recomnendation for denial . Staff presented charts illustrating the solar impact of the structure on the residential area which indicated substantial impairment of light and air to the abutting properties to the north. Six letters were received in opposition. Gerald Frisch, attorney representing the applicant, 2350 W. 7th Street, stated that they have participated in a number of ineetings with City officials and attended a meeting at the Southwest Area District Council . The proposal contemplates the use and development of the property in connection with the use and development of the entire community. Because of economic burdens placed upon the site, 2,000 sq. ft. remain vacant at the present time that cannot be rented. Together with the problem of real estate taxes, $60,000, and the vacancy factor that has been created as a result of the economic shortage, they have a situation where it is not economically sound anymore and does not support itself. Initially they intended to construct a 70' high structure which would require a variance of 40 feet. They decidPd to comply with the existing buildings along Ford Parkway. They looked at the existing height of structures in the area and the standard they chose to comply with is the building of Kelly's at 2221 Ford Parkway which is located 1 1/2 blocks from the site and is 48' high. They worked out a composite of retail space, office space, and they have __ attempted to resolve the question of parking along with the economic factors necessary to support it. The result of this they feel is going to be of benefit not only to the shopping area but to the entire comnunity. The neighborhood has an overflow of on-street parking, especially in the evening when the demand is overwhelming. It is the intention of the applicants to work up a concept whereby they would construct a parking ramp for 325 free parking spaces that would be available not only for the tenants, occupants and users of the particular area that they are developing but for the entire comnunity without any cost or expense. Currently they propose 11 ,000 sq. ft. of retail space and 45,000 gross sq. ft. of office space. With that kind of an economic factor they can �`f, Harvey Investment Company (�9409) Page 2 support and have free parking available to alleviate the parking problem in Highland Park. The windows on the north side of the building would be at a point of 6 to 8 feet tall which would adequately �provide for light circulation required under the code and wouid prohibit people from looking into the privacy of a back yard. As to the aesthetics of the site, he suggested that a comnittee be formed representing the developer, architect, as well as the neighbors to discuss how they are going to solve the aesthetics. For purposes of pro�ection, they had shown the access off Finn. The neighbors ob�ected to that claiming that Finn would become an access point and would interfere with the residential neighborhood to the north. They (Harvey Investment) are prepared, if necessary, to work with the neighbors and the traffic department to have the ingress and egress to the parking ramp come off Ford Parkway. The alternative to that would be to have a cul-de-sac off Finn, immediately adjacent to the a�ley. There was discussion regarding building heights in the area. Mr. Frisch comnented that the Cleveland High Rise, 899 Cleveland is 13 stories and approximately 2 blocks south of the site; 740 River Drive is 23 stories and about 2 1/2 blocks away; Kelly's, 2221 Ford Parkway is 48' high; and Powers has a height of 62 feet. He stated that there are other buildings in the area that exceed 30' but that they pre-existed the current Zoning Code. Ms. Summers asked what guarantee they had that the parking would remain free. Mr. Frisch responded that on behalf of his clients, they would make a formal warranty that it would remain free parking if they were allowed to construct the building 46' in height. There is no reason why it should not be ad infinitum parking free because the economics of permitting them to buiTd e�fi o�ce space along with the retail space, as well as the obligations that are set forth in the lease with the tenants that presently exist, require them to maintain free parking. Bob Pope, architect, 533 St. Clair, presented charts on solar impact at winter solstice indicating that the structure would have an impact on the residents but not to the extent illustrated by staff. He reported that they have studied a number of different arrangements for parking, office buildings and retail facilities and they believe that the proposal they are presenting has the best possibility of developing an economically viable project for the comnunity. The access off Finn can be relocated but from a functional arrangement of the parking ramp, they feel that the Finn access is better from a traffic standpoint for getting people in and out of the facility. Mr. Peterson questioned the difference between Mr. Pope's solar solstice and the solar solstice presented by staff. Mr. Haider clarified that his illustration included the solar impact " throu hout the entire day while Mr. Pope illustrated only the best case time �12:00 high noon) . 1 f�. Harvey Investment Company (#9409) Page 5 Lydia Hogan, 2142 Pinehurst, said she feels the applicant misidentified the problem and that there are parking spaces currently available. For example, sixteen spaces were in use this morning (the parking lot can accommodate 73 cars). Henry Waldenberger, 2115 Pinehurst, expressed concern with the traffic problems that would be created with 325 cars emptying out onto Finn Avenue which is a 2-lane road with parking on both sides and is used as the major pedestrian route to the Applebaum store. There needs to be a more consistent development of the whole area. They probably need parking for the business people but they don't need a 5-story development in a relatively low density residential area of 1- and 2-story buildings, Kelly's being the exception. - Mr. Frisch reported that they are not bound to Finn Avenue for access. If the traffic engineer can become involved further and they can exit and enter off Ford Parkway, they would. He stated that there is no public funding involved, it is private investment. The only reason there is no difficulty with parking at the present time is because there are vacancies that exist in the building. John Mueller, 2111 Pinehurst, comnented that once a building is constructed, there isn't anything that can be done. Hearing no further testimony, Mr. Grais closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. There was discussion regarding setbacks. Mr. Haider stated that a business zone does not require any setback if the height of the building is limited to 30 feet. However, the code allows the building to exceed 30 feet if it is set back from all property lines a distance equal to the difference between the building height and 30 feet. Mr. Woods asked staff if this would set a precedent that might diminish the significance of the restrictions in regard to height. Mr. Haider responded that the attorney representing the applicant has discussed Kelly's as an example of what should be built. The temptation to do likewise and cite this 5-story development in future zoning hearings would _ be great. Mr. Peterson moved approval of the 16' variance based upon the physical condition of the lot in terms of the pro3ect proposed for the good of the public, the free parking, and the fact that there is no clear evidence of any excessive deprivement of light and air, subject to the following conditions: 1 ) the developer consult with the City Traffic Department and locate the egress and ingress for the parking ramp which ever way the city traffic department recommends; 2) the developer involve the community in _ terms of working with a comnittee to establish the aesthetics profile of the exterior of the building in terms of the landscaping, etc.,; and 3) the developer guarantee to the residents that on the back side of the building t�� Harvey Investment Company (#9409) Page 6 that there would be privacy for the residents who reside ad�acent to the building and that they guarantee to the corranunity that the free parking would exist in the parking ramp. Ms. Summers seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 4 to 0. Submi ed by: . Approved by: Fred S. Haider Gladys Morton, Chairman_ �� SOUTH WEST AREA DISTRICT COU NCIL POST OFFICE BOX# 16095 ST. PAUL, MN 55116 (612) 698-0866 Ju�y 12, 19$3 - ids. Gladys Morton Chairperson, Board of Zoning Appeals St. Paul City Hall St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear NLs. Morton, The Southwest Area District Council met July 11 to discuss the matter of a proposed varisace for a five story parking complex on the north- west corner of Finn and Ford Parkw�y. The enclosed is the resolution adopted by the Council at the meeting. Also enclosed, on the reverse side, is a resolution passed by the Council one year ago regarding a similar pro�ect at the same site. '�he Southwest Area District CoUncil wishes to go on record against the proposed five story structure at this location. Sincerely, ^\ • �e , ,;1.,1 C:�,IrZ�-1, �.'i:;"f�l.�-C.�� l I Andrea Albrecht, Community Organizer ao � �---.�.� _ � " ;. . � p'O O S � �/ � � tl9 �� J � . POST O F�f CE BOX# 16095 ST. PAU L, MN 55116 (612) 698-0866 . Resolution on Six Story High-rise for the northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Finn. Whereas, a developer has applied to the Saint Paul Port Authority for funding to construct a six story high-rise com�ination retail, parking, and office complex on the site of tlie parking lot at the north�aest corner of the intersection of Ford Parkway and Finn; and, '" Whereas, the proposed complex would require zoning changes f�r height restrictions and possibly involve the vacation of a pbrtion of Finn for the purpose of blocking access from Finn to Ford Parkway, both of which would require approval of the City Council; and, Whereas, residential neighbors have twice appeared before ±he Southwest Area Council Board of directors expressing their �pposition to construction of the complex, citing in particular �h� incompatibility of such a tall structure immediately adjacent co �ingle family residences, the increas� of traffic , and the lo^s of sunlight; and, FJhereas , there is land on the south side of Ford Parkway, not imr.iediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood, which would be more suitable for the construction of such a large comple;;; Therefore, be it resolved, that the Southwest Area District Co .incil Board of� Directors opposes the construction of a multi- stzsry high-rise at this location and urges the Saint Pa�rl Port Authority and tt:e City Council not to grant the necessary funding and zoning char.�ges required for construction of the complex; Be it further resolved, that the board encourages this, or any other developer, to work closely with the city and the port author�ty towards the development of an additional parking facility located on the south sicie of Ford Parkway, not immediately adjacent to re�idential property. . Passed by the �outhwest Area District Council Board of Directors nugust 9 , 1982 . ��Ji�liaM �'1. Bierman , Jr. • Acting Secretary _. �� ti"�'� ' \�� S � �� ' �, � �� 9 ��C7 C � � P� �� L . POST OFFICE BOX# 16095 ST. PAUL, MN 55116 (612) 698-0866 . Resolution on Six Story High-rise for the northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Finn. Whereas, a developer has applied to the Saint Paul Port Authority for funding to construct a six story high-rise corn�ination retail, parking, and office complex on the site of tlze parking lot at the northwest corner of the intersection of Ford Parkway and Finn; and, '" Whereas, the proposed complex would require zoning changes f�r height restrictions and possibly involve the vacation of a pbrtion of Finn for the purpose of blocking access from Finn to Ford Parkway, both of which would require approval of the City Council; and, Whereas, residential neighbors have twice appeared before ±he Southwest Area Council Board of directors expressing their �pposition to construction of the complex, citing in particular �h: incompatibility of such a tall structure immediately adjacent co �ingle family residences, the increas� of traffic , and the lo�s of sunlight ; and, UJhereas , there is land on the south side of Ford Parkway, not ir.2^�ediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood, which would be more suitable for the construction of such a large complex; Therefore, be it resolved, that the Southwest Area District Co.incil Board of Directors opposes the construction of a multi- sttsry high-rise at this location and urges the Saint Paul Port Authority and tt:e City Council not to grant the necessary funding and zoning char�ges required for construction of the complex; Be it further resolved, that the board encourages this, or any other developer, to work closely with the city and the port author�ty towards the development of an additional parking facility located on the south sicie of Ford Parkway, not immediately adjacent to re��idential property. °assed by the �;outhwest Area District Council Board of Directors :lugust 9 , 1932 . GJi�liam r'1. Bier;nan , Jr. • Acting Secretary . �� Resolution on Five Story High-rise for the northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Finn. 4�?hereas, a developer has applied to the St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals for a 16 foot variance for a building to be located at the northwest corner of Finn and Ford Parkway, Lots 25-30 , Block 8 , St. Catherine Park; and, [��hereas, the proposed complex will require zoning changes for height restrictions and possibly involve the vacation of a protion of Finn for the purpose of blocking access from Finn to Ford ParY.way, both of which ��ould require approval of the City Council; and, P7hereas , residential neighbors have twice appeared before the South- west Area Council Board of Directors expressing their opposition to construction of the complex, citing in particular the incompatibility of such a tall structure immediately adjacent to single family resid- ences, the increase of traffic, and the loss of sunliaht; and, ti7hereas , another developer applied to tne St. Paul Port Authority for funding to construct a similar complex one-year ago for a six story high-rise and the Southwest Area District Council Board of Directors expressed their opinion by _the attached resolution dated August 9 , 1982; and, ��Ihereas, there is land on the south side of Ford Parkway, not immediately adjacent to a residential neighborhood, which would be more suitable for the construction of such a large complex; Therefore, be it resolved, that the Southwest Area District Council Board of Directors strongly opposes the construction of a multi-story high-rise at this location and urges the St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals and the City Council not to grant the necessary zoning changes and funding required for the construction of the complex; Be it further resolved, that the board continues to encourage � __this, or any other developer, to work closely with the city towards the development of an additional parking facility located on the south side of Ford Parkway, not immediately adjacent to residential property. . • � � ' � iul t �;: Ir �;,. ` � iV'� �� i�i �� - � _ (.�i � ',`' , . �tU . �� - � � -� . � .�` :- . �' July 1, 1983 � �. Gladys Morton, Chairperson Board of Zoning Appeals �� W. 4th St. Suite 11C�0 St Paul a MN SS 1 C�2 Dear Ms. Morton In regard to the office/retail complex , proposed by Mr. Sherman RutLick to be b�iilt at the corner of Ford ��rk:way and Finn Avenue, we would strongly recommend that the Poard of Zoning Appeals deny the variance required for this project. We mak.e this recommend�tion based on the staff report° s figures showing that our access to air and sunlight would be sub= stantially impaired by the si�e and location of this proposed building. Dur ability to use and enjoy our property would be seriously impaired. We also believe that such a b��ild�ing would detract from the character of the neighborhood and, considering the nature and si�e of the surrounding busines5es, wo�ild be out of place at this •site. Placement of this proposed comple:: at this site could serve only to reduce the marE;et value of the homes in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consider�tion. Sincerely, � �� `S��r� �-' J hn and Lydia ugen � �142 F'inehurst Ave St Paul , MN JJZ16 �� A' _ , .�, , �,�' '�� a . .. � , ; . t � ��.,�� - � ��,.�,,.�� • ,� ...._ . . � M� /, � � ,.. �;. .: i � -� L� � �.i� ��' � � t � ( ` • � . . � � • i �_j � �f � ♦ � ♦ �► • ��=y •nw..�inr � �� ! � ' �-.� \ \ � F '�� , � � . • . ��, •� �/ . \= :�j ` \ � � � ,� � \ ��+� � � � \ � �� _•E,.�� __ � � f• ��►i� � F( � � . • �/ `. � � � - • � <,��,� .. - ° � � � �,; n � �� r -- � � �� .... �. � ° . � � �_�,�� _ � � ,�- __ \ � \ ' , ,} �,�j �� - . � \ � � . ,l��Ilinil�E�;� ' � - �It�u�� '��iti�;,, '� � � \ �� ` ` �� ♦ �� • � �► �. • � � � � ' � � � � � _ ` � � • � � � � \ : � • � � \ � � . � � • ' \ ` � � � \ '� � � � `� \ � `� • \ � \ \ � \ � \ . � ` ♦ � . � � � t � + � � � � \� � . ` — � ` � � \ � • � � �� , � � � ` � � � � � � � � • v� � � •� � � � � � � . . ` � � � � • '� 1 • �� \ � � . . . �. . � . � � � � � � � � ' � ► � � � � . � ` � _ � � � ` � � � • � �� ' \ � `\ � � � � � . � `� � `` ` ` � \ �\ � � � �� ` � ,�\• � '� . � � � � � � � `\ \ � r \ � � � � � ♦ . � � \ � \ � .� � \ ; � � • � � ` � \ ♦ _� � � � \ �� • � \ ` \ � • �`\\ � � � � � \ \ \ � � ► � ♦ ► . � ` . \ � . � � • . ` � \ � r � ♦ \ ` � \ \ ` ` \ � � �\ \ � .. ` \ � ��\ � � `► �� • � � � � � � � ♦\ � � � � \ � •` � � � � ` � � , • e �� ` � 1 \ ` � � � �t • � � � � � � � � � � � _ � ` � � � � ` \ , � ` �' \ \ \ , ,` • � � � � � \ � \ � � � ` � \ � � � , � � � \ '� � ` \ � ` � , � �\ � `. , ,._ � -, . -a ..._. � ,. : . . _ ' N� �" . . K _ ..._ ..... . � - �. I . • ��l . .�'�.. � �s '� �:- � �' �� . ��••� �, �� j�; � "� PUBLIC NEARING.NOTICE ' _ _ - _ � -� CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� '; ; BOARD OF ZONINQ APPEALB - �: ' � �r In reply to the foZlowing petition, I ob3ect to ar�r type of warience for the " property as this would be' a great detriment to the resident property holders :�� in the immediate vic�ty. I also ob3ect to a building of this size. s ._- - -- - _ Matt R. Miller _ . e ve. _._ _-- TO Property Owners Within 350 feet; st. Peul, t�. 55116 Representatives of Planning District 15 l APPLICANT HARVEY INVESTMENT COP1PANY . I PURPOSE" To consider a variance of maximum height for a building in a B-2 District. Code requires 30' . Applicant proposes 46' . � Therefore, a 16' variance is required. i � � � LOCATION OF PROPERTY Northwest corner of Finn and Ford Legal Descripticn: Lots 25-30, Block 8, � St. Catherine Park , _ :THIRE OF HEARING ---.— -�_ --�uesday, ---,lu1y a2,-;1,983_ __a:3D_p.�1. --- PLACE OF HEARING Ci ty Counci 1 Chambers , 3rd F1 oor Ci ty Hal l , St. Paul � -HOW Ta PARTICfPATE --- -� .-- Xou may attend�-hearing and testify.___ 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the Board i _ of Zoning Appeals, 25 West Fourth St. , St. Paul , MN. 55102� AN Y OU ESTIO N� Call the Zoning office at 298-4154 (Fred Haider) or . the District (690-0866) with the following information: ' Zoning File No. 9409 Zoning File Name. ��u1VESTtdENT COMPANY . �t�� Mailing Date Z1�%.,R?— - . . � � �� 9�� . � , � , ,. ,. � '''% ;(� ;;i Jul y �, 1983 Gladys Morton, Chairperson Poard of Zoning Appeals _ 25 W. 4th St. Suite i1��U ; St. Pau 1 , MIV 55102 '� � � Dear Ms. Mort�� Rosemary Koenen (George F. Koenen ET AL) � 2107 Pinehurst Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55116 t � �� July 5, 1983 - "� `� � I � , I . Board of Zoning Appeals � �e 25 West Fourth Street St.. Paul, Minnesota 55102 � To Whom It May Concern: RE; Zoning File No. 9409 Zoning File Name: Harvey Investment Company I wish this letter to be considered as my protest regarding the variance being considered for the northwest coriea�°unable to attendPtheWaY ��ts 25-30, Block 8, St. Catherine Park) . ou will hearing set on Tuesday, July 12, 1983, at 1:30 PM so I hope y take this letter into consideration regarding this matter. Thank you• Yours sincerely, Rosemary Koen n � ,��. , , ��'.� , . J U13/ 3� 19 8 3 . . '.. ., ,..-,.'��r��.... .- ,. Gladys Morton �. Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals Attn. Fred Haider 25 W 4th Street � .1:i :iJ •.. St. Paul� Minnesota 55102 -`.,;�'��`s;� ' -- :�:��`��'?`�� r'�"s: Zan�Mg F�'il.e No : 9�09 Harvey Investment Company Dear Chairperson Morton, A recent public hearing notice from the City of St. Paul Board of �oning Appeals has informed me that the Harvey Investment Company proposes construction of a 46 foot retail and office building with a parking ramp on the northwest corner of Finn and Ford Parkway. To build such a skyscraper, a zoning variance is required. As a residential property owner at 2136 Pinehurst Ave . ('dire�tly North across the alley from the proposed skyscraper) I am steadfastly opposed to construction of such a building or granting of a variance to allow construction of such a building. I oppose granting of a variance for many reasons. First, such a tall building would obscure the sun during the long winter months and cast a shadow over much of my property according to my calculations. We would live in darkness. Our passive solar heating system would no longer function resulting in substantial increases in our fuel bills. I feel it is unfair - to myself and other property owners north of the proposed building site that I and we should have to suffer any financial burden in the form of increased heating bills because of any proposed adjacent building. During the summer months� gardening in our back yard would be impossible because of lack of sun. I think I have the right to garden on my property in my back yard. Currently� there is substantial law and precedent guarantee�ng:. one ' s right to the sun and solar energy primarily f�om the �tate of California. Granting a variance to allow construction of such a building with subsequent construction of this proposed skyscraper will clearly be in violation of this property owner' s right to the sun. If the building is constructed, I will just as clearly take this issue before the courts certain of a decision in my favor. I have substantial monitary and legal manpower at my disposal if necessary. Indeed, such a case is likely to reach national newspaper headliness S�l.PAi�Li 1ViSNNESOTA- PROPER'1�Y OWNER '1'AKES CO1YtMERTIAL BUSINESS TO COUR'i' OVER SOLAR RIGHTS-COURTS ORDER CO.�I11�1�RTIAL PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE 'POP TWO STORIES OF BUII,DING- Beyond the solar issue is the traffic problem such a complex would create . I live on a residential street, not a commertial strip. Any building/ramp of this magnitude would cause a marked increase in traffic on the residential streets of Pine- hurst and Finn as well as Ford Parkway. Again this is an unfair burden to residential property owners. ��< �� . 2135 Pinehurst Avenue `'-�{;;; . St. Paul, Minn. 55116 �-��.:'r�}-'-j July 11, 1983 _ ,., '�%':� Gladys Morton, Chair Board of Zoning Appeals Suite 1100 - City Hall Annex 25 V�7est Fourth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 ' Re: Applicant HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY Northwest corner of Finn and Ford Parkway Lots 25-30 , Block 8 , St. Catherine Park Dear Madam: In regard to the above applicant' s request for a variance of 16 feet to build a high-rise combination retail, office and park- ing complex on the site described, please be advised that I am strongly opposed to such construction on that site. The height of the proposed complex is incompatible with the single-family residences fronting on Pinehurst Avenue. The homes immediately across the alley would be in the shadow of such a building most of the day. Further, I have been informed that ingress and egress would be off Finn Street, adjacent to the alley. Finn Street is a very busy thoroughfare; it is our neighborhood' s direct access to Ford Parkway and the Highland Village Shopping Center. I understand there is a possibility that a portion of Finn Street would have to be vacated to accommodate the increase in traffic if the pro- posed edifice is built on that corner. I am also strongly opposed to vacation of even a portion of Finn Street. The type of complex proposed would be more suitable on the south side of Ford Parkway, away from a single-family residential neighborhood. Very truly yours, � �-r�--.C�, Zoc-� . � (Mrs. ) Nlarj ie E. Brady cc: Mr. William A. Bierman, Jr. , Acting Secretary Southwest Area District Council Mr. Eugene A. Kraut, General Manager Port Authority of the City of Saint Paul ,� !� July 11, 1983 City of St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals St. Paul, Mn. In re: File 9409 Harvey Investment Co. . This is to express my opposition to the granting of the requested variance in the maximum height for the proposed building. I also oppose any proposal for vacation of a portion of Finn Avenue. The variance if granted would be out�of character with the adjoining residential properties on Pinehurst and would not be in the best interests of the neighborhood. - Respectfully, ��.�--cx. �� Celia L. Goldetsky �� 2166 Pinehurst Av St. Paul, Mn. 30 � . . ' , ��"�� idHEREAS , HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY HAS APPLIED FOR APPROVAL WiTH THE ST. PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHLJEST CORNER OF FINN AND FORD PARKWAY , LOTS 25-30 , BLOCK 8 , ST . CATHERINE PARK, AND WHEREAS A PREVIOUS DEVELOPER WITHDREW A PROPOSAL FOR A SIMILAR HIGH-RISE PARKING RAMP UPON OBJECTION OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE DELETERIGUS EFFECT OF SUCH A STRUCTURE ON THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY; NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DEMAND THAT TAIS REQUEST BE DENIED, FOR ON APPROVAL THE PROPOSED HIGH-RISE WILL OBSTRUCT VIEWS AhD SUNLIGHT, CREATE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION, CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, AND WILL MOST DEFINITELY DECREASE THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD . D:�TE / NA�IE / ADDRE S S / PHONE 7 �6 � - ' - �e �� 7�� ' �a- 7 ,o _ 20 �9 �� y� _��,_ /,o/� �:� ,� � .�� o , � � � - .�� 3� , - � �� " � �.v.-ze � � `I Y- �'�°.3 z ir 3 � ' ��" .��,,��.� 6 -- .3 ��- i �s�� '�� .- -�..�,�-� . �� -o � zl , 1 � � I 3 --� \ f� . � c�'-/�� . � � / �S - / '��l i � � � � -�J I ( -� �s..� �� ° �. � / ' � � � — — i r r rc� ��-c� ' � ��(�� t� o�t i1.Cc�.�-c� _ � �t 6� �- , __ Z � 2.��i- '�rl- �3 �,.�:L � �.��L� �o � � �.9 9 -c�� S I '�-� �`�3 � ��, �1�� , s-� ��,� �'�J -53�3 i -8 � �'v�n ' n��" v-e D-53 3 3 ( WHEREAS , HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY HAS APPLIED FOR APPROVAL WITH THE ST. PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FINN AND FORD PARKWAY , LOTS 25-30 , BLOCK 8 , ST. CATHERINE PARK, AND WHEREAS A PREVIOUS DEVELOPER WITHDREW A PROPOSAL FOR A SIMILAR HIGH-RISE PARKING RAMP UPON OBJECTION OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE DELETERIOUS EFFECT OF SUCH A STRUCTURE ON THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY; NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DEMAND THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED, FOR ON� APPROVAL THE PROPOSED HIGH-RISE WILL OBSTRUCT VIEWS AhD SUNLIGHT , CREATE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION, CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, AND WILL MOST DEFINITELY DECREASE THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. ��TE / NAti1E / ADDRESS / PHONE ^ 7 !G �3 .��C ��Cr:ft � r LPiLyzuzK o��" r2�L/�v,Qs� vE � �� o G(,h.�'-�.�a._. � �ia � ^ G'Gv-� � �- �3 � �O 3 2 �� /�/ CC- � r � � e'� � lo s�3 i n, �z./ �� i " l � ��C� � b ��- � �-i a � ` �� i �O �3 'U�. �� ,-�� T�-t� � �'v ��3 �-��Z� . � % /d 13 .t_-!`z.� ��.� �/�.� �J'"-�--�u--EZ.t�..t_,�-�, �.- �� - �-�<< 7 /c ,� � � 6 � -o�6 L !G 3 .,v,�,�,� G 9 S �-3 y�0 3 � 7 � � J � Ul� . 7 �e � �� - � � .� �- o ` �ld�, � � � - �� ; � �o� � �� o � ��-�` y 3�- � ` �� , . . WHEREAS , HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY HAS APPLIED FOR APPROVAL WiTH THE ST. PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FINN AND FORD PARKWAY, LOTS 25-30 , BLOCK 8 , ST. CATHERINE PARK, AND WHEREAS A PREVIOUS DEVELOPER WITHDREW A PROPOSAL FOR A SIMILAR HIGH-RISE PARKING RAMP UPON OBJECTION OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE DELETERIGUS EFFECT OF SUCH A STRUCTURE ON THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY; NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DEMAND THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED, FOR ON APPROVAL THE PROPOSED HIGH-RISE WILL OBSTRUCT VIEWS AND SUNLIGHT, CREATE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION, CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, AND WILL MOST DEFINITELY DECREASE THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL AOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. �J:�TE / NAME / ADDRESS / PHONE � �n _ _ - ��a P,�:;�.,�- 6 -� � � o � � � - � 6 � o- ��' v � .-� e p � 60 � �' , 3�% �ic �3 � � P�51� ��/,��3 �C�� G. (�1��'�;,� a�� (��,�, -g�a t� �� Yj - z . 7 �' - io � 1 G � ' � �. � d a -- �d Z �� a�� -►1.c.pc,c�P- - I�� ,: �u3 � Z % G/ Z �i ��.I ��.w3� (v�icl Z�'��J -� �� - � ' - a o �� <� .�� i � � 3�� . • r LJHEREAS , HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY HAS APPLIED FOR APPROVAL WTTH THE ST. PAUL BOARD OF ZONZNG APPEALS FOR A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE vORTHWEST CORNER OF FINN AND FORD PARKWAY , LOTS 25-30 , BLOCK 8 , ST . CATHERINE PARK, AND WHEREAS A PREVIOUS DEVELOPER WITHDREW A PROPOSAL FOR A SIMILAR HIGH-RISE PARKING RAMP UPON OBJECTION OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE DELETERIGUS EFFECT OF SUCH A E STRUCTURE ON THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY; NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DErfAND THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED, FOR ON APPROVAL THE PRUPOSED HIGH-RISE WILL OBSTRUCT VIEWS AD:D SUNLIGHT , CREATE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION, CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, AND WILL MOST DEFINITELY DECREASE THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD . DATE / NAME / ADDRESS / PHONE - � � `" � - ��S `1i � ��. v I , ti� 5 ��., �, - if � ._�o_ ^ 1 a - � � ; q�,-�J�� a ' L �r d�d. G'�y,��.� �/�� C�`l�' 0 3 y� 0 0� $l�-�/J� �O �d''�6� --7 �o � �T �`� � /�o�� y6 �� lZu�s� Gr-�'d��P �99--�7a� � 7 / io l 5�3 ��j4� h�� a1�a �,�� .� sr, Pgt; � �� lo �so �� u� � sT�� - '�� i � Y � � �, S � cv,�. 5+ �q�t -3�� /p �3 �(,c.e� �. l'�'`-f �,,.�, b y��,- �� ,� ' / � �, e 1 �-.i.� r �u= - 0 3 a�� e� � �` a 3 � 7 /v �3 �/70 /r �i �qg--7sy,5 3 `�� `� � _ �� . . � � ��;v� WHEREAS , HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY HAS APPLIED FOR APPROVAL W7TH THE ST. PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FINN AND FORD PARKWAY , LOTS 25-30 , BLOCK 8 , ST. CATHERINE PARK, AND WHEREAS A PREVIOUS DEVELOPER WITHDREW A PROPOSAL FOR A SIMILAR HIGH-RISE PARKING RAMP UPON OBJECTION OF THE SURROUNBING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE DELETERIGUS EFFECT OF SUCH A STRUCTURE ON THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY; NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DEMAND THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED, FOR ON APPROVAL THE PROPOSED HIGH-RISE WILL OBSTRUCT VIEWS AICD SUNLIGAT , CREATE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION, CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, AND WILL MOST DEFINITELY DECREASE THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD . ��TE / NAy1E / ADDRE S S / PHONE , L/ ¢ �r o�7:3�/ �i' �a��d ID � ��- . a� �a --�.�-� � � � �-�� o- � � ' � , ��a 3 j ' �,l � � - �� ;� � � -�� 7�/l, �3 ,� ��--� !�� S � G� - �z��- 3�- � WHEREAS , HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY HAS APPLIED FOR APPROVAL WfTH THE ST. PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FINN AND FORD PARKWAY , LOTS 25-30 , BLOCK 8 , ST . CATHERINE PARK, AND WHEREAS A PREVIOUS DEVELOPER WITHDREW A PROPOSAL FOR A SIMILAR HIGH-RISE PARKING RAMP UPON OBJECTION OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE DELETERIOUS EFFECT OF SUCH A STRUCTURE ON THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY; NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DEMAND THAT THZS REQUEST BE DENIED, FOR ON. APPROVAL THE PROPOSED HIGH-RISE WILL OBSTRUCT VIEWS AhD SUNLIGHT, CREATE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION, CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS , AND WILL MOST DEFINITELY DECREASE THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD . DATE J NA?rIE / ADDRE S S / PHO�tE `a�6/;� r rLJ o��lS . L . � -�J9- i �/ �' � �� z//S /� . �j�-� LE 5 -3/�'D �Ir l� � �c, � . _ ; `?lr� I S� i�t�n,�� Lar��,e,� �`r� �.��.�/��`�� 8-330� 3�• . � WHEREAS , HARVEY INVESTMENT COriPANY HAS APPLIED FOR APPROVAL Wi.TH THE ST. PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPF.ALS FOR A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FINN AND FORD PARKWAY , LOTS 25-30 , BLOCK 8 , ST. CATHERINE PARK, AND WHEREAS A PREVIOUS DEVELOPER WITHDREW A PROPOSAL FOR A SIMILAR HIGH-RISE PARKING RAMP UPON OBJECTION OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE DELETERIOUS EFFECT OF SUCH A STRUCTURE ON THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY; NOiJ, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DEMAND THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED, FOR ON APPROVAL THE PROPOSED HIGH-RISE WILL OBSTRUCT VIEWS AhD SUNLIGHT, CREATE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION, CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, AND WILL MOST DEFINITELY DECREASE THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD . DaTE / NAME / ADDRESS / PHONE ��'9 � �� - / l� , �Z y `�3/u,��u�� a. � � �f- ' G y�/-.�� o 3g� � r WHEREAS , HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY HAS APPLIED FOR APPROVAL tdITH THE ST. PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FOR A BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FINN AND FORD PARKWAY, LOTS 25-30 , BLOCK 8 , ST . CATHERINE PARK, AND WHEREAS A PREVIOUS DEVELOPER WITHDREW A PROPOSAL FOR A SIMILAR HIGH—RISE PARKING RAMP UPON OB�ECTION OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE DELETERIGUS EFFECT OF SUCH A STRUCTURE ON THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY; NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DEMAND THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED, FOR ON APPROVAL THE PROPOSED HIGH—RISE WILL OBSTRUCT VIEWS AhD SUNLIGHT , CREATE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION, CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, AND WILL MOST DEFINITELY DECREASE THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. ►�TE / NAME / ADDRESS / PAONE - - 3 ' (�9� 3�� WHEREAS , HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY HAS APPLIED FOR APPROVAL tJiTH TKE ST . PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS FOR A 16 FOOT VARIANCE FOR a BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHidEST CORNER OF FINN AND FORD PARKWAY , LOTS 25-30 , BLOCK 8 , ST. CATHERINF. PARK, AND WHEREAS A PREVIOUS DEVELOPER WITHDREW A PROPOSAL FOR A SIMILAR HIGH-RISE PARKING RAMP UPON OBJECTION OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE DELETERIOUS EFFECT OF SUCH A STRUCTURE ON THE QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY; NOW, WE THE UNDERSIGNED DEMAND THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED, FOR ON APPROVAL THE PROPOSED HIGH-RISE WILL OBSTRUCT VIE[JS AI4D SUNLIGHT, CREATE NOISE AND AIR POLLUTION, CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, AND WILL MOST DEFINITELY DECREASE THE VALUE OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. ��' / NA�IE / ADDRE S S / PHONE i5l /u �.� � - �s � - (� U �� P�1�'�� HARVEY INVESTMENT CO. � �(.J �'f' 3�,�, ^ � 740 RIVER DRIVE — SUITE MA ST. PAUL, MN 55116 PHONE (612) 698-6289 Z3 July 7, 1983 I understand there is under consideration the construction of a mixed use building containing 11,000 ft. of retail and 45,000 ft. of office, as well as a large parking ramp containing 325 cars. I understand there is a variance required of 16 ft. on top of the present ordinance allowance of buildings 30 ft. high. Inasmuch as the entire Highland area is greatly devoid of parking we as business people would very much approve such a project. . /r'2� G��'c,�.�44x- f,C�o�- . . --. �'i�� " ,��' �� , -: ,. - � � 1 �:cJ � ',' r �� I �� G�� j �� S(�� - ,t� ,��221, � � � � : � �� ' • � /i��e'u-�.a.-- � `.� � — ��,�- — .G• , G�� i� �� . � r �� M � � yA�3V�Y ;`VrSTNi�tT CO. �_�j'+:.��'� '40 RtVER '�R.VE — SUITE MA ST. PA�'_. MN 55"6 HOti� ��'2) 69°-62aa � ) � Q� ' y 7, 1983 �0�� S ' �inderstand there i •in�er cons��eration the construction e° ? �^ x �d �ise building containinq Z'.,�00 ft. of retail and 45,000 ft. �r �_' � :�, as well as a large park�_nq ram� con`aining 325 cars. ' •inderstand Lhere is a var=.��ce recu•�ed of 16 ft. on *_op c` -^P - =ery �rainance allowance of '��'_' '�^�-G '^ ft, h,oh. '^�sT^uCh as t'�e entire F'�c'�:.arC: d'"°d '.S greatly devoi� of par'<'_�^ w� - _ '�ssinPss oPOple wo�ild ver.y �nuc� a^�r.ove such a project. GC�L�-��-c/f��ri - �� i�� C � v J�� !� �� / �- � � ' Iz� 1 � �/��' � /' � �i'�%-"-�� -�.0 �i�� -�/ �4� � 1 �� v��%2�� C%�- �� -- �� `�� , -, � , y � �L � %� - ,y� � �� -,-��r�� , � � _ �j . � � 7r GU�� f � � �� .��, � _ . � �. - (�. (�� ..�.k� c� � �' g �.�-. � � �� . 1 r� �t� . Burnet Burnet HIGHLAND PARK OFFICE RICH ROBINS HIGHLAND OFFICE 897 ST.PAUT AVENUE SALES ASSOCIATE 897 ST.PAUL AVENUE ST.PAUL,MN 55176 MILLION DOLLAR CLUB MEMBER ST.PAUL,MN 55116 (612)698-2481 698•2481 � RES.690-4666 1_f J,�e�i�2 G`�i �O i ��d� �rJ�z�G"� �� <��v'C � � �� . `� �- � �� .��" Q �� - ��-�G� �� , � �-�� c�,r�.z -��. a� ��u�t �=�� ,�� ' . , -��,��ae� �� ° ;�-�.�� `�'�� . �� -�� ,l�= . `�� `� � �� `��-� �f��.��rn��t �� / �� . ,�� ,��,.� �-�- ' ��e-�c�%e-n��.� L f'IZZ72��'�Z- � � , - /,� -��G-e� �lZ� aC�I��C�� -�%�;'?�0�� ,��-C�/ � � _ � �;�e�� ,� - �, �' �r�,�� ,�� `��;��% Q-�" �� z%�' . � � . .� � �' , � � �� - � �J � Im,h A SUBSIDIARY OF o..o.,,,„�.,., aea�roa� MERRILL LYNCH REALTY ASSOCIATES INC. / n _' �� DORSEY & WHITNEY A Partnership lnc/uding Professional Corpwations 2200 FlRST BANK PLACE EAST MINNEAPOUS,MINNESOTA 55402 880 WEST-FIRST NATiCNAL PANK 9UILDING (gi2) 340-2600 201 DAVIDSON BUILDING � ST.PAU�,MINN�SC7,a 55101 6 THIRD STREET NORTH (612)2Z7-80t7 TEL.E)(�29-0605 GREAT FAU.$,MONTANA 59401 TEIECAPIER: f612)340-2868 (408)7Z7-3632 P.Q.BOY 3a8 340 FIRST NATIONAL�NK 8UIL71NG � SUITE 675 NORTH � ROCHESTER,Mitv.r=5p7n 5P.903 IBOO M STREET N.W. (50�28a-3�55 � WASHINGTON,D.C.20036 312 FIRST NAT70NAL 5AT:K BUILDING WARREN SPANNAUS (ZOZ)zs6-a�eo WAYZATA,MINNE3CTA 55391 �612)34O-B79O (6i2)475-0373 RES.(6�2)831-1965 75008 pA S9 RANCE TEL=(I)562 32 50 Septem,ber 15, 1983 Mr. Milton Cohen 740 River Drive St. Paul, P•iinnesota 55116 Dear Milt: I talked at length with �Ir. Arthur Basse, Vice President in charge oi real estate of the Ford P�otor Company in Detroit, (3T3) 323-0880. I explained the circumstances in detail, identified you and your background and why this would be a good sale for Ford, public relations-wise. I also identified the piece of land carefully and told him this was a no-nonsense sale. tir. Basse is the person who sold the Applebaum property so he was quite familar with St. Paul in general and the Highland Park area specifically. I stressed your long and in-depth relation- ship with Highland Park and i feel Mr. Basse recognized the validity of the call, and realized it was a responsible inquiry. Mr. Basse said that he has had at least twelve inquiries about selling, renting or leasing the rand in question. rir. Basse said that he has turned down all the offers summarily and, in a polite way, also turned me down. He said that the Ford Motor Company was not interested in disnosing_ of the land either now, in ;---- - the near future or in the far distant future. He said that the Ford riotor Co�any has ;nade the decision to increase production at the plant and th�t the land wiil be used either for new truck storage or employee parking. Mr. Basse said that because of the large number of inquiries and because of interest on the part of other executives that the question of sale has been reviewed, reviewed and reviewed again. . He alluded to the fact that Attorney General Kelley had made a call. The negative decision was affirmed by "those higher in the Company organization" and also implied that if they had it to do over, they would not have made the Applebaum land sale. Mr. Basse says he has received some negative comments about the Applebaum sale and even some caustic remarks �ted at the wisdom of that sale. --�__ �, '�� 'Mr. Milton Cohen ^ � September 15, 1983 Page Two DORSEY � WHITNEY After that turndown, I visited about general matters and then repeated the suggestion that a sale to you would be looked at most kindly by the citizens of St. Paul and that it would improve their corporate image, especially in the Highland Park area. Unfortunately, he was not swayed but did say that if for any reason Ford decided to sell or lease the land in question, or any portion of the holdings in St. Paul, we would be contacted. I am writing iir. Basse a follow up letter, thanking him for his courtesy. In the 'meantime, I am pursuing the other avenue we discussed. I will be in touch with you when you received this letter. Yours truly, �--./GL+''�-t- Warren S an aus WS/rr DORSEY & WHITNEY A Partnership!ncluding Protessional Corporations 2200 F1RST BANK PLACE EAST MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 880 WEST-FIFST NATIONAL BANK BUII.DING (612) 340-2600 201 DAVIDSON BUILDING � ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 8 THIRD STREET NORTH (612)227-8017 TE��q�:?��0-2868 GREAT FALLS,MONTANA 59401 P.O.BOX 849 (408)727-3632 340 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILOING SUITE 675 NORTH ROCNESTER,MINNESOTA 55903 1800 M STREET N.W, (507)288-3i56 WfLSHINGTON,D.C.20038 312 FIRST NATIQNA�BANK BUILDING WARREN SPANNAUS �202)296-2780 WAYZATA,MINNESOTA 55391 (612)340-8790 (612)475-0373 RES.(612) 831-1965 75008 PA 5,g R NCE TEL�(I)562 32 50 Septem.ber 15, 1983 Mr. Milton Cohen 740 River Drive St. Paul, P4innesota 55116 Dear Milt: . I talked at len�th with Mr. Arthur Basse, Vice President in charge of real estate of the Ford Motor Company in Detroit, (3T3) 323-0880. I explained the circumstances in detail, identified you and your background and why this would be a good sale for Ford, public relations-�uise. I also identified the piece of land carefully and told him this was a no-nonsense sale. Mr. Basse is the person who sold the Applebaum property so he was quite familar with St. Paul in general and the Highland Park area specifically. I stressed your long and in-depth relation- ship with Highland Park and i feel Mr. Basse recognized the validity of the call, and realized it was a responsible inquiry. Mr. Basse said that he has had at least twelve inquiries about selling, renting or leasing the �and in question, rir. Basse said that he has turned down all the offers summarily and, in a polite way, also turned me down. He said that the Ford riotor .___.___ _ Company was not interested in dis�osing _of the land either now, in • the near future or in the far dista___._�r t future. He said that the Ford Motor C�any has made the decision to increase production at the plant and th�t the_ land will be used either for new truck storage or employee parking. Mr. Basse said that because of the large number of inquiries and because of interest on the part of other executives that the question of sale has been reviewed, review�d and reviewed again. He alluded to the fact that Attorney General Kelley had made a call. The negative decision was affirmed by "those higher in the Company organization" and also implied that if they had it to do over, they would not have made the Applebaum land sale. Mr. Basse says he has received some negative comments about the Applebaum sale and even some caustic remarks �cted at the wisdom of that sale. — —_-�> '�• 'Mr. Milton Cohen � September 15, 1983 Page Two DORSEY � WHITNEY After that turndown, I visited about general matters and then repeated the suggest�on that a sale to you ��ould be looked at most kindly by the citizens of St. Paul and that it would improve their corporate image, especially in the Highland Park area. Unfortunately, he caas not swayed but did say that if for any reason Ford decided to sell or lease the land in question, or any portion of the holdings in St. Paul, we would be contacted. I am writing b�r. Basse a follow up letter, thanking him for his courtesy. In the meantime, I am pursuing tne other avenue we discussed. I will be in touclz with you when you received this letter. Yours truly, �l�''�- Warren S an aus WS/rr . j 1 � , ' + .. � � PETITICN TO THE CITY OORJNCIL QF THE CITY QF SAIl�r PAIJL� MIlVI�'S�OTA (�, '�) �.F v� We, citizens of St. Paul, Miu�nesota, hereby request that the City Council reject the petition of Harvey Investrnent �iny reqwesting that it be a1lar�red a variaryce of sixt�een feet in height of a buil�;*� praposed for Iats 25-30, Block 8, St. Catherine Park Addition. We respectfully request that y�u reject the vari.ar�e for the mr�st oonviricing reasons set forth in the attached Zoning Staff Report, N�bex 9409, dated Jti].y 1, 1983. It is most itrq�ortant that you reject grant-;� thi.s height varian�e because tx� dp otherwise would make a mrxkery of the zoning laws of our city arrl � err3angers the rights of all of us, rx� matter where w�e may live within the city lim;ts. Signatures �Y3dress r- ; r � �I� C�%r�s�, �� w � � � � c� ,�_ ; �2� `�y� — J� t�(� K�i�'S i 1'��1� � S:: �rl c��f M�r,f� �`s i i(; c?' � �— � ° �,�— < �Z.cxu u'�rZ./ ,� � � � ,�.[�Y'�-o-f'��t�� ,C1�' -� 4 c� �'I'L��.�,c_., �S".-�i%/L • � ; �� . ,� , ��L �� ' '� s � _ ,� ._ , T� - � . - � �-- C / , r� ? , • _ _ ��"?✓� ; , �',,��-�_ � �� c j � r- 1/ ' _ „ � � X y�Iv� �4'�� `-y`%� c..r /-�'�S�` � `� w� �/ �� 1/(,,�� i � - ��r. r,,.�� `,�' �.�—�� ,�. , - - � ,, . i; � �.:�_t '`� .<' � i j,� , �. .. :/ `�°��r�!-�_T-�-, - --��'' - ; � � � _..- .. , _ i/ ,i-•:,. .. :. - �z� ,,,� �.-�� s-�.. � _ , . ; v � " • ,�, �.'��-. ;"s .'i.i�'L': � , ` : �, � �(,f� _, �(� 2� ( � ��i� 2� \ ( / � ZO °!1 � � �� c� c.'� � �CC � + 1. - .__ _ _ _ . . - ._ . Si atures • gddress " l' , . :� .� �ti _ :� ��C� e ,'�?�c,�''L - ��, � , � � - _ _ _ -,, . . . . . . , ._�. . .. , . ,., .. ._ .. .:...:k.,,:..:.. .. ._ . . - . ,.. . .. .� _ . .- . � �:., . . _ . . " � - • Signatures � Addresa � . - - . _ _ i� � -_ � . •` : . ._: , . _ �.- - � . _ , . . .. . . . . , . -. : -->:.: . _ , . � ,, . ,. - _;--. ; � - . �- �? �+.v«-.knk.'ES:••a. .. . .- � . . �� , . .. : _. .. .. . -' . .. ..� .. .. . . �.. . . .. . . - .. , �� '. �. .. � ... ' . � � ' . . . � � ' .. . . . . ' . . . _ . . . . -- Signatures • Addres� � ,_. . . _ � : _ � , '�,• . :•� , - .., , . __._ � . . . _ , . - _,_ - , � - ,:�. ..•.;.�.:..sk+'r...2�:...t • - � . . .. � - . . _ . „ '.� ��"' . .. ... ' . - � • - . �f .. . � _. - � . . . � , - '. . . - Signatures • Address � _ _ . _ .. . . . .. . :`\�, .. .. . _ � . _ .. � . � . . , . • ; ��_,' �. . '_�.'� � ' � ' • ... . .- . . . � . � . . . . . . . . �� • ... . ._ .. ' . - -. . � . • , '. � . . . . ' . . i . . .. . �-. . .� r - _ . . . . � ' . .. � . . . ' � � - . _'�—.:' . . . % _• , . , . , - � - , . .� . . � � . l. APPtICANT: HARVEII INVESTMENT COMPAN� • _ DATE OF NEARII{G 7_�_ • 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATIOM . . .�. . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLAMNING 6 ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF 20NING APPEAIS . zoo�ng. ar anca � ` Special Condition Use AEmioistrative Revtew ' ❑ ' Oeteneination ot Siatlar Use ' Other ❑ , CAange of Nonconforming Use • •� Other \ 3. LOCAt10N: Northwest Corner FoM Parfc�vay i F1nrt 4. LEGAI OESGRIPTION: Lots 25-30. Block 8. St. Gtherine Park Addn. 5. PRESEMT ZONING: e-2 ZONING COOE REFEREtICE: 61.103(e) 6. STAff INYES7IGJITION i REPORT: DATE July 1, 1983 BY Fred 5. Naider A. PURPOSE• To consider a varlance of tAe maximum helght ot structures tn a ca�enunity u�s n� zone. Code permits Duildtngs to exceed 30 feet only if the structure is set back from all property lines a Eistance equal to the height r�hich the stwcture �xceads 30 teet, In this casa the proposed Duilding has 0' sideyard setbacfc aod � a 46' aver'age buildtng htight. . Q. PARCEL FRONTIIGE AMO AREA: 244' frontiny Ford Psrlcway Dy 125' frootage along nn or , s4wr� eet o!. total lot uea. . � C. SITE ANO AREA CONOITIONS: The site is xcupied by a caanertial DutTdtng (restaurant) a par eg o . e parul has double street frontage and a11ey access. la�d w�s 1a tb� surrounding irea inctude: Ford Motor Canpany (Industrial-Assembly ' Plsat) te the south, single-f�eily hanes to� tfie North. and comaunity businesses •long Ford Parkw�y east and west ot the site. 0. ZOIIIN6 COOE CITATION: Sectioa 61.103(e), Schedule of Regulations-Business is c ..se maximwo htlght of structures at 30 feet exceDt that •The � Miqht ot the structurt msy c�cceed 30 teet provlded the structure ts set bacfc trow sll prope�ty lines a dtstance equal to tht hetght which s�id structure exceeds th� �aaximum halght ot bullding allor+ed in the distr{ct." E. ZONIN6 NISTORYi . ' April 1. 1976: The Board of Zontng Appeals approved s special use pera�it to lnstall a 73 car parking lot aL the site. Nar� 19�6: The Cttr approved a pro osal to construct a new builEing (Ke�tucky Fr/ed Chickeng and tbe reallqning of an existing drive�+ay at t!u northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Finn St. F. FINOINGS: l. Th�re is no physical basis�upon whlch to g�ant a varianu. The site is not unusual in sizt. shap�� or topography. • 2. Strict application ot tht code reguiations would not result in exceptional practical dt Nitulty o� undue hardship ss distinguished from mere inconvenience Dy reason ot the �xisting physical Condttion of the property. The design of the structure can De nwQifted to meet code regulations by either reducing the height of the structure or settin9 tht structure back 16' from all lot tines. The appticant's hardship appesrs self•created. • 3. It appean that allo+ring a height variance without a proportionate increase in building s�tbacic vou1C result in overcrowCing of the land and structure. would � __. impair the tat4n�and P_urPose cf the code, and would be a detriment to the coamunity. The construction proposed would exceed Ehe maximiaii he�gh� of sfructures permitt�d-- � in a B-2 zo� by nare than SOX. A variance of thls mag�itade is excessive and contra� to the intent ot the coEe. 4. Tht request for variance cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the nel�bors' suppty of light anE air. Staff has anatyzed th� impact of increasing � bui ding heiaht on the amount of light provided to neighboring properties (see exhibit A). A 5-story structun with 0' setback would ndversely affect the southerly sotar exposurt ot single-famity structures abutting the property. ; . , - .,. . , ,a• . , � '� ' .. . � , �YEY INVESTMENT COMPI�NY (N9409) STAFF REPORT Page 2 _ FINOINGS CONT'0.:�.-�:— - __ _ __ me Plan for Streets and Highways cortponent of the Comprehensive Plan• of SL. �Paul states: "One o!` the criteria for evaluating a street is the streetseape. ,The street- scape tncludes ail Ehe phystcal elements that affect the way the street looks' and how i t funci tons, and thus i ncl udes not anly the ri ght-of-w,ay but facades of bui l di ngs which are near the street." Therefore buildi�g setbacks and the public Dovlevard together makeup tbe streetscape and influence the character of the site. A 5-story bui 1 di ng +vi th �' s etbaek f s not cans i stent wi th other aui 1 di ngs t n the communi ty and wo.uid adv�ersely a�fect Eh.e aesthetics 4f the streetscape and area as a whole. The request far vari ar�ce ts not i n substanti al canformarce with the P1 an for Land lJse component af the Ccunp�rehensi ve P1 an i ntent to promatequat i ty desi gn that i s s�nsi ti�►e to surrcrunding land uses. • � • . The Larrd Use Pia� states, 1� part, "hbst ot St. Paul 's business �acn! fis ort strips. Houses a�djotn the commerc�al land with cnly a fence cr alley betv�een. Poor business design has a direct effeet on the value and e�oyment of ad�oining houses and the attractiveness af the neiqhtiorhood as a whole." "Whatever the future use of commercial areas, they must be desi gned and operated i n a manner �ahich makes them assets to the ��'�� ' �' commurttty in which they are located. Businesses which are operated in a way that is detri mental to the ad�oi ni ng uses, especi al ly resi denti al uses,, are a ��i sance." The Land Use Plan also states: "The city, through design controls, zoning and incentive programs. will encourage businesses to maintain the scale of surrounding . development...." "In many cases, a certain use may be prohibited in a particular zone because �t i s of art i ntens i ty whi ch �makes i t a prob 1 em for surroundi ng uses." � STAFF ANALYSIS: A major tenet of zoning regulation is to confer like property with equaT opportunity for development. The Zoning Code, Schedule of Regulations, may be relaxed in instances where unique physicnl conditions prevent development that would otherwise occur without variance. In this case. there is no unique physical G�rcumstance that prevents development pursuant to the p�ovisions of the code and . �granting this variance request could set a precedent that.would diminish the� significance of height restrictions of the code. �� . . . Granting the variance in this case would permit development that is inconsistent with the surroundinq land uses and would adversely affect the neighbors' supply of light and ai r. STAFF RECOMMENOATION: Based on findings 1 through 6 and the staff analysis, staff recommen s t e request for variance be denied. . , ' � �'��'��2 P��o� �o � c� oo�n�c� a� � i9 ct� a� s�rtr P�, Mn�som�, We, citizens of St. Paul, Minnesota, hereby request that the City Courycil reject the petition of Haxvey Im�estment oo�c�anY requ�estir„cJ that it be allawed a �ariaryce of sixteen feet in height of a }�ii.lding proposed for 7�ts 25-30, B1ock 8, St. Catherir�e Park Addition. We respect�ully request that you reject the variance for the mnst oornrir�ing reasons set forth in th,e attaeh�ed Zoriisbg Staff Report, N�nber 9409, da.ted J�ly 1, 1983. It is m�st important tl�at you reject granting this height vari,an�ce because ix� c3p otherwise would make a mrx:lcery of the �orLixig ].aw5 of our city ar�d erx7angers the rights of all of us, n� matter wY�re we may live within the eity limits. S1CJI]dt11L�2S A�ESS � � / � -°L i -e��?� r�/� , • �J'[_.si f . � �o , _ � �' � �� -�- ��- �°� � �� - . �-s- � , . ' t ' � f � ��'; � i � � � �.(�'�� l'��'��!r ,c�, ��/l.� � � � . fe? . 6 � �. c�.b�L) � c�n.r� L K,.�. �`�-".S( !�, � � �� - - � 7�, �� i/fO � �u� �nc.�� 09,5 F � J -�� . .� C.�-�� / _ � � � � � ��/ ��i/ �1�lz�,��, �-�_ S��Il� . _ �' S ✓ / U l� //�(J , v��..ti�.l�� L� l.��L��-�s'v�-" �� (J ` _ L/`- �� ' T / � �� i'`� ,�%C /�--� ii�� Iis�L�J2�-�y�- , �i� � . . ,.... . _.... _ _ _. , ,. � _ ,.: . . . :._.. , , . _ _ . .. � . , ,:: v, . . . . . _ s Signa res • � �1 gddress . . � �. . � ,. s � ,�.� , - . _ �� ' . �. � . : . - . � ,�.� c�: _ �c.�� - C��:< . � � . . ,.�-= . �.. ��-�4� � . . ;Q..�-�%: . � � . �., _ --�-�� .-- �� , � , ., . - + _ � �C - _ _ ._ _ �7�� -�-�G� �� . . , . . � � . - : , /7 /5 7'`'� v � . , ,.. . . _ � . . ... ..��._ . . .. .. - . �-, . � .. . . . . , � . - r . -- . . . . . i � . . . � ��.� . . � . \ ` ` _ . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . , . . . � �'\ . .�. . .. . . . . � . _ . . _ ..:�- _._ . _ ... ,. .. . -. �,.. . :. _. . , . . _ . .. .. .. , _ , ; , __ ,.,: _ ::.- .. �.. �-: .r,S.: 5<!Y.� ' . . �. .. . . . . . . -.. - ' .._ . . r �•;,r.::-��-. . ._ . .. . . . . . . ... .. . . ... •.� . .. .. . . . . .� . � .. �r. . . � : . � . � . � _ . . �....� . . . _ . '� . .. . .. --�: . .� . . . �.. . :._: � ,� . . Signatures • gddres�: " -. - �. ..,_, . . ., . . , . i�_�...: , -. - �: . � � _ , _ .. . . ,. . _ ., _ . - qt. . .;, . �.':= - -:.:_ , - _ . , ; � -: _>. , i '.'. . : -.. _ ,.- ._ `' ' ; ' . , _ " . _ _ _ _ _. . . _ - . .. . r ., . . _�_ _ _ . . , . _ ..:: _ =': . ., .:, ,:-. ,-., :. . I . - �;. ,. . '_ , . _ _ . ,.. ., . ,:. '. . . ' ::. .� - :.. �'�: . . , _�. . : . ..:: ^_ " �.. : . �. ..� . '.., . . . .. ._ . .. . .. . ' . . _ . ._ .�..:. . .. . .. I��1 _. '. . . _� . � ".. . � . - . . . �.'-. . . �'...� .. . �.� , "...� . .. "- - � •�- ' � . " � � . . . � . �. 1--... ... �. • ' " .�.,:' .. �.,,�.� -.. . .. � - ' . . . ,. k='.7.at:-�:,. � ' . � . '- • '. . ' . . .�. .. � .... . . . . . - - �„. . . � . ' . � w-. •.. . -. _. _ . _ . �� ... � . . :..: . . _ .-. Sigaatures : Addres�:, - _ :,' _ _ ,. ._. ... _ . - _ _ . . , - . _ . � _ : : , , _ ; . �; - _. _ . , ._ . _ �.. .. .:. _ . . . . , . _ _ _ _ � . _ . . ,_ ,:r _ _ . . � .. ,: . _; _.._ - _ . _ _ . . .. -.. . . , ,-_.. -. �..: ., e_... . � . � . . �_.. - �/ J . ,, - Signatures � Address .. . .�' . . � 1. APPl1CAtIT: HARYEY INVESTMENT COMPAItY • QATE OF t1EARING 7_t�_ • 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFlCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLAMNING 3 ZONING COMMITTEE BOARO OF ZONING APPEALS . zoo�ng. ar ance � Specisl tondition Use � Adaii�istrative Review � ' Determinattoe of Similar Use ' � �Othe� , �' of tfonconfo�aing Use � ��4 ` 3. LOCAtIO�t: Northwest Corn�r Ford PsricMay i Finrt ' 4. LE6Al OESCRIPTION: Lots 25-30, Block 8, St. Catherine Park AEdo. S. PRESEltT TONING: 8-2 ZOKtI� COOE REFEREttCE: 61.103(e) 6. STAEf INYESTIGATION i REPfIRT: OATE July 1. 1983 BY Fred S. Haider A. PURPOSE• To ca�sider s varian¢e of the maximwa height of structures in a coamunity u�s sone. Code permits buildfegs to exceed 30 feet only if the structure is set baek fron►:11 property lt�es a distance equai to the height which the structure , eaeeeQs 3Q teet. In this case the proposed building has 0' sideyard setback and and a 44fs' sverag� Duildtrtg heigbt. . _ �. PARCE1. FRtNt'r116E ANO AREA: 244` fronting Ford Psrkway by 125' frontage along +�a or . square ett a!, total lot area. . . C. SI1'E A�IO AREA CONOITIOPIS: Tha sftt is occupied by s commertial building (restaurant) s pa �g o . e parul hsa Qouble street fronta9e and a11ey �ccess. Land uaes irt tAt su�ou�ding area irteiudr. Ford Motor�Canpany (Industrial-Assanbly ' ►1aeFt) t� th� south, sinqle-faaily homes�to.the Ne�th, and comounity businesses slcn�q Ford Pu-k�wUr east sed west of tNe stta. 0. �rifIM6 CO�E CITATtOrI: 4ecttoa 6i.103(a), Schedule of Regulations-Business . s c ,.se maximum height ot structu� at 30 feet except that "The hNqlit of the structurs may exceed 30 feet provided the structure is set back trois stt property lines � distanu equal to the height �hich said structure exceeds th� �asxi� height of building atlowed tn the district." . E. Zt)IMIN6 NISTORY- • ' 1ip�i1 1. 1976: The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a speeial usa Denait to install a 73 car parking iot at the site. May. 1976: The Cfty approveet a sal to construct a ne++ buildtng (K�ntucky Fried Chicken aad ttle reallgning of an ezlsting driveway at tha northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Ftnn St. F. FINOINGS: � 1. There is no physical basis�upon whlch to grant a variance. The site is not unusual irt si u. shape, or topography. • 2. S�rfct ap�lication of the code regu tations would not resutt in exceptional practical Qifficuity or undue hardship as distinguished from mere inconvenienca by reason of th� �xisting phxsical condition of the property. The desiqn of the structure cae be modified to meet code regulations by either reducing the hei�t of the structure or setting the structure back 16' from all lot tines. The appticant's hardship �pears self-created. • 3.� It appears that allowing a height variance without a proportion:te increase in building setbadc would result in overcroading of the land and�structure, would _ _ . impai� the int�nt aeM purpose of the code, and woutd be_ a detM mertt to the commuM ty. The constructiort proposed would exceeE the maximuie he�ghi of sfruc�ures permitt�d-- � in a B-2 zone by more than SOx. A variance of this magnitade is excessive �nd contrar , to the intent of the code. 4. The request for vaM ance cannot be granted without substantiai detriment to the neig�bors' supply of light and air. Staff has analyzed the impact of increasing bullQtng heiaht on the amount of light provided to neighboring properties (see exhibit A). A 5-story structure with 0' setback would adversely affect the southerly solar exposure of single-famity structures abutting the property. - _ T �� . , . ' . IARVEY INYESTMENT COMPIINY (�9409) STAFF REPORT Page 2_ '. FINOINGS CONT'.D.._�,�--. -- --.-- _, � . The Pt aa for StreeEs an� k!i ghwa�rs cnrtpo.nec�t af the Gomprehensi ve P1 an• of SL. �Paui states: "One cf the cr��e�ia fa� e�raluating a street i� the streetscape. ,The street- scap.e tr[�tu.d�s a1t �ie phy�sicat elements �hat affect the�vray tt�e street laoks' and how i t funei tons, and thus i nel udes nat �ely� the r�g�tt-a�-way b�ut f�cades of bui 1 di ngs whi ch �re nea� tkLe st�eet." Th�refare buf 1 d�i�g setbacl�s a�d the pub 1 i c bo�rl evard together make:u� the streetscap�e and in�'luence t�re chara�te� nf the site. � 5-story bui idi�g wi th 0' setba�k �s �a� ca�si stent with ath�p �r�f ldi n.gs f n the communi ty and wouid adverselye a�`fect t�:e aesthe�ics Q� ths streetscape a� area as a whole. - Ttte �ec�sL 1�ar vaa�fa�€e is na►� i� s�astace��at c�f�rr�a�aaec� ►�zth the PTae� far La�►d Use com�ane�� ef t�.e Cctrt�reh:e�si�ea Pt aa i ntent to prana�equal i ty d�si qe� that i s sensi ti ve to sur�►a�r�i rrg 1��f �ses. • • � The L.ar�d Use Biar� st.�tes, fn p�a�rt, "hbst of St. Paut•s b�siness �a�d i�s on strips. Houses adjcaiR tbe eaaune�rcfal 1ae►d with o�t� a fe�ce ar a�tley b.et�eea. Poor business �esi qr� has a di reet e�f`fe�� oc► t�e val ue and e�o�ment �f adjoi ni nq hv�ses and the attract3vertess a� the ne�ghborhood as a whoie.'" "W�atewe� the future use of conmercial areas, they m�st be c#esi gRect ar�d operate� i n a mar��er v��i ch makes them assets to the '�'�� comnn�rtity in wh�ich th�y are loeate�. Businesses which are operated i� a way that is detrimental to the ad�oininq uses, especially residential uses,. are a nuisance." The. Land Use Ptart alsc states: "The city, through design controls, zoning and incerttive progr�ams, will encourage busjnesses to maintain the scale of surrounding . development...." "In many cases, a certain use may be prohibited. in a particular zone .because it is of ari �ntensity which makes it a problem for surrounding uses." . STAFF ANALYSIS: R major tenet of zoning regulation is to confer like property with equa opportuntty for development. The Zoning Code, Schedule of Regulatfons, may be rela�ced in instances where unique physical conditions prevent development that would otherwise occur without variance. In this case, there is no unique physical Fircumstance that prevents development pursuant to the provisions of the code and • ' grant�ng this variance request �ould set a precedent that would diminish th� significance of height restrictions of the code. � , Granting the variar�ce fn this case would permit development that is inconsistent with the surrounding land uses and would adversely affect the neighbors' supply of light and ai r. . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6 and the staff analysis, staff recomnends t e request for variance be denied. . w� • Y , PETI�I(7I�T TO TfiE. CI'1'Y OOLINC:IL QF `LSE C� QTY OF SAIrTP P�1IJL, N�Z�SOTA We, citizens of St. Paul., Minneso�a, hereby request that the City Coun�cil reject th�e petition of I�axvey IrYVeslznent Oaa�any requesti.rig tl�at it be a1loRaed a variance of sixteen feet in height of a �ii1�;*� proposed for Lots 25-30, Block 8, St. Catherirbe Park Addition. W�e respectfully request that yrnt reject the vari.ance for t1�e mc�st corYVir�ing reasons set forth in tlie attacYied Zoning Staff Re�port, N�unber 9409, clated J1�ly 1, 1983. It is most in�portant that you reject grantzng this height variance because to do otheYwise would make a m�k�SY of the zoning laws of our city arr3 � erx3ang�xs the rights of all of us, ru� matter where we may live within the city limits. S1c�Tldture3 AC1dre.SS • � � � � l G�lcr k /' 5 �_.l�l�.�.�i _A 1�Q�Z-.r- �. � � �� , i � ' �� , / /% 1: �� , C- C ��-- `' ' (/1�t�� /�1L/ ��_.-�.{- ��c-e�„�y �_ y.� f y' ' / :�_,C��°�.a�',��'��--� 2 �' � C�°��-�. �� . ,, ,, u-�-r L, � �� c�-�-- � ;�� ' . .�III��I V� � V� • \ � R _yv� �� i� ��,��:m�.�c�. -� \ � � s— �� r � '� �-t— a.,�.�.e . : , � a� 6 G � a � 4� , . , . . � _ . �; • . • ° Si atures Address �� ` . 1 �►.C_9� , e� �'� � � c� �- t 8� 5�.�,�-� � � � i � � �G�� e� , t � � ��n a�, � ! �J S � . � , d a i �-� �-��,-7.�� r < �<��l/ r � / S� � -� � , ��= G�� ,.�� r x G . . � �' v �� V �� , ��,��' i�� o?/..� .� ► � 1 � � � / � s � ... _ ..� sk+K..?n.•.i. .. , .- � . . .... . . " . - -- . .. . -' . . . ... -- • . .�s,.. . _ . � , �.��' . . -' . . � - - . . . � - _- � _ � �� . . . .. r � . - - Si nature • Address � � �/Q � � - ..�_ �_ �r�� _ � . _ � - . �y 5�� ;�: � _ _. o _ _ � _ _ , , ��:��..��o/%��'� � . . - ,.�� ,��.��-�--: . . �:� . =1 : �.a�/-S ��. .-� . : � . _ _� - -g�� : � � , aa5/ `;_ � � � d . � � r� a,� �l-9 �11 a 2.��.�� Q.�,e. ` s�y�� ; . - , i. �A .'„'wik�.�. a• .. .. � � . . . . ,. � . � .. - . . .. . � ' �. '1..• . . . . . . . .. . . . . �7'.i . , . ..-P�,,,�.. .. . . ' . " . . . . ' � . . ' . r , .. . . . . �. ' ' . - Signatures • Address � _ _ . _ . ;� , �. � . ��.: _ - . . . . �.- - ._, _�-. _- ; �� - . - ':.i'.w.�i�j-K.'.Ce:'.+t. '- .. . � ' ' . . . � .. _.. . � - _ " . ' .. . � . ."-. � - ' . -i.. . . . . .. , . . . .....��I.'►� . �"_ _-.:. . , . . . . . :'.: � - � ... - � ._ . . .� � � � . - - Signatures • Address � ; _ � :;ti; �. _ . _ _ -_ � _ . . : 4 - _ � . . , . . . '� . . .� ... . .'r �. � . • . - ... . • -. "•. � . ' . � . � .. . ' � . _ . 1 _ ' .'. � , ��.� ... :.� ..'... . " .. . . . ' -/'�..-. j . � . , r � �► • • '� . l. APPl1CANT: HIIRYEY INVESTMEMT COMPANY • . OATE Of NEARIIa's 7_1 -� • 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIflCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNIMG b ZONING COMMITTEE BOARO OF 20NIN6 APPEALS . ezon�ng. ar ance � �' Special Condition Use Administrattve Revlew ' ❑ � Determi�ation of Simtlar Use ' � �Other ❑ , Chan9e of Nonconforn►ing Use � •� Other � \ 3. LOCAt10M: Northwest Conier FoM Paricaay i Ftnrt 4. LEfAI DESCRIPTION: Lots 25-30, Block 8, St. Cathe�ine Park Addn. S. PRESEMT ZONIN6: 6-2 ZOtI[IIG COOE REFEREtICE: 61.103(e) 6. STAff IMVESTIGATION i REPORt: OATE July 1. 1983 8Y Fred S. Hatder A. Pl1RPOSE• To consider a varlaece ot the a�aximum height of structures in � camwnity us�ness z�e. Code permits Du11d1ngs to exceed 30 feet only if the structure is set back fro�a a11 property lines a distance equal to the height which the structure �ceeds 30 teet. Ia this casa the proposed building has 0' sideyard setback snd �d s 46' sverags Duitdin9 height. . d. PARCEL FRONTAGE AMO AREA: 244' frontin9 Ford Ptrkway by 125' frontage along nn or . s4wre eet of, total lot trea. . � C. SITE AltO IUtEA CONOITIONS: The s1t� is occupied by a caaa�erclal bu11d1ng (restaurant) a par ny o . e parcel has double street frontage aed a11ey access. Land us�s tn th� surrounding ana i�ciude: Ford Motor Canpany (Industrial-Assanbly ' Plant) to tAe south, 51n91e-f�aily hanes to• the North. tnd cam�unity businesses slory Ford Parkxay eut :nd ►rest ot the sits. 0. ZOf1IN6 CODE CITATION: Section 61.103(e). Schedule of Regulations-Business , is c ..se e manimim� height ot structures at 30 feet except that "The heiqht ot the structurt may exceed 30 feet provideel the structure ts set back frds s11 property tines a distance equat to the hetght which said structure acceeds U►t nsxia�no height of building allawed in the district." E. ZONIN6 HIS70RY: • ' April 1� 1976: The BoaM of Zoning appeals approved a specitl use Dermit to install a 73 car parktng lot at the site. l�ay, 1976: The City approved a proposal to construct a n�w buildtng (Kentucky Fr1ed Chicken) a�d tbe reallgning of an existing driveti+ay at t!� northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Finn St. F. FIHDINGS: 1. There is no physical Dasls�upon whtch to grant a variance. The site is not unusuat 1n s1 u. shap�. o� topography. • 2. Strfct applicatlon of th� code rogulations would not result in exceptioaal practical diftitulty or und�u hardship as distinguished from mere tnconventence by reason ot the existing physical condition of tht property. The desiqn of the structure can bt modified to meet codt regulations by either reducing the heiqht of the structurt or setting th� structun back 16' from ali tot lines. The applicant's hardship appean self-created. • 3.� It appears that allowin9 a helght variance without a proportionate increase in Cuil¢ing sstDack vrould result in overcroMMing of the land and•structure, would _. impair tht i.Dt4�.�a+!d Purpo;e of the code, and would be a detHment to the coa�ounity. The construcLion proposed would exceed Ehe maximum he�ght of sfructures per�tted-- � 1n a 6-2 zont by more than SOX. A variance of this magnitade is excessive and contrar . to the intent ot the code. 4. Th� request tor variance cannot be granted without substantlal detriment to tht nei�bon' suppty of light and air. Staff has analyzed th• inpact of increasing bui ding height on the amount of light provided to neiphboring properties (see exhibit A). A 5-story structure with 0' setback would adversely affect the southerly sotar exposure ot si�gle-family structures abutting the property. T � - - � �� . , y - .. . � . � � . QVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY (N9409) STAFF REPORT Page 2 _ FINOINGS CONT'D.:�-�— _ _ _-. The Pl an for Stre.ets and Hi ghways cortQonent of the Comprehensi ve Pl an� of St. �Paul states: "One of the criteria for evaluatinq a street is the streetscape. ,The street- scape tncludes all the phystca2 elements that affect the �way the street laoks' and how i t funci tons, and thus i ncl udes not aaly the ri qht-of-w�ay but facades of bui 1 di ngs which are near the street." Therefore buildir►g setbacks a�d the public Dovlevard together makeup tbe streetscape and influence the character of the site. A 5-story building with 0' setba�k ts no� cansistent with other aufldings in the comnunity and wo.uid adv�e�rsely a�ffect �h.e aesthetics Qf the streetscape and area as a whole. The request far vari arice ts not i n substae�ti al ca�formance aith the P1 an for Land Use component of the Ccun�rehensi va P1 an i n�ent to promabequal t t}r desi gn that t s sensi ti ve to surrounding land uses. • � • . The Larrd Use P1an states, i� part, "Most of St. Panl 's business laRd fs on strips. Nouses a�d3oin the eommerctal land with a�ly a fence cr alley bet�een.. Poor business design has a dtre�t effect on the value and en�oyaKnt of adjoini�g houses and the attract�veness a� the neiqhborhood as a whole." "Whatever the future use of cort,mercial areas, they must be desi gned actd operated i n a manner �hi ch makes them assets to the ��'�� commurtity in which they are located. Businesses which are operated i� a way that is detri mental to the ad�oi ni ng uses, especi al ly resi denti al uses,. are a nvi sance." The Land Use Pian also states: "The city, through desiqn controls, zoning and incentive programs, will encourage businesses to maintain the scale of surrounding . development...." "In many cases, a certain use may be prohibited in a particular zone because it is of an intensity which �makes it a problem for surrounding uses." � STAFF AkALYSIS: A major tenet of zoning regulation is to confer like property with equa'r opportunity for development. The Zoning Code, Schedule of Regulations, may be relaxed in instances where unique physical condit�ons prevent development that would othen�vise occur without variance. In this case. there is no unique physical �ircumstance that prevents development pursuant to the provisions of the code and . �granting this variance request could set a precedent that.would diminish th� siqnificance of height restrictions of the code. Granting the variance in this case would permit development that is inconsistent with the surroundinq land uses and would adversely affect the neighbors' supply of light and ai r. STAFF RECOMMENOATION: Based on findinqs 1 through 6 and the staff analysis, staff recommends t e request for variance be denied. ' . PETIT[ON TO 'CHE '' C`PY C_OUNCIL OE THE � CITY Uf�' S�ICJ'P PAUL, MINNESOTA vue, �itizens oE the St. Paul , Minnesota, hereby request that tht� c-'i ty t'ouncil reject the petition o� Harvey Investment Company rr�yuesting that it be allowed a variance oE sixteen feet in height oF a r.uilc�iny proposed for Lots 25-30, Block b, St. Cath�rine Park Ad�3iti�n. 6ve r<.spectEully request that you reject the variance for the most convin�,ing reasons set forth in the attached Zoning Staff F�eport., Numi�er 9409, dated July l, 1983. It is most important that you reject granting this height v� ��iance because to do otherwise would make a mockery of the zaninq laws oE aur city and endangers the rights of all of us, no m�ytter where we may live within the city limits. Signatures Address .��'� � ��a-,� � � � ,�, � � � �� ,� � �e��-- �� ,� � , � , �� , ��.�, �_ �_Q_ - -- r�l-, �� _ _�v-Z�.2� �Q�G��-�.0� `7��-� s's`�ic � v- ��' , �, --�- � - �� _ � � �_ �, ��2 � > � � ,� � ,C � � - � �� ;� _�---� / � � `- � 2.�1 � � 71��.�,.,�.��/!L r - �' � .�-��' �. -'�. � �� - <s--�/� � � � . �� -�.�.�� — � �- .� � � ��`�� -- � , � � � ,1�1�' `��l�� ' � � _r,,��_ ��'/-b �-�� 1�� , ��,_�1'�_ �,,,� �� 1 � � ,� . �- ; .�S �l� Signatures Address �,�?��a��e��..� _ � �� ,�� ; � � , � � � i �� /� � � � l 9 � �.��,�-z. � , �, �; , , ` ��7 � � , � � �� ..,v� �� -1,�,�--�� ' . a � �,� , � a �� ,�� -' � � �` � �.1�` � �.�� .��'� �? �� i��.� L' � �� , � a�� i � ; �,� l �. i °� ��l� , , , �- � C��-��' � �-Cc..� � �� a 7�-�` �� . , q � , ' ,� .- .-, � -� � � z, 1 `�� __ ��- �-- .-- , - � ; � � � , 'r �� y�_ , ;-- �� ,�lr�'g ��%'2 f � ' `,_ ,-- � '�- � `� � m�� . �,:�- �'..�� z � �,� � �.�. - �� - ��'i�. _� � _ �-,, ��_- � +�.�` i�'� ?I y > � 'P�,��„ �� __ �� -�..,-�--, � C�-�u--e- , � /J � � ��L_ " � < <_/� /' � �- �� .- � l�� -�',Ga--��-��'�/ ��'� : ��v�`�_'�-�� G) ��, � / � , � �? t � �Lt " ✓- �_-�-2 P1✓`�7 ��...�..�1� � � —T�_ Siqnatur.F_�s i Addc.ess �}�, If � � � . ��(Y U' �"vvt�4-7J'r,�v" � � .�/ � 1� �!��-,�+�-��__.�— ___--- � �� 3 � �`�. � i � — � ��( � � y c ) �!".—. S� �'' `_-�y��, VV�- �j,l�,,�- �- �-�- 7 �� c��, • � �' � �� ,� ___ � ��..— .� G � �-:��,�. _ ,�-� , �—� -- � ' �� ,� � � /� � '�' _,. — a � _ , ,� � ��__ _�2 �.e�i..1.�,�/ � � �- � � �� , � � f/' ` � � �� _ , ,.� J � - � � C�� a a, ,�. %�� --- < � �� k _ c�2�� ` / �� , ( ' �� '-i \ � � / �-° .... \...�/ � .� � ��^�� j� G G� l'��! , .�r� v ri/ �-K C / �� . __. _ �/�r��t/J/L' �Lc%C��,�/'(�"�� L��L�� G�'��"L� �� --- �,/'yj�� -�C��(�,��L� Zz"� �i !�--�'�'��-4�'L �� _�"� __ __ � , ��iS�v�-F 1;�� /d'� ��,�'� ��-- _ ____�__ _ � � �� ___�� - , �� ► � / ��,�� 1�� _�� __ � �,� � � ;.� ��!l.�__� ��' i Cl � � �o h,�� t..t :� Siqnatures Address , '� YONING StAFF REPORT , 9409 � ' ' '� '' . ; l. APPLICANT: HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY DATE OF HEARING 7_�p_g3 � . , 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIfICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING 3 ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF 20NING APPEALS . Rezom ng ❑ Vari ance � Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review a Determination of Similar Use ' ❑ Other Change of Nonconforming Use ❑ Other ❑ i + 3. IOCATION: Northwest Corner Ford Parkway & Finn � � 4. LEGAL DESGRIPTION: Lots 25-30, Block 8, St. Catherine Park Addn. � 5. PRESENT ZONING: B-2 ZONlNG CODE REFERE��CE: 61.103(e) � 6. STAFf INVESTiGATION 3 REPORT: DATE July 1, 1983 BY Fred S. Haider � -======--===-=====-=- ==-=-=--=----=--=-======-=--=-=========-=====-=====-==-=======--====== � A. PURPOSE: To consider a variance of the maximum height of structures in a cortmunity us�i-ness zone. Code permits buildings to exceed 30 feet only if the structure is � set back from all property lines a distance equal to the height which the structure � exceeds 30 feet. In this case the proposed building has 0' sideyard setback and and a 46' average building heiaht. � B. PARCEL FRONTAGE AND AREA: 244' fronting Ford Parkway by 125' frontage along inn or , square eet of total lot area. C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is occupied by a cortgnercial building (restaurant) an a par ing ot. e parcel has double street frontage and alley access. Land uses in the surrounding area include: Ford Motor Company (Industrial-Assembly Plant) to the south, singie-family homes to the North, and community businesses along ford Parkway east and west of the site. D. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 61.103(e), Schedule of Regulations-Business �s ric s, se s e maximum height of structures at 30 feet except that "The height of the structure may exceed 30 feet provided the structure is set back from all property lines a distance equal to the height which said structure exceeds the maximum height of building allowed in the district." E. ZONING HISTORY: April 1, 1976: The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a special use permit to install a 73 car parking lot at the site. May, 1976: The City approved a proposal to construct a new building (Kentucky Fried Chicken) and the realigning of an existing driveway at the northwest corner of Ford Parkway and Finn St. F, FINDINGS: 1. There is no physical basis upon which to grant a variance. The site is not unusual in size , shape, or topography. 2. Strict application of the code regulations would not result in exceptional practical difficulty or undue hardship as distinguished from mere inconvenience by reason of the existing physical condition of the property. The desiqn of the structure can be modified to meet code regulations by either reducing the heiqht of the structure or setting the structure back 16' from all lat lines. The applicant's hardship appears self-created. 3. It appears that allowing a height variance without a proportionate increase in building setback would result in overcrowding of the land and structure, would impair the intent and purpose of the code, and would be a detriment to the community. The construction proposed would exceed the maximum height of structures permitted in a B-2 zone by more than 50%. A variance of this magnitude is excessive and contrar� to the intent of the code. 4. The request for variance cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the neighbors' supply of light and air. Staff has analyzed the impact of increasing building heiaht on the amount of light provided to neiqhboring properties (see exhibit A). A 5-story structure with 0' setback would adversely affect the southerly solar exposure of single-family structures abutting the property. . . . • � . , > "' HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY (#9409) STAFF REPORT Page 2 F. FINDINGS CONT'D. 5. The Plan for Streets and Highways corr�onent of the Comprehensive Plan of St. Paul states: "One of the criteria for evaluating a street is the streetscape. The street- scape includes all the physical elements that affect the way the street looks and how it funcitons, and thus includes not only the right-of-way but facades of buildings , which are near the street." Therefore building setbacks and the public boulevard together makeup the streetscape and 9nfluence the character of the site. A 5-story building with 0' setback is not consistent with other buildings in the community and would adversely affect the aesthetics of the streetscape and area as a whole. 6. The request for variance is not in substantial conformance with the Plan for land Jse component of the Comprehensive Plan intent to promotequality design that is sensitive to surrounding land uses. The Land Use Plan states, in part, "Most of St. Paul's business tand is on strips. , Houses adjoin the commercial land with only a fence or alley between. Poor business design has a direct effect on the value and enjoyment of adjoining houses and the attractiveness of the neighborhood as a whole." "Whatever the future use of cortunercial areas, they must be designed and operated in a manner which makes them assets to the community in which they are located. Businesses which are operated in a way that is detrimental to the ad,�oining uses, especially residential uses, are a nuisance." The Land Use Plan also states: "The city, through design controls, zoning and incentive programs, will encourage businesses to maintain the scale of surrounding development...." "In many cases, a certain use may be prohibited in a particular zone because it is of an intensity which makes it a probtem for surrounding uses." G. STAFF ANALYSIS: A major tenet of zoning regulation is to confer like property with equa opportunity for development. The Zoning Code. Schedule of Regulations, may be relaxed in instantes where unique physical conditions prevent development that would otherwise occur without variance. In this case, there is no unique physical circumstance that prevents developrt�ent pursuant to the provisions of the code and • granting this variance request could set a precedent that would diminish the significance of height restrictions of the code. � Granting the variance in this case would permit development that is inconsistent with the surrounding land uses and would adversely affect the neighbors' supply of light and air. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6 and the staff analysis, staff reco�mnends the request for variance be denied. , " '�= � � �� g 3Z ., .. �� - PErITIC�T TO THE CITY OOiAQCIL C1F TI� CITY QF SAINT PAUL, MT[�IlQF50TA We, citizens of St. Paul, Mirmesota, hereby request that the City Council reject the peti.tion of Harvey Im�estme�it Qa�aany requ�esting that it be allaaed a variance of sixtePn feet in height of a �il�i*� proposed for IAts 25-30, Block 8, St. Cath�erine Park Addition. We respectfully z�equest that yau reject the variance for the nnst cornr.ir�ing reasons set forth in the attached Zoning Staff Report, Ntunber 9409, dated JLtly l, I983. It is unst i�ortant t1�at you reject granting this height variance because tx� do otherwise would make a mocicery of the zoning laws of our city ar�d � endangers the rights of all of us, n� matter where w�e may live within the city lim;ts. S1CJI]d�3 �t@33 � � �L�} � � � e i� �tP:��.-•- �i,� �� t�,r_.�c.�C,4�,..��'`C�-� < � Z Z�q � � �-,,._- �2 � ��j ,.�,;..�.� ,(�t.� ��rn-�7� o��7 � .� �/�U 0��zu.�� . , � D � �-� � � , � . ,%� � � a�7 ��' 1�,�.u;�f � , �� E�� . .. - . .. . .. a. . . . . f . . .. .. � ... , .. w H . � � • . Signatures Address , � � � 1��r� ,�: �-�3� � �l� C�� % \ 2 2 ` 1% � � G� �� 2 �� '`j� „ - �i:.�ikT«2�:•rt. � • . . . . .. . _ . . . . . . .. . ., :_�. � .... _ .. ,.)..: ..... . .,�. _. ... . :- ..�.. .;.: � . ._�-•�:r s.5��. ..'a ., 'J ��' .. �. _ , - . . - � - . . _ � � . � � ' � . . '_ ' . � .. .. , ` . - �• Signatures • Address � ;i�; . . . " - =-� � . - - _ . , - _,-- . . ; -� - �...,.�...:.AMC:'t.�:...t.. • _ , . . � ;... w �,..�� _ _' .. � . . . . . � � _ . . . . ' . . � �� _ " .� � � .. - �- Signatures • Address ; . �� . . - " � - ._ .. ,_ _ . . . . , . � _. , , _ ; _-' -. . ' ! ..�h•��.+sY...i. �� • .�' . . . - - - - . . � • ,.. _ . ,._,. , . ....:.. .- . . . .. � :.� �_ . . . . � .. + . ,., . . .. . . _ . _ �,... . ., .,;.:'. . '1 ' �'• ..�•�':4�:. .��'Y . .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. n -'r�.�'�� • � .. . � . . . .. . � � ' � . . ' ' .. . .. .. ' . - • Signatures • Address- � ., �� _ . `��: �_ - � • - � - :-� : ._; . _ _ �.:. - - . _ , _ _ , . . .. ._ . _. ;_ . , - � - . _ . . . . . . . . , , ,. : ,_:,: _.. . . ; � . _ _---- _� ; -. - �_ � � •�• , -� • 1. APPLIUNT: HARYEY INVESTMENT COMPANY • . OATE OF HE1lRIN6 7_19_A'� • 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIfICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING b ZONIN6 COrMITTEE BOARD OF IONING APPEALS . zoning. ar ance � �� Special Co�dition Use Adaiinistrative Revlew � ❑ ' Oetensination of Simtlar Use ' �Other ❑ , Change of Noncoaforming Usa Q �� Othe� L.J \\ 3. LOG1T10N: Northwest Con�er Ford Psrkway 3 Finrt 4. LEGAI DESCRIPTION: I.ots 25-30. Block 8. St. Catherine Park Addn. S. PaESENT ZOHING: 8-2 ZONItIG COOE REFEREtICE: 6�•103(e) 6. STAfF ItWESTIGATION i REPORT: OATE Julr 1. 1983 BY Fred S. Haider A. PURPOSE• To consider a varlance of the �aaximum height of structures tn � cam�unity ub s n� zone. Code permits bulldings to exceed 30 feet only if the structure is set back fram al1 property tines a dfstance equal to the height which the structure eocceaQs 30 teet. In this case the proposed building has 0' sideyard setback aed as�d a 46' average Duildtr►9 heiaht. , t. PARCEl. FRONTAGE AMO AREA: 244' fronting Ford Psrkway Dy 125' trontage �long nn or . s4wre eet of, total loL area. . � C. SITE AttO AREA CONOITIONS: The site ts xcupied by a commerctal buildtng (rsstaurant) a par ng o . e parc�l has double street frontage anC altey access. land us�s tn tAe surrou�ing area inciude: FoM Motor Canpany (Industrial-Assaably � plsnt) to th� south, sinqle-taally homes to•th� North, and camanity businessez a1on9 Fcrd Parkway e�st �nd r+est of the s1te. 0. ZOf1iN6 COOE CITATION: Section 61.103(e), Schedule of Regulations-Busfness , �s c ..se e maxia� height ot structures at 30 feet except that 'The h�ight of the structure a�sy exceed 30 teet provided the structure is set Dack fr�oa s11 property lines a dtsta�ce equal to the height which saiA structure exceeds the naxtawm het9ht ot bu110ing altowed in th� district." E. 20NIN6 HISTORYt • ' Apri1 l. 1976: Th� Board ot Zoning Appeals approved a specitl use penait to lnstall a 73 car parking 1ot at the site. May. 1976: Tht City approved a D*oposal to c�struct a new building (Kentucky Fried Chicken) and tbe reallg�ing of an existing drive►vay at th� northwest corner ot Ford Parkway and Ftnn St. F. FINDINGS: 1. There ts no physical Dasls�upon whtch to qrant a variance. The site is not unusual in siu. shap�. or topography. � 2. Strltt application ot th� code regulations would not result Sn excepttonal practical dlffitulty or undue hardship as distinguished traa mert inconvenience by nason of the exlsting physical condition of the property. The design of th� structure can be aadified to meet codt regulations by either reducinq the heipht of the structure or s�tting the structure back 16' from all lot tines. The applicant's hardship appears self-created. • 3.� It appears that allowing a height variance Nlthout a proportionate increase in bu11Q1ng s�tDacfc rrould result in overcrowding ot the land and�structun, vrould ._ ._. impatr tht iDr4�!.�+!� P_urpose oi the tode, and would be a detriment to the coamunity. The constructian proposed would exceed the maxiimso he�ghE of sfrucfures permitt�Q�' � in a 8-2 xone by more than SOx. A variance of this eagnitade is excessive �nd contrar to the tnt�nt ot the code. 4. The request tor varlance cannot be qranted without substantial detrlment to the nei�bon' supply ot li9ht and air. Staft has analyzed the inpact of incnasing bui ding htiaht on the am�unt of light provided to neighbortng properties (see exhibit AI. A 5-story structure with 0' setback would adversely aftect the southerly solar exposurt of single-famity structures abutting the property. T � ;. �' . . .. . � ♦ � .. r .. . . ' 1 RYEY INVESTMENT COMPItNY (�9409) STAFF REPORT Page 2 _ FINDINGS CONT'.0.<e�..-. ._ .. . _ The P1 an for Stneets and Hi ghways cort�onent of the Comprehensi ve P1 an• of St. �Paul states: "Oae cf the criteria for evaluating a street is the streetseape. ,The street- scape tncludes atl the physical elements that affect the way the street laoks' and how i t funci tons, and thus i ncl udes not a�ly the ri ght-of-v�a�y but facades of bui 1 di ngs which are near the street." Therefore buildi�►g setbacks a�d the public Dovlevard together makeup the streetscape and i�Pluence the character of the site. A 5-story bui 1 di ng wi th 0' setba�le z s no� cons i stent wi th other �ui 1 di ngs i n the communi ty and wo.uld adversely a�ffect �h.e aesthetics af the streetscape and area as a whole. The requesL for varia,lce is not in substantial ca�formance with the Plan for Land Use comRo�ent of tbe Ccunpre�ensi ve P1 an i ntent to promote qual i ty desi gn that i s sensi ti�►e to surrvundinq land uses. • • • � The Lartd Use Plan states, 1n part, "Most ot St. Paul 's business lac�d fs on strips. Houses a�d3ot n tha eommerc�al 1 and with ar�ly a fence ar al]ey betr�een. Poor busi ness design has a d�rect efifect on the value and en�oyment of adjoini�g houses and the attract�veness ef Lhe neiqhborhood as a whole." "Whatever the future use of coramercial areas, they must be desi gned and operated i n a manner v�hi ch makes them assets to the ��'�� commurtity in which they are located. Businesses which are operated in a wa�y that is detrimental to the ad�oining uses, especially residential uses,, are a n�isance." The Land Use P1an also states: "The city, through design controls, zoning and incentive programs, will encourage businesses to maintain the scale of surrounding . development...." "In many cases, a certain use may be prohibited in a particular zone because it is of an �ntensity which �makes it a problem for surrounding uses." � STAFF ANALYSIS: A ma3or tenet of zoning �egulation is to confer like property with equa opportunity for development. The Zoninq Code, Schedule of Regulations, may be relaxed in instances where unique phystcal conditions prevent development that would otherwise occur without variance. In this case. there is no unique physical �rcumstance that prevents development pursuant to the provisions of the code and • grant�ng this variance request could set a precedent that_would diminish the� significance of height restrictions of the code. �� Granting the vartance in this case would pernri t devetopment that is inconsistent with the surroundinq land uses and would adversely affect the neighbors' supply of light and ai r. � STAFF RECOMMENOATION: Based on findings 1 through 6 and the staff analysis, staff recortmends t e request for variance be denied. ' . , �. r. . ��r��, * '_ ;_ �/•.r`"%.. � � - PEiZTION TO THE CITY O�IL OF THE CZTY QF SAINr PA[JL� N�.SOTA r We, citizens of St. Paul, M�nn�e.sota, hereby request that the City Council reject the petition of Harvey Irrvestment Oompany requ�esting that it be allaw�d a variar�ce of sixt�n feet in height of a �,;i�;*� pr�posed for Lots 25-30, Block 8, St. Catherirye Park Addition. We respectfully request that you reject the vari.ance for the m�st comrir�ing reasons set forth in the attached Zoning Staff Report, N�unb�x 9409, dated J�ly 1, 1983. It is irost iirq�ortant that you reject grant;ing thi.s height vari.anae because tA cb otherwise would make a mockery of the zoning laws of our city and ' err3angers the rights of all of us, rx� matt�ex whexe we may live within the city l;m;ts. Sl�JIld�3 �re.SS � _� � �1 ,,,�//�/��/U/� S'! '.S ��i .:. . . � - . _ _ , -�,,:.;�«..�.:.... .:.:. . ,.. . , _ . ' - _ . �,"'-- . -- : � _. . , ' - �- Signatures • Address - ;��: . � ., . . � .. . _ . .. . . � .. . . . _ . . _ . . . . . . � _. - . - . .—� . _.. . . . . .. .� _ _ . ::.� . . . -. , _,— -.- ,• � - . p .�.;:4.:..Sk�...2�:•.-a. ' - . ... � . .. . ' . . . . . - . .. . . , ' ��. .� . : . . .. . ..'._.". .. . . : . ..- :_ . . . ..�. .�:...�:. � .� •� �... .. .. , . �r• . "'.a '��" ' .�... . - . � � . ' � . � - .� . r . : ' . . .' . . . �_ � � . . - - Signatures • Address� � . . . . , _ . . _ . .. .. .. . . .. �14 . ... . .... . . _ . . . . � . - - � . . . . . , . . . ' . .�. ..' . ,- � ..� . : . . . � ' . _�. ._ . � ' - � � . - Z • - . . . � � � � � _ � . . - . . . . . . . . , , . . .. . . . _ . ��` ' - � . . . -. ' - ' . . . .. � . ._ • . Signatures Address \ n . � . .. .. "_" _ f .. , . •. �1� � . ' � � � '. Signatures Address \ , '.-�� . . ' � 1. APPLICANT: HARVEY INVESTMEtIT COMPA�fY • . CNTE OF NEJIRING 7_ip_A� • 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CIASSIfICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PUINNING 6 20NIN6 COhMITTEE BOARO Of 20NING APPEI�LS . ioning. , ar ance Q] �� Specitl Conditton Use Ada�inistrativt Review ' ❑ � Deter�ination of Similar Use ' � �Othe� ❑ , CAange of Nontonforming Use � '� Othe� � 3. LOCATIOM: Northwest Cor� Ford ParlcMay i Ftnrt 4. LE6AL OESCRIPTION: Lots 25-30, Bixk 8. St. Catherine Park AdEn. S. PRESENT ZONtNG: 6-2 ZONlMG COOE REFERENCE: 61.103(e) 6. STAfF INYESTIGATION i REPORT: OATE July 1, 1983 BY Fred S. Hatder A. PURPOSE• To consider a varlance ot tAe awxtmu�a height of structures in � coanwnity u�siness zone. Code permits buildtngs to exceed 30 feet onty if the structure is stt back froio all property lines a distanct equat to tha height rrhlch the structure �ceeQs 30 teet. In this use tl�e proposed builEing has 0' siEeyard setback aod mA s 48' weraqe Euilding htight. Q. PARCE[, FRONTAGE AMO AREA: 244' froc�ttng Ford Psrkway by 125' trontage along nn o� . squa�e eet of, totai 1ot srea. . � C. SI1'E ANO AREA C�t0ITI0NS: The site is xcupied by a carmercial bulldtng (restaurant) ' a par ng o . e parc�t has double street froetage aed alley access. land wss 1n tbe surrou�ing area inctude: Ford Motor tampany (Industrial-Assanbly � P1aat) to th� south. single-tamily homes to•the North, and com�wnity Dusinesses alory Ford Parkwqy e�st �nd west ot the site. 0. ZONIN6 CODE CITATiON: Section 61.103(e). Schedule of Regulations-Business is c ..se e maximwo height of structures at 30 feet except that "The � heiqht of the ztructure eiay exceed 30 teet provlde<! the structure ts set Dack fra� all property lines a dlstance eQual to th� height which said structu�e exceeds ths nsxtmuai height ot Duilding altowed in the district." E. ZONING HISTORYs . ' April i. 1976: The BoarE of Zonfny Appeals approved a sptcial use permit to install a 73 car parktng lot at the s1te. I�y. 1976: Tht Ctty tpproved a proposal to cortstruct t na+ buildtng (Kentucky Fr1ed Chicken) and tFlt re�119n1ng of an existing , driveway at th� northwest corner of ford Parkway and Finn St. F. FINDINGS: 1. Thers 1s no physlcal �uis�upon which to gr�nt a vaM anu. The site is not unusuat 1n size. shap�� or topography. � • 2. Strlct application ot th� code reguiations would not result in exceptional practtcal difticulty or undue hardship as diztinguished trom men inconvenience by reason of -the �xlsting physical condltian ot the property. The desipn of the structure can bt modified to meet codt regulations by elther reducing the heiaht of the itructure or settin9 th� structure back 16' from all lot lines. The appl�cant's hardship appears self-created. • 3.� It appears thst allowing a height variance Nithout a proportionate increase in bullQing sttbatfc rrould result in overcrowding of the land and structure, would ' _. ._. lnpair tht i1lt4n.�and perpose of the code, and would De a Eetriment to the coamunity. The construction proposed would exceed Ehe maximum he�gh� of sfructures permittpd�- l in s B-2 zont by mo�-e than SOx. A variance of this iaagnitade is excessive and contrar . to the tntent of the code. 4. The request for variance cannot be granted without substantial detriment to ths nei�bors' supply of light and air. Staff has analyzed the impact af increasing Dui ding hetaht on the amount of light provided to neighboring properties (see exhtbit AI. A 5-story structure with 0' setback would adversely tffect the southerly soiar exposure ot single-family structures abutting the property. ; � � �� . , � •- , • � . �VEY INVESTMENT COMPANY (�9409) STAFF REPORT Page 2 _ FINOINGS CON?'D._�� -� -- ._ _ :, The Plan for Streets and Highways companent of the Comprehensive Plan• of SL. �Paul states: "O�e ai` the criteria for evaluating a street is the streetseape. ,The street- scape includes ajl the phys�cal elements that affect the �way the street laoks' and how i t funci tons, and thus i ncl udes not a�ly the ri ghL-of-v�ay but facades of bui 1 di ngs which are near the street." Therefore buildi�g setbacks and the public Do�rlevard together makeup the streetscape and influence the character of the site. A 5-story bui 1 di ng wi th 0' s etbaek i s not cans i stent wi th other truf 1 di ngs i n the communi ty and wo.uld ad�e�sely a�ffect �he aesthetics Qf the streetscape and area as a whole. The request for vari anee is not t n substanti al cec�fomrance v�ith the P1 an for Land Use component of the Ccur�rehensi ve P1 an i ntent to promobequal t ty desi qn that i s sensi ti�ve to surraundinq lan4 uses. • � � The Land Use Plan states, f� part, "hbst ot St. Pat�l 's business �ac�t i�s ort strips. Houses �djoin the eort�rctal lac�d with a�ly a fence cr alley between. Poor business design has a direct effect on the value and en�oyment of adjoining houses and the attractiveness of the neiqhborhood as a whole." "Whatever the future use of commercial areas, they must be desi gned and operated i n a manner r�hi ch makes them assets to the ��'�� ` commurtity in which they are located. Businesses which are operated in a wdy that is detri raental to the adJoi ni ng uses, especi al ly resi denti al uses,, are a �ui sance." The Land Use P1an also states: "The city, through desiqn controls, zoning and incentive programs. will encouraqe businesses to maintain the scale of surroundi�g . development...." "In many cases, a certain use may be prohibited in a particular zone because it is of an intensity which �makes it a p�oblem for surrounding uses." � STAFF ANALYSIS: R ma�or tenet of zoning regulation is to confer like property with equa opportunity for development. The Zoning Code, Schedule of Regulations, may be relaxed in instances where unique physical conditions prevent development that would otherwise occur without variance. In this case. there ts no unique physical �ircumstance that prevents development pursuant to the provisions of the code and . �granting this varia�ce request could set a precedent that_would diminish thel significance of height restrictions of the code. ..� Granting the variance in this case wouid permit development that is inconsistent with the surrounding land uses and would adversely affect the neighbors' supply of light and ai r. STAFF RECOMMENOATION: Based on findinqs 1 ihrough 6 and the staff analysis, staff recommends t e request for variance be denied. . • ' �_.�°� �_..�-, 3a PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA We, citizens of the St. Paul, Minnesota, hereby request that the City Council reject the petition of Harvey Investment Company requesting that it be allowed a variance of sixteen feet in height of a building proposed for Lots 25-30, Block b, St. Catherine Park Addition. We respectfully request that you reject the variance for the most convincing reasons set forth in the attached Zoning Staff Report, Number 9409, da ted July 1, 1983. It is most important that you reject granting this height variance because to do otherwise would make a mockery of the zoning laws of our city and endangers the rights of all of us, no matter where we may live within the city limits. Signatures Address � /�� u�� . ., � �� I �YJ �iy--� _ �� ./a 7 ��. .��r � - �J/d�� `l 0,6 i�,,��r.��.r.,�.c� /��• , �� .P fl 6 � � ��.�..�.�� Q.,.�. . 02/�0 �� ignatures Address � _ /I�.Lr�t,l�✓ - `��°—�✓� � •2 O� ,c4��uq ��'�� al:�-_�G�i�i � 1 o Z � f 1.• , Z�Z � 2l�1Z �,�c.a`I , � �1� _ �1 ! _ " �� . � .� a-�.� �?��s� y ��o �� i � �— ^ � � S / 7 �/ _ --.�� /i h ! �,�...� ,0 S' b � % � �� a. � ' � • ` � �p�(,ti��-, � J � � �� ` _ � �f3 � � 20NIN6 STAFF REPORT 9409 � ' � 1 APP U CANT: HARUEY INVES'ME��T COMPANY DATE OF HEARING 7_12_R+ � . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICAT ( 0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � CURRENT PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMITTEE BUARO UF 20NING APPEALS � kezoning ❑ Vartance � Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review ❑ � Uetermination of Similar Use " ❑ Other ❑ Chanye of Nonconforming Use ❑ � Utner ❑ ; 3. LUCATION: Northwest Corner Ford Parkway & Finn I 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 25-30, Blotk 8, St. Catherine Park Addn. � 5. PkESEN1 ZONING: B-2 ZONING CUDE REFEREP�CE: ��.1U3(e) � b. SiAFF INVES7IGATION 8 REPORT: DATE July 1 , 1983 BY Fred S. Haider , ; A. P!JRPOSE: To consider a variance of the maximum height of structures in a cortanunity �usiness zone. Code permits buildings to exceed 30 feet on'ly if the structure is set �ack from all property lines a distance equal to the heiqht which the structure , exceeds 30 feet. In this case the proposed buildina has 0' sideyard setback and and a 45' average building heiaht. B. PARrEL FRONTAGE AND AREA: 244' fronting Ford Parkway by 12�' frcntage along , inn or , square eet of total lot area. ' �iTE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is occupied by a commercial buildino (restaurant) � an a par ing ot. e parcel has double street frontage and alley access. land � uses in the surrounding area include: Ford Motor Company (Industrial-Assembly °'ant) to the south, single-family homes to the North, and community businesses along Ford Parkway east and west of the site. � • �ONIP�G CODE CITATION: Section 61.103(e), Schedule of Requlations-Business is�r�cts, sets t e maximum height of structures at 30 feet except that "The height of the structure may exceed 30 feet provided the structure is set back from all property lines a distance equal to the heiqht which said structure � exceeds the maximum height of building allowed in the distric*_." _ . ZONING HISTORY: April l , 1976: The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a special use permit to install a 73 car parking lot at the site. '�dY• �9%'�: 'he Cit� approved a pro�osai to construct a new building (Kentucky Fried Chicken) and the realigning or" an existing driveway at the northwest corner of Ford �arkwav and Finn St. -. '�DI'iGS: i . 'here is no pnysical basis upon wnich to grant a variance. 'he site is not unusual in size , shape, or topography. .: ��r;ct applicaticn of the code regulations would not result in excertional practical �if'icuity or undue hardship as distinguished from mere inconvenience by reason of t!�e eristing ;,hysical condition of the property. ?he desion of the structure can :,e •nocified to meet code regulations �y either reducing the heiqht of the structure �r ;et�ing the structure back 16' from all lot lines. The applicant's hardship appears se'f-created. ' :t ap;;ears that allowing a height variance without a proportionate increase in 5ui'dine, s2tback Would r?sult in overcrowding of the land and structure, would impair �ne intent and purpose of the code, and would be a detriment to the community. `he censtruction prcposed would exceed tne maximum heiQht or structures permitted in a 3-_ zone by more tnan 50°,. A variance of this magnitude is excessive and contrar. 'o tne int2nt of the code. ,. 'r�e reGuest for variance canr,ot oe granted witnout substan:ial detriment to the ��e�gn�ors' suppl� of lignt and air. Staff nas analyzec the impact of increasing t�uil^ing heiaht on the amour,t o` light provided to neiGhboring prcperties (see :°fm�it �i. � �-story structure Nith �' setback would adversely affect the soutneri� �;'�r e.<resure �;f sing'.e-family struc*_;:res abutting the property. haRV�Y 'NVESTMENT COMPANY (=9409) STAFF REPORT Page 2 � y F. F'.r�DINGS CONT'D. 5. The Plan for Streets and Hiahways component of the Comprehensive Plan of St. Paul states: "One of the criteria for evaluating a street is the streetscape. The street- scape includes all tne physical elements that affect the way the street looks and how it funcitons, and thus includes not only the right-of-way but facades of buildings which are near the street." Therefore building setbacks and the public boulevard together makeup the streetscape and influence the character of the site. A 5-story building with 0' se*back is not consistent with other buildings in the community and would adversely affect the aesthetics of the streetscape and area as a whole. 6. The request for variance is not in substantial conformance with the Plan for Lan� Jse component of the Comprehensive Plan intent to promotequality design that is sensitive to surrounding land uses. The Land Use Plan states, in part, "Most of St. Paul 's business land is on strips. Houses adjoin the commercial land with only a fence or alley between. Poor business � design has a direct effect on the value and enjoyment of adjoining houses and the attractiveness of the neighborhood as a whole." "Whatever the future use of commercial areas, they must be designed and operated in a manner which makes them assets to the community in which they are located. Businesses which are operated in a way that is detrimental to the adjoining uses, especially residential uses, are a nuisance." The Land Use Plan also states: "?he city, through design controls, zoning and incentive programs, will encourage businesses to maintain the scale of surrounding development. ..." "In many cases, a certain use may be prohibited in a particular zone 5ecause it is of an intensity which makes it a problem for surrouncing uses." G. STAFF ANALVSIS: A major tenet of zoning regulation is to confer like property with equ- aT�opportunity for development. The Zoning Code, Schedule of Regulations, may be relaxed in instances where unique physical conditions prevent development that Nould othe:-wise occur without variance. In this case, there is no unique physical circumstance that prevents development pursuant to the provisions of the code and . yranting this variance request could set a precedent that would diminish the significance of height restrictions of the code. Gran*.ing the variance in this case would permit development that is inconsistent with *he surrounding land uses and would adversely affect the neighbors' supply of light and air. N. �TAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6 and the staff analysis, staff recommends the request for variance be denied. r �TTaN so � cr� c�otnJCZZ o� � �� c,r� a� sxn�rr PAtrr.,, rm�o�, We, citizens of St. Paul, Mi.�esota, here.tyy requ�t that the City ornuycil reject the petition of Han�ey Irrvestment Oa�aanY request;*+� that it be allaaed a vari.ance of sixt�een feet in height of a "1 '� praposed for IAts 25-30, B1ock 8, St. Catherine Park Additi.on. � We resPectful]-Y request that yau reject the vari.ance for the m�st o�nvir�ing reasons set forth in the attacheci Zoning Staff R�rt, N�anber 9409, dated Ju].y 1, 1983. �.. It is mc�st ' �` �ortant tl�at yau reject granti.ng this height variance because � ta c3o otheYwise would mak�e a mr�ckery of the �ning laws of our city ar�d -- „� er�dangers the rights of all of us, m matt,ex where w�e may live within the city 1;m;ts. - S1CJYld'�S AL�'Ce3S `��. �;�v�,�.�'�,��,��,o�. ,Q D y.3 _ ��o� ��-�. , �' �v�i f �� r`, �r.� .��e�-r t�� E- _ � aO�z'r ;�� U v� ��S it r�� !(itiL+� Ld /.� �L.-? (Ji.1/'�G�„i � � .�o�� °�,l�.u� �r��-,�,�.4. . . � _ s -� �150 ��,�e�� 1I�- �if� �� A-��.- 7' ' t . ' . ��, � � y ��r . :.�i� .,�'� � �� - �r�� '7 ��i► .,,�� ? '✓ " i - I�l r! �/ r i. . � . , +,_,... ��.i•_.�i r`'i�r� �� t ^ / � L �.. ' '�..� • � /�/ ' � /� / � .1.�;.1 ,/;i��- j , —� �� , , � �•�./ �v�,,, "��. ��c.. ' '� 0 � i /��-'' — ,,�,�°.`�,._ ',:_..� ..,. .. . � ...� �. : e.:� ...e.�;.:... ..:,.AT....., t,,..a�.F ,. � r...{ 5>*,'�Y''r`°w :'ix °t',M. . . .... . .. . ,:.:r.. � � ... ; . ._ .. ��. ��'-F 'i._.._.. . - � • - .�..,-.. .:.. .. •y ':� _ w � � .' ..� . _ ' . . . . ..' .. . � � ..". .. - . ... �..� ' �". ' -:. .. . �. � . �;. � . . . . � . . . .... . . . . Siqaatures, • gddress . � . �� ., . . � . � � � � � �. t.t. U . ,< / / ��:.�/ ! .'%l✓ // t/ /�_(v ,: . � ,, . � , . - . . f � � ' � � �... �,,:- / /� l ,.. / /:dt. � � . - , , J - . . � _ . ��•.:.�,r� �'r---• •' . � ,�� V�'/ _ . . . - - �:/� ' � " — �� C � . : ._ . - • . � . 1` � � . ,:� l, �c �,j . :5 _ ". . . . . . . .. . .. .. � .,". I �.- . . .. . . . . . . . . �. �./�/ . . � ' . " ... -. . , _ . ._ ' _ i� ' ,� f _ _ • _ � . � !� .. - .. _ I�� _L� �� U —_� . . �t �7� �� \ - . ,.-_- _1. �' � �"`� �0�7-7 / o�--�cfl ��GlJ � _\� . � , \ _ -�� _ ,�. .�: . .:- .:..:R_ .-.... ..... . . ., ._, � � . .:•. . . ...�_ � . -:.- _ '. .— - , - , i � �... _. ... . _ ...__.,. . .. .-. .: - ;�....-. ' ... - ...� �-.- . ':::r, .�.:,' s�ri2 ,.rt.':..:: �..:,y.sy �<. � � ..: .. .. '. :... � . . . �._. .. .. ... , . ' _.'. . : . , . ' _ - . ' . .. _.�.�� . .. �... _ . .._ . .� . � ... ...�.: . . ...� �' . r � . ._ . �.. . . _ . .. . . ... . . . .�- . �� . Siga�:tures .. , gddres� . . :- : "•.� � , _ . . :� ' �- ,'.Y � _ ' � .'.... ' .. .. .- . � . . ' . . � . .. . . . � _ ' . .. . . .. ., �.�.... ._ . .. �. .. . . . . �' . .. . .. ...:'. . '".._ _ -. �.... . . �. �. . . . .. ..-.�. . �... '. . . _ . . . . ` . . - :: . . . : . .� . ...' . .. _ ' .�--. _ ' .. � .. . . ... ... � . . . ' _ . . . ' " . � . . , . _.. . .. .�,,_�>--:. ,._.;;. ,-- . . ., -� - . .. � -_. .<:._ _ . ;,,. . . �;_... . : . ::. . . _ a , . . _ . _ _ . ._.. . S-igaatures Addres� - _ :r �. . _ , _ . . _. _ .. . ` '��.� - � - . . __ -��`'� - . , _ _ _ _ .: , _ . - . . .: - . _ . . _ . :- . ` . �. . .. .__ . . .n� . _ : . -. �. _ :. , � .. ; ;_ .. _ . .; . . �. , a,.._.. •<. . �, . � . ,_ _ .: � ..,_ . _. . . _ _ _ _ , _� ,;:... - . ., _ , . .. . _. _ . -. �_ _ _�--- . , . . ��9�� Signatures � Address �,` . . � 1. I1PPl1CANT: HARYEY INVESTMENT COMPANY � DATE Of NEARING �_t _n3 • 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIfICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING a ZONIN6 COMMITTEE BOARD OF 20NING APPEALS . zooing. ar ance � _ Speciai Co�dltion Use Ildmintstrative Review � ❑ � Detee�ination of Simila� Use ' �Other ❑ , Change of tloacoeforming Use � • OUKr � 3. LOCATIOl1: Northwest CoFne� Ford Psrkw�► i Finn ' � 4. LE6Al DESGRIPTION: Lots 25-30. Block 8. St. Catherine Park Addn. S. PRtSEltT ZONItt6: 6-2 20lftflG COOE REfE[tE�ICE: 6�•103(e) �. STll�ff IN1iE5TIGATIOK L REPORT: OA�E July 1. 1983 BY Fred S. Haider A. PURPOSE: To coe�slQer a variance ot the uaximum height of structures tn � coamunity b�ness sone. Code permits builQings to exceed 30 feet only if the structure is seL bacfa fram all �^operty 11nes a distsnce �quat to the height which the structure eaceeds 3Q teet. Irt tdis case tNt pro�rosed building has 0' sideyard setback and aad s �' averag�e buildtng heicht. . e. �tCFt FRONTAGE ANO AREA: Z44` fi�erting Ford Parkway Dy 125' frontagt slong n�t or , sqwrt est af, Wtsl lo� a�. . ' C. SITE AN� AREA C�t0ITI0t�5: Tht stLs ts occupied by a ccmmerciai Duitdinq (rataurant) : par ng o . parul hu double street frontage and a11ey access. Land �s 1a Lt� su�e�ournling arta ineTudr. Ford Motor Caapanr (Industrtal-Assaably � �'lant) W the south, slnqlrf�aily hanes to•the North, and comaunity businesses siang ford Pse�kw�r east sn� west of tlie 9ite. 0. ZONIN6 CppE CITATION: SecttoA 61.103(e), Schedule of Regnlatioos-Business s c ,.se a mauimim� height ot structures at 30 feet accept that "The ' Mf�t of the structure �asy exeeed 30 faet providN the structure is set back. fraw all property ttnes a distaece eqwl to tht height vd�ich said structure � the naximua� heigbt of building tlltiweQ iR tht d15ti'iCt.' . E. IONIN6 HISTORY: • ' Aprit 1. 1976: The Board of Zo�ing Appeals approved a s0ecial use penait to lnstall a 73 car parking lot at the site. Mey. 1976: The City approved t pro sal to caistruct a �ew buildtng (Kentncky FM ed Chicken�and tbr realigning of an existing , driv�y at the northwest eorner ot Ford Parkway and Ffn� St. F. FIkDINGS: 1. There is no physical basis�upon which to grant a vartance. The site is not unusual in si=e. shape, or topography. • 2. S�M ct applicatiort of th� code regulstions would not result in exceptional practical ditficutty or undue hardship as distinc�ished from mere inconvenience by reason of tht �xisting physical condition ot the property. The desian of the structure can be modffied to meet code regulations by either redncing the heiaht of the structurr or sttti�g the structure back 16' from all 1ot lines. The applicant's h:rdship appears self-created. • 3.� It appears that a1loKirtg a heiqht variance without a proportionate increase in . �uilding setbacic would result in overcrowdi�g of the land and•structun, would ._ fmpair tha fnt¢nt .and purpose of the code, and would be, a detri�aent to the caAeunity. The construction proposed would exceed the maximiao he�gh� 'of sfructures �permitt�d�- � in a B-2 zo� by more than SOx. A variante of this magnitude is excessive and coetrar to the lntent of the code. 4. The raquest tor variance cannot be qranted without substantial detriment to the neig�bors' supply of light and air. Staff has anaiyzed the inpact of increasi�tg � building heiaht on the anaunt of light provided to neiqhboring properties (see exhibit A). A 5-story structure ++ith 0' setback would adversety aftect the southerly sotar exposure of single-family structures abutting the property. T . .. _ ,. V , � �' . I • • ' a iARYEY INYESTMENT COMP�INY (�9409) STAFF REPORT Paqe 2� '. FINOINGS CONT'O..:T�.-- - -_--__ , >. The P1aa fo� Streels and Fftghway�s cortQonent of t�e Comp�ehensi�e Plam of SL. �Paul states: "O�e at the critie�a fo� evaluating a sLreet fs the streetscape. ,The street- scape tnclu.des a11 �ke p��►sic.al elen�nts that affect the�w�ay the street laoks' and hor� i t fuctc�tnrts, an� �u�s i��udes nat on}y the ri gh:L-a�-r�a� t��t facades of bui l di nqs whfich are aear the st.ree�." Therefare buil�i�g setbacks and Lhe public Do�levard together mak�up the st�ee�scape and fnfl�,ence the ct�aracte� a� the site. Il 5-story buildirrg witti 0' s�e�baek is n�t ca�c�sistent with other a�itd�irtgs tn the comnunity and wouid ad�cersely affect the aes�betics p€ ths streetscape ac�d ae�ea as a whole. ;. Tt�e r�uest �'ar� aa�ar�e i s �4 i� su�staeEti at c�a�i�rar�nce �rith t�e P1�n far L�d Use cwap�tent a� ths Cer�r��ai�s Pl a�► i nteat �o pra�matie qual�t�s desi gr� th,at i s sEnsi ti�e to surcaunding 1� ua�s. • � - � The Larrd Use RTaA sta�4�s, fn par�, "Most c� St. Pa��'s i�siness t�d i•s a�e strips. Houses aedani r� tbe eomm�e�cf a� la�d wit� a�1y a fe�►ce e�r a11ey �e�wee�. Poag busi rtegs d�si gc� h�s a di rect e'fff�t an t� vai ue artd e�a3�ment ot aetJoi ai�g hor�ses ac�d the attractiveness a� t;t�e rt�iqwho�c� as a whale." "Nhate�er the future use of conmercial are�s, the� must be desi c,�►e�f an� ap�rafi�ed i n a ma�e�er ��rich makes them assets to the "�''� � conmu�tty i re wh�ich th�y are lacate�. Busi nesses which a�e operated i r� a way that i s de�mental te th� ad�oining uses, especially resfdential uses,, are a nr�isance." The L�nd Use Rlan also states: "The city, through desfqn controls, mning and inceRtive programs, will encaurage businesses to maintain the scale of surrounding . devetopment...." "In man� cases, a certain use may be prohibited in a particular zone because it is of an intensity which makes it a problem for surrounding uses." �. STAFF AN�ILYSIS: A major tenet of zoning regulation is tc confer like property with equa opportunity for development. The Zoning Code, Schedule of Regulations, may be � reiaxed in instartces where unique physical conditions prevent development that would otherwise occur without variance. In this case, there is no unique physical �ircumstance that prevents development pursuant to the provisions of the code and • ' granting this variance request could set a precedent that would dinrinish the, significance of height restrictioas of the code. � f� . Grartting the rrariance in this case would permit development that is inconsistent with the surrounding la�d uses ax�d would adversely affect the neighbors' supply of light and ai�. . STAFF RECOMMENOATION: Based on �1Rd1R9S 1 thraugh 6 and the staff analysis, staff recomnends t e request for �rariance De denied. . i ��1 S/CLF s �i Li�CLi�C� / C.yi'e'7/7 7�L' (_y�C i/� �Cc-!Z� f + . �t „ " �'�,�,-sf��/jf�oOC(/GLU�� - L%a5�1- �f7�7�i`� ' ^_ _ ________.__ _ __ _ , � ��v�� . PETITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 3z, CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA We, citizens of the St. Paul, Minnesota, hereby request that the City Council reject the petition of Harvey Investment Company requesting that it be allowed a variance of s �Cteen :�eet in height of a building proposed for Lots 25-30, Block �, St. Catherine Park Addition. ' We respectfully request that you reject the variance for the most convincing reasons set forth in the attached Zoning Staff Report, Number 9409, dated July 1, 1983. It is most important that you reject granting this height variance because to do otherwise would make a mockery of the zoning laws of our city and endangers the rights of all of us, no matter where we may live within �the city limits. Signatures Address ai � � 6 �c.�� a/5�'f �*�-e-�c,c,ca.� -��.� e � /a7 �C.J v"�'i!4 I� � ai63 � � �'lf.�-,�� .►�r-i� � � � �/�3 � O u.�c.6' �Yvw.— s5��/� � �� c�� 'L�. S Sl�� s� � � G 4�-�- ��.�.�.�: o, . (��a� _ a , � � � _�-/Y�s I�'�h�� '..�s'/l� � � �/�G � C�u - � �..i°�'�./3�� 1,��-�-_ �'�/� l ��;�� 3 � -� � � , ,s--s„ �� , �s�/� - � �� g3� Signatures Address � Ll�(i�J � / a`c�-e� , 3..f— ,e%�Lc�c�- G� - • - , .C-✓.'// �� =��-�c-- i� � � l5^3 �/,` �,/4w � !° � ��. Q . ��.- a►s3 �; ��,,.�. r�� s+ P�. ��,. s � �� "�� / 0 Z I � Li-e � �c.��e�- — ' . L . ol.+.--Q . � �( s�'/!G _. . � a6 8 ,� u s� f�� 5 . � �� P � . � - a ,�s` /� l -�- / � ,��//� � ' a � 3� ��5�� f�� - al3�j finQ.,�cnrS� �ilfE'.. SS'��lo r /� •�� t�� ,z/.�� ',,��c� s 7' � � 5 5-ii� �/s.`� �'"f Pn no r A�v e sf P . � I rnA� � �i� , � _ � 3 � A� S f_ c,�. /�1�U �S v�'// / Signatures Address /�r9-u�a��c��' e �.�9e�1� G'�i` �D 9� J�1�� k.Fa-�c� �k�� , �- ii� ( S �1t ,� __'�=.= .�'1 1"V. �,. � ��,' � � ,� „ ' . `) s Signatures Address Signat�res Ac�d.t��;ss . '� ZONING S1AF� REPORT , 9409 � � ,� , � „ � ' l. APPLICANT: HARVEY INVESTMENT COMPANY DATE OF HEARIN6 7_�p_g3 i . , 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIfICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING 3 ZONING COMMITTEE BOARO OF ZONING APPEALS ezom ng Variance � Special Condition Use Administrative Review ❑ Determination of Similar Use " Other ❑ � Change of Nonconforming Use ❑ Other ❑ ) 3. LOCATION: Northwest Corner Ford Parkway & Finn J 4. LEGAL OESCRIPTION: Lots 25-30, Block 8, St. Catherine Park Addn. 5. PkESENT IONING: B-2 ZONJNG CODE REFERENCE: 61.103(e) � 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION b REPORT: DATE July 1, 1983 BY Fred S. Haider A. PURPOSE: To consider a variance of the maximum height of structures in a cortmunity ub�siness zone. Code permits buildings to exceed 30 feet only if the structure is set back from all property lines a distance equal to the height which the structure � exceeds 30 feet. In this case the proposed buildina has 0' sideyard setback and and a 46' average building heiqht. � B. PARCEL FRONTAGE ANO AREA: 244' fronting Ford Parkway by 125' frontage along nn or , square eet of total lot area. C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is occupied by a commercial buildina (restaurant) an a par ng ot. e parcel has double street frontage and alley access. Land uses in the surrounding area include: Ford Motor Company (Industrial-Assembly Plant) to the south, single-family homes to the North, and community businesses a1on9 Ford Parkway east and west of the site. D. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 61.103(e), Schedule of Regulations-Business s ric s, se s e maximum height of structures at 30 feet except that "The height of the structure may exceed 30 feet provided the structure is set back from ail property lines a distance equal to the height which said structure exceeds the maximum height of building allowed in the district." E. ZONING HISTORY: April l, 1976: The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a special use permit to install a 73 car parking lot at the site. May, 1976: The City approved a proposal to construct a new building (Kentucky Fried Chicken) and the realigning of an existing driveway at the northwest corner of ford Parkway and Finn St. F. FINDINGS: l. There is no physical basis upon which to grant a variance. The site is not unusual in size , shape, or topography. 2. Strict application of the code regulations would not result in exceptional practical difficulty or undue hardship as distinguished from mere inconvenience by reason of the existing physical condition of the property. The design of the structure can be modified to meet code regulations by either reducing the height of the structure or setting the structure back 16' from all lot lines. The applicant's hardship appears self-created. 3. It appears that allowing a height variance without a proportionate increase in building setback would result in overcrowding of the land and structure, would impair the intent and purpose of the code, and would be a detriment to the community. 7he construction proposed would exceed the maximum height of structures permitted in a 6-2 zone by more than SOb. A variance of this magnitude is excessive and contrar• to the intent of the code. 4. The request for variance cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the neighbors' supply of light and air. Staff has analyzed the impact of increasing building heiaht on the amount of light provided to neiqhboring properties (see exhibit A). A 5-story structure with 0' setback would adversely affect the southerly solar exposure of single-family structures abutting the property. •� T� HAk'�,_E:' .P�VESTMEPaT COt4PANY (�=9409) STAFF REPORT Page 2 —.----:-� — - F Fii�,:?�i�:,:� i3ONT'D. 5. Ti�e F]an for Streets and Highways cor,Qonent of the Ccmprehensive Plan of St. Paul �t.ates: "One of the criteria for evaluating a street is the streetscape. The street- �cape includes all the physical elements that affect the way the street looks and how ;!: fur�citons, and thus includes nct only the rignt-of-way but facades of buildings „riich are n��r the street." Therefore building setbacks and the public boulevard toq��tr,��r maF:eup the streetscape ana influAnce the character of the site. A 5-story tuildinq with 0' setback is not consistent with other buildings in the community and �,;ouid adversely affect th2 aesthetics of the streetscape and area as a whole. � Tlie request for variance is not in substantial conformance with the Plan for Lan:: Jse ::ompor;ent of the Comprenensive Plan intent to promotequality design that is sensitive to �urrounding land uses. ihe Land Usz Plan states, in part, "Most of St. Paul's husiness land is on strips. �iouses adjoin the comrk rcial land with only a fence or alley between. Poor business � ,esign nas a direct effect on the value and enjoyment or adjoining houses and tne lttracti�ieness of the neignborhood as a whole." "Whatever the future use of commercial �reas, t.hey must be designed and operated in a manner which makes them assets to the �ocJnurit; in which they are located. Businesses which are operated in a way that is detrimental to the adjoining uses, especially residential uses, are a nuisance." �ne Land �se Plan also states: "The city, through design controls, zoning and incenti �e programs, will encourage businesses to maintain the scale of surrounding ieveloprter,t. ..." "In many cases, a certain use may be prohibited in a particular zone hec�u�e it i; cf an intensity which makes it a problem for surrounding uses." ��. :,TAFF ;,t�ALYSiS: A major tenet of zoning regulation is to confer like property with equai cpportunity for development. The Zoning Code, Schedule of Regulations, may be reia�ced in instances ,vnere unique physical conditions prevent development that would �:tl�c�r-.:isc occur without variance. In this case, there is no unique physical rirc�ir,�tonce that prevents development pursuant to the provisions of the code and • ;rantlr.g tr,is variance request could set a precedent that would diminish the sigriric,;nce of height restrictions of the code. Gra^�, ..� tr,r: variarce in this case would permit development that is inconsistent with the �...-.�::;na;r,g land �ses and would adversely affect the neighbors' supply of light :ru .:ii'. ,.. �G.'r� �r'��uATiON: Based on findings 1 through 6 and the staff analysis, staff re�: ,:,,;- �,i:� *,ie request for variance be denied. .r..�: . - . . ��'� ��-� --------- --- 30 � cS�t,e�c�uge____ --------------- I PLAt��iING RiND ECO�Y dcVELDP. I 5.F. S/5.F. I I I PRD-FO�M.a AWAIYSIS 1 R�TRIL 172@@ S1Q�.0� t P�JECT COST 5457145 l 1 I Dr"FICE I1.`,60 512.63 I D�1l�OPEP,S EQJITY 5�715 I I DATE: 9-26-83 I EXISTIN6 20��0 /YR I P'JbLIC EQUITY . 0 I � i PROJECT: HI6HLAhD PARK 1 PARKIN6 0 8 1 D�T �RVICE 5361431 I I ltf'AT?0!�:FORD PK4JY I I N.AP.D CDSTS 3C°�4228 I 1 1 EXPt�' �S- 0 DF 64055 I LR'dD G E..Dn VALU� 175��Qa I ' I I I I ! DcBT S�RVICE CAi.�tILATIO!!S I CC�'�?;IStiIL�'� �� 0.E3 I �~ L�P�cCIRTIG��I It�=O � I I, P�OR76R;E 1 2 3 I CRP GaIt�'S ?RX C.� t !��'yTH R:�JIr',r� 1 I 1 � 1 TAX BRACKET 0.5 I TERM DQFi7c RPrAt�IT 1 I PRIh'CIPAL AMO:k+IT 5361431 I 1fEAR QF SALE 16 1 15 0 3484288 I I Ih`TEREST RATE 10.58X 10.09X 10.QE�X I 5RlE PRICE ASSI�P 3 I 5 F�RS 0 t I TER�4 30 � 30 I 6�,T-_5S 8.3 1 PERr'cFff A�'JMT I I YEARLY PAY�'c.NT 593352 8 � 1 I RR-SA�..E. 0.19 I ITC I 1 i -hD SA�E 0.25 I HISi CR I I I 1 I I 11�1ATIONI YE�R 1 � 3 4 5 �6 7 ' 8 9 10 I ! R'cVE1VJE NR 1.QS . 1.E5 1.?ti5 1.L"S 1.C5 1.F,'S 1.�5 i.�'S 1.05 I I EXPEh'�S NR 1.E'6 2.�'S 2.�,5 1.C5 1.�5 1.�5 1.�S 1.05 1.e5 I t VAC�:CIES 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.E5 0.05 0.@5 0.�S �.6S 0.PS B.65 I I I I 10 YERR AC, S'hl FL�1 � � �� I" I REVE`�.�: I I N�N 31E2�0 '�2'S5(�0 341775 35�.,364 376667 395647 415430 43E261 458011 462512 1 1 EXISTIt�tG 2('t�22�0 2i6� ^cLES'�d 2315�.�5` c^431Q1 2552.`r5 c�iB319 ^co142'd ^c95491 31F266 I . I PAR}{Ih6 I �_ _ _ I --_----- - - - - -_---=---- ---- ------------_� I I GRQSS REVEMI� 5102�'D 53`.,5E2 5E,2275 593389 6193Z8 656904 68s449 7l7621 7535Z2 791177 I I LESS:V'�^ANCIES �51600 �26775 28114 29519 3'�'�35 '.�c''S45 34172 35391 37675 "s3559 I I --__ -_=____------- --- _r-=- -__=___---�_-��__=_-=___-----__------ I I h�=T P�VEMJE 459'��i0 SQ97�5 534161 55Q1t859 SB3913 618358 Efi9c76 631740 71.`,&z7 751619 I I I I O�P.RTIh� �XA��ES 0 8 0 0 @ 0 0 Q 0 Q I I -____ _ . � , � �� '.�� .� �6 S��k��..�e I PL�d4It�� A"!D ECON DEV�.OP. I S.F. �S/S.F.��-�----+^- I ~-� --� 1 I P��FOA�a R'JA!YSIS 1 RcTAIL 3B9E'0 �10.�� I PNO..f�CT COST 74550Q+8 I I i O=FICE 112i�'J Slc^.0t� I D�V�LUP�P.S E�'i1ITY 7�2a2+0 I I 6�?TE: 5-2�-83 1 EXISTIk'� 2P,�22a /YR t P�J�'LIC E�'JITY � I ! P,�'iJ��CT: HIGrILAtiD PARK I PARKIN^v 0 0 I Dc.ET ScRVICE 61�50e'�d I I L�A7tQ�:FORD RK'�►Y I I H�^.� �TS 46?�?Z0 1 I I EXPEhlSES- 0 � 6R75S 1 LA.'�� b �"...D�3 V'�'�l� 17;Q3�2 I � -- ----�_... _---- ---- � ---� �__�._____� ' f D::�T ��VICF CA'.:CU.ATIa'�tS I iX?"�ISS►.D`d �.�? I C=P��I�T1C�'! Ih.=U I I N'�r�T6A6E 1 2 3 I CAP 6AIHS TRX � 0.2 I ku`;TH AC(?'JIR� 1 I 1 I TAX R?HCKEt 0.5 I 7EkM DDE� R�4Dt1NT I I PRIh�IPRL R"�JT 67@52�0 I YEAR Q SF�L.E 10 I 15 0 46$��W2 I I Itv'T'�f.EST R4TE 18.50f 1Q.00% 10.f�2X I SA!E �RICE R�•JA;P 3 I 5 ACRS 0 1 I TER" 3C� 30 30 I 6t�55 0.3 I Pc4��hT €�!�1(1t�IT I ! Y:�;��Y PAYM��T 73�l294 0 0 I IRR-�LE 0.19 I ITC I I I -h'0 Sa..E 0.2! I HiST CR I � ----- -�- --- - � - � 1 1 h'1A?I�l YERR 1 2 3 4 5 �6 7 B 9 10 �I i i�'�°.� NR 1.2S !.t� 1.85 �.['S L 85 1.E5 1.C5 1.�5 1.Q� 1 I E1(PEh'�S hE4 i.E5 1.E'S 1.85 1.Q�5 1.65 1.�S 1.2S 1.� 1.�5 I I VACAkrIES 8.1 0.05 6.Q�5 0.25 6.E5 0.45 �.fS 0.25 �.�5 @.65 ! I I I 10 YEA� CRS4 FLON � t I RcVEt�'ljE: I I 1�'=61 521E�0 547@.`,0 574483 66?123 63�79 b64943 6981Sa 733y'�3 769754 $:.P24.'. { 1 EXISTIt� 2@@� 21P400 2'�P,,S� 231525� 243101 255255 268019 2814�20 295491 31�66 I I PAR�(IN6 1 ' � _-�- ---_ - --- -- ---___-------------_----___��__��- - 1 I 6.6",�aS �Vc!.",F_ 721Pi�a 757C'S8 7949a3 83464$ 81b380 9�'6193 9E,E2r? 16i4519 1¢5,`,245 111BSC9 1 1 LES5:V�G�'dCIES 721@0 ' 37853 39745 4173P 433f9 46L10 48318 �3726 5�52 55�25 1 I ---------- -__ --___-------=-��_�� - � I � P_�I�NUE 649369 71919B 755157 792915 8c',�561 874189 9178?3 ?63793 iC119B3 16E,�y562 1 I 1 t D�R.4TI1'S EX�h'SE5 @ 0 0 0 @ 0 B 0 0 0 I ! =------- - -- _-_�_�-_� --- __ - I I PET QP�R IN!'L�fE 642900 719198 755157 73�?5 • E3�561 A74189 9176?3 903793 1�11933 I�G.'S82 l I I I D�T S��11ICE 784025 704Q25 7044�5 704P,�5 7�34�5 733c^94 73B??4 7382?4 735� 738294 I I ---------- _-_-� ---�--------------_----- ---=� I I YEP.R: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 18 I f C�.;"H �!C�J ��T FIN -55125 � 15173 SI13� 89�990 128536 135995 179r',24 225499 27=r',99 324289 I I R�aT?ZRTICtt�! 58655 64985 71989 79746 EB3.,'9 97858 lf'84@3 12LZ94 133�4 147359 I I r�?^_�!ATIO`; 15YR 3E6657 3?5�7 305657 sE�E57 365557 335b57 ;;26�7 �'4�.47 3�=�7 3C5557 1 I ^=^�'CIA?IQ'� 5YR 0 0 0 a 0 ( I =----------,_ ---__- -_----_--_--�-�__--_--- - ---_ - 1 I �=T ?RX4BLE I�":Q� -'.,�3127 -2^co508 -18�45 -133�?C -69791 -72913 -I8659 . 36917 I�'ti�47 1�980 I i T�X S�VIh� 151553 113254 9I773 6?'d15 44895 35457 9� -19;59 -53':?3 -8?493 I � jTriulcT C�EDITS 2 I I ==-_--------_----_---_----_----__------_-_=---__--- --_------� --- 1 1 CP.� �!�'a RR TRX 96438 128�26 1429'� 1574a5 17's432 17235P 1E8934 �'QUF41 �2?=.56 241796 I I I : , ��'v�.�a.? bUILDING SIZE CALCULf�TIONS- APPROX 30' HEIGHT WIDE DEEP LOT SIZE-RAMP 1�2 ic5 LOT SIZE-OFFICE 12` 1`� iJ�J� �0' =3 STOR I ES 2. S 1�t50 39125 TOTAL S. F. RETA I L �:�875 0. 75 17156 TOTAL LEAS�AE�LE S. F. � OFF I CE 1 JC,JQ� Q�. 75 1 1438 TOTAL LEA�EABLE S. F. N BU I LD I IVG COST CALCCILAT I�IVS ... BLDG AND LAND . � 175��.�� RAMP �*STALLS .38�0 �44 9L�JJ.;�B OFF I CE �*FEET �� 60 c�::87� 1;7c5�0 RETAIL 'S*FEET 45 15c5Q► 6B6c5� RENOV. � 10�0td� iQ��Z+�C�4� TOTAL 46::,4:�88 CONSTR I NT 3084c88 1 Q�. �Zt�Z►X .:;�Z►84c'� BOND FEE 40Q�� ' 4�� UND�RWRITER J�JI S�fJ �. 5��'/- 148'�� DEE�T RESERVE J�J71�FJ l l�. 5Q�'/. 6�:�500 TOTAL PROJECT COST J�J714J PARN.I NG REG!U I RED S. F. CODE/S. F. CFFICE 171�6 15Cn 114 R�TAIL 114?,8 c�0 57 E X I ST I�IG ' 7` T07P.L `44 ��v � ' �.' 9 {� O�'r 1 G4- �' 2 S o s,F. �`� ra�a►1 - ��z�o I 4 1 1� T 3�-� l�Q �32•0 � O��tG .� 200 _ , '�'';' 1 ,,,�_,�.�,��.��•ce Y a-�a. � — 3 2 4 l s F i lrrn��- en �� T' � . -� � �AMP �Z� -1, �j � i (V j S; r �,: � 5p 50 o}} cjrosg 3z�Soo g/ a�� na� Zz 4�0 �•«.� ��o o' . ` 1 Jk� �2.5- � -� Gz.S' �z� «.xs I � �'�q,� , t 4�' 9rosg 2��o a C.�co t� " - 400 � 11-� �Z ' �,.� '�'°° - �2� r a-� U�.T t Y z o 0 , ►;µoo-__ ---- 70� 1'Z l3 ooc> C.� � iJ �-t� �p - " �' � iZ2 caes ., . _. __ �L' I 3 0 0 o G ��`�-+ofl�J�� 35 � � . � _ . ' �y . . ° - . � /' �`�-' �3 00 o y � �. - .. Y io-v - N"'�* e� �� . ��,,,�, . ' �,, E►�'� ,�r .. �(f. �3�C�0 C� � .�'1 � - 5 � � > y�M _ tr.- �' . y �.l l( _� ` � ''�� 7�Z ? Z. � ,��Q 3 � ��a�s � � 25 � , �'' Z S � � � "f o . 2� � z 2� 4 i �, i � zS , , ' • �'�.` __ z {-�•C t �A '; � t t % �� , `� _ z� �� 2-� 3z ------ z�, E � , 22 �� zs �� 4. � ��..—�. � _ � •:``s�"� - ��. � +b. �� 2� �.-►`�` � /// 3-!0 �y i j ,.1. r _ Z S� �. �, � j��, � � �� "---�:s".s. � . �i.� G%' / ��%� �� ,,/ 32S c�.rs .tn��udQ.S 1 4;b�P �, � � �� U t L��D I N��;�DA�A�� . � � � �� ; , �� REfiAIL�� GROSS;�. .. . ,��. . . .�,�. , , ,�,�. .2G,Q00� s.�F . R�TAIL. �NET c70' EFF. � , , . . . . . , . �8,20o s , F , . . OF'FICE GROSS, . ; , , .:;. , . ,. . , . . , , ...,32,500` s. F . , . OFF�EE �+fET E 807 EFF. ) ,..:. . . , . , .��;'�OU s ,� , TOTAL GROSS. .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58.500 s , F , TOTAL NET, , , , , , , , , , , , , � , ... � , , .44,20Q s.F , � PARK I NG ,DQTA . . RE�A`IL '1�,, 200 - 150 , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,;122CARS OFFICE 26,000 - 200, , , , , , , , , , , , , 130 caRs , PARKI:NG REP'LACEMENT. , , , . , r , , , , , , , ,72 CARS TOTAl. PARKI�fG�RE�UIRED, , . . . ,., . , , ,324 CARS '�OTAL PARKING �PRO,VID�D. , , , , , , , , , , 325 cARs �2- � �2-� N ' - office � � � . N office N _ office � _� retail _ _ _ :.::.�:::: -- - _ ___ _ ::. _ ti........:.. . _. _ _:�� ::ti:. :::::�. _ .:.:..�.:.:: �. ::.::.:.�� --- -_ _ ____. - ::;:::;�:�:�::: �::;:r�� :��ti�� ,retail. ,,ti,`;. •:ti•:::�:�: ::;�: :;;;: :;:�:::�:::�:::�::::::•:�::•:�•::•::::::.•.�:::�::.:.. i�:;�: :��:�: ;:ti: �1' \. •.1. ��;�: �•:ti.. L. h•. •:ti' :�`�: '{{: �Y: titi•. .�`•. ...�:1:ti :•:ti: •:ti� •:titi .w. ...�.;i. ......ti...._.•_i•' �'�L �ctin. ;:s•: :�: .L.'•�. +..t: .�t'�. � •�9 .T� .�-¢'�,� �. :.s.: _ �_� _:y:: :�:�"'!i�' ','.'�i 'tiir� {+L*� "s.u.� � _'�•' . titiai:��:n:uiti�'� �.7.�-�.•urwti.:.:.'.:�:w:••..:ww sE��-r :�.:........... ................. _ ... ON THi� U SUILb�N G � �� _ ,_o /►� - � — � toq--o 1 o-c . , . � �� roof area � `�� ` � ( N . level 9 � office area . C�C� I �1PPE� � �.�VEL � PL N �� A = 30 _� 1 alley � � . . . . -�, � � levei 2 ,,,"r-''-: -'� . � :�:: retail area �xis�ing office � area center � ::,:: above ;;;: levei 1 �7C� ��R `T -_ �L . . P . S ODR LA�V iM= �'