278074 �
.fMENT GITY OF SAINT PAUL Council :� w��
JR File N O.
Council Resolution
r�resented By ��d���� �• �--EU�N�
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
WHEREAS, Bob Janecek made application to the Planning Commission
for a change of nonconforming use of a portion of his property
located at 1759 Selby Avenue from an automotive warehous.e use to a
package delivery service use; and
WHEREAS, The property at 1759 Selby is partially zoned as a
B-3 use and also as a RT-1 residential use; the south 109 .16 feet
of the building is within the B-3 zone district, and the north 52.16
feet of the building is within the RT-1 district; and
WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to the provisions contained in section
62 .102 (e) 5 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code, the Planning Commission
denied the application for change of nonconforming use for the
north 52.16 feet of the building upon a finding made by the Co�n-
mission that the proposed use was not equally or more appropriate
to the district than the previous nonconforming use, and that the
proposed use of the structure was not consistent with the health,
safety, morals and general welfare of the community and was not
M, consistent with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the adjacent
property, based upon the testimony presented to the Planning Com-
mission at its hearing on July 9, 1981, wherein the evidence pre-
sented established that the proposed delivery service was in fact
already operating within the structure without the necessary
approval of change of nonconforming use, that the occupant of the
building was constantly violating the no parking restrictions in
the vicinity of the building by parking trucks in no parking zones
Qr was parking delivery trucks in the adjacent residential streets,
and that the presence of trucks coming and going from the portion
of the building at 1759 Selby adjacent to the residential property
created an unnecessary hazard to children playing in the vicinity,
and that the existing activities of the package delivery business
at this location constituted unnecessary traffic congestion and
was inconsistent with the public health, safety and general welfare
of the community, and with the unreasonable enjoyment of adjacent
COU[VC[LME[�t Requestgd by Department of:
Yeas Nays
Hunt
Levine In Favor
Maddox
McMahon ' B
Showalter - __ Against Y —
Tedesco
Wilson
Form Appr d Cit ttorne
Adopted by Council: Date —
Certified Yassed by Council Secretary BY
sy —_
Approved by :Navbr: Date � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By ' _ _ — By
� �
�������
properties . The testimony presented to the Planning Co�nmission
established that the previous nonconfor�ning use was as an auto-
tnotive warehouse with very little �notor traffic to and fro�n the
building, that the existing taxicab business has created many
traffic and parking problems, and was a disruption to the neighbor-
hood, and therefore the proposed use as a package delivery business
would create more proble�ns for the adjacent neighborhood than the
automotive warehouse did; and
WHEREAS, The previous history of this property, and present
property owners, discloses that the property was used illegally
as a taxicab business and as a public nuisance, which determination
was made by the City Council, and affirmed by the Ramsey County
District Court and the Minnesota Supre�ne Court; and
WHEREAS, The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed
by Bob Janecek to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which Board con-
� ducted a public hearing thereon, and acting pursuant to section
64 . 206 (1) of the Zoning Code, which provides that the Board may
hear appeals froin decisions of the Planning Commission to deter-
�nine whether this was an error in any fact or procedure in the
decision made by the Commission in carrying out or enforcing the
provisions of the �oning Code, the Board upheld the Commission' s
actions as follows:
The appellant based his appeal alleging that the Commission
comitted the follawing errors:
1) "The staff report recommended approval of the change of
nonconforming use with certain conditions, and these
conditions have been adhered to in all cases . "
The Commission did not comznit errar on this point.
One of the conditions required no parking on the
boulevard or street, while testimony presented
established that illegal parking was continuing
2 .
�. J
����"��,
even after the package delivery service was
established in the building. Five of the calls
were for violations after June l, 1981.
2) "The Planning Coznmission based its denial on
testimony concerned with the past conduct of the
taxicab business which is not associated in any
way with the package delivery business . "
Testimony from adjacent neighbors and police records
establish that violations are associated with the
package delivery business, and no error was committed
in this deterznination.
3) "The decision of the Supreme Court regarding the
use of this property does not prohibit a package
delivery business. "
The Supreme Court ' s order allowed activities that are
permitted by the Zoning Code. Since a package delivery
business is not a permitted use in an RT-1 zone, the
order of the Supreme Court does not permit operation
of the parcel delivery service in the RT-1 portion
of the building.
��IHEREAS, Bob Janecek appealed the Board of Zoning Appeals '
decision to the Gity Council pursuant to section 64 .205 of the
Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, acting pursuant to said Code, con-
ducted a public hearing on said appeal, with notice to all affected
parties, which hearing was duly conducted on December 22, 1981, and
the Council having heard and considered the testimony presented at
said hearing, as well as havina, considered the staff report, the
minutes and findings of the Planning Commission and the Board of
Zoning Appeals, does hereby
3 .
E�K COURCII � �gD i���
..RTMENT GITY OF SAINT PAUL
�
roR File N 0.
�
ncil Resolution
t'resented By
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
RESOLVE, The Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirzn
the decision of the Planning Commission and of the Board of Zoning
Appeals, and deter�mines, that based on the following findings, the
Planning Co�nmission did not commit error in denying the change of
nonconforming use of that portion of the property at 1759 Selby from
an automotive warehouse to a parcel delivery service:
1) The Planning Commission was correct in deter�nining that
no error was committed in the zoning classification of the
north 52.16 feet of the property as RT-1 residential use.
2) The previous nonconforming use of this property was as an
automotive warehouse, and that the taxicab use of the
property had not been approved by either the Planning
Commission or the City Council or the Supreme Court.
3) Traffic violations and congestion in the area are a
direct result of the delivery trucks which are a part
of the proposed delivery service at this location, and
the existing violations establish a pattern of canduct
which supparts the determination that the packaged delivery
business proposed is more incompatible with the existing
RT-1 residential classification than was the previous non-
conforming use as an automotive warehouse.
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Bob Janecek be and is here-
by denied; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a capy of this
resolution to Bob Janecek, the Zoning Administrator, Planning Com-
mission and Board of Zoning Appeals.
4 .
COUIVCILMEN Requestgd by Department of:
Yeas Nays �
Hunt
•�ne- In Favor
#Aeddex-� �
McMahon
snowaite� - __ Against BY --
Tedesco
Wilson
Adopted by Council: Date _
JAN 2 i 198Z Form Appro e b City orney
Certified Pa d Council Sec tar BY -
By , �
N 2 2 1 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
Approved by ; vor: Date -
By — BY
`� PU iai�rD JAN 3 0 1982 -
[ ' , _
; , .
� ' � � ��'?��4''��`
i � . ,
, - :,
. . . . . . , . . . . . ... , . .. k
. � �� ; . . . . � - � � . . - � � . . , . . . . . . - ; �, i
� � . � 1 . � . � . . � � _ . � I A.�
� � � " . :. . . .. �. . � , � � � . . . : ��,
. . _______. . . . . . . . - � .
� . _�-.��, , � . � /. . � . , . . . � . �. . � . � . . . .,
� ' ! , d,u�ua�, Zsch, 1s8�
, -
, - ; •
, r � . °.
� ; _
. . � � ' ,
Mr� Robert Jaaacek : '
P.O. $ox �487 - . ,
St.. Pa�, Minnesota 55104 . , . , .
, , , ,
Dear�Mr.-Jansceka ' '
, `:
� - On Jainna�ry 21, 198Z the 8t. Paul C�,tx. Council adopte�d a rewlutton >
deaqiag your ap�aal to a de�cision'o� t� (Bosrd a�-Zon� ApPaala �or
' Property at :17S9 3el;by Ave. Enc�oeed fur qour tnfonsatidn is, a copy of � •
C.F. tqo. ,27$07,4. . _
" Ve� �ruly yaurs,, � � .
�� - '�,�:..;=
, � f' �
, , ,r' ��'���J�,(�'.,e�i;r�� ,�
. , / , .
..- _.
'Albert B. �Ols6u:
� . City Gla�rk� .
_ . _ ; :
F�cloaur� � , ,, . ,
_ ccs Zoning Administrator .
�.:
Plat�ning Cbmc�iseion . . � ,
• , ` �oard of ZoainB APpe�.t• �
�ch , �
. �• , ° � � �'
� � � , . . . , .. . - . - .. . . . ' - . ' .. � r..
. . . . . . � . � � .�t ; � . ,.. � � . ��/. . „ .
. _ . .. . . . . . , . _ . . . � . . . . ' /; . .
. . � . � , � � . . . ` . . _ _ . _ � . .. . ; \ � �// .,. � .
, . , , . . . . � � . � . � .. " ... . �. �- .. i� , .
. . � .. � � .. . � . . . .. . . f` . .
. . . � . � � � - . . � . � � , � .
. . . . - . � � . . " . , . . , /; . .
� � ' . , � � � � � .. . ! ; . . ' � . . . . � . .
_ � . , _ . . . , . . : , � . . . . . .. • � . . ./'' , �.
. �� . . . , .. , . � ... _ � � . .� �. . � . � . . . _. . /� � . , � � ..
� .. . . � . . � �. . � �. ., � � . � . � � �� /�.
_ . . . . `.. . . . . . . , ' / �,. .. .
, , , . . . . . . . . . ." . . . j� � . .
. . . " . . , � �'� . .. i�
, � . � . . . . . � � � . . � . �. '. . r' .. � � �.
i
� . . . �, , �� , � .. , .. .� ' � � . . �
:i -. . , , , - . ' - . . , � � . . . � � \�. . � . .
' �. . . "� � � . . . . . � � " " � .. � � �� � �\. � ' � .
.. . � . � . ' . � . _. � . . . , . ., _ .
, .. � ... . . � � ..
. � . . . , , ,� ,, .
. . ;,. . : �. . .; :. .
. � .� . . , . . . . . . . ., , ,� ,��.
,. , . ,. . ., , „ :. , �, : . . .
.,..�, _.� . . ,� . . . , �.7. . .. , . . . . .`
�
� ������
����°°��^��UO CITY OF SAINT P L
_`,`°itr o�i!.
°�° ='��, OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
��
;e a;
;� ii�iiiii ''
-,,,.� „�� BUREAU OF RECORDS
�'`�,, �..• ' 386 City Hall,Sairtt Paul,Minnesota 55102
��immvv.°��\`
612-298-4231
GEORGE LATIMER RECEIVED
MAYOR
NOV 3 �:,► 1981
CITY ATTORNEY
November 24, 1981
Mr. Ed Starr
City Attorney
Room 647, City Hall
Dear Sir:
The City Council today, after public hearing, voted to deny
the appeal of Bob Janecek to a decision of the Boaxd of Zoning
Appeals to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of a change
of nonconforming use to permit a package delivery service at
1759 Selby Avenue. Neither Mr. Janecek or his representative
appeaxed at the public hearing and it was noted that a group
of residents was present in the Council Chambers in opposition
to Mr. Janecek's proposal. Will you please prepaxe the
necessary resolution confirming this action.
Very truly yours,
��
Albert B. Olson
City Clerk
ABO:la
O
` ' � c� / ��U�1'.�yE
, , �
�
�,,��t==o.• CITY OF SAINT PAUL
�o� 'a DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�uu um ,
r m �i Q
-,,;! ^ DIVISION OF PLANNING
.,..
25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102
GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4151
MAYOR
November 17, 1981
Albert Olson
Room 386 City Hall
Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102
RE: Zoning File #8985 - Bob Janacek
City Council Hearing: November 24, 1981
Dear Sir:
This letter is written in response to the appeal of Bob Janacek of a decision of
the Board of Zoning Appeals to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of a
change of nonconforming use to permit a package delivery service in an RT-1
(two family residential ) zoning district. The property is located at 1759 Selby
(NW corner Selby and Wheeler). The appeal pertains only to the north 52' of the
building, which is zoned RT-1 . The south 109' of the building is zoned B-3
(general business); a package delivery service is a permitted use in Q-3. The
garage doors, the main access to the building, are located in the RT-1 portion
of the building.
On September 8, 1981 , the Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on
the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. 7 letters were received in
opposition; and 3 letters were received in support. Testimony was heard from 5
neighbors in opposition to the appeal and 2 neighbors in support. The Board
voted 4-0 to deny the appeal on the finding that the Planning Commission made
no error in their decision to deny the change of nonconforming use. The Planning
Corrr�nnission's denial of the change of nonconforming use was based on testimony
presented at the Zoning Committee's public hearing regarding illegal parking of
vehicles associated with the business and traffic congestion caused by the
business. These violations made the proposed package delivery service inconsistent
with the health, safety, morals , and general welfare of the community and incon-
sistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property.
This appeal is scheduled for a public hearing on November 24, 1981 . Please
notify me by November 23 if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides
of the site presented at the hearing.
Sincerely,
CC����. � •
Donna M. Daykin
City Planner, Zoning Section
DM D/cc
Attachments
O
: .
r s � �t'�����
city of saint paul
board of zoning appea�s resolution
zonir�g f�ie number 898z _ � .
date September 22, 1981 � •
WNEREAS , BOB JANECEK has applied for an administrative review under the
provisions of Sections 64 ,206(1 ) and 62.102 , Subd, 5�5) of the Saint Pau1
Legislative Code , of the decision of the Planning Conunission to deny a
- chanoe of nonconforming use permit for praperty located at 1759 Selby in
an RT-1 zoning district; and
W;'EREAS, the Saint Paul Board of ZoningrAppeals conducted a public hearing on
September 8, 1981 , pursuant to said appeal in accord�nce with the requirements
of Section 64.204 of the Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board ef Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented
at tne public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes attached
hereto, made the following findincsof fact:
1 . The Planning Comrnission made no error in fact or procedure in their denial
of a change of nonconforming use.
NOtJ, THEREtORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning I�ppeals that
i�n�Gr �u�hnrity of the Cit.y �s Lzo�slative Code, Ch�p�er 64.206, tF�e appeal of
the Planning Coru-iission's decision to deny a cnange of noncen�orming use oermit
for property at 1759 Selby be denied, in accordance with the application for
appeal attached hereto.
moved by MS , Sumrr;ers Decisions of the Board of Zoning
Appeals are final subject to appeal
s e c o n d e d by Mr. Peterson _ to the City Council within 30 days
in favo r by anyone affected by the decision.
6
� against o
� �
� ,
222-4433
j J� � �f lLOW .
�(.EC�t.13 G��t� C�. C��
C O. P.o. Box 44s7
� St. Paul, Minn. 551a4
Bus. Office 644-7gpp
100% ST. PAUL ASSOC1�filON
August 10, 1981
Board of Zoning Appeals
City of St. Paul
' Courthouse
" St. PaLl, Mn 55102
In respon�e to the �ttached letter, I wish to appeal the decision of the Planning
Ca��mission regarding the property at 1�59 Selby Ave. I base this ar^eal o;, the
� followina: •
1. The Staff Report recomriended approval of our request with certain conditions.
T7ese conditions have been adhered to in all cases. (See attached)
2. The Zoning Commzttee based their denial on the testimony of two witnesses
who were concerned with the past activity of the taai business ��hich is
in no way �ssociated with the package delivery business. There ras been
no illegal parking associated with this building.
3. The decision of the Supreme Court regarding the use of this property does
not prohibit a packaoe delivery business. (See attached)
I very m�ch appreciate your consideration in this matter. If you have �ry questions
you may reach me a� 644-7819.
S i r..e�ex e 1 y,-___ .
/� ' - /
C '\
\�' �� ����-t�w/� '
�I" .,
, Bob Janecek
v
-—_ . � r � '�•: .:r. % E wv �
� � .. - _ .. . V s� l c ._, i n _.:L�.1.�.�J�
' -- "'_'— I
` . � � � �'���"��
I�iINUTES OF ThE P1EETING OF TNE aOARD OF ZO�IIPJG APPEALS IN
CITY COUNCIL CHA,`•16ERS, ST. PAUL , P1IP�PlESOTA, SEPTEMBER 3, 1981
PRESENT: Mmes . Morton and Summers ; ,Messrs . Kirk and �!oods of the Board of
Zoning Appeals ; Pir. Segal , Assistant-��ity Attorney; ��s, Lane of
the Division of Housing & Buildinq Code Enforcement; Ms . 6eseman, �
t�ls . Daykin, N�s , h1cNeally, and Ms. Von Mosch of the Planning '
Division Staff. �
ABSEi�T: Messrs . Grais , Osborn, and Peterson.
. , ihe meeting was chaired by Gladys t•1ortan, Chairman.
008 JAP�ECEK (18985) : Administrative P.eview of the Planning Corrunission's
oenial of a cnange of nonconforming use .to operate a parcel delivery service
. located at 1755 Selby. '
The �ppellant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing.
Nis . Daykin showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report wi�h a
recor���iend�tion for denial . Seven letiers were received in opposition ,
District 13 submitted a le�ter in opoosition , and one letter received in
support.
5i11 Frank , attarney representing t�ir. Janecek, reported that it is the appellant's
position that the Planning Commission erred in denyino his reauest for a chanae
i-: noncorformino use. They are alleqing specifically that they erred in the
1_�.
fc�l �towing resoects : �I j ine ciecision is �����Cr•.a��y i.o I:OTi:iGii sense, cu�����ar�; ;,�
factors that are significant in decisions of �his nature. (2) They feel that
the decision is contrary to Section 62. 102 of the Ordinance which prescribes
�he elements t��hich have to be shown for a nonconforming use to be perpetuated.
(3� They reel the Planning C�rrrmission applied the wrong Ordinance section as its
basis . He then addressed each of these points briefl,y. The building involved
has b�en in place for many years and has been used entirely for comnercial
purposes boih berore and after the Comprehensive Zoninq Ordinance was enacted.
The zoning boundaries that were designated by �he 1975 Zoning Ordinance divided
ihe �roperty in less than one-half; two-thirds being 106' on the southerly
� ` sec�ion which is zoned B-3, and the r�ar portion of the building zoned RT-1 .
They fe21 tnis is zn erroneous arrival at a zoning boundary. The garaae doors ,
the main access to ±he building , are located in the northerly portion that
which is inappropriately zoned RT-l . The second area they feel an errar was
made relate to the Planning Commission's application of Section 62. 102, Subd.e(5) .
The factors that were listed in the staff findings ar�d at ihe hearino that
originally took place support a concl��sion that each of the eler�ents listed fin" that
section were met by Mr. Janecek and that he is en�itled to a change of noncon-
fcrming use. The former use of the property was a battery warehouse. It is
their position that traffic generated in storaoe and removal of batteries far
exceeds the kind of traffic that will exist inya pac�cage delivery service,
ti�rhich will have 3 employees and 3 truc�s , will operate wi�h limited hours from
7:00-9:00 a.m. and 5:00-6:00 p.m. , and will have loa�in� of vehicles only in
the interior of the building. Tris proposed use is far more compa�ible than
� the battery warehouse and on that basis they feel the Planning Comr�ission erred
in arriving at �heir findino. He stated tnat the �inal �oint appears to be
that apparently it is the opinion of the Planning Cem�rission that the operation
of a package delivery service will somehow create a condition that will adversely
�
BOB JA�r'ECEK (�8985) PaQe 2
affect the welfare and �he safety of the surroundino cor,nr,unity. They submit
that this is without foundation. There is no basis for conciudinq that
because a truck drives into a garage , is loaded, and leaves that this will
create an additional hazard in a mixed business/residential neighborhood. �
They feel that the Planning Corrmission considered the ti�rong section of the _
Ordinarce in dealing with this matter, the section that applies to property
. where a nonconforming use has not been in existence for more than 365 days.
It is the appellant's opinion that another section of the statute, section 3,
is more appropriate since it is, his position that there has been a continuinc
nonconforming use or the premises up to the present date. Mr. Frank then
" presented 2 residents to testify in support.
Susan Boeltl , 1744 Dayton , stated that the trucks from the package delivery
service are not creating any any problems for the neighborhood; the trucks
are not rushing through, they are very seldom seen.
Terry Cotter, 1744 Dayton, testified that the neighborhood is a lot safer
with a com�ercial business located there as opposed to residential . He has
never seen more than 2 trucks at the packaae delivery service; they are
there early in the morning from approximately 3:00 until 8:00, they leave and
do not arrive back to the area until around 6:00 in the evenina. He also
stated that they d� load inside the building and if they have parked on t�;heeler,
it has been �or a very short period of time.
Mr. Segal suggested that the Eoard may want to in�uire from tfr. Janecek
�s ±n his rat�e^=? of 41�!v hP f�e?s t�?t t�? «se of thF property .has not b�en
discontinued. also, �it is relevant that the �estinony shows he has been
operating the bus iness withou� havina tne permission oranted , and in a memo
irom Gene Lauer io Glern Erickson dated August 5, 1981 , st�ted that there
were 6 Yellow Cabs parked inside the building on Auoust 5 which would be in
violaiion of both the injunction and the City Council findinos .
his . Morton then asked P1r. Janecek to address those points .
Mr. Janecek stated that it is his understanding iP�a� the bakery was in the
, building until snortly prior to P�1ay of 1°6°. At that time the battery ware-
house purchased the building and operated somethinq called Romax �utomotive
t�Jar2nouse from the building. The only nonconforming use associated 4�rith P,or�ax
was in the north portion of the building, tne part that is zoned RT-1 . 6attery
Glarenouse moved their oaeration and was goinv to sell to a company called
Hea�'n 'Glow who k�as going to do manufacturirg in the total building. They
applied `or a nonconforming use or change in zoning to aliow manufacturing
which was no� granted. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Janecek purchased the building
from battery warehouse.
Mr. rrank corrnented that the records should reflect that the battery warehouse
was operating with a certi�icate of occupancy and that certificate expired in
tfarch , 1981 . It was operating up until the date they sold to f•1r. Janecek
un er that certificate of occupancy.
M�r. Janecek testified tha� there are no licensed taxicabs parked in the garage.
There are yellow vehicles which have been removed from taxicab service which
' presently belong to him and are for sale.
< .
BOB J�;PdECEK (1'8985) Page 3
Mr. Frank reported that the operation of a packaqe delivery service is a
permitted use in the front section of the building, so to the extent �f�hicn
they are operating fram that section , they do not feel it is in violation.
It is a fact that they did use the rear section_ of the building , so to that •
extent it would have been in violation. Ne added that the Zoning �
�dministrator's Office indicated it was likely approval �,�ould be given.
_ He then presented two statemen�s signed by residents of the area in sup�ort. .
Debbie Zenker, 1758 Dayton , testified that there are definitely more �han
3 vehicles with the delivery bus,iness and they are not loading inside tne
. building. There is at least one delivery truck that is storecl inside the
� buildin�. She stated that the building has also served as a haven for
children to hang out.
Ivan Zenker, 1758 Dayton , stated that prior to when P1r. Janecek moved in�o
the building there was very little trouble with the battery warehouse.
Tne new business at this location is more detrimental than the old one.
They park on the sidewalk, load and sort packages on the sidewalk, and the
vehicles are sometimes parked up to a week on the street when they ��on't
start: In addition , he stGted that in Sectian 62. 102 v;nich setforth the
provisions governing nonconrorming uses sta�es that the intent will be to
not encourage their survival .
6ob McCartny, 1776 Daytan reported that it has been portrayed that there are
just a few neighbors in opposition. It is not just a couple of residen�s ; it
is the entire neighborhood. The reason they are opposed is because
��ir. �anec:ek has repeated�ly �nu �e i �i berate�y moved i r�tu o r�s i c����i,ia � �i�:,,:�L�� -
neod, has made no effort wha�soever to get along with then, and rnade no effort
�o improve his property. l,'hen the place was a battery warehouse, once in
awhile a big ser;i would come and cnload and �t that time they did use the
far side loading dock entrarce. Occasionally a van would come around to pick -
up� a few parts and drive off. When I�ir. Janecek m�ved in the Yellow Cab
business , ii took the neighborhood 1� years and a Supreme Court decision to
gei him to comply. The Supre;�e Court, the District Court, and the City Council
ordered those vehicles out of tnat neighborhood because tnEy represented a
nuisance. If Yellow Cabs represent a nuisance, wha� will big trucks do.
� • 'h'hen s�aff origi na l ly recoru-��nded approval of the noncon�ormi ng use , they
se�for�h conditions and it ��as sFown that those conditions ti��ere not beinq r;et.
He stated thatt-ucks do not just drive into the building and drive out as it
seems to be presented, they sart packages early in the morning , throu,h the
open garage doors , making all kinds of noises , and load on the boulevard.
Susan Ode, 1752 Dayton , testiTied that they are not trying to harass the
appellant , they are just saying that the nuisance that a11 these bodies have
`ound occurring in that neighborhood are probably a result of that neiehSorhood.
It is a very small conjested neighborhood that just cannot take a lot more
vehicles because of the nature of the neighborhood and the na�ure of the
business that has been put in there , She also mentioned tnat the certificate
of occupancy that had expired on March 31 , had not expired but was revoked
on T1arch 31 and there is no current certificate of occu�ancy and there never
has been one since the taxicab business was ruled out of order, She stated
tnat the previous use was quite definitely different. The parcel delivery
service is a day to day service and apparently it is inconvenient to drive
into the garage because they do use �he streets as a loadin� zone which did
not occur with the battery warehouse business .
� , /
BOB JA�JECEK (�'4985) Page 4
Betty McLaughl i n, 491 Oti s , representi ng t�ierri am Park Cor��nuni ty Counci 1 i n
District 13, read a letter from the Council stating their o�position and
strongly recommended denial of the appeal . _
Ms. Morton asked the appellant to address the question of the delivery .
service being at least as compatible to the neighborhood as the warehouse.
� Mr. Janecek stated that in discussing ti�is matter with the Presi�ent of the �
•• battery warehouse service, he indicated that in peak ooeration they had some-
where between 10 and 12 employees in �he building who oarked their cars on
- the street. They rarely loaded their trucks inside the building, they.
loaded them across the sidewalk or at the driveway entrance. It was his
opinion �hat trucks would enter and leave the establ �shment at 7east 20
times a day. Mr. Janecek commented that he could procure a letter from
� him stating that, �
hir. Frank concluded that the package delivery service is permitted in the
southerly 106' of the buildina and they are only talking about changing the
u5e relative to the rear 52 feet. He stated that there were no citations
issued to Mr. Janecek by any governnental authority relating to any violation
of any of the court orders which indicates his good faitn in attempting to
perform as the court instructed.
Ms . Suriarers asked f�1r. Janecek i f he ovrned the del i very trucks?�
;�r. Janecek cor�nented �hat many or their vehicles are owned by independent
- ll�.JCI�Gl.l�1 .. rlilt t.fldl i1C (NUU {l1 lJe Ili(ilfiil�t'�J � I arly' C. i „G��i:i�.�, 'vrci'c�. 1.�.':iLC� ..'v � � . .
any of the people ownin� the trucks .
He�ring no furtner testimony, ys . Piorton closed the public hearing portion
of the meeting.
f�r. Woods made a .motion to deny the appeal based on `�ndings 3 and 4 of the
staff report. h1s. Suruners seconded the motion. The motion passed on a roll
call vote o� 4 to 0.
' Submitted by: Approved by: r _
� ,
���. m � ; ✓` ���. :�-�
�� �
Donna M. Daykin �Gladys Mortan , Chairman
' . ' 8�05
.' , . ZO'�'ItvG STAFF REPORT $923
nrr�
V
8558
1 . Ar^PLICnP�T: BOB JAh�ECEK DATE OF HEAP,ItdG g/�/°1
2, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CUR�EnT PLANNING & ZO►�ING COt���r��ITTEE BOARD OF ZOtvInG APPEALS
Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑
Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative RevieH� 0
Geterr�ination of Similar Use ❑ -� Other ❑
Ci�ange o` Nonconforming Use Q
Other
3. LOCATION: 1759 Selby (t�orthwest corner Selby and Wheeler} .
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Except N. 67 ' of,Lot 1 and all of Lot 28, Block 3, Skidmore & Cassedy's
Park Addition.
5. FRESENT ZO�dI1vG: B-3 & RT-1 ZOt�IP,G CODE REFERENCE: Sections 64.206(1 ) & (5,102 Subd.S,
6. S7�;FF Ir,VESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE 8�28/81 BY Donna M. Daykin
�:
A. PURPOSE� Administrative Rev�ew of the Planning Commission 's denial of a change of non-
confarming use to operate a parcel delivery service in an RT-1 district.
B. PA,RCEL SIZE: 53' on Selby x 170' on Wheeler - 9 ,010 square feet.
C. SI7E 8 AREA CORDITIO�S: The site is occupied by a single story brick commercial
structure built in 1911 and set close to the lot lines . Surrounding land uses include
1 and 2 family residential fronting on Dayton north of the site, a 7-unit apartment
building east of the site, a single ramily residence adjacent to the site to the vrest,
and a mixture of commercial and residential uses fronting on Selby to the east, south,
and west of the site.
D. ZO�dING HISTORY: On July 10, 1°81 , the Planning Commission denied a change of nonconforming
use request to permit a packaqe delivery service in the RT-1 portion of the building
(north 52. 16` ) . ihe denial was based on testimory given at the Zoning Committee 's public
hearing regarding illegal parking of vehicles associated with the business and traffic
conaestion cnused by the 6usiness whicn made the proposed package delivery service
inconsistent with the health, safety , morals , and general welfare of the community and
inconsistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property.
� ' On April 8, 1°20, the Board of Zoning Appeals considered an administrative review of
the �onine Administrator's decision to certify zoning compliance `or an auto repair
station at 1759 Selby. The appellants , Ivan and Debra Zenker, contended that the
Zoning adn�inistrator erred in his interp►-etation of Section 64.1�1 �•�hich authorizes
the Zoning Administrator to certify zonin� compliance for uses not specifically
meniioned in the B-3 zone; that the matter should have been reviewed by the Plannina
Commis�sion under the "Dete�°mination of Similar Use" section; and that the Zoning
Administrator erred in certifying a taxi cab operation as an auto repair sta�ion.
The B�oai°d of Zoning Appeals upheld the ?oning Adminsitra�or's decision to certify
zonino compliance �er the property. The decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals was
appealed to CiZy Council . The City Council held a public hearing on h1ay 7, 1980,
�•;hei°e the Council reversed the decision of the Soard of Zoning Appeals and granted
the appeal .
The Zoning Administrator notified Robert Janecek to discontinue use of the property
for storage, parking or dispatching of taxicabs . Mr. Janecek refused to discontinue '
opera�ion of the business until ordered by a court to do so. The District Court
denied a motion to issue a temporary injunction to stop the operation and set a trial
date of Rovember 24 , 1920. On January 14, 19a1 , District Court Judge Harold Schultz
offirmed the City Council 's determiantions and'ordered P4r. Janecek to discontinue use
�� of 17�9 Selby as a taxicab business . Or. 1�1arch 1 ?, 1981 , the District Ccurt heard
Janecek ' s request for a delay in the enfercement of the �njunction to allo��� Mr. Janecek
• time te relocate the business . ihe Court allo���ed h1r. Janece�: to continue to operate the
radio dispatching , administrative functions , and telegram delivery services ui�til f"�ay 15,
19�1 .
'•';r. J�necek appealed the District Court 's order of January 14 , 1981 , to the ��innesota
Supre�•:�.e Court. The .�':innesota Supren;e Court delivered an opinion on July 31 , 1�81 ,
�
zf;� rming tne Dis�r-ict Court s order insofar as it "proh�bits �he arrival , departure,
r,;,rl:ing , or stcrage of taxicabs cr� the pren�,ises or on �he streets adjacen� thereto;
�,�ovi�ed , hot�;e�:er, �r�a� this arFi;-�.��nce is �:�itnout pre;udice to appeilants ' riqht to
;�c,-,_...
-. s::cr; oir�er activities on �heir premi�es as are perm,itt2d by existing zenino
:. ..� !':�f"iCES . . . �� .
---- . - �
� . � ������
BOB JANECEK ( ,'-`8°85) STAFF REPORT Page 2
D. ZOt�ING l�iSTORY CO��lT ' D.
The south portion of the lot was zoned commercial from 1922 until 1975, when it
was designated B-3. The north portion of the lot was zoned "B" Residence from 1922
until 1975, vrhen it was designaied RT-1 .
E. ZOPlIfdG CODE CITATION: Section 64. 206(1 ) states :J "Administrative review: To hear
and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in
any order, requirement, permit decision, or refusal made by the zoning administrator
and any other ��ministrative official in carrying out or enforcing any provisions of
this code or that there is an error in anv fact or procedure in any o�°der, require-
ment, permit, decision or refusal , made by the planning commission in carrying out or
enforcing any provisions of this code.
Section 62. 102 , Subd. 5, (5) states : "When a nonconformino use of a structure, or
structure and land in combination, is discontinued or ceases to exist for 365 days ,
the structure, or structure and land in -combination, shall thereafter be used in
conformance w�th the regulatior�s of the district in which it is located, unless the
planning commission, pursuant to a public hearing, finds that the structure, or
structure and land in combina�ion, cannot reasonably or economically be used for a
conforming purpose, that the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate
to the district than the previous nonconforming use, and that the proposed use is
consistent with the health , safety, morals , and general welfare of the community and
is consistent with the reasonable use and enjoymer�t of adjacent property. "
F. FI�DIPdGS:
l . The property has split zoning: the south 109.16' of the structure is zoned 6-3
and tne north 52. 16' of the building is zoned RT-1 . Since a package delivery
service is a permitted use in a 6-3 zone (60. 542(5)), the appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of a change of nonconforming use pertains only to the RT-1
portion of the building.
2. The Planning Commission 's denial of the change of nonconforming use request was
based on testimony given at the Zoning Committee's public hearing regarding illegal
parking of vehicles associaied with the business and traffic conqes�ion caused by
the business . These violations made the proposed package delivery service
incensistent with the health , safety, morals , and general welfare of the community
cnd inconsistent ��aith reasonable enjoymeni of adjacent property.
3. The appellant basis his appeal on three points :
(1 ) "The staff repor-t recomr�ended approval of our request �,�ith certain conditions .
Ti�ese conditions have been adhered to in all cases . "
Qne of the conditions of the staff recommendation required no parkinq on the
boulevard or street. According to neighbors of the site, illegal parking
on the boulevard and street has occurred repeatedly. Police r�cords on the
number of calls received on parking viola�ions at 1759 Selby veri2y this.
Police records indicate 24 calls on parkin9 violations at 1759 Selb,y over
the past year as compared to 4 Ca11s `oY' parking violations 1 block away
at the intersection of Selb,y and Fairview. Five of the 24 calls have been
received since June l , 1981 .
� (2) "The Zoning Committee based their denial on the testimony of two witness�s
who were concerned ��ith the past activity of the taxi business wn;;ch is in
. no way associated ��,�ith the package delivery business . There has been no
illegal park,ir��.�.s.s:a.�� bt�i�l.d��r�g:,�
A,qain , nei�hbors of the site and police reco►�ds indicate that this is not
ti°ue.
(3) "T'r,e decisicn of the Supreme Court regarding the use of this property does
not prohibit a package delivery business. "
. The Supreme Court ' s order affiirmed the " . . .appellant ' s ri�ht to conduct
activities on their premises as are permitted b_y existing zoning ordinances . . . " .
Since a pockage delivery service is not a permitted use in an RT-1 zone, the
order of the f•1innesota Supreme Court does no� permit operation of a parcel
delivery service in the RT-1 portion of tne huil�inc;.
` . ; t a�pears �nat the Planning Comr,�ission r�ade ro error ir fact cr procecure in their
�lt'ri?c i Cr e C�'icliOE Or f1011CGt1f01"^1llla USE. _ �
:. ` -. � . ��i;'•," ,"'`�i';��� FcS�� 0.'1 i1flG�1!1qS S dfiC� � , Staif 1'eCOi^. !EI1�5 deni„� Or ihE c�rEc� .
. ..., . _ _ _ .:___. . ' _ :,._,... _
_ ,�l ./���°-�''� ,
F
p-- -�u— �C.�` �� c�. ��v� 'i�l�i� -` ! �
��..` � � � : \�,���.:���x (�, � 9� �
�
1 -
l�» �n -- Z �i � --4 {�'
�
;
�� , � ;
� .
;� Q��Y1 G,l ( �• _: i
Z� ;
i
• - i
,
�r �� c�� � � ��C -1 � c;'' o '�' �� �� �'� � I
, �
�'--C ll �C L- 1
��,5 U . '�,�S l 1'� Q� ��C�( �� t � '� I
�� � � �
C s� �� �( S G���, C-��.�2 , �
� � �-�5.�,��- 1� -�
. � �--- �
� S � ;s i 5 �. �c�.L�rez.c�� � ��n cE.
�
.� � ��c�...� ,
� �
�.,"�, �w►�,����-� �� � � i 5 �- � ._.---T � � ;
� i �S ;l1 0 ��s' t �4�
�-�-v'-��,� S o�� �i.�4 �i t� . ���e�c-�- �
� � �� � ��
�6 �� � ���— �'1 ��51 � `, , �
�—� f—f
�� e�'���� �� ` ° c:S�� F �,��-� ��rt��
� r LJ C�-�--�Z• C-�.C� C�-z.� � v..L
���`� i� � �- _
��'s ��� �� , ;�-z,,,�-e,, ��-�'�.
� �� � �, �,a�� �
�,v� -;�r��� h� ` �-�'�� �-�— ��`'
c �,r-�.��cYi �,u_°. �'� 'v ��`���.
c�-�.'--C�, �1!r"`-'� '.�.."�.. rl c�.��,�� �. �c�ti�'� �(
r ..L E,r-Lc vi�� ! Yl �� � 1 Yl �'`7 �.C,' � ) �
` � � � � `����
� � �o���� �� �
��` ��- �✓� `� ' -�.�� s ���-v�-�
. ,� � w �('�,�''L`-�'
. , �....�� � C° l �-�- �' `� n /
C.a � �` `��(' ���
`� , ��,. �
�
. - ������� �����.��� ���
�
. � .
5/.ItE AS ABLE TR�?/TIMC CA. � .
C��C�S S���i01��RY S(lTTElAtS CERT[F�C�►'�ES
1747 Selby Ave.Nz.Fai..-view Ss:..-tt Paul,Mn. 551C4 �
� �
� Pho�e 646-5�s9 1
. �
� . ;��'�i P,� �
E�� ��
��.� . - :� �
�` . � ��aa � Y • �Y�������'-�-� ��.��=�
� � =� _ ->� � - � ..
: �� .� � ;.�-��: �, ���'���"����:��''� �.���=���� � ���.
.�
�� � 645•0349 • WILDER AT SAINT ANTHONY . SAtNT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55104
�t�'�. ��° _ .
�,� p���
August 31, 1981
t•is. Gladis ts.orton, Chair
Board of Zonina Appeals �
. 1100 City Y.all Annex
2S tti'est Fourth Street
St. P�ul, I�iinnesota 55102
Re: File r8985
Dear i•?s. I•lorton: �
The '�9errian Park Comnu*�ity Council voted ur.animously to oppose �"_r . Bob Janacek 's
appeal of the Fla�nino Com,-nittee 's decision to d�ny his reauest for a change of
non-confor:�ing use in an RT-1 zor.e.
The !�ierri�m Park Co�munity Council contir,ues to support the area residents in
their o�position to this change of no�-conforning use for the followir.g reasons:
1) The Co;:ncil has bc-en repeatedly ir.formed of the illegal parking
- of vehicles associated with the p�ekage delivery service. Therefore
we b2lieve the conditions set forth in the Planning staff's
previovs report to the currer,t Zoninc �no Planning Ca;r,nittee
would be violated.
2) The Pla�ning Co��ittee is correct in its assessment that the
packaoe delivery service is incons_stent with the health, s�fety,
morals, and ceneral welf�re of the cor.lmunity, and inconsistent
. with the reasonabl� enjoy:nent of adjacent property. The St. Paul
City Council 's previous culings are in agreenent witn the
PlanninG Co*,�:��ittee 's deci=io*:.
.Sj i'aC i7211eVE 1'� 1S i;ti�iI0�2T d;i"u' a c:ierri;nen't t0 L.'le CO:TuiNi;lt; WiiCil
a business, which i= in clear violation of the Zoning Ordinance
• �nd court orders, is �llowec to continve to operate.
4) The District i3 Plan stetes that the Yelloti� Cab building nusiness
is incor:;�atible with the neighborhood, and that it should be
relocated to aliow for a more co;�:�atible business.
5) That the 17innesota Suprene Court's decision did not acdress the
uses allowed i;� the RT-1 zoned portion of i759 Selby. RGther , it
o�ly dealt with t;�e taxicab business.
61 That r;r. J�nacek' s first stated use of 1i5° Sel�y coas that of an
auto repair shop, not a pack�ce delivery service.
7) That the use as a package delivery service of the portion of 1759
Selby presently zoned RT-1, w�ich is a chanoe fro� the previous
noa-co:�for;ning use as a warehouse, is more incompatible to t'r,e
_...__. ., �_. __._�- ..�� .�.. �...�.. _..�._...���.....- � --�.-....,........+.+�-,�..._ --- — .u� — -.d....�.�. .�...�saCtii' +�-�e
� � ' ��d��,�'s"��
P�X �
;� t.,:���.•,� I�r �:i��Y CO;��Ehn,; .
I ] iv�, in t:,e n��i�l�l�c�rhood of i•�neeler -;�� Selby . ' I �;�� c]�'JGre of Ye11ow
�a�' s �u�iness thcre . For the last eio,ht months t':�eir operu��on has
k�een r,uiet ���ith no aqcruv,.�tion to an_y neighLors. �:lso there has 'r�een
no L�aL�: ing �robl�ms associated �a�th their bus�nes�.. I feel th�
o»er::tion of a ���ckarn uelivery husii,ess frcm �l;e '.�uilding at t�,e
ccrn�r of ���necl`r S Selb�� �,�ould no� harm the r,eic�:��orhood ir� �:-:v way•
� � ,���� �� -L �
�j�-�/�.��',� C.`'-�--,ti� � �,'�.5
l 01 �
� �
. �. � � � �
. � ��� i .
._. _ . _.. . _----- --_ _ .. v . __.`_.__..._ .r . ....._.._..�, - -- - ._..�_.__ ._ `.-�:..�y.�:rt..�,�-a_.
'�0 t•'}iU'�9 IT l�;??1 COl•;C��RN: .
I li�:�� in �.n� neinr:�orr,00d of i•�heeler -�- Selb}%. I a:n a�:�are of Ye'_ io�•�
C�h� S :�US11lC'SS thcre . For ti;E? ZuSt eight mont;"i5 �1'?Elr O:��rG�lOfi �7aS
been cuiet ��rit'; no ag�,rav�tian to any neiqhbors. �l�o there ha:: L�een
no t��ikinU -::ohler:s associntec with their busir.ess . I feel tne
o��cration �;+- �. p�ckace deli�cry busine=s fro:�, the bu�ld�r.g at �;�,e
Cl%C;lE1 Ut �'�?�C'E��Y �G Selby �•JOL11C . 11c�� har;n the ne?a'-:borh000 11'l u"'- '.l'.� �,'aY.
�`,� - -
� �
�;',i� � �.����2�� j ��7 S S .� � �°� c�'�� �`; � �
. �
. /,
i'�'
, . ._ . i / �
. _' _J'— . . . .i, , .
/
rr'�� � .% � .� ,'- �i �- L. `�J/�J/ a�( �,-\...+� ��i
. ' �:)�,� I i . . ' _ _G � . i. _ " / � I
,:�- _ __ • 4,-'--- �/� - i
< —J �.. . l, V� " ' � � �.... �
� ' �~ i..0:-a. J!��y ;.✓%.:�. �... ..__.�C` .J ✓,� ' ..._ I
�' \ ' I
r �
i
v��_ �... `� �- t'�i .
� ' 1
/ �' ' . �� -i-i.-: ti: �C,�-� �i .. � r ,� �
,_�r _t. . .. , i .
1
, �''✓_ . ._ _ �_.�� •/ -�s�� - ' .C'` � _ - i; '�.
- - --i' - •
'�-�t,L ` - - - "'--� '� ` , i�': i' � -�`[.`,�.-
. _ _ ,. � _ -_ ��'` - _ _ _. L.
'- • --
i �-,� ,. , _
'..,/'L,l-.. . -- •- ...'��`�t L .,,, ,_, ��. �i.- �.1--' , - _- . . .,,� �. �. �,. "
/` ` ,_,. /l"i� � ..�_�:—�. ' • .
_ .•,_ _
j! � _ _�-�/ �':� _ � �> i '/ �.>... _ �t
. .�- ;;J �c.' ��.�' �- ' `'� � c-L '�v _ .� i�, � i
i ,•' '
. � �..! � . .-
_ —i-� . ..- � . - •'/� ' i, i `_ ,_,�•���`.+—.' .
` _ _ � i.�=j .. /i`,' ".1'�,t . �r-i�-.� i��!:� / _ . '_ �i /�:- • _ _ . ��.
.l� • r�- ' ' � ,�/ � - `�j /. .�f�C i-� :� .
���..� "/L.`_rC- _ '�/ �� ` ! � �� . -�.. . _ . .�� -��
., ' �.
•-.�-L- , - . � "_ r _C_. � ��.;_,. . �� �� :.._ -�-- '%��I ,!/ `
_ �`^ —�
�:..- . ;�_ ��.i'"�.�`= _ '-• — �" .. �� � _-.`�L� ,t�t��_ '�--'•�- .
- ��
- :
• , .. `. �,
. ,
/� �� ��` -- =��'-
_ ' �
,�" _ �:`_.
�,` , _ - .. .. �..�._ .. " ,
' :/:
• %' __ � ` �.=�--
/ !" '�. � � �j~
• i! �--.
, - --� • ,i � ♦
. _ . .l•- . . . _. , � . .
/
��' ; . .� ��� ` ���'�.. `��`_ ��:, .
... �� i� . •� / L G'i. a _i ._ � / _ .
� 1'`' �•' ._ I
' -J _. � ..-_�' � 4`�-- - .!f,,__ _ � �
, �� C-C t.a. /J�1�� .'r i�.`�_ ... f C�. :_j �j/,C— — _� i
-� � — �
�
/ �
�`J_ %v � J 4. �-%\1./ . .
�, . ♦ 1
� _ f� �
_� _4- .� _._ , �� -C -l-� �'� :-� i . � � . I �
, j_: � _ '_' �•` r " L '`..
� __i✓ .. '_ _.1� ���. .. .-' .�i.� - -- ._ .
r % ' •
,!� '�-^ � - ' �'-'� l i . i�.�.. �' � . .'/��•:- - .
. . � - _ � � _ "' ��' ,- ' . . . . -- : .
r-, . __ %� . . � r � �
/...
'�j�L,l-.. � •- ' .�,��:_.LL ,... ._. �� �C. �.1-"" . - -- .�'�-'- �:���- �..
� /i ` ���. .. /C.t` . ..i_��. ' �.
_ _ .�:.-
'�, ��� .L.- '/ �' �.✓ l'.,.!'�-1 �' t �� ��.� j'`/� �� ./ . _ - ��ti .
/ � "
� l ' �, . r .�` ' . '
� _,". . _ , " ./:�J�` /y � l_. � �"� tJ�.. .
� _ �i /•"'�/ � ��.�� _ .j lt /r.J�'�.t l� � � / i � i . _. . , ��.
'//t'�L `'� � �,✓, �! .� / ` "l . -.� . J� _ f , / �/ /'/_ `C � .
�. /�i
� ' �'�� �_ ��� r.� ..{� � �iL..l� �.� '_ ` `�1�" �,/ t.'�.�' � `�.
r `
',... ;�_ _t. `'=�= . • ` -- �� -, ., '�� -� _ .`L� ,i.::L��_ :�„_- .
-j.
� - i
. ,
�d. ,•'r C_< -- -=%l'
- i
,. - , .:t_.
�- _, _ - .. -. �.,...- ..
i . .
' i _ � �. , .i. �i�_
` I{.-,'
• / � v - �,�
� /�., ,. . , ��-/U���
/ '' -y�,. � � - .��.�.�
� %-i:.'�i:� /�'= ..i::�f =•� ,�� � , �� ��
,�
,i�' ��i.+�' �/,`/,/�y ��'� /// ���,— •/� / �
_ �i iti �- �.�
/ i,' ' r C(�i
—�.� � ��-�7£'�j'✓i��v„/ f��/✓_i✓• .
. �:�-�i:..�:/.%�r�j � � �✓"
� ,� , �/`,(`��"✓�✓��'✓%•;"✓✓T� /.�-.� f �
�,��/,•�� �jl � �{%-^L `-�✓,!., ./��.yJ,,,�/✓7✓' '�!� � .
;�,-� �r.� ��,� c�
i i��� -/'�'—L!'`Fr r .�-��� �' -�f�� ,
��� � r. ./ - / ��`'`, % ` ;
/�r f � /�i`.r—:�.-� --.r�-, :--L
_ ����.C.;� .:'/`•"� , (/`�� L•'�:.:.r CtJ✓�-�. e ;
; _ L%.L v �./'�'%� � t
.c��-w C-� ��l, ��-: ✓-�:...v�.-.� �
�� .,j ,��-'�✓fr!";�J,,,z- • i,✓� , {�
��.� �'�J I� � . /���� ;L./✓.��/�✓'.�
,�_.�..r:- ��v...�/_�.v�� � - 11-�...;� /✓��•-��
_��.����� /
f�,-,�.�--� ��-��Z�. ' , �/ � � I
� �,�-'�,� G� ���/...i./�'�'�.�i„c.� -
�'�-!'`;`�.. '� � -
,�--� -r:�..- .,--L—�-.C-c-z�-• `
'-' ".. �;�� �/-'�7'✓./ ',',��u_` ��� /.�/���r�- . .
_� //. �
�`J'� �!�' . ��"'(,/�f�-'L"v�
��✓(` , . `!,'�72.£,�'�✓ / � �
� ' �' t1' �.1' c , �/✓✓✓:/���-y.
/,J-��'.�C/'.J.:.�:.✓ F'=�!r—C. ��C .�.�.� r- , �: G rJ. r i� �'
•� R ;' ��;.✓ � ��r;� ��L�1�'..i
/i.,; �r''/�'i:.� !�' �'"..%_,e_ �.��� ; _ , �'`, -
�; ,�1.. ';`�EL.v��,�� o�,' f,�Cc.L,.l�:�1',.:;: t..
,i�,�`. G � ��/
/'L�'a "' " � _J' J /�y � Ll`f.%�r
�%. J�J�vI_� � `���J .f-r�./� / �
V/LrI�� I / l� � /� /✓'
�� �ti/� . ��L.l T'�; (�����I' . ' . .
!/
./�`-�'-'ti/L�''"i�T�✓✓. V � a.-�-- �� _ //�� ' �' .
�Jl.�� �:� �v�.' G�'��.� � .'t��.(/ L�'�{-Gti� �
i i .(%ir / /, � �, � .
,,.1 �.^-C:v::.� ./�i..:c:.C"(:�u-ct�' 7..1 ��-i.`C;i�^�y �-(::C
.,,.�.c:.�� _� `/ � � �
�t �Y � �/,..(,,,� �'ii�C.��z„�
,,C-t'. �`'�-C{-- �:t..ti., '�
�
� 9i-�, ����:�-u.-�� �� c�-
� o,,.,; , ,
��./�� :�,�c�i.:��L i �
�� �-.��:...�� j ��J��,`�.�- 7�,;:-�'-�"�-
�,��= �,���• � � � �-t- !�� . -
'�t�'.i..l-•✓.i �+L '����1/'Y.v ��� /%'�Ti . .
li �, .I/>'',�..� � �� . ,�, rj,- --1 ✓
/.�4��'J�'—t-`�v� =� �--��-. ✓��� ,. ✓,.T.,..(�'9�
��i'�✓�%✓i:..� • '� . .,i �
� - � /���.:1'��,/%a��lJ✓F��i
� � � .� /% /� � a .' -
�� 6 ���_
�;J� , �.J�.�
:�c;t� ��%i� C'�-C�--E_
/ i�G` i.� � �
, , �=���.�;-��/ �.j /�i �
, . � A� Jr,� � �
t'--�---� (.� �rc`7v'�",` ��,:/ '�:- C��
.J � / - - -- _ _
� t/ � � , L� ,�
c�� cL?�c� .�-�.�-�" �-.-�-�-�.�-�% !��T- �4;�-.rf��.
� �`
�2�i� �1/� �w � �-��'���J /�''-�-r'
`� �'�
� ��- , ���- r�.S"� ����� , i
�� � � '
^ -� �
�ti C�-�—''�.-� �'�".�—�`�-'2�"G"� �,�c /C� i
� .. �y �
?/../�� ./.�-,�"`-,-�,�--G�, .�/'-`rc� • �.,� r„ -� L1��`� i
�
� �
/ � �
�' �z��� [�-t.i L�t� .�-��',✓.�.� -�-�'� ��,�.��
.� � � � -�� , �
��, �. � ,r.�-�����. � , �� �...��.-.�
. . �
.�-�-���� ��� � �c- �!�<�..J�.�;��--,;�;
� � >. �, /r� �`
�.-��'�
t--n�� ' •�' . C�i'�--t-�--��� C%t-C•' L:, ��
� � J , � � _
�..:� �.,���-� ��-�-��-c� r ��; �� .��
, � ��
C�, � " ,�2.�' � '%�,c:����/'"
< c � _,c-c, ..�C.�/ c ��
- , , ��� �
�u.,..�C -�u� ���-,2.�. __.__
r/�• �l� �" �� �✓�./,/r`�
, - J �
�c,- � �t�� :.�.--Z,�t�.��-z,J .
� ��
; v
/�'� :��::�-�� ����'������'�'-� =�
/���'i C-2.���'�� ���Gi „ -� t���✓�".�-�-�t`,
�
� ���� � ���
� ,
r :.� � -
���'�.2 i�I,�,ff{; �7 �-���--f-�,;
/ � � _ �� .�f��
/� �.s" �'
� �
_�.�1 ���!-� /Z--�—�n�'
.. - �� c� '' ��rt2E�'�rJ�+Cc� c . _ _ ���4�,��
,�-,-, ; �g���� � , � - h c-� � c� � �.. ..
. ������� ,�
�
���::.�� �425 - ,
� �
;
� --�i� �i(�-t,..`-�_�� o• l'�n , c� N c G�}G,
C4.l.C� �
-�-z ��..-�o�d ''s � f-- `�' S <IP•�� 'r�cC�...
j S c d� � L i � � ... � .
� �� � _ ,
f'c.`_�� � d-�=ti-v.� � ��°L ���j�Y7bZr`�) � ;
�--� Q�� ;
�,�y �Yj�.�ti:� c��� �t?cL��L�--�v �'�r�� ,
( r� ��--�r ,t-1,L�� O C� `�'�� 1�C;�;'Yr'-�:v���C �
�< � � `�
. �i tT F Z -<-�`�"Z�� 4�n � �...�: �,(��-vc..�., ,
�� �� ;�o��: �, .��- ;
� �3:.��� c���� � � ,
� � � ������
c:�.� �� � n�-L'� �C,�� z"�� "� ';
'��( --�,c_ ��� d �'? C�.-� �4� �c�RS_�-L� ��3�_ ;
. > : � �
S.�-,� c�; ���-�-�. � � �' ���� � �` t S �
A �
'��1 E���ui_" c.�c� ��2����v=� KS �..�d-���S �'1Za1r�,
� .�,.J � 0p�� ��c,c-c,Q�s t.,�.s i � �-�- 5�:-�'��-- �-'�-
�l/� `�/�E a�' ��
- v�..�d� �'1 �;,{,�,�..�,� csZ�.� ��--�2....'U � 'l.�e..ti���-w�_
� � �
� �� c��.�'�-c� �== �j; `�cc.c-c1� �z--�.�S�1 S �'`S,
�'� � �,� r��°- � �- ����� �
o�-� d�v�i h'i�c.t�C—�� p/��
, � �-c� �_ � t c��t�� w�1e�c.�.�.�. r�."� `�, t S ► ���'
G;,,L� (��.t._� t � `� � �
`�'�� .C�o -aG-�-K �4����-v.)�� ��-= ���� �r �±Q- � '�-
,,,�� -�c, �-�- ��� �L�S�L�''t `'� o �_
�� �-�-- '� ,
�; .
�h Y3��S i S � °�� � w,.�r�n c�c��'�cc.�s'.C�C
� ( ` � � � ^ �����,�e. �
`���i`,� V C�'`-'J -�Ca t SF� C�/.���
':�� T" C�� ���`�e'�"�tl..c����l� ��"�fi �} ����3��Yu�..� �
C
_�,ut�a �� ��'���°-� C-�-�-- r� '��- ��
�-.-.. c��� ;��S s�--� n �;-� h�
� � � `�`c`.'"� �c 5� �'���.r.c._, C� �--E...�C�f�`-�
�-- �j� c�•��u.'FC�, �a �
��n`" ,`s,o �`,.�, -�i`�.- �.o c���'fi�Yl . ���c;2--�`�-
S�c,*� ��-- � \y!�-` � +.-�1��
� :.�i...�
� u
��� �� � • a ��e
. � ��,�������' � ����,��
. �
S�tY: �S A81f PRt1YTtMG C.O.
��R�JS ��T�Q�E4�Y BtIT�Qt�S C�PFIFtEA'f�S- . _ �
I7�7 Selbp Ave.It':. Fai�ieW Sai�t Faul.2tiLn.55204 - - � �
Phone 64-�-5069 ' ' � _ - _
, i=�-�.� � �cz�;�.� � -`-:�..� �� � ��.ti� 2, �5��/
z 5 uJ�.>,' , ' �L��-� ��'�!�"���
��'. ��,� , �GG��� .� S s�o ,�
/G : .�<i"'r�'v�i�✓��' ��?�l%(�iJ �G`lJ,�d j`'� _
✓
�E � ���-�C�f'i�Lv ' �j � i�L�.fiW✓tili'✓� �l`i"7� GDzI.
� � ��6_' (tit. �� -_ �� �
�T- / .� ���� D� ,'� ��vr�tV����`� �-�` �7 9 -S�� _ 7 .
,zo���� ,��(� �Jo. S9l S
' %�� ��.7'' � �� �C� C�'v'�'.�� ' ' '
�� ���� �� �
;� G�.�.�-�o� ,%�-o :���4i�-vc,-�� ��z��
d���� , � � 2 , � D��� -`� `�
1 ' J �
/L;� ��1/�� �l - �%�� C ( ' .
/.' ,�,� G�i� /�L� ��-� `v e-�i;'7�i`vz � ��� �OD �/C
�.S<�(/t� � � / �iGt G��GL--�
�� GC �'2� �' '+� �/ �"� -
G�C��✓�' `'2,� � ,�� - �L,��,�'�� !� ��—�
�;�� _ �� ��Y.,.z�,,�,.� �-�-��o . �� ���-�-'✓ G �� � ��
� �%�� % � �. l 2, �``z�� :
v��-- � � �
,-�'!/L�✓L'� ���L�"L�,,�'l��n
��� �=-.� �,-�
,✓ , J���� �� �,�'`'f-
�, �v�y , .
' ,� ��Cf,�.�'��if/vt- �'i'�- i�a�v '� G��� G�-� ' /
�.�✓ti�..GZ��!�l"�/J l� .-u�
., , �'��� � � � �`" ��..� �
�
,��'`�/�`� C-F �% , � , , = �?�G�..� �✓�.-�.�
� ,, l/t,�,j ..C%t, - .�D'��' . �r�C�' ' ��
%�� �ti�� ��✓, -
� � ' '� ��`-�vr�c� �'�� �� �%;G G�`�-- � /`�lJ-''�=�
L ��/j �
n' `�1 _,,� � ��"� � � i � ./2.� � '�(ti✓�
�7 f� _� � �=vtiJ . !: �C�i�1l�Y�.-Y
� � '`� G -�� ;`- �-� �� � �.�-7`
,�;�c �c� �`�� Q%4�c� � �'�
�-'�c.� .
� �� �t:G-���' �G�.�,� .�����.-�t/
� /�� �� ���
�;�,! '
� � �' %`�t.-E �� � ��� ,� S � � �y- � .
�, � � � � �-�'��
� `� .�_-�._
�,�; C,��-vt� v�c�,.,c�,�c�7 i �Z. c-G`� . ,�.�� 1.�1?� ,
/� �- / , !�
✓/ �/� "� �// C v(. � � �./�✓��/i,�'����
_ ,�/
. •1-� �/ •✓��
..,1� ,.; '�j � L�S-�
�..�_� �
C����1,�1,C , ;
��ti� ��
`i� ��� ��' � � , . .
� d�..� ��
� ��� �� �
� � .
���� �-�. �5.��-�' ,
�� `
�
. � � � � ��
---� .�,,�
� - / 7 �z -:: ��'� ' � a
� �, �� S�7 �-
�/ ' J U��/
��% .����
�:,.� i��,..' '. �
G� t,''f..,c��. �- ��,��, ,� (i< �� �--
�� �`:.J �; �� �.--... .� .���- - ,
'�' �-✓' �% �/ .���C�' / ���...�. � �-"C.��.-
�� .
� � D �
,
�.�--y':�./'.��_ �'�� ' .
r' ' / /, I•� r y / ! � • I�.'`�- /�j-� ./�, i^�
. �t��r �'�<�%�,; ��,�. �� ��._,-.Z,. J �-. r, .L� J •✓�� . �
�.
L�� r �� ' ;--i �� �.1^J.��� c�° �l:/ -�-��__•'�lj.� �� l� � �-,��% -�Ci --�-t �tJ
L' �; ' ` /J ._
L �
� � — -J;r%�'/��-� C�=-����'C.�/ ���i�rC:_ .C.=-;, :.�... �y �`J
�I���U:� L%�- �
� ! G' . � „ ��
� � �i�v,,,-�t Lc;' •'�:.t�i!�.-L: .. !�'_-':��'"_-: ,
- � / � '
�- � .
. � .
; � �
� �,r�% �'� !�!�J= ��
f `/ '
�� � ���
� �
j j c � '' •�•.,7�,�, �:i-'-""�'-�
�, � _,
:, ,��.� i ' �-.�-,r�� .
�: . =� J , �. ;
. . . . .*�►���.��
,
, .
-------------------------- __--------_ ------- ------------------- �
_ r�------------.--------- - -----
--� ,..�' �
---� ��..�-�/---_.��L%G7�1'.�� ___-----__ _-
� ,
, � . �
_. ,
- --_ _�_/_'�_���1'--(�t-�f�C..'��']- -- -- �". ---- ��"[.'�-'-� �� -- ------ ---
�- /---�----
.
o, , \ , ✓, "
� � � �c �_C�� � �-��-�---�-�`��-''-�=--
--._/_7S_�_ _ _ _- �----�-, -- -- - -- ���-�c�.��--- - — --
;�� - -
. �� .
. , , ,
.�C�',�_ ��'�c.c.��c�.->� �._..� � Cd __J'=._2�`-_.-��,cC��-�-...���.. ���.c.�'�.��-t.��G,�� __
/ '
----��` � ' .�l��..fL�' r--- -�..L-Q.C/'?� __ �''-C�� .
�---C�..��----��- �.-���---1�-���- - % -��---- --
� , -� , - -- -� -
^ ; , . .
-.%�-C���/.�.�_�_��l'�----C�%x=---���--��'.�1��C---C=��'L—�
--��=-- --- —
�
.
% � � �
,
,
,
•, C�
-- ---_�C%�..!_{�—_�`'`-`"-- -------------
_ � r� ��� ��
----------------- - -- --`.S�C'!'�✓1!'C._4----L��C`"`�{�`'u�r�-�------
/
,,,,. -
-------- ------------------ ----- —���7-�`-��-�``yti.--�. _._ _..
X ���5 11-71 � 0 0-OIO-O�
:�x�`" ` � PU6�IC f-{EA`r�;�G �O�'ICE l. EON,:�F� E HEi;t':APrN
'' C(n F SQth`T Q. UL 3 2.15 tiORTHI�':� TR;.IL
x �'� , �.,,��`'�"�i'JARD _4M,ZOf�fN���'=PEALS L 1NGST�OM FSIP:N �5045
+{...��"�5 �� �G��-� � � 6 .TM .
r » � �,,
r}�� 4:�A�� �'� "..'--� ny.►rfs+�i.�l�+
'�J �:.^ ilT- a Y�
r �.M Y1
xa�'•3 ) e r.{��-t� � 3 ''4� ,�j�° � R'� .
+t �
��3 �
� .r.r .T y .n'�"a' a'1`� a� . s+s �` ._� � ,
�,r !
y �r�� 'r�S �.�'� .'•:�qY } .�_�./
.S ' ~ '^! � ..�� _�� � ..
70 � '� _:� � ��.�-�-�� :�F `�wners k'i thin 350 feet; '
� ?~��` �� ��° '�r ��'ntatives of P7anning District 13
- ��� ;�w �� �� �
-=�` -�-�� =�`•� c�_`�`�'�
�w-
�'.....�.:.�F�' �-�'"�,,y'�
APPUCANT ���'���. � ��.,��OB JANECEY.
. - - =.�' -
� :���
PURPOSE • i>:� Administrative review (appeal ) of the Plannir,g Cemmission'�s
. '� denial of a change of nonconforming use to allow a package
� delfvery service in an RT-1 (1 & 2 family residential ) zone.
(A pac'r.age delivery service is a permitted use in a B-3 zone,
- - _which is the zoning on the south 109' of the buzlding. ) .
- _: i � ;
LOCATION,. :�� : 1759 Selby
O� PROPERTY . = ' �. � - (�;orthwest corner Selby and 1�►heeler)
Leeal Description : Pd. 67' of Lot 1 and all of Lot 28,
Block 3, Skidmore & Cassedy's Park Addn.
T1�hE OF HEARfNG Tuesday, SEPTEMBER 8, 1981 1 :00 P.M,
PLACE OF HEARING City Council Chambers , 3rd F1oor ciiy t�a11 , St. Paul
HOW TO PARTfCIPATE 1 . Y�u may attend hearing and testify.
2 . 1'ou may send a letter before the hearing to the Board
of Zoning Appeals , 25 West Fourth St. , St. Paul , MN. 55102�
. ANY QUESTIONS Call the Zoning o�fice at 2°8-4154, Donna Daykin �292-6224) ,
' or District 13 (.645-03491 with the following information;
�
� � � � _ �j Zoning File R'o. 8°65 � I
Zoning File Rame Janecek �
. � � �J � �,-�—�:;--��� �_..r; �;.�..�fi.ti �.���'t-v �!��.�..�;
-�"�'�__,�. ,
�,�.;.�✓ GL�w ;�v:v �,;/".,�� r;ai�ling Date 8/� /81
�,-, ..//.� ,��� ,�
`�✓' //,�.�r .� _',,���%���:—� ; r ��-t,�.� �
�i: , ,, � • �:
� . 8923
. . ' ZOtJING STAFF REPORT 3609
���
'�� 634
1 t�'^I.ICAi;T : BOB JAI'�ACEK DATE OF HEAP,Ii�G 7/9/81
� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CUi�REN7 PLA�rdIwG & ZONING COMr1ITTEE 80ARD OF ZOttltyG APPEALS
Rezoning ❑ Variance Q
Sper.ia1 Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review
��termination of Similar Use ❑ -� Other �
�hange of Nonconforming Use O
Oth?r
3. LOCATION: 1759 Selby (Rorthi,�est corner Selby and I�Jheeler) .
4 . L���AL DESCRIPTION: Except N. 67' of.., Lot 1 and all of Lot 28; Block 3, Ski�more & Cassedy' s
Park Addition.
5.� P��SEi�7 ZONIPJ6: B-3 and RT-1 ZONI��dG CODE P,EFEREPICE: Section 62. 102
G. ST11FF IPdVESTIGATION & REPORT : DATE 6/30/81 BY Donna M. Daykin
A. PURPOSE : Change of nonconforming use from an automotive ti�arehouse to a package delivery
service.
B. FROPdTAGE & AREA: This cor�ner lot has a frontage of 53' on Selby Avenue and a frontage
of 170' on t,�heeler for an area of 9,010 square feet.
C. SITE & AREA CONDITIOfvS: The site is occupied by a single story brick commercial
structure bui lt in 1 9 1 1 an d s e� close to the lot lines . Surrounding land uses include
one and two family residential fronting on Dayton north of �he site, a 7-unit apartment
building east of the site, a single family residence adjacent to the site to the west,
and a mixture of commercial and residential uses fronting on Selby to the east, south,
Gnd west ot the site.
D. ZOPJiNG HISTORY: On December 28, 1979, the Planning Commission denied a request for a
proposed reuse of this property under the "Determination of Similar Use" section. The
proposed use, �o assemble glass doors, fireplace heaters and free-standing fireplaces ,
�•��as requested by Heat-ti-Glo on �he basis that it was similar to �he manufGcturino of
small precision goods such as dental , surgical , or optical goods , or electronic
assenblies. The Planning Conmission found that the proposed use closely resembled
�ses f�rst permitted in the I-1 Industrial Zone dealing with fdbrication or assembling
• of steel products .
On April 8, 1°,80, the 6oard of Zoning Appeals c�nsi�ered an administrative review of
the Zoning Administrator's decision to certify zoning compliance for an auto repair
station Gt 175° Selby. The appellants , Ivan and Dehi-a Zenker, contended that the
Zoning Administrator erred in his interpretation of Seci.ion 64. 101 which authorizes
the Zoning Administrator to certi�y zoning comp7iance for uses not specirically
mentioned in the 6-3 zone; that the matter should have been reviewed by �he ?lanning
Com!�ission ilnder the "Determination of Similar Use" section; and that the Zoning
Adroinistrator erred in certifying a taxi cab operation as an auto repair station.
The Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrator' s decision to certify
zoning compliance for the p7�operty. The decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals was
appealed to City Council . The Ciiy Council held a public hearing on N�ay 7 , 1980,
where the Council reversed the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and granted
the appeal . The appeal was gr°anted for the follo���ing reasons , as listed in the
City Council resolution of i�4ay 22, 1980:
"The use of the properiy at 1759 Selby Avenue for the pari:ing or storage of
taxicabs , and as a taxi dispatching business is not a p°rmitted use in a 6-3
zoning district; the subject property is not being used as an auto reoair business
Gs originally determined by the Zoning Administrator; that the present use of the
por�ion of the subject p�°operty presently zoned RT-1 , +•:hich is a change from
• the previous nonconfo��ming use as a �-�arehouse, is more incompatible to the RT-1
zoning district than the previous nonconforming use; that the public health ,
safety and ���elfare of the community is impair�ed by i,l�e use of the property as
a taxicab business ; that the use of this property is not consistent with either
the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Ordinances ; and th�� �he Zoning Administrator
eri�ed �;�hen he mode a determination of similar use and that the determination of
si�;ilar use is deleqated by the Zoning Ordirznce exclusi��ely to the Planning
Com�r.ission. "
;rc ���-,;re. ;;dmi ni s;rator no�i fi ed Rober�t Janace4: �o o i sconti r,ue use o� ii�e property
A
=�,� ;to�-Gc,e , par�:ina , or ci�pa�ching of ta�ica�s . I��r. Jarace�: ,-efuse� to discortii�ue
. � �' UP•�
. s� s,..b .y:.
. �.,��. - . .
B05 J�;I�,�,CEK (r8923) S7A�F REPORT Page 2
D. ZONIf�G HISTORY COP�iT' D.
operation of the business until ordered by a court to do so. The District Court
denied a motion to issue a temporary injunction to stop the opera�ion and set a
trial date of Nover�ber 24, 1980. On January 14, 1°81 , District Coui°t Judge
Harold Schultz affirmed the City Council 's determinations and ordered Mr. Janacek
to discontinue use of 175° Selby as a taxicab business. On f�iarch 13, 1981 , the
District Court heard Janacek's request for a delay in the enforcer�ent of the
injunction to allow f�1r. Janacek time to relocate the business. Tiie Court allowed
P1r-. Janacek to continue to operate the raoio dispatching, administrative functions,
and teiegram delivery services until h1ay 15, 1981 .
P�1r. Janacek is r�ow in the process of appealing the District Court's order of
' January 14, 1981 , to the P�innesota Supreme Court. 4,�ritten arguments have been
filed and a decision will be handed doti��n in the future.
The south portion of the lot was zoned commercial from 1922 until 1975 , ����hen it
w�s designated B-3. The north portion of the lot was zoned "B" Residence from
1922 until 1975, when it was designated RT-1 .
E. ORDIfJAtJCE CITATION: Section 62. 102(e) (5) states : "l�Jhen a nonconforming use of a
structure, or structure and premises in combination , is discontinued or ceases to
exist for 365 days , the structure, or structure and premises in combination,
shall thereafter be used in conformance with the regulations of the district in
which it is located , unless the Planning Commission, pursuant to a public hearing,
finds that the structur-e, or structure and premises in combination cannot
reasonably or economically be used fo►� a conforming purpose, that the r�roposed use
is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the previous
nonconforming use, and that the proposed use is consistent ��ith the health , safety,
morals , and general welfare of the community and is consistent with the reasonable
use and enjoyment of adjacent property" .
F. FIf'JDI��GS:
1 . ihe south 10°.16' of the structure at 17�9 Selby is zoned B-3. The north 52. 16'
of the build�ng is zoned RT-l . Since a package delivery service is a permitted
use in a B-3 zone ;60. 502e) ; the proposed use of the structure is nonconforming
only in the Ri-1 por�ion of the building.
` 2. The most recent legal u�e of the structure ��aGs as a v.rarehouse for auto parts
from �iay 31 , 1969, to September 20, 197°. This use is permitted in B-3
(b0. 502g) as a �ti�nolesale es�ablishment, no outside storage, and was non-
conforming in the Ri-1 portion of the site.
3. The applicant describes the proposed parcel delivery service as a small
� operation which involves 3 vans and 3 drivers. Packages are sort°� for
delivery on the premises and the vans used to deliver the packages are driven
hcme by the drivers and are not stored on the premises .
4. There are specified findings , iisted in 62. 102(_e} (5) , �-�hich the Planning
Cemmission must make to grant a change of nonconforming use ��,�hich has been
discontinued fo►� more than 365 days.
5. The structure �-Jas built as a commercial garaoe and could not reasonably or
economically be used for a residential purpose.
6. A small package delivery service is as appropriate to a residential district
as an automoiive v,�arehouse is.
7. Tne proposed use is consistent i-�ith the neaith , safety , morals , and general
���elrare of the comi-�unity and is consistent rfi�h the reasonable use and enjoy-
ment of adjGceni pi°operty if conditions are attached to tl�e permit �lhich
limit the nuisance potential o� the business.
u. STAFF RECOI�i(•�E��DATIO��' : 6ased on findinas 5, 6 , and 7 , staff recommends approval
of ti�e change of nonconforming use a�ith �he followine conditions :
1 . Ail vehicles Gssociated �,�ith the busine�s shall be p���ked and loadeo wi�hin the
structur�e and rot on the sireet Ol' �I12 boulevard east o� the si��uc�u��e.
%. �i-;e hours o` �;e��at;,on of the business be 1 i;�;ite� �to the hourc bet��,�een 7 :00 a.m.
,
�:r-,d o: 0 p.;.�,.
�. _ t;EECS :. �C' C �'lE Ec�� TcCcGc C` itiE �tl'L'C�Ut"E �E cl e�ned Ur. '
111NUiES OF iHE ZOr,i��G CGt•1��tIT►EE
If� CITY COU�vCIL CHAI�,BERS , ST. P�UL , iiI��iYESOiA, C��t JULY °, 1°31
PR�SEidT : ��;-.es . �arns and Summers ; �iesst-s . Sryan, H�nggi , Levy and P�ngal of the
Zoni ng Comz�i�tee ; Mr. Segal , Rssi s�ant Ci ty F,�torney; ('�s . Lane of the
Oivision of }�ousing and 3uilding Code En`ai�cement; P�1s . Daykin , I•is. hanson,
i�is. 1icNeally, and i•ir. Tors�enson of the -�lanning Division staf i. _
ASSENT: `�essrs . Armstead and Lanegran
The meeting �,tas chaired by James Bryan , Chairnan.
60B JF,NkCEK -8923: Petition f�r a�change of nonconforming use fram an automotive
� . ��:arenouse to package delivery service on property located at 1%59 Selby (north��est
corner of Selby and l�;neeler) .
The applicant was present. There a,as opposition present at the hearine.
Ms. Daykin sho��,ed slides of the site and revie��aed the StorT repor� recomrnending
approval o� �he change in ncn�onforrning use �•.ith tne conditions ihat �he vehicles
associated �;�i �h �he business be pai�ked ar�d loaded ��rii}-�in t}ie s�ruciure and not on the
street or. boulevard; the hours of operation be limited to be��-aezn i :00 a.n. and
6:00 p.m. ; and �ne �,�eeds along the east facade be clear,ed up.
Two 1 et�ers ��rere recei ved i n opposi ti on ; al so I�ierri am Park Cor�nuni�y Counci 1 senL
a letter s�ating �heir opposition.
Bob Janacek oT 1759 Selby oave tes�irony stcting that he has had pro5lems �,�ith the
bU1� G�1110 cS it cannot be used �or �axis . He would like �o rer�,odel the building, but
needs to have a business located �here.
tir. SeQal stated that there is presently an injunction aoainst using �nis building
for a taxi business . ihe building could be used as an office.
Susan �Cdie of 1752 Dayton gave iestimony stating tnai she feels this m�tter should
be �abled ur�til a decision is reached by the Supre�,�e Court on this matter.
�he feel s I�ir. Janacek i s s�o��ri ng a 1 ack of respe�ct for the 1 z�•: s;rce the �roposed
use is already operaiing ou� of this buil�ing. This use of the building is addins
� �YcrlrlC to tne neighborhocd. If this matter is not iabled today , she is against
� recom,��ending coproval of the change cfi nonconforrn;ng use.
�ob (�icCar�hy or 1776 Dayton gave testimony sta�ing he is incrQdulous tha� the Zoning
szaff could recorrc��end approval . he bought his home ���itn �he underst�ndino that tnis
building could not be used for � worse use than ��,�as alreae�y located tnere. There
are at present cars stored in the building and also parked on �he boulevards, creating
a hazardous situation in the neiehborhood. He feels that the Tacade of the building
is in pocr condition and could presert a hazard. Secause this ma�ter is pendirg
in tne. courts, �he building canroi be repaired. He is agains� this crange of
noncorfor.�ing use.
heGring no further testimony, h1r. Bryan closed the public hearing portion of the
meeting.
�'�r. Pancal made a mction to recommend denial of �he change in noncorrorming use
based or tre fact �ha� �estimony ��ras given s�arting that there is illegal parking
on the preper�y and un��ecessary �ra�fic congestion created in �he aT'Ec , �;�hich makes
t'r�e propcsed use i ncons i s�ent �•�i ih tne jieal �h, sa fety and general ��rel fare o fi the
. '
Jpg JAf;ACEY, =S923: Page 2
com�unity, and inconsistent t,�ith reason�ble enjoyment of adjacent properties .
I�s. Sur„^�ers seconded the motion . The motion recorrnending denial of the change _
in nonconfor-ming use ►-�as passed with a roll call vote of 6 to 0.
� Submit�ed by: Approved by:
^ rI I ,(
�+��vi�ll� � � ' ���lv� �v����� .
Donna Pi. Daykin (� . James 6ryan, Chairman
OiOi��v �� � C��O'OIIO Q�� pIU�O o 1' � ' � ���
� � � , � � � � OOp�� � . ., � �k r ��
, ; . . _,"
� � � � , , ..:� ; . _ "_'�;
� � ; ;.��.QL f�/f�E < <�..
,
' O , ( � �-,.. 'J r � \ � V _ y�v
.., � `�
! � i I ! I i � I ; f�� YG��� '=
� ¢1 ¢t o �����'���� .� o � b o�___��. o 0 0� �' � �:> � � �
i ( I � ,--�: ._ _ ;� J� � �3 i t
{ CLE� ART �Y` =� � � p�.,��; �� �
� i I � � � ; �
� ,00, o� o � o;��o;oo i000,0000 00000 0� � � � :
i � �I ;� ;� �l�� � O t;
1 ( ,
- � ' i ' 1
._.
_�.___-._ .:. .._ _� _1_ '
-- ��� � _ .. ; -+ � �7 � , �
� � I ��l
I � r i - � ,
, I ,
(� � 8 `0000�0� o �� oo , "�' d000 (� (�j
L-4 ;� � I I � � �� I 5 � 5 'I .::_; -:: -�T �.�-�., p � T i C�`
� � � � �
:�
. ���,'n�_li �"r�,-n-�,�._ 3 - • 3 � � � - Q Y
��� �
. � � � � 6 , J 1
� o . (� � � I = �.�;�; ; . lo � o 0 0 -�o o�o�o± � � o o�oi� oi�o , ¢;o
I`�F � , � �'' ' 1� � ( ' � � !
� � �
�� O 1 . .:p . � � ( � ' ( \ I
J I 1 � I � � � a I v � ( �I i
i �
� ' ."' ' , .. ,, � '
r �.� ,xn�.'.s _... .�.. ., .--= LL
i�r +_�'� �,,.w�c.:-:
�4_ � C � _ � ' ? f �
� i j ! � I ' � ' ' �
1 1 � . o �00000000 ¢��j ;o;o, oo �o�-�- � o �o:o.o:o: o o �o
� , o � p I ..��: ..L,� I � � I
I i � � �
�
� I . D AY TOl� �� =� � � . �c�� � �V
� ���, ;� ,
� ¢ o�o�o;o 0 0;010 0 ¢ �i�� � ? o 0 0 0�0� Q o ��� :x� -: oc��
� � o 0 0 �: � � � I � I ;� � I i ;� —- � + ; . ( ; + „
( .. ,F..,�..�� . . - f - -
E„�,,.�,�,
, , - .,... - _... . . � �
, , ' ' �
, /� � '�
.
� � `� � I i �^� � O; 4� �Tl ; }�� ,� �� � ���'._�� ���I0, ��� ��,
I -a _ 0�� � V I � {O ,j� ;,t ..:ra,� 7 ! � `�`'` i r • a
' , , +):� s,—R,,,��� � i t
' II I O � � I .�O -- �'��� �� t�l++moeia� �r'�°`r !'1 Y
1 �3 �S �BY � � �� � � � �
� �; � � ; ..� _ �T: .�� , ;,,
� � o��o;o; v ,, �oo o =-�' �' _ "�v� � �; ', ,v -:� :� �.'t�o�o � �
( i �3 i� � ���✓�'� :,,!,�� '�" i ! ,� Y�- X;` ,+� �! ; s'� � I
, ,
� ..
, (�.,c�-•�t� sr �. I T _ _ ..,,-_�•,•„e� ��''R'_'."t—�'1
�.
.�i'��'O°� 4:`:.:rr� .:.._._ , .. .. .,., � -_._�.. ±:7� -__ -�-�.�.-.y--� �.r-�. �;.:�i
�Q..- I. -I I " _ ��' � �: I ��....�- "f ' _ � �
,._.. . .�._ . . _. . ...-..
� _.� T � � � =�_ � ��� � r :
,
j0 G� O OIO f OiO� � i� O O Oj 00 OI O ��y �_: �.1...;,b 5 ¢ G -� �€n' p;p;
� , � � � I i � _� � I..._.�.._.r
I �� - ���
NaGUE �� ` � ' =� ��� �
� ; I ' � o;o;o�o;o�o;o 0 0,o;o�a;o� o • ,i '� � 4� � °� 5 0 ',�'�.�,�, b 5 °.
;� 'I � � ' � I i i ! i � =_=""f � ' I � �j �' � �( '
�'IC�i � iQ � � � � � :� ; { I � ; .
� � , ; I 1 �: �, ' � ; , , ,
5 'i i( � � 22 �i�;0ja,���i -;� :: 0� I ;,�I�� O � ¢ O O O O�Oi � ;¢;O�O:O;Y ��0,
. � , I � t ,
-� , , , LAUR E�. �� ��
� . ►2 , , , . � �`-�--
`�;.. o o� �o,�� �c.�:���`��'�.�-��^�o����� � _ :� �r���C�'�.' � o .L-o�o� � �o;Q
. i :`' c; i � , I � C�. 1 � �
� ARE � f�iA � `
►
� b �Qna�� LEGEND '
APPLICaNT . �
— -- ZOtJt�G DJSTRI�T B�UNCARY 4
�
. /' , �. -,. �_� _ ??,.,�:� '`.;. E � SU5�?rC i PRO��.n i Y ;
PURPOSE {�r.,� '`, y.• .;� . _ �� �•.�-'�f t �
v
O OrJ� �at,fi,1LY P�:.�,�^�:tic �
�,�� �iSTRiC7 `
¢ T Yr 0 �1.`��tl I LY �
FILE NG. ���`� < < � 3 �
� � ( q�5 l �-�- O ��,u�TtG�� Far�,��Y �
��,T� J..r �; ;
1—�' o �- n COt��P� tRCIAL �
;
1�. �.�= .�- INDUSTR(Al.. r��,,;� �,,� s
5:.:.�c �" _ �GG� '�GRTH :
. _ ._ , : ; �;�;��,;� G�,::;D �,% v�C�:'�T ----- I �' �
,. iAM P� �
�R �,�
1��` � MERRIAM PARK
: W COMMUNITY COUNCIL, i�c.
� � 645-0349 • WILDER AT SAINT ANTHONY . SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55104
�F� ���
F,� �qC - ..
R�CEIVED
November 20, 1981 ��OV � L� �g81
COUNCILWC�MAN
Ms. Ruby Hunt, President , RUBY H�JNT
St. Paul City Council
7th Floor City Hall •
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Councilwoman Hunt:
The Merriam Park Community Council has been informed that Mr. Robert Janacek,
Yellow Cab Company at 1759 Selby Avenue� has once again appealed a change
in non-conforming use at 1759 Selby. This change would allow a package
delivery service called General Delivery, owned by a Mr. John Bucke, to
operate out of the RT-1 zoned portion of the building.
The Merriam Park Community Council has gone on record several times in
opposition to activities at 1759 Selby Avenue that were in violation of the
zoning code. The Council continues to unanimously support the area residents
in their position against the granting of Mr. Janacek's appeal for the
following reasons:
1) The General Delivery business continues to violate the no parking
area between Selby and Dayton on Wheeler. Unfortunately, the
police prefer to call the offended and request the removal of
the vehicle, instead of tagging. -
2) The Current Planning and Zoning Committee, the Planning Commissian,
and the Board of Zoning Appeals have all ru�ed that the change
of non-conforming use from a warehouse to a package delivery
service should not be allowed.
3) The request for a change of non-coniorming use is inconsisf:eY�t
with the health, safety, morals, and general welfare af the
community, and inconsistent with the reasonable enjoyment of
adjacent property. The District 13 Plan specifically refers
to the Yellow Cab business building as being incompatible
with the neighborhood. Mr. Franke's rationale that the previous
non-conforming use was the taxi business is ludicrous, as that
use was ruled illegal by the City Council, the District Court,
and the Minnesota Supreme Court. Furthermore, the City Attorney
has stated the proper section of the Zoning Ordinance, Section
62.102 (e) (5) was applied and correctly interpreted by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals.
4) Mr. Franke's contention that "a small package delivery service
•
is as appropriate to a residential district as an automotive
warehouse is" is a matter of personal judgment that was
rejected by the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning
Appeals.
5) Our Council feels that the applicant is really requesting
a rezoning of 1759 Selby, not a change of non-conforming use.
The Merriam Park Community Council urges you to deny Mr. Janacek's appeal and
put an end to Mr. Janacek's abuse of our neighborhood and St. Paul's iaws.
Best regards,
Cy' ,
�,f�,�.,�.�,S,y�f ('`,. `�' .. .
Gordon Erskine, President
Merriam ParK Community Council
CC: Mayor George Latimer
�� �'"18�`7�
R
November 29, 1981 �C Z ��a;
���X
St . Paul City Council
Courthouse
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Council Member�
Enclosed you will find a point by point refutation of a
letter received by each of you from Bob Janecek 's attorney
concerning an appeal by Mr. Janecek .
Mr. Franke asked your consideration of these points as
grounds for the appeal asking for a change of nonconforming
use permit for the RT-1 section of the building at 1759
Selby.
I intended this refutation to become part of the official
public record by testifying at .the Public Hearing during
the City Council meeting on Tuesday� November 24, 1981 .
Because I was denied the time to testify, I am asking you
to give this letter at least as much consideration as you
gave Mr. Franke 's October 21 letter. I also ask that you
make an effort to have this information available in a
public way should the need arise .
Sincerely�
��,
,,
;� . ' , -,�
�_ _:�-�� �/_. !� _. �
Susan Cde
1752 Dayton
St. Paul, P�finnesota 55104
( ,,�:+'���"�/�
r `�
November 24, 1981
Members of the City Council�
Following is a point by point refutation of a letter dated
October 21 � 1981 from Mr. Jerome Franke, attorney for Bob
Janecek .
A. The Planning Commission denial of Mr. Janecek 's application
for change in nonconforming use was not artitrary or
capricious . All�::parties acknowledge the age and original
intention of the building at 1759 Selby. The St . Paul
Zoning Ordinance allows for nonconforming use. No one has
suggested forcing the use of the R'I'-1 section of the
building in a conforming manner.
Mr. Franke refers to points 5 and 6 from the June 30�
1981 Planning Office staff report. Foint 5 is a moot point.
We all acknowledge it but it has no current significance.
Point 6 was� in effect, revoked as a staff finding. The
staff recommendation changed to denial at the ap.peals level
after hearing testimony making it clear that the delivery
service is far less appropriate than a battery warehouse
to our neighborhood.
B. The notion that the building was arbitrarily and inappropri-
ately zoned is a matter of conjecture and not the current
business of the city. That opinion expressed by Mr. Janecek 's
attorney second guesses the motive of the original zoners .
The opinion of our neighbonhood, for the record, is that
the split zoning is an appropriate protection for our densely
populated neighborhood.
C . Mr. Franke quotes62. 102 5(5) of the Zoning Ordinance in
part. In full that section says that when a nonconforming
use ceases for 365 days, structures must be used in a
conforming manner " . . .unless the Planning Commission,
pursuant to a public hearing, finds. . . " followed by the four
points mentioned by Mr. Franke. These four points are
conditions to be met to allow a nonconforming use. By
describing our experiences with the parcel delivery service
we made it clear that these conditions are not met by this
nonconforming use . The nuisance and hazard created by a
cab service exist with a parcel delivery service .
D. The Planning Commission could not err on this point in that
it did not deal with this point. The denial stated that the
proposed use is "inconsistent with health, safety, and
general selfare of the community and is inconsistent with
reasonable enjoyment of adjacent properties . "
According to the Ordinance� the appeal can appropriately be
denied under Section 62 . 102 5(5) or Section 62 . 102 ,�(3) .
Susan Ode
1752 Dayton, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
. C���
ST. PAUL CITY C � UNCIL ��p ��!�
PUBI. IC HEARlNG NOTICE
� ONING APPEAL
F i L E N 0. X8985
Dear Property Owner: PAGE
As the result of an administrative error, Mr. Robert Ja�recek,
the petitioner in the following proceedings , was not notified
of the public hearing which was held before the City Council
on November 24, 1981 . _
Tt�e failure to notify has resulted in a defective public hear-
ing which must be rectified by a new hearing.
In order to correct the proceedings , ttie City Council has
rescheduled the public hearing to be held on Tuesday, December
22 1981. For more detailed information see rest of notice.
PURPOSE
Anpeal of Planning Commission's denial for change of
Non-conforming use (to operate a parcel delivery service
in Route 1 District) .
L 0 C A T I 0 N 1759 Selby Avenue, except N. 67 feet, Lot 1 and all of
Lot 28, Block 3, Skidmore & Cassedy's Addition.
PETITIONER
Bob Janecek
H E A R IN G Tuesday, December 22, 1981, 10:00 A.M.
Citv Counci7 Cnambers, 3rd Floor Citv Hal] - Court House
Q U E S TI Q N S Zoning 298-4154
Contact the Zoning Section o` the Planning and Economic
Development Department, Room 1101, Cit} Hall Annex,
25 W. 4th Street, St. Paul, MinnesoLa 55102
Notice aent December 11, 1981, by the Valuation and Assessment Division
Department of Finance and Management Services
Room 218 City Hall - Court House
St, Paul � Minnesota 55102
` , . ' • • � � �t.7��
� . . , ,
. � , • i
. . ;. ,
. , , , ,
_ _ - . .
. ��
. '
,
�c�bber'8, 1981.
�
� � Mr. P�ul Deach -
- Department of Fir#[inee
, Room 218, C�ty Hail -
_ . ��
, �
' Dear Sirt . . ` -
l ,
The City Counof2 eet a aew'date .oP`public h�arin� for Decyem�r 22nd,
�� 19$1 to co�tsl�d�r the appeal of Mr. Rol�ert Jl�e�ek to a deoiaicm of :
` th+e Board of Zar►ing Appealg r�garding p�roperty a� 1?S9 S;elby Avenua. " '
�' ; iiill you pLease send �na�ices to property �nars ers required by ,
' :l�w. ' : , ' � � ; •
�
, Very truly yo�trs, . :
�' . �
- �
. � i�� � � � � � � , , ��
S
, '� Albert B.� Olsan . ���.
, City Clerk
,
. ABOsla � . � ,
Qc: Plsnniag 3tefY, Zotlin� Section : . . .- ,
Housiog b Bldg. Co�e Div. .
,
, , ,
. . .
. , ,
� ;
, . �.:
_ , - '
, , °
� - _
,
. � �r��y�°�/�q
...o�u�qnU�
�`���T* ���,�h
_�• ;�-., CITY OF SAINT PAUL
_� ~= DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES
;� ii�lil�u �j
��'�' ��� VALUATION DIVISION
',���"'�m���°`�` � 218 City Hall
GEORGE L1ITIMER Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
MAYOR 612-29&5317
�,
December 3, 1981 '"���� -,°
�,
Mr. Albert Olson
City Clerk
x oom 386
BUILDING
Dear Sir:
A public hearing wa.s scheduled and held before the City Council on November
24, 1981, relative to the appeal of a Planning Commission decision for a
cha.nge of non-conformir� use.
This appeal was filed by Mr. Robert Jan�acek and involved property located
at 1759 Selby Avenue.
Inadvertently, the notice of the public hearing on the above was not sent
to Mr. Janacek or his representative, nega.ting their apportunity to appear
before the City Council.
In view of the ab ove, I have discussed this with Mx.Jerosne Segal, A ssistant
City Attorney, and have been advised that the previous hea.rin� in this regard
appears invalid due to lack of notice, and that all said participants
should be renotified and a new public hearing scheduled.
Very truly yours,
J. William Donova.n
Asses nt and Valuation Engineer
by
Pa.ul esc
Supervisor of A ssessments
cc: Jerome J. Segal
��
� � � , - �' .. . ' . - . - � � .. �
� ' � r _ � .. .. . .. � . . .. . . .. .i.. ,.. .. . � •
� . , .. � . . .. . . . . ' � .. ..
- � � .. . , . . , ' . . . � � . _ ` . .. . . . _
�
� . . • / . . � - . . � . � . ' . . ' ������� � .
. . . . . - . � . . � . '. . . . . . �. . ` .
� � . � ' � : . . i . � . . . . . . ' . .. ..
. .. . -. . . . � � • 1 _ � . . . � . . . . , . . :.'1�'
� � . . � . . . � , ,. . � .
. . - . . ` � . . � . . . , ,
� . . � .. . .� . ' . . . . . , . . . . . .. � . . . � � � \
. . .. . i . . . . . . . . .`
. . ` . � . . . ' . . � . . r'�
� . � . . . . .� ' . . . - . ' . - .. � �
. . � . � i . ' . . . . . , f
� . � t . . .. . .'' . . .: . . . F�:.,
` - OCt�b�r 2'lf 1981 ; '
. , �
, i.
., f Y
�'�' �1t�. �1ld��l
DA�i�lL� Ot' P'�D1t1C�• � ' , ' , :
Aoon� 2],8, City ARll . . ' � ;
�
� Dsar S�ac►s , .
� . ,, . .
� .� �'h� City Cowcil set a date of 2ssariag !ar' l[ov�beir ^�th, 19$1 " ��. �::
to aoaside�r � spi�1 of Hob 34aecefc to s �aisian�af #,he � : , ,.
`, Hoard ot; ZaaL�g App�tls �f�'a�ctin6 �i3'c�ertY Rt� 1T�9 Selby ,Aw�. - ,
(Z+oa��.t�g file; ��• ti#.11 you pLs�s� s7e� aotiQes :to proP�i't�y'
„ � ; a�+ceers eta requir�cl by U►M? . .
. � Vifry trytly, yaurs� � - "
_ � , .� �
. ,
, ' � =r. ;:
� � �
' • Al.be�rt 8. Oltoq ' `-"
, , �
, , Gi�' C3aet�k �
� ' ' .. . . � � - �. . . . .. . .. . , . . � L 4.
, . . I . % . . . , " - . . . ' .. ' ' .
. ,. . ' ���- . • . , . , . . � � � , . . . , �
.. . . . . .. � � � . . � . ' , � . . .
. k.,
� ea s Pl�rntag 8tafi', Zoniag See�tion . : " ,.
� . Hauaing b Bldg. .Cod� �nt. Divielo� . ' �
,
• � � _ � , , �
� � - , ;
, ;
� • � . \� '��\\ x.
_ � , _ � . t ' i `\\`�
_ . . � .
. , , ,
: . , , . �� ` '�/
, ; _ ..,
; �
. , . .
, -
- . , . ` ,l . �;`
: . . ' - p �' ,'\ ry,'%�'
. _ ,
. ., �
, ' • � � . , ti
.. . . � . . � , . � . . . : , � 'a�. : : �
- , . . . , . . .. .. .�
.. . � . . , . . .. .-. . . . . � . � . � . . . . � . .� . .. . . _ . ,. . - ,i:, s .. . L`!�
' ' � i ��.� �
�. � , ' a% /9 �/
' ' �� ,
FRANKE, RIACH AND FRANKE �i/3 �+G
. ' �.9��.�.��o��� �" �
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JEROME E.FRANKE Y11 ROSEVILLE PROFE.SSIONAL CENTER
RONALD J.RIACH P233 HAMLINE AVENUE NORTH
C.WILWAM FRANKE , SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55113
61P/636-6400 __
C7 tr`—"��
October 21 , 1981 -�+ ''
Cn'"< f'.a
-fi7 °
.r.e�+
:r:� �
Hon. City Council �� � rn
City of St. Paul .�v", � o
Ramsey County Courthouse �;o -�r�
St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 ;'--�i ='"°
c� caca
� � . . .3
Re: Appeal from decisian of the Board of Zoning Appeals
Zoning File No. 8985 (Bob Janecek)
Date: September 22 , 1981
Dear Members of the City Council :
This is to advise you that on behalf of the applicant Bob
Janecek, we now appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals
regarding the above matter and respectfully request a hearing by
the City Council on the application of Bob Janecek for a change
of nonconforming use permit for the property located at 1759 Selby
in St. Paul.
The grounds for the appeal will include both the points set
forth in the enclosed letter from Bob Janecek to the City Council
and the following points which we feel merit the consideration of the
City Council and will be addressed at the time of the hearing, to-wit :
A. The decision of the Planning Commission to deny
the application of Bob Janecek for a chancte of
nonconforming use at the above location was
arbitrary, capricious and not in the exercise
of reasonable judgment in view of the fact that
the buildinc� was originally built as a commercial
building in 1911 , the entire buildinq has been used
for commercial purposes from the date it was built
until the present time and that a residential use
of the premises would be totally inappropriate. A
staff report dated June 30 , 1981 stated as follows :
"5. The structure was built as a commereial
garage and could not reasonably or economi-
cally be used for a residential purpose.
`�''�r��"�,,�
,; , :
Hon. City Council
City of St. Paul
Ramsey County Courthouse
St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 Page Two
6 . A small package delivery service is
as appropriate to a residential district
as an automotive warehouse is . "
We concur in the above findings and submit that they are
reasonable conclusions based on the evidence and applicable law.
B. The comprehensive zoning law arbitrarily and
improperly established the zoning boundary
without due regard to the practical aspects of
the utilization of the property. The garage
doors which provide main access to the building
are located in the northerlv portion of the
building which is inappropriately zoned R-T-1.
C. The Planning Commission erred in the application
of ordinance Section 62 .102 (e) (5) which provides
in part:
l. " . . . -the structure, or structure and
and premises in combination cannot
reasonably or economically be us�d
for a con£orming purpose. "
2 . " . . .that th� proposed use is equally
appropriate or more appropriate to the
district than the previous nonconforming
use, "
3. " . . .and that the proposed use is consis-
tent with the hea�th, safety, morals , and
general welfare of the community. "
4 . " . . .and is consistent with the reasonable
use and enjayment of adjacent property. "
Mr. Janecek submits that the proposed nonconforming use as
a small package delivery service falls well within the range of
ac�ivity contemplated by the above stated provisions o� Ordinance
Section 62 . 102 (e) (5) .
� � � ` ' � 222-4433
� � ������
YELLOW
- � ltous a(� o. c�s
co. P.o. BoX aas�
♦ St. Paul, Minn. 55104
Bus. Office 644-7800
1009G ST. PAUL ASSOCIATION
Oct. 19, 1981
City Council
City of St. Paul
Courthouse
St. Paul, Mn 55102
I wish to appeal to the City Council of St. Paul the decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals dated Sept. 22, 1981 (copy enclosed) . I base this appeal on
the following:
1. The Staff Report to the Planning Commission recommended approval of
our request with certain conditions. These conditions have been
adhered to in all cases.
2. The South portion of this building is zoned B-3. A package delivery
service is a permitted use in a B-3 zone.
3. A package delivery business generates far less traffic than the previous
automotive warehouse.
I very much appreciate your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions
you may reach me at 644-7819.
S' y,
Bob Janec
__ � ..��. - ---•-------�
� � � , �., ��
„ , �
"�`�'`�
�} � ti �1 U
city of saint paul
board of zoning appeals resol�tion -
zoning file n�r�ber__s98,�_
da�e �_�P��t�R�ber^_22,_�9��----_ ---=-
�
\ �----------
WHEREAS, QOB JANECEK has applied for an administrative review under the
provisions of Sections 64.206(1 ) and 62.102, Subd. 5(5} of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code, of the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a
change of nonconforming use permit for property located at 1759 Selby in
an RT-1 zoning district; and
WHERF:AS, the Saint Paul Qoard of Zoning Aqpeals conducted a public hearing on
September II, 1981 , pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements
of Section G4.204 of the Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the�Saint Paul Qoard of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented
at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes attached
hereto, made the follo��ing findin�sof fact:
l . The Flanr�ing Comniission made no error in fact or procedure in their denia�
of a charge of nonconforming use.
NOIJ, THEREfORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that
ur�der authority of the City's Legislative Code, Chapter 64.206, the appeal of
the Planning Commission ' s decision to deny a change of nonconforming use perrnit
for property at 1759 Selby be denied, in accordance with the application for
appeal attached hereto. -
m ove d by Ms. Summers Decisions of the Board ofi Zoning
se c o n d ed by _ _ Appea,s are final subject to,.�{�eai
Mr. Peterson to the City Council tvithin 30 days.
by anyone affected by the ct�ec-F�n.
i n favo r __6
against o __
WHITE - CITY CLERK ^W����
PINK - FINANCE i��
CANARY - DEPARTMENT � COUIICII
BLUE - M�P.YOR G I T Y O F S A I N T � A LT L File N O. '�e
� il Resolution �
.
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
WHEREAS, Panama Flats Corporation applied to the Board of Zoning
Appeals for a variance from the strict application of the provisions
of sections 61.101 (d) and 62. 106 (2) of the Zoning Code pertaining
to setbacks for accessory structures in an RM-3 zoning district to
allow construction of a two-stall garage with a front setback of 2
feet from Chestnut and a rear setback of zero feet on the south for
its property located at Lots 1 and 2, Block 32, Rice and Irvines
Addition; and
WIiEREAS, Following a public hearing with notice to affected
property owners, the Board by its Resolution 9002 (b) , denied the
requested variances; and
WHEREAS, The decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals was then
appealed to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of section
64.205; and
WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to sections 64 .205 through 64 .208,
and upon notice to appellant and other affected property owners,
a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on said
appeal where all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard; and
WHEREAS, The Council, having heard the statements made, and
having considered the variance application, the report of staff,
the minutes and findings of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does
hereby
RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does
hereby reverse the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in this
matter for the reasons set forth herein and the variances reruested
by and are hereby granted:
COUNCILMEN Requestgd by Department of:
Yeas Nays
Hunt
Levine In FavOi
Maddox
McMahon B
sr,o�,,,eite� - __ Against Y
Tedesco
�Ison
Form Approve C' At orney
Adopted by Council: Date — � j
/
Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY
By� --
Approved by 1+layor: Date _ Approved y Mayor for Submission to Council
By _ _ _ By