00-676Council File # �O � G Z�e
Green Sheet # � 03 q 9 3
RESOLUTION
�
Presented B�
Referred To
2 WHEREAS, Leslie Lucht, in Zoning File 00-124519, made application to the Boazd of
3 Zoning Appeals for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Saint Paul
4 Legislative Code for property located at 681 - 683 Van Buren Avenue and legally described as
5 Lot 30, Block 2, Syndicate Addition #4; and
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
WHEREAS, the purpose of ffie applicarion was to vary the standards of the Saint Paul
Zoning Code in order to construct a second house on the subject property thereby bringing the
total number of dwelling units on the property to three. The variances sought included: (1) a
minimum lot size variance; (2) a side yazd setback; (3) a rear yard setback; (4) a lot coverage
variance; (5) a zoning room variance; (6) off-street parking variance; and
WHEREAS, the Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on May 8, 2000,
after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board, by its Resolution No.
00-124519, decided to deny the variances based upon the following findings and conclusions:
L The use of this property, as a duplex, is a nonconforming use, in an R-4 zoning district.
The parcel, with only 4,980 squue feet of area, does not meet the minimuxn lot size
standards currently required for a single-family dwelling. A duplex requires a lot size of
6,000 square feet; three dwelling units requires a minimuxn lot size of 10,000 squaze feet.
The applicant is proposing to construct a two-car gazage, with a dwelling unit on the
second floor. The garage will provide two off-street parking spaces which is not
sufficient for the existing use a duplex, which requires three spaces under the current
zoning code. The applicant is apparenfly proposing to park vehicles in the driveway in
front of the garage, but these would not be legal spaces because they would be located
within a required side yazd set back and, also, would block access to the garage.
This property was re-zoned from RT-1 to R-4 in 1997 when the City Council adopted the
Thomas-Dale Small Area Plan. The proposal to re-zone this property to RT-2 would
seem to contradict the goals of that plan. The Zoning Code recognizes non-confornung
uses and allows them to continue provided they aze not expanded. Given the history of
tYus property, the use as a duplex is a reasonable use. Increasing the number of dwelling
units for what appears to be purely economic gain, on an akeady non-confornung lot, is
not a reasonable use of the properry.
2. There are no circumstances unique to this property that would prevent it from being used
for a reasonable use. The applicant has not demonstrated any hardship in requesting
these variances.
CITY OF SAINT PAiJL, NIINNESOTA ,
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3. The Zoning Code Standards were developed to protect all areas of the City from hanuful
encroachment by incompatible uses and to prevent the overcrowding of land with
buildings and to ensure adequaTe light and air and access to property and to protect the
public safety, health and general welfare of the community. The recently adopted Saint
Paul Housing Plan encourages the construcrion of new dwelling units in the City.
However, the intent of the Housing Plan was not to add dwelling units at any cost. The
sheer number and size of the requested variances is not in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the Code, and is not consistent with the health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the City.
4. The eacisting building on this site is a lazge, two-story structure, built right up to the
property lines on the south and east sides. The building is larger than the neighboring
buildings, and the addition of a second, rivo-story structure on the site will add to the
overall massing of buildings on this corner. The lack of sufficient off=street parking will
add to the congestion of pazking on the street and will increase traffic in the area.
This immediate area is all zoned R-4, and staff is unawaze of any other properties with
two principle shuchues on a lot within the vicinity. The proposed density, lot coverage,
and massing of buildings on the site is not in keeping with the character of the other
homes in the area.
Frovided that the property is re-zoned to RT-2, the proposed variances, if granted, would
not change the zoning classification of the property.
6. The applicant states that one of his goals, in proposing the additional dwelling unit, is to
improve the valne and income potential of this properly. Since the applicant has not
demonstrated any hardship or unique circumstances associated with this request, it would
appear that economic gain is the primary goal of this request.
31 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, Leslie
32 Lucht duly filed on May 11, 2000, an appeal from the determination made by the Board of
33 Zoning Appeals and requested that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of
34 considering the actions taken by the said Boazd; and
35
36 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205 - 64.208 and upon
37 notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 24,
38 2000, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
39
40 WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made and having considered the
41 variance application, the reports of staff, the record, the minutes and the resolution of the Board
42 of Zoning Appeals does hereby;
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does fmd error with the Boazd of
Zoning Appeals decision in this matter based upon the following findings:
1. The properiy in yuesrion cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of
the code. The use of this properiy as a duplex is a non-conforming use in an R-4 zoning
district. The parcel with only 4,980 squaze feet of area does not meet the minimum lot
ao-���
Page 2 of 4
i
2 size standards currently required for a single family dweiling. A duplex requires a lot ���`� `
3 size of 6,000 square feet; three dwelling units requires a min;mum lot size of 10,000
4 square feet. The applicant is proposing to conslruct a two-car gazage, with a dwelling
5 unit on the second floor_ The garage will provide two off-street parking spaces, which is
6 not sufficient for the e�sting use as a duplex, which requires three spaces under the
7 current zoning code. This property was re-zoned from RT-1 to R-4 in 1997 when the
8 City Council adopted the Thomas-Dale Small Area Pian. The progosal to re-zone this
9 property to RT-2 would not contradict the goals of that plan.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circuxnstances were not created by the land owner. The size of the lot was not created by
the land owner. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship in requesting these variances.
3. The proposed variances aze in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and are
consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfaze of the inhabitants of the
City of Saint Paul. The record shows that there is adequate on-street parking and access
for emergency vehicles. Moreover, the recently adopted Saint Paul Housing Plan
encourages the construction of new dwelling units in the City. The variance will add
housing that will rent in the "affordable range" which is consistent with the goals of the
City's Housing Plan.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property. Nor will it alter the essential chazacter of the surrounding area nor diminish
established property values within the surrounding area. The height of the new building
will be consistent with the height of the present residential structure on the property and
the building footprint will similar to that of the former garage. The placement of the
structure on the site offers easy access to the structure.
5. The variances would not permit a use that is not already permitted under the provisions of
31 the Code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it
32 alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. Provided that the
33 property is re-zoned to RT-2, the proposed variances will not change the zoning
34 classification of the property.
35
36 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income
37 potential of the pazcel of land. The applicant states that one of his goals in proposing the
38 addirional dwelling unit was to provide housing for his in-laws, and; be it
39
Page 3 of 4
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
F'[TRTHER RESOLVED, that based upon the above findings that the appeal of Leslie O 0 ' ( o� b
Lucht be and is hereby granted; and be it
FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of ttus resolution to Leslie
Lucht, the Zoning Admiuistrator, the Plauuing Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Fosm Appr d by City
Hy: � W (/��►�1/yQ-��
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Appr
By:
n�.__
By:
Adopted by Council: Date �;�� _'�` Z�00
r .--�_--� -
Adoption Certified by Counc3 � S etary
0 0 -G�G
o�artre�arroFFlCErcaxaca w� vmuTm
City Council �i�9ioo GREEN SHEET No 1 � � 9� 3
CON�ACT PERSOP! 8 PFpl� litlallD�be bMatmms
Councilmember Blakey 266-8610
oart�ru'a,a. ancana
MI1ST BE ON COUNL7LAGB�DA BV (OA7E1 ❑ ❑
July 26, 2000 � a ,,,�„� ��
r�eeFan .
rtartwc
� ❑ wuwctu.a�rson wwo��mnnKCrc
❑�11raRpltwta�nrrl �
TOTAL f OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE�
TION REQIIESTED
Memorializing City Council action taken May 24, 2000, granting the appeal of Leslie Lucht
to a decision of the Boaxd of Zoning Appeals concerning several vaxiances in ordex to
construct a third dwelling unit on the property at 681-683 Van Buren Avenue.
RECOMMENDATIO ApD� (A) a ReJect (R) VERSONAL SERViCE CON7RACf5 MUSTANSWER7HE FOLLAWINC QUESiIONS:
t. HacllircP���eaerxwkedurwleramrd�aclfortliisdepaNnenY)
PLANNING COMMISSION YES NO
CIBCOMMITTEE 2 FiasiMspereaJfirmaymbeenacaycnpbyee?
CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION vES ND
3. Dces thic 0&�mi P�%a slo7 not � M�Y artent cilY emPbYee?
VES NO'
' 4. la Mis pnadJfitm e�peted �endort
VES IJO
E�lau� efl Y� sr�sxera m s�ate sl�eet end attech to Orcen sheM
INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITV (Who, WhaL When, Whae. Why)
ADVANTAGESIFAPPRO� �
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED
DIS4DVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED . ,
MTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTON t COST/REVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCLE ON� VEE NO
FUNDINO SOURCE ACmIRN NUMBER
FllNNCIN. WF�RMhT10N (IXPIAtlI) .
oo-�
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
.
DATE: 7uly 17, 2000
TO: Nancy Anderson
FROM: Peter Wamer �
RECEIVED
J U L 1 8 2a�0
1ERRY BLAKEY
RE: Leslie Lucht Appeal from BZA determination to deny variances
Nancy, attached please find the resolution granting Leslie LuchYs appeal from the Board ofZoning
Appeals denial of variances. Since the Council granted his appeal [they also approved his rezoning
request which will be reduced to a resolution by Planning staffJ I put the matter on the bottom of
my list ofthings to do along with the Lubavitch Yeshiva appeal. Unforiunately, with all ofthe other
things that went on in the last couple of weeks, Leslie and Lubauitch kept sinking to the bottom.
Would you please place this matter on the council's consent agenda at your convenience. Thanks.
PWW
00 -��y
CITY OF S�T PAUL
Norm Colem¢n, .4fayor
May 11, 2000
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Research OfFce
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
E�'VIRONMENTALPROTECTION .{S
Roberi Kessfer, Direclor ��
LOWRYPROFESSIONALBUILDIh'G Telephone:651-266-9090
3�0 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 Facsimi7e: 651-266-4099
SaintPaul, Minnesom 5�101-/5/0 6i1-366-9I11
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Councii is scheduled for Wednesday, May 24,
2000, for the following zoning case:
Appellant:
File Number:
Purpose:
Leslie Lucht
00-126470
Appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals decision
denying several variances in order to construct a
third dwelling unit on the property.
Location:
Staff Recommendation:
District 7 Recommendation:
Board Decision:
681-683 Van Buren Ave
Denial
A representative spoke in support.
Deny on a 7-0 vote
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Blakey. My understanding is that this public
hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you will
publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul L.egal L,edger. Thanks!
Please call me at 651- 266-9082 if you have any ques[ions.
•Fms7'�mr►
xoazc:a oF rosrac �e�urc
Sinc rely,
� `
ohn Hardwick
Zoning Technician
cc: Council Member Blakey
1he Saint Paiil City Councal w1II�condrict
a pufilic liearing on Wednesd'a}�, d�ay 24.
200p, at 5:30 p.m, in the City Counell
ChamM*c 17�ii'd FIOOr �ty HeIl. 15 West
%ltogg Boulevard, Saint Paui. MN, to_
conslder the appeat of Leslie Lucht to a
decdsion of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals
deaying seperal variaxises in order to
construet a third dwelling unit on the
propertyat681-683VanBurenAVeaue. �
Dated May 17, 20pp � . �
NAN(.RAi�IDERSO}�I .
Assi3tautCltyCouncJlSeaefaey .
iMa�zzl -
�s�c rem.r�r�.r.eac�
o�ooaass -
;
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Departneent of Planning and Economic Development
Z0171/ta SCCt1011
1100 Cit}• Hal! Annex
25 K'est Founh Street
Saint Paul, MA' S5102
266-6589
APPELLANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
00 -��s�
��f�,$ �� us� ��� �//'}
P i'k(t -� ��_ Y �• O
F���-�- ����
'E�ntative heanng cisis: �
�f��
Name /_eS/, � �T �uc �'�
Address � � /� Vq�tJ �c,�V-t �.
City S� !�i �. ( St S S/��aytime phone �S'/S�cP��'r7�
Zoning File Name L� Y'� ��� �T G cz c L, f
Address/Location v h� �cC� � C�9 �v /�ta v�,v 4,.�
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
�' Board of Zoning Appeals ,��ity Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph
appeal a decision made by
on
of the Zoning Code, to
19_ File number: CJJ " �� `�.5�/ �
(date of d ecision}
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Planning Commission.
:5-��.
�" 1
1 -��/'
��, 7T� !��
��� ���
Attach additiona! sheet if
1/ �/ fl, �� �l a Y z W,�.��
� / , /
ApplicanYs signature �--M � �7 Date s ��� %f City agent
o�-���
Lesiie K. LacM
689 Van Buren Ave
StPwl, hL�I SS I04
Phone 651-489-7436
Fax 651d89-7436
May 11, 2000
Department Of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Secrion
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Sir,
I writing this letter to appeal the city of Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning appeals Resolution ,
Zoning File Number #00-124519.
I can not add bedroom to the house that is there all ready. I need to build garage. Old garage was
ready to fall down. I would like to build apartment garage. To help with the housing shortages.
The city has change the zoning . Since I bought the house in 1995. I was told the only way
rebuild after fire or storm daznages. To file for zone change. With zoning law that are in place in can
replace it. If that second house is build on the lot. It help keep it a duplex. I apply for zone change
to RT-2 from R-4. A R-4 is single family home. I can not sell the house as a duplex with out
Zone change and the variances. Add other home on the property will help the azea in getting
other person(s) to fix and improve their lots.
This a Comer lot the house sit on east and south east of the property. Which is unique. It is old store
frorn. The size of house is unique.
Putting the apartment garage in the reaz of the lot will help health , safety of other homes in the azea.
Put more eyes on the street were there aze none.
'o D - G'14
The neighbor behind the apaztment garage is ok with this. Neighbors on both side of the lot are ok with
this plan.
Regazding the unreasonably dimiirish established properry value. The aparhment garage will inceased the
property value in area. One is reason is that will be new . And bring the neighboring house in value.
The variances are need to help in change the zoning because of the lot size standards, Setback , on street
pazking. There is a lot of on street parking space. Since ihe house site on the corner. There will not be
increase of traffic to street. The is most of low income tenants do not have cazs. There is lot pazking
spaces on the sueet.
The hardship that I is that my inlaws are from the Plulippines. They live with my family right now.
They would move in to apartment gazage. And I have all ready spend $8,000.00 on this project.
My wife is very upset with the city of Saint Paul. Because of all the problems with this project.
Her pazents can not move into the apartment garage yet. There are thinking about going back to
back to PHII,IPPIlVES. I do plan to rent it out in the future.
Sincerely,
� � l�
Leslie K. Lucht
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS �— C�76
CTTY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, May 8, 2000
PRESENT: Mmes. Bogen, Maddox and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Duckstad, Galles, and Wilson of the
Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. VJamet, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hardwick, and
Ms. Diedrich of the Office of License, Inspecrion, and Environmental Protection.
ABSENT None
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
LESLIE LUCHT (# 00-124519) 681-683 VAN BUREN AVENiJE: Several variances in order to construct a
second house on this property, bringing the total number of dwelling units on the site ro three. 1) A minimum lot
size of 10,000 square feet is required, and 4,980 feet are available, for a variance of 5,020 feet. 2) A side yard
setback of 9 feet is required, and a setback of 2 feet is proposed on the west side, for a vuiance of 7 feet. 3) A
rear yard setback of 25 feet is required, and a setback of 2 feet is proposed, for a variance of 23 feet. 4) Lot
coverage of 30% is allowed, and coverage of 35 % is proposed, for a variance of 5%(272 feet). 5) A total of 5
zoning rooms are allowed, and 11 rooms are proposed, for a variance of 6 zoning rooms (6,600 feet). 6) Four
off-street parking spaces are required, and two spaces are proposed, for a variance of two spaces.
Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report. There was no recommendation received
from District 7, nor was thete any corcespondence oc communication in opposition to the proposed variances.
Staff recommended denial of the requested variances, based on Findings 1 through 4, and Finding 6.
Ms. Morton noted that regarding ffie re-zoning, District 7 did recommend approval of the re-zoning. She asked
if they didn't address the other variances in a letter. Staff replied that he had not received anything from District
7 regarding the variances.
The applicant, LESLIE LUCHT, was present, and came before the Board to answer any questions they might
have. He identified himself as the owner of the property. He said, to address the commissioners' question, as of
Friday, David Lisek told him that they re-affirmed, and that they are going to be sending a letter to the Board in
their support for this project. He also has a letter from the Thomas Dale Block Club, also showing their support
for the project.
Mr. Lucht went on to address one of Staff's concerns, saying that there's no buildings, no two buildings in the
area, - he just took photographs less than an hour ago, at Thomas and St. Albans. Mr. Lucht then passed
around pictures to the Board members. Also, he said, there's a building that was built at Lexington and St. Clair
roughly, which has no backyard at all, which was built within the last year and a haif time period. It's aiso on
the set of pictures. Also, on Friday he took some pictures of St. Aibans, to show the neighborhood, and what St.
Albans sueets, alleyways throughout the area looks like. He noted that, in the photos, a lot of the houses on the
comer lots are right on the property line. It seems like, on every block, there must have been a corner store of
some type.
Mr. Lucht pointed out that now he's just trying to build an apartment/garage to put his mother-in-law and father-
in-law in, because they just immigrated from the Philippines. Down the road, he plans on renting it out to low-
income. But the thing is, he stated, whatever he's been doing, he just got the Staff Report in the morning. He
Page 1 of 7
File # 00-124519
Minutes
po-t�G
has not talked to John. He left John some phone call messages last week. He's had no response back from the
City on this. He said he's just trying to do the best he can. He thinks iYs a reasonable request on his befialf.
And some of the stuff that he has - air and supply in the adjacent azea - he owns the building right next to it. To
hun, he doesn't see there's any damage or anything.
Chair asked if he had time zeview the Sfaff Report so he can go through it and refute the points that Staff has
made. He answered, yes, that he can try.
Mr. Lucht referred to #4, that says there's inadequate supply of light and air to adjacent properry or alter the
essential characteristic ofthe surrounding area and may unreasonably diminish the established property values
within the area. He believes, and also he's been talking to a real estate agent, they say that will increase the
value of the property and adjacent areas aiso.
The proposed variance is not keeping with the spirit and intent of the Code, aze not consistent with the health,
and safety, comfort and moral welfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St. Paul - the reason that he is altering his
plans in the apartment garage, to put in a window on the outside end of the building, which would be the kitchen
facing the alley, is so that there are more eyes on the alley to help reduce the criminal activity. And he believes
he stated that as one of his reasons of putting ffie building in that area.
And he's already stated, yes, his original intention was for income potential down he road, on the properry, but
as present, as he stated, his in-laws have just immigrated, and they would be moving into the properry once it
was built. And they are immigrants, and right now he is the sole supporter of them fot the next 3-4 years. And
it puts an economic burden on him to share the house with them the way it is where he lives in a two bedroom '
house. And getting back to the Ciry, he continued, - 7ohn saying that mostly iYs single-family, in 1997, when
they re-zoned everything, the duplexes stayed. None of the duplexes got demolished or moved away or
anything. They're still there. The house behind him - the black house in the picture across the alleyway, thaYs a
duplex. Everything, all the duplexes stayed there until either a fire, or it's desuoyed. Then they rebuild them as
single-family dwellings, at that time. IYs easy, you can say they're single family dwellings, but they're duplexes.
All the houses right next to his properry, they look like single family but they're duplexes. They haven't moved
away.
Then Mr. Lucht saw that David Liset, from District 7, came in, and he said he'd like hitn to speak on his behalf.
Chair suggested that they get some questions from the Board first.
Mr. Wilson asked how long he owned the building, and the applicant responded, since 1995. Mr. Wilson asked
if, when he bought it as a duplex, that he was aware that it was an allowable nonconforming use on that block?
Mr. Lucht answered that they told him, but he didn't understand what that meant when he bought it. Mr. Wilson
said what it meant, in part, in `75 when they changed the zoning, those that were, were allowed to stay.
Anything today, you could never build a duplex on that square footage. You need a minimum of 50 foot
frontage, 6,000 square feet. Mr. Wilson said the applicant was asking to put another building on that same lot,
which, in fact, requires 10,000 square feet. Secondly, he doesn't l�ow what the foot print is, but it would seem
that he may have more than the proper coverage on that lot. He'd have to ask Mr. Hazdwick about that. But
what he had when he bought it, was a duplex, legal nonconforming use. What he's asking to do, is take another,
a greater non-conforming use for approval.
Mr. Lucht said that's why he applied for a zoning change, and, tentatively, iYs been agreed - it comes before the
Page 2 of 7
File # 00-124519
Minutes
re-G1L
City Council on the 24`� for them to raUfy that. Also back in `97, the Thomas Dale re-planning group said that
they would have spot zoning if someone wanted to come back in. Say that his place burned down, or if he
wanted to do something else, they would look at it on an individual basis to change it to a multi-zoning area.
And thaYs what he has been doing. He stated that there's no place in the Ciry of St. Paul that has 10,000 square
feet for iu lot, for any multi-housing. Because he's looked around for duplexes, 3-plexes, and a 7 plex. There's
nothing. The laws that they have here, - ihere's nothing that you can work with. He can't find any place that
you can work with. The rules of zoning change every so many years, he said, and you can't build anything.
You can't heip out people. You can't do anything. Your hands are ried.
Mr. Wilson said thaYs why they have a Board of Zoning Appeals - you can appeal a decision and thaYs where it
makes a decision, subject to the approval of the City Council should you fail to agree with us. ThaYs why
they're hearing it. Because you are requesting that variance. Which is quite a variance.
Mr. Lucht said he understood it's quite a variance.
Mr. Courmey said he looked at the pictures and he didn't really understand what the applicant was pointing at.
He asked if there were sunilar structures in the area that he's modeling this after?
Mr. Lucht said the first set of pictures - he tried to get the pictures where ffiere's a part of a complex on Thomas,
and then ffiere's a house on St. Albans - 610. And the total - it looks like it's right on the same lot - it has less
than 15 feet in between it - between the apartment building and the house. IYs similar to what he's trying to do.
IYs already well established there - iYs been there for years.
Mr. Courmey asked if there were any other structures like he's talking about building, in the immediate area,
where you've got a two car garage and an apartment on top. Mr. Lucht answered, no, there isn't. Mr. Courmey
asked if it is clearly going to be taller than any normal garage, that it might stick out a little bit? Mr. Lucht
asked, you mean stick out, up wise, and Mr. Courtney responded affirmatively. Mr. Lucht said, up wise, yes.
He added, that getting back to the footprint, the old garage was, 34a24, so acrualiy what he is building is 26x28,
so it would be in the footprint of the old garage.
Ms. Bogen asked if the applicant currently lives in the duplex and Mr. Lucht answered that he currenUy lives in a
single family, two houses down from it. He lived at 681 for a year and a half, and 685 for a year and a half.
Now he lives at 689, which is two houses in.
Mr. Duckstad asked Peter Wamer, the City Attomey, if, when they're confronted with being asked to grant a
variance on property where there's an already existing non-conforming use, and the request would further
exacerbate that situation, and, thirdly, where the hardship, if any, is either none or iYs created by the applicant,
are they legally allowed to grant the variance, under all of the attendant circumstances?
Mr. Wamer responded by referring back to the Staff Report. In order to grant a variance in Zoning law, when
Staff brings its Fmdings to the Board's attention the Board must fmd that each fmding has been satisfied. If any
one is not satisfied, that is a legal basis for denying an application. The Board must make a deternunation, based
on the facts provided by staff, the applicant and any other information that you can lawfully receive: does the
application meet those fmdings? If they haven't, then you can lawfully deny the request for the variance.
With respect to this particulaz properry, the Staff Report in Number 1, says that it is a non-conforming use. In
general terms, the Zoning Code changed and this use, whether it was residential or commercial, became a non-
Page 3 of 7
File �f 00-124519
Minutes
00 - G�G
conforming use. This means that the non-conforming use cannot expand: you can't change the non�onfomuty.
You can make changes or variations to a non-conforming use, but that's done by the Planning Commission_ So,
back to dealing wirh the application before you, there's norhing that legally compeis you to do one thing or the
other, you simply have to be sarisfied that all the conditions in the City's Zoning Code have been met. And, if
they've been met, you can grant the vaziance. If you feel, based on all the evidence before you, that it hasn't
been met, then you can move to deny them. [Incidentally] this is a quick primer on variance law for the new
members.
Chair asked the Board if there were any other questions and there were none. She then asked the applicant if he
wanted to make any other statement. Mr. Lucht answered that he wanted to hear what David Liset from District
7 has to say.
Mr. Duckstad asked the applicant if he lmew of any other properties in the neighborhood, or in the whole ciry,
where you've got 3 living units on a 6,000 square foot lot. Mr. Lucht answered nothing at hand.
Mr. David Liset, 168 Charies, came forward to address the Board and said he was wearing two hats. The
District Council, and the report that it didn't take a stand on the proposal, but it passed through their physical
planning committee that this was alright to build this if it met certain conditions. And he thought those conditions
were picked up by the zoning people.
Mr. Liset then said that he'd take off his hat and speak as a citizen of the Frogtown area. This property is a
storefront. And in many neighborhoods, they have storefront properties that are difficult to seil in neighborhoods
and they tend to drag the neighborhood down because they don't fit in like a regular house. What they have in
this situation is a building, which used to be a storefront, and it siu right up on the edge of the lot and right up on
the front of the lot, so it doesn't have the sideyards and the front, it has more space in the back. It also has
parking around two sides of the properry and since iYs on the comer, it has wide open access, so iPs not actually
crowding as far as public living of the people who would be living there. Mr. Liset said the space on the back of
the property would be used to build a garage anyway, if I,es decided to do that. So a second floor on it, the
question is, would that fit in.
There was one correction ffiat he saw on the Findings. And that is that the access on P. 1 of 3, on B, it says the
access is on the west side, but the alley access is on the north side of the property. On that side then, even
though there's a variance because iYs going to be too close to the properry line, it acrually sits on the alley, and
having lived in an alley house, himself, in the past, he found that living next to an alley like that, if you're up
higher, is not a probiem, and it gives you plenty of space up the side. You don't feei you're constrained there by
a cioseness of neighbors, as they have other houses in Frogtown which are 3 feet a part.
The plight of the landowner, in this case, he thought, has to do with the fact that he has his relatives, which are
coming to live with him, and he's going to be the sole support for a while, and this is an easy way to put them up
and to keep them close to the family, as a family unit is important to them.
Mr. Liset continued that the proposed variances, keeping in the spirit and intent of the Code, - he thought that
one of the things that they are trying to do in Frogtown is increase the number of dwelling units that they have.
And half a block away, thaPs across the alleyway from this, they're going to be putting in a communiry school,
and increasing the size of the recreational facility, and they're hoping to add the National Guard Armory also, so
that they create this center for the neighborhood. And it would seem appropriate, the density of housing close to
Page 4 of 7
File 1100-124519
Minutes
oa-���
a faciliry like this, because that wouid be where people would want to live, is next to that faciliry. And it
increases the size of the pazk land in that area also. In most of Frogtown, they have less pazk land than any piace
else in the Ciry, and this particulaz block, they're closest to ihe biggest park land in the whole neighborhood.
As far as 1{4, would the variances unpair the quality of light and air. The property on the alley side is not going
to be impaired because iYll be 20 feet away from - weli, iYs 2 feet off the properry line and then iYs 20 feet
across the alley, so it has adequate room on that side. The other side, the property owner there has no objection
to the structure going up, so it shouldn't be a problem on that side, which is the west side of the buIlding. Mr.
Liset said that's all he had to say on this.
Mr. Wilson asked, under Thomas/Dale Small Area Plan (he said he hadn't read it), what the basic goal in that
was - wouldn't it have been to increase home ownership, and individual homes, rather than cental, because he
understood, going back a couple years, part of the problem on that side of town, and his side of town, is to uy
and increase home ownership, not rental property. What do you know off hand, he asked, or could you tell him
what that Small Area Plan basic goal was in the Thomas Dale area?
Mr. Liset responded that the basic goal was to decrease the number of duplexes and to increase the number of
single-family, owner-occupied houses. That was the plan. Because they had such a problem with absentee
landlords. But they're not adverse to making some changes to that, if it looks like iYs going to be a long-term
owner-occupant, that type of situation. And this is what they have. He's in the neighborhood. He lives aimost
right next door, ffie backyards could be connected almost there. And iYs going to be his family, which is living
in the property. They're also looking now at the fact that they have a shortage of rental housing in the
neighborhood, so.they have to go back and re-visit portions of that, and find room for more housing that has
additional units in it. And thaYs going to mean, at some point, they're going to have to take houses out in order
to put more in. The site which is next to the park and the communiry school and the national guard armory is
likely to be one of those areas, so he would anticipate that, across the street, St. Albans on the other side of the
alley, is likely to be higher density at some time in ffie future. So he thinks that this is going to be more of a
village corner down there than what they have today.
Mr. Wiison asked if didn't they also have quite a lot of the 25 foot small lots, that they were trying to increase lot
sizes, and he's more over on Minnehaha off of Western and that.
Mr. Liset said that has been a goal, especially the farther back you get from University Avenue. But they have
also gone to the Ciry and asked for variances to build on smaller lots than what is allowed by the City. So
they're trying to make sure that on ffie smaller lots you can stili get narrow houses in them. If iYs possible to do
that, they're encouraging that also.
Mr. VJilson said that he knows that they granted variances on house sizes, but not too ofren lot sizes. When
neighborhood housing, Greater Frogtown CDC requested - they've okayed narrow, less wide houses than the
City allowed, even on the 40 footers, but his understanding is, on Dale/Thomas and throughout the Ciry, to
increase the lot sizes, not crowd them more.
Mr. Liset said this is kind of an unusual situation. If it was in the middle of the block, there wouldn't be as much
support as there is, because it sits on the end, and it sits on ffie ailey, it has kind of a face on a different street.
That particular street, in their neighborhood, is one of their problem streets, because they don't have enough on
that street. They have eyes on their cross streets but not the north/south streets. So this wouid be an opporrunity
to increase the presence of someone who couid actually see what gces on to make it safer, as it's an access point
Page 5 of 7
File #{ 00-124519
Minutes
to the park forthe neighborhood.
pD-6�
Mr. Wilson noted that the applicant is also asking for a vaziance to the parking spaces. Not only on the density
of the lot, the square footage loss, but also a variance on the pazking spot.
Mr. Liset said parking is always a problem no matter where you go, but in this case, he's got two streets next to
his building, and a place for tenants to pazk on both streets. There should be adequate paYking as far as streeu.
When it comes to snow emergencies, that's a different matter. But he also has the house wluch is two houses
down. If he would agree to let that be used as parking for snow emergencies, Mr. Liset thought that could be
met.
Mr. Wilson said maybe whIle he's there, but if he should sell out, down the line a ways. Then he asked Staff for
a quick explanadon between RT-1 to R-4.
Staff responded that RT-1 allows one and two family homes. If you put a single family home in an RT-1 zoning
district, it has to meet the R-4 standazds. If you build a duplex in an RT-1 zoning district, it has to meet the RT-i
standards. The RT-1 standards for a duplex are a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, with a lot width of 50
feet. There would be 3 off sueet parking spaces required for a duplex. For a single family home in an RT-1
zoning district, all they need is 5,000 squaze feet of lot size with a 40 foot lot width, and of course just one
parking space.
Mr. Wilson asked, then a 3 plex requires 10,000?
Staff said 3 or more units requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 squaze feet. There is no minimum lot width but
there is a requirement of one and a half off street parking spaces per dwelling unit.
There was no opposition present at the hearing.
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Wilson noted that the City is going to look at the zoning change on May 24`" to consider the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Mr. Wilson moved that the Boazd delay any decision pending that.
Mr. Duckstad seconded the motion.
Mr. Hardwick reminded the Boazd that Staff processed this variance application, even ihough typically non-
confomung uses, and expansion of a non-confomung use does go to the Planning Commission. Staff processed
this vaziance application before the Board of Zoning Appeals based on the fact that the applicant has applied for a
re-zoning. And the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the re-zoning to the Ciry Council. If
this Board should in its wisdom decide to grant these variances, the Board would have to grant the variances,
subject to a condition that the rezoning was, indeed, in fact, approved. The second thing he wanted to state that
goes back to Mr. Wilson's suggestion, that Staff has been informed by the City Council that when ihere aze
anticipated appeals to decisions, whether it be a Planning Commission decision, or a Board of Zoning Appeals
decision, that the Ciry Council would like to consider everyihing ali at once. That is, if there is also a re-zoning
to be heard before them, and there's also an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals decision, they would like to
consider that all at one time, rather than hearing the same matter rivice, or in some cases three times. So, he was
saying that for their edification, that Staff has been told that City Council wants everything brought before them
Page 6 of 7
File # 00-124519
Minutes
at once, whether iPs an appeal of a site plan review, or a variance or whatever.
oa-G'1�
Ms. Bogen asked Staff what he used for ihe requirements. Staff answered an RT-2. Ms. Bogen asked, then, iYs
not going to allow them any more than what tfie restricrions that aze already there, those aze the restdctions mmder
RT-2, right? And Staff concurred. She concluded then that there's no reason to wait, because iYs not going to
change the vaziances they're going to require.
Chair called for a roll call on the modon to delay a decision unfll after ihe City Council meets. The motion failed
on a vote of 2 in favor of delaying a decision(WIlson, Duckstad) to 5 against (Courtney, Morton, Bogen, Galles,
and Maddox).
Ms. Bogen moved to deny the variances and accompanying resoluflon, based on Findings 1 through 4, with a
change in Finding 1, (the word `cannot' be changed to `can'), and also Finding 6.
Mr. Courmey seconded the motion to deny the variances, which passed on a roli call vote of 7 to 0.
Submitted by:
Approved by:
John Hardwick Gloria Bogen, Secretary
Page 7 of 7
pD -6')b
MEMO
Date: OS/10/00
To: File
From: N. Diedrich �/"�
Re: BZA File # 00-124519 - Applicant Request for PackebStaff Report
Mr. Leslie Lucht called me on Wednesday, 05J03/00, at approximately 11:30 and asked when he
would be getting a copy of the packet to be mailed to applicants. I explained to him that it was
getting ready to be printed and would be mailed out on Thursday. He stated that someone had
told him he would have it 10 days before the hearing. (Note: the Public Hearing Notice
postcards are to be sent 10 days before the hearing and were, in fact, sent to neighbors within 350
feet of the pazcel on 4/27.) He expressed concem over the fact that he would be out of town and
would not be able to see the reports until Monday, the day of the hearing. I asked if he would
like to speak to Wendy Lane, who is manager of the Zoning Department, he consented, and I
transferred the call. Mr. Lucht had a brief conversation with Wendy, then she gave me a number
and asked me to fas the Staff Report to Mr. Lucht, which I immediately attempted to do. Note
that Mr. Lucht had been previously asking for the packet and never specifically mentioned that
ali he wanted was the staff report. I attempted to fas the staff report three times but the fax
machine would only ring the number - it never `went through'. I went back to my information
and looked up Mr. LuchYs telephone number on his applicarion (it was the same as the faac
number). I called the number and Mr. Lucht answered. I explained to him that I was unable to
fa�c the report to him and wanted to verify that the faac number was the same as the telephone
number. He answered affirmatively but explained that his phone/fax machine would not accept
unidentified calls or faaces. It seems that a call from a City phone or fax will not identify itself as
such. I asked Mr. Lucht what he wanted me to do and he asked if I would fas the report to the
Thomas/Dale Planning Council, which I ageed to do, and did immediately. Mr. Lucht said he '
lived nearby and could easily pick it up right away. The Staff Report was faaced by noon on
Wednesday, OS/03/00. Mr. Lucht never called back to say that he had not received it.
I mentioned these facts to 7ohn Hazdwick and he also told me that he had tried to retum Mr.
LuchYs calls but he received messages that the phone did not accept unidentified calls.
Oo -`'1`
APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE
OFFlC'E OF LICENSE, IA'SPEC770NS, AND
E.'WIRO:ti�tfENTAL PROTECTION
3�0 St. Peter Street, Suite 300
Saint Paui, MN 55102-1 �IO
166-9008
APPLICANT
Znning office use ortly
Pile numbee: Q d� ����� �
Fee: 5 `�^ _ E�(� -�
Tentative hearing daTe: 3 �3 CTa
Seetion(s}: �d �- �a �
Cityageat � I�s�G
Name �� 5 ��� e � �..w �-k.� Company
Address � S' p �/4 n7 ��.r-�.ri 4 v t—
City S�, 1" e..�-� State�!`� Zip S�'/Uf` Dayfime Phone �S/T %36
Property interest of applicant (owner, contrect purchaser, etc ) CJ W v-� ✓
Name of owner (if different)
PROPERTY Address/Location �ngl �- �e� URt,-� �lui�.� q�'�
Legal description � L 3� ��cC'c z t � h�: ��c f'Yz�i e� ���
(attach additiona/ sheet if necessary)
Lotsize ����.�.�s - �"� c ��l � Present Zoning�PresentUse � U �
Proposed Use �� ci � Y ri e_rc� ix.n ei Sv � Z CcL V' �ie +"c-.� F. c' �. �.� � Cc�lO l
1. Vanance(s)requested S�� �� r�.i{^ YQh� ��S�Y'c� 2` iJ���cy.
� ) � �
Gv'CS°C S�dC Yr^'� ��'� � c� .G r IJi�<''r�J
d
Ftiih �..°� 5,z:'. l� czt ��c� z;c;3�� �c� �c+"zr�.y � 3a 'vJEyw�.�'�,} ��',
, �.
2. What physical characteristics of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone?
(topogra hy, srze and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc )
L�� S« � 5�� � c���«�, �� �k,s�� l�h�
3. Explain how the strict appiication of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or excephonal
practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardships.
Co �, f� i�: �f y�, t� c< r r, �,z � K c� �.
CASHIERS USE ONLV
Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment
to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose
of the Zoning Ordinance.
{ /
( �L !(...� t4 C' L�•� �/' ./�C/`'. i �. G G� �'Z.
z. ���'.:..,_?�. u.,���1�/e�G�''�nIGC� T��( 4-`-'i�
�:�'C�L �V.rr.� t d4 L�� • _
'�. ��-�I�' JE'��+.cti I� i
3ch additionai sheets rf needed 1 5 h or ��[� ,�
. � % ,
ApplicanYs signature � �� Date �� �� ���
R c,,� 3/w
OD-6'1G
Leslie K lucnt
689 Va¢ Buren Ave
StPaul, MN SS10d
Phone 651-489-7436
Fax651-489-7436
March 20, Z000
St.Paul Zoning and Pernrits
To Whom it may concem,
My Name is Leslie K. Lucht and I am the property owner of 681 & 683 Van Buren Ave, St.Paul,MN.
I am planning to build an apartment garage there. I all ready tom down the old gazage of ihat address.
I all ready talked to my neighbors about this project. They have no problems with it.
The reason why I am doing this aze as follows:
1. To improve my proper[y value and to improve the property value of this azea.
2.The apartment will be overlooking the atley and block which should help to cut down criminal activities
in the alley.
3. Help reduce the housing shortage for low income families.
If you have any questions reguding this lettec, you can call me at 651-489-7436.
� Sincerely,
� 7 �- , r
�,�L�-� � . , �.
Leslie K. Lucht
- �
V tl� �
5� t ,
� � � ^.: �l
--- -- r- - - ---
-----� ��-� �-�-�_+��� -----
--'� �h t +�
_ <_
�T Ff--
e
�_ `
S � _�
��
� — --------------� -.
.
-_----
i. -
� ---- ------ --__--- ---
.;� -� -- --- - — - - ------ ---- _
-=i - - - -- ------ - - --
:,
�.
,-; - - -- -- - --- -- _ _ _-----
�f
- ----
- -- --- - ----- - --
�>
1 ------- ---- --------
,J� ----- - - -- -- -- -- -
Y;
- - -- - - - -- - -
�--- -- -- --- --
' = -- - -- - - - - _ ---- ---- ----
- F � ��� ,-� C
---- - - ' I -
-- -- � � t - -
- -- --�---
�.-
�---___ . . . _ _._ _ � o - 61 �
� - -- � -
;
t
� ;
_ � =
- --- ; =
--- -- � _
5
1
1
-- -- '.- f -
T i� �
. . _ _ ._.�� �. _�� .-. . _._�
_ p
C
�. � �.
`� � {
r==—��' �
---- �:
--- -- '`�` � .
: _ ��
- : --�-- � -
--- -- �` � ;
�
------ ` � =
�,
� �:
-- .. -- — �
, � �;-
;
--- - — - ; - �;,
— -- � �
, � � �
-- . - � � � ' - �
� � ;
�,.___.___ � 4 '_
�: -� '� �, � ;
,:
---- — --- -- ------------., �--- — � .
� � � � ( '�� � v
_ � _- - _ _ - __- - _ _ - __- '_-_- __- _ _ �___'-_' - -- __- _ _-'_ - _'_ _ _ - ___ _" '
� � � �
� . � {
, .__ _' __' _ _ _ .' - _'_" __-'_ _____'___ _,.,) — -___. - _ __'_ _ _ __- _ __ _--_ _ _' _ _ _ _ . ' k c . �'G
� I O t
� V/ 7
;
i __-__' ""_____— _" '_ ."__ .' _ _ -_ -'___ ___.-___ "___'_"____-__ _ �
{`• ��
j
; -_ _..-_ _'...' ___ ___- __ ' _ _ ' _ "__ _-_'__"_ "-__- _ _" ' _ '_ _'__-__ _ - i l
f
' _ '_'_____ ' _' ' _ __" ' . _ _ _-_'__" "-"_ _ -____ "__ _ _ ' "
t
�
.
' �
? _ _ ' __ .'__-___ ' _' _ _____ _ __" �___ _ "- __ -" _' _ " � � `
� ` j ' \ . (��\ d � � � _ ��
` _ __ _" ��: `� 1� _' _ _ s i 1 �
_ '_ ' _ _ _ __ _-_____ "_ _ ' _ _ _ -___ ' _ _ '
' � _ ' _ _ _ � .r, _ _ _ � _ 'c
�
f — -- — — — — — �
—� _ �
— _ — — — -- — - - —'�`1
i .� _
�------
1
(� .__ ___ _ __.
�l
___ ._ _ _ _ _ .
�--�` - --- --
�.,�._.,,� �
- - -- -�' � -- -- - ---- - --- - -- -���� � � �� �i - - - -
���-� �!e,-.�—�— - �� � .�e , J�=? }�'u_.e;�
�' �;
..»,�..«�..-.-�----
� � ���
;
.�
w�
� i .
� 1
� k . .
1
�; �
�. ;
t i ''
v
��
�i
Lt
�t
�
v=1
I�,o '�
G
�^ * - "e.."
� a
. �
�y � .
�
�
c � ��
� e U,� -�,� � � �
r
�
�
� .
� , �� �
� ; - .�
--� - � � � �� �- L� � !
� c.��.J t'�j>' !.*) t -i�
- __-, _n.. .� ,�.�T_ x_,-� -,..�-...�.,�._..�,�:_ _
� ,�-�� _ I' �G �J �
-� -'! t_'
� .� �., -z-- �L 1 � � . � f � � ��
i
�°• �: � +, �+.�^
r
�
� `�
� -, �
� �
� �
s
�.
; ;
�
i ,
1 00 -1C'f �
�� J' F � �`�-- t—�
''t � onM � ;
.-� '! -, r
rs
� i
� ' v
� — a
�
� � �;
� � �?
�
�
�
�v� �
0 0 - ���
- - -- _. � -
�- � �'��` -. - -
t_
,f. !.�
, �
:
� . : �,!
- - --- - -_ _ _ - - , -a � �t` _ _ .
-------- - -- - - -----� - - -
�'` �J � _� :�� 3._
_ -_ _____--_.-_ , _-__ " �{--�--V . ���i�+i_� - �. - _t . <�..'.=,�_ _ __ " _ '
( •
�
___----.___---__ � -- -- -__ _ _______�
, _ __�___, _ . . _ i
_ � _ � -__-_ , . _ _
. ' �� �� ' , . � -�-'__--
_____ - 1 ,
I___-- __- _
�
i
ti
S _ __.- ___._-_ _ __ _ _ _
__-;- ___-__'_
-..'_ _____ ;_-- _-_ _
�
' � ��}. ^Z-.> � � v
_" __ __— -__ _- ______ �--_ - ------- ------- -
' Z l V�� j v - ----- --------
-- -------- ---�i`�. � �..�. .------ -----� �-- �
,' tl t j F i.__.
---------- �--- �� --'-���:� --------- - ------ -----------�---- -----
,`
- - � ---- -- - - -- - - - - - - ----- - - _ .
- �
----- --------- #s -----�c ��-� ` - _ � 3r;
, -��— --- ----- ---s
�. '� �t/ � �1 f.
' __ _- __- _ _ "_' . _ _'_"__' . 1
� �- �.�.--- .�� l
----
--- � -- - - -
�- ------- ����---- -� �-� --------- - -�- -------� _ � -
��
� ---- - --- -
------
- -- - -- -- ---- --- - �
- ---- — - � _
_ - -- - - ---- _ - - - --- - --- - -- — - -
�•� �
- _ -- - -i� v�=�--��(--(,,!� ��j �2�r-� i�J - -
� -a
CITY OF SAIDIT PAUL
No�m Caleman, Mayor
February 25, 2000
Leslie Lucht
689 Van Buren Ave
Saint Paul, Mn 55104
Re: Variance application.
Dear Mr. Lucht:
OfFICE OF LICENSE, I?iSPECIIONS A.�ID ���/ /) �
Eti'VIRO�iV1EV PROTECi[OY b
Robert Kesster, Director
LO�YRYPROFFSSIONALBUILOMG Telephone:6�1-?66-9090
3i0 S1. Peter Street, Su71e 300 Facsimile: 651-266-9099
SainlPau[, Minnesata S.i701-IS/0 6�l-266-9f2S
I have reviewed the variance application that you submitted in order to construct a carriage house
structure at 681 Van Buren Ave. I am unable to process your application without some additional
information:
You will need to submit a better site plan, drawn to scale, that shows the exact d'unensions
of the existing house and the proposed carriage house, as weli as the exact location of the
house on the property.
2. You will need to submit floor plans of both structures in order for us to determine the
density of the properiy.
3. It would help if you wouid inciude a letter explaining why you want to build the carriage
house. In your letter you should address the six fmdings the Board of Zoning Appeais must
make in order to grant a variance.
Enclosed is a sample site plan and a handout listing the six fmdings that are necessary in order to
grant a variance.
If you have any questions regazding this matter you can call me at 266-9082.
Sincerely,
i �
� John Hazdwick
Zoning Specialist
�� � �j u. (' � �L� -�� �✓ � �
� 48� 6�3
i ,.I 1- '�' L�---'
�cr�G�
�
2t 1
Ci O
O
�
�,
^l
�
�
�
s
�
� �
.�
a
p,it�. �
� ��- �c��s
�
�
.�
�
--,..
�
�
�
�
Z
�
�
�
�,� a.e.. W�<<�-
0
i
�
J
�
�
c'�v<<C� e
w0.
_ r ��,
� �, �
/"
����-�
ar �b4.���a�j t1�,� �iwt�-r� � �
�
�v
�
,�
.d
3
�
�
,�
_ _ 2/
��
r' h `��
.��
�..�`�„
.�
,.
nd�k: i11'1.-:-.-
'��'
u �''S �>
�J�
Z< s ��h���
U
��
�
J
�
ti0
, . _-._ ' � �.
�. `.� _
� `t:
3K
4/ � � "
� � ,� '� 1 4 1
S � 3 � � _ .
'.j � � � . \ �' �
� � � � " _ _ �_- ,.
.s � � � �- _ � �"^. ; a
�. `. .� . = - i - :� w .-
a! ` ±'^� � � � ��� '
__ ' � : i
: �
V / � ? � +. � 9 �..w,: « . � — �. :� �
iY i � r_ S� �s- f.. �' '
'.e'LicY'� P' _ � —
f 'T Y
� � I `�R,,. .'�`;: { .
rf� - '�:�.7: j
� _ :c;:
n , v4 �����j � � �,�,'+`,.-�^::,�"
�.:J - I �- .'c;'F+.,�' ; ; : :
�
_ a . - . � �Ay'�-�c.,��'��'
" _ . _ . ." - "�;; ' 7' _ _ �, .- _ "� :
l h S �+�. ' � ?•
� � �. a�' �s.. a M�S �
- ,•�� �� � "�'�� .t. _..��`- .t 2 4 4� � ��
� 3"� m � -+ �e� �YL .�.. e%�ST. � �;�x�ir ��� .
���-^' F
t .-r+. x_ i-p„ _ (•• � I I i.
r � 4
�:�" 4 t ^4' � �TV. � 4 . ' � .I I
�
) S ..✓
�#r �# x '' �
� �b �s^x-�' .' b�r
" < ��{ ,, q �� �;�sc . .�.w�`
� •X.i'�� +.� � . <.� s �?� °~�� � •�
�
.� : : /. �'� . - :,T,.x�` a.-%_ .. . � . ' ,..�K" �
} . ., r _- -3' . . . -
_� r f � l ' ��,... = j ',� v
. I l,� . s - , � �, -� . � _ E
f , �. t s� ��, �`'� � ,� ' - � i ��_
P 1` � rS $ 'y
: f .. y x , _ r�., ' �.�� ..._� . �
� jy g 'a l .F' '� . -, e
�. ` � � ���-! � � r F > �`� G � . �
.. �y.
i � j � ✓ .. ' �'�y �C „� � �`
,,, -'�,��' i< . , �� ,.�.r • y �� ' J `✓� � �.
_� i t 4 � .,_q, < � __ _ . _ _ � � � 1 ,�.{ � '�..
g � ; } �
' A �^ = - .
' �a ..6 n $ ''`"� � '�.� .� . � �,�-.
�# �`��. :�" r _�-� -..�.�..�..,, x'
�°��� �• �' � �� �`� �„ �� y . �'-.
�� a..�.�s,. .:s". � x g � �� �:
±Y" � � ' ' ^ "" � _,.y ,y,E, �,.r � � � �_ .
_ ; ' �'s�` _ �ea,,.. g }. -
� � '` e J' � ,s.. � _ .,a . _ �.e r _:r
U Y
f � `4 �
t ��� � � - ��.C°«� � � �
t ' y _"' '
�� %, � � '`:�`i�
� F . j i �- + v ' � .
! �.( � � }
� ' � � �+ �frb�i
Y ` e • -,
,g, � f ` - _ � -
.,
r - � ,; � , I S },Z i._ , �'�
� . ._ � - � __
, � r � � � ,��-�: -'-�,�- ' ' �
,`' '�` .,
,
�`` `�.
``.`�` .'
:� � : .� ,1 � :s
°'�� �:, , �� �
,� � � ��°� � �` � � ���
- �,� �� � � �
i �������� a ;� � �� � 't . �
�„ S �4 T �7
, '
„��.e:-zc�-=.�....
\�,� • �
^`���
�•
� � �` '
rv =, + . 3 t `�'�^
s Y
� ��
s.'�`Y..ar: �.
-�
.. . ��^
iP �
.�
Q�
�°. : -
��
�
� �r ; s
�„ �
a
—� _.i
� \ \`
. l ` `
\ \ �\�
\
\` � � �
.`
\ \ � �
\ `� �
:..\�`��� `�� ` _; *;
� �,
_. _ , � �-
��
.-F
R
y �� ' `�� '•� '
t '
�0
x �,__�
�„" -=`'� x=
_t _:.,.,:�;��._ : _ . - __., .
::•�.'^-'� a.�- : t
.�.
5
�.^�'
_ s � . .
:��( '.'�_ _
'.;� _
„ v�:..��"'��
.L t' _<,�..- �„':.
,. �� __ �..1
E , � _ ' ^.,{w+
Y ,��
k : � f ` - '�` "
� { _
� $
� ;C
�
� ��
f •y -..
Y
�� � �.3.
\ '
�
" �� ,
>
%;,_`� _
„
,� _
��
�-. .
4
r �'�
��....
, � � x
_ : .s-
.�.. , n �;
"�_ �`:.'�_- �� -
�.
�� ': Y' t •, r � _
i . . . . 4✓ � t�..
t � �f_ _ _z f
� b F
� S • y� � -
4 i � . . . � is.
�
�:.:�
�F �
!� � �
r q
E
��_{ .
3
Tr...
J 5 v
�� (-
� �' � � 3f .
S f
"�vr p i w +
'.-*.Z\ :��,�,�. - i .
� �
��d �
�L�;:.C� ,
�� `, �
• ° • �
� �
�F' � .
TM�.i � � .=.3
'�'�
n`. — �sA q ^
x L' Z S.3 z' ,
' ��
..;. ��
`'.� , _ ��.
^` .:` 1.-.:. --- t , .
_._�__.
_:--�
j
� .°:
t i-
� �
� `� ��
� .;.
� �.s
-.{,,�
��
,�:
. _ . pD-C'l�O �
_ - - :i �
[t:`. :;: . - -. - -
Y� - �
t �ti
5 � :...
1
A 1::-
Si - '
�e_. - _:._ -
a
�
s.
� z _ �
�
� �'-� - , �.•i
� . .
� ' f '
� �
o �, �s
s
a� . z
h � '
� �.
� _ z
`x
�
��:• "
5. '
.:r`" - - - -- .. `3',��.
'
" _"-.-..'.;
l _..
.� ""
�
�
l
i
�—� _ —=�-:-�.�
1 ---�� =_:�=
r ` '"-�_�
� ���
Y = �+�
_ Y
a �
�
S
n
.�
. _�..
_ �i _�
� � ��
� .j� �, O
� ��:
_ o� -c�� �
- -� �� �a:
. "_ � .-r: �.
=�y_,i:a-
' �� �
��'
5�" ':
- •�� T ��
' � Y1
���'fl t
-�� _.� .
�� �- =:��:
4_ ' 'I a` � �
� '_.'"_: " - _
�-z � hr �
a .
'i'..
!."�� l �
F . .' � �'' �
� + �� �
+ � � J
�c�� ; �e .
t �
v �,. ' L
�� ���'"' ��€ a' � ~��
� * i ;f
_ }
�� s,� � �� � �.�`-_i. ...
� �`�� 7 . � .
�C �' ��:.' �
� ..� x o y.....!
� i i
..n .
. .. . .. `.' .
.±s -
�� �.,il:
�'� . � � i, � �;ry k �} � �z'`
.�,a � . " l''� �� a�� � s.'t
� .� x � � �`
` �� � � �z _ -�
� �� . F . H 'c
Y �� �
L
r e
1
�.r`t _ � d' i+.�
-!�.�tw-ac/''::v.. � �' " .�_ a � �f:'E`
_ r ,. _ - _ �
n �� S' � _
� ° l
Y
s+ ° x i' ~
;y �' i -': � hs `�._ -�� ! 'ki '
F >
'; � � � .�_ �vS -.._ � 4'�., � ( �.4.
�" , ` y. �
i
;
fy � ` G .
�_ �����'�{"'���t� �' � ` .q! � ._` Y � � b
�: f# '�' '�N t f . S � ; �..:�
.�f� � [ } � � F � � � �
) ,. �._ 4� . .
i', '�r � "�" r s - a+ `
.,- � � � ' , "° s
� � �' �^� �{ � F Sp � ,�+-, i ' '.,�.
�.�� Y q . FA �Y � �
, � y.� . Y ♦ � � z P J "�' � ��T.. -.
S"`
. .. ���. �,v ra4$` �s �., __.. . �_ ����R:� F�'>„ .- . _
''. �
. �
� �
.a ._.
✓"
`: M'
i
�.
y � � �,. 6;
<� A� !±�
i3� �'[
� ��;
§ Y v
� M$.e
a ' ..ya� ,...
� x
pi
a'� p � .'.,.' . .,E
�
i
7 �� r ': . ����.
�Ya� ��.
f ��
G
fq
S
C?r�
S
k �� , .
fi :�::'.
h � ,
C� j Y . � ` .�:
�'
� �
��3 .. . . . „1
� ..r- '
� _
�� .
��f �-' " ,
� ~ , � �_
� _'� i %'�.:'-�
:i ; �
;� r�.
�'!►
� �
� � :: � ;c
�•
�°" '_ i.
.�.�. .�r -� ...
� � � � -
�� .�•.
- �
<
� _ � . :�
,
� r�
`� �
x�
. ��� �ti
���.'�. .
�;
,:.�:
: .�:
: �-., :
� r.
:
?5:':
�� _
e'�`
.' 3� - *..
�:�
f .. �-�
_'_'�
$ �
1
�
�
r s5 d
i: � ;
a j
1 -
Grs
• ;�
�
�
T� '
z�
� �� �� •�
` '�C�
t `�c� '�
� { ����
s`
. r _::� .� � �-�z �:
, ¢ _s
��it '7 . .. .
:�
_�
���
�. ?
�
� .
> �,.e x,i -.
��r
. _.z
�
�6�6
i�i i
I
' �',.
_ - ,:�
z . _
" x.
�t..
��� I
�
�
��_� �. _ '"", � 'n � �� �
!�i
p'�-s'� ��. � � � .£� V� �ij � � �
_... i� r " ' i I
��;��� . �''. �.
� ,�y�.�� 3 � . I.�I
� �
_ Y �� c � � 5 � ? 'rv I
iT ...��."Sl'f
I
� ly I
�
�
�� ���
�
+ �r
,� � ' 6� � f i ���
- . � �...�,.<�� ��� 'i
_�-'— �,- m;�.-.. . �
'Y-- "�
- . 1J - .. . . .
�
��
�
��
��
�
>�
;i:._-�-��
_.c% ^� �
»
�w
�_
p
�"�
,�_, .
,��, �� i
.�>
� '� �
��� 4 � `
�
P` E
a ..� ^ne .. ._.. i �.... , .. . .
�:
�
.
J
�
*�
:' . ., a..} _3
X
'._ ,�_
a .'.:�
0 0 -��
Thomas-Dai� e�oc� CiaU t�a�.
( 034 Lalond Avenue
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104
Phoile: (651) G42-5959
Fax: (6>I)642-5943
May 8, 2000
�
��-iz�sc�
Michael Samuelson
Executive Director
689 North Dale Street
St. Paul, MN 55103
Johnny Howazd
Executive Director
1034 Lafond Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
Deaz Michael,
This is a letter of support from the Thomas-Dale Block Club. We at the TDBC along
with neighbors in the community fully support the building project of an aparhnent
gazage located at 681� Van Buran Avenue. With the housing shortage in the city, why
can't we all support Leslie Lucht and let him build it.
Th yo I,
Jo y How d
E ecutive Director
cc. Leslie Lucht
b0–���
IJ
c�
�
O
-i
�
0
� o p �
❑ ❑p ❑
�
� �
0
VAN BUREN
71
�
�
D
r
W
D
Z
�
�— -
�
L�
❑I [
ti� ;
_, �
-��
APPLICANT ��SLiIL L-(,�GH!
PUR?OSE YY1 Pr�l d 2 Uh-2�A�(.�-
FILE #�n �z`� � ��7 DATE ��-C��-C-b
PLNG. DIST -] MAP tt
SC/�LE 1' = 400'•
LEGEND
�� zoning disir.cl boundary
� subjecl property n"' ortn"'
- i � commercial
� r �► indU5ltidl
V vacant
0 one family
� hvo famiiy
A-¢ Q multiple 12miiy
Oo -6'16
�o ( '� I v-�� 'I :! i i �� . $' 2
�o ' \'I J ~6 .I biil � \ � �
4
:� ^ ^ s � � .
fi '�
i I al s� ' S °�
u q Q c �
1 � . �S ....,,... .. i ,. . � , ,......_ e �
1
14 '
<.,.,�. ..
_ p ��
� � ��� .
�R15' R 9y
6 -
3
�� �„
P
�
��l
�� �
�
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNIl`'G DISTRIGTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
SUN RAY•BATTLECREEK-HIG H WOOD
HAZEL PARK HEIDEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE
DAYTON'S BLUFF
PAYNE-PHALEN
NORTH END
THOMAS-DALE
SUMMIT-UNIVERSITY
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE-MID WAY
ST. ANTAONY PARK
MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLI\�-SNELLING HAMLIl�B
MACALESTER GROVELAND
HIGHLAND
SUMMTI' HII.L
DOWNTOWN I Z�I�i1�� �IL� (7f�-1 �P�t�
i
Oo -6'��
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONI�'G FILE NUMBER # 00-124519
DATE: osiosioo
Wf1EREAS, LESLIE LUCHT, have applied for six variances from the strict application of the
provisions of Sections 61.101 and 62.103 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, pertaining to the
conshuction of a second house on the property, in the R-4 zoning district, at 681-683 VAN BUREN
AVENUE; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on May 08, 2000,
pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 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. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The use of this property, as a duplex, is a nonconforming use, in an R-4 zoning district. The pazcel,
with only 4,980 square feet of area, does not even meet the minimum lot size standazds, currently
required, for a sin�le-family dwelling. A duplex requires a lot size of 6,000 squaze feet; three
dwellin� units requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to
construct a rivo-car gazage, with a dwelling unit on the second floor. The gara�e will provide two,
off-street, pazkin� spaces, which is not sufficient for the existing use as a duplex, which requires three
spaces under the current zoning code. The applicant is, appazently, proposing to pazk vehicles in the
driveway in front ofthe garage, buf these would not be Ie�al pazking spaces because they would be
located within a required, side yard setback and, also, would block access to the gara�e.
This properiy was re-zoned from RT-1 to R-4, in 1997, when the City Council adopted the Thomas-
Date Sma21 Area Plan. The proposal to re-zone this property to RT-2 would seem to contradict the
goals of that plan. The Zonin� Code recognizes nonconformin� uses, and allows them to continue,
provided they are not expanded. Given the history of this property, the use as a duplex is a reasonable
use. Increasin� the number of dwellin� units, for what appeazs to be purely economic gain, on an
already nonconforming lot, is not a reasonable use of the property.
2. The plight of the land owner is not dzee to circumstances unique 10 lhis property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
There are no circumstances unique to this property that would prevent it from being used for a
reasonable use. The applicant has not demonstrated any hardship in requestino these variances.
3. The proposed variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and are not
consistent with the health, safery, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St
Paz�l.
Page 1 of 3
pp -���0
File # 00-124� 19
Resolution
The Zonin� Code Standazds were developed to: Protect all azeas of the city from harmful
encroachment by incompatible nses; prevent the overcrowdin� of land wiYh buildings; ensure
adequate li�ht, air, and access to properry and protect the public heath, sa£ety, and general welfare of
the community.
The recently adopted St Paul Housing Plan encourages the construction of new dwelling units in the
City. Howaver, the intent of the Housing Plan was not to add dwelling units at any cost. The sheer
number and size of the requested variances is not in keepin� with the spirit and intent of the code, and
is not consistent with the health, safety and welfaze of the inhabitants of the City.
4. The proposed variances will impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, and will
alter the essential character of the surrounding area and may unreasonably diminish established
property values within the surrounding area.
The existing building on this site is a lazge, two-story structure, built right up to the property lines, on
the south and east sides. The buiiding is larger than the neighboring buildings, and the addition of a
second, rivo-story structure on the site will add to the overall massing of buildings on this corner. The
lack of sufficient, off-street parking will add to the congestion of parking on the street, and will
increase h in the area.
This immediate area is all zoned R-4, and Staff is unaware of any other properties with two principle
structures, on one lot, within the vicinity. The proposed density, lot coverage, and massing of
buildin�s on the site is not in keeping with the chazacter of the other homes in the area.
5. The variances, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the
code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change
the zoning district classtftcation of the property.
Provided that the property is re-zoned to RT-2, the proposed variances, if granted, would not chan�e
the zonin� classification of the properry.
6. The request for variance is based primariZy on a desire to increase the value or income potential of
the parcel of land.
The applicant states that one of his goais, in proposing the additional dwelling unit, is to improve the
value and income potential of this property. Since the applicant has not demonstrated any hardship or
unique circumstances associated with this request, it would appear that economic gain is the primary
goal of this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals, that the
application to waive the provisions of Sections 61.101 and 62.103 in order to construct a second house
on property located at 681-683 VAN BUREN AVENLTE; and legally described as Syndicate No. 4
Addition, Lot 30, Block 2; is HEREBY DENIED.
Page 2 of 3
b o -��6
File � 00-124519
Resolution
MOVED BY: sogen
SEC0�IDED SY: courtney
IN FAVOR: �
AGAINST: o
lYIAILED: May 09, 2000
TI�IE LIrIIT: No order of the Board of Zonine Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a
building or off-sfreet parking facility shatl be valid for a period tonger than one year,
unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period
and such erection or alteration is proceedina 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 Zonina Appeals are fmal subject to appeal to the City Counci]
within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued
after an appeal has been filed, If permits have been issaed before an appeal has been
filed, then the permits are suspended and coastructiou shali cease until the City Council
has made a tinal determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATIO�I: I, the undersigned Secrefary to tfie Board of Zoning Appeais for the City of Saint Paut,
blinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the Foregoing copy with the original
record in my 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 Zoning
Appeals meeting held on May 8, 2000, and on record in the Office of License Inspection
and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, blinnesota.
SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZOi�1ING APPEALS
�
� ��� ��i„ _.x�
Noel Diedrich
Secretary to the Boar�
Page 3 of 3