00-720S�,�r�-,�{ _
Presented By
Referred To
Council File # �O ^' 1 e1.�
GreenSheet# ��3�'[q`�
�a
Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson is the owner of properiy commonly known as 420
2 Portland Avenue, legally described as contained in the public files maintained by the zoning and
3 planning administrators and bearing PIN No. 01282324�240; and
4
5 VJHEREAS, the said properry is in the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District and
6 approval by several agencies is necessary in order to obtain building permits in such districts.
7 First, all building permit applications within historic districts require the approval of the Heritage
8 Preservation Commission (HPC). Second, in the event the new construction requires variances
9 from the provasions of the zoning code, authority to do so must be obtained from the Boazd of
10 Zoning Appeals (BZA). Finally, site plans for new construction projects must be reviewed by
11 the zoning administrator. The zoning administrator's decisions may be appealed to the Planning
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
Commission (PC); and
WHEREAS, on or about May 15, 1999, in preparation of constructing a new building at
420 Portland Avenue, Ronald J. Severson made application to the HPC (HPC file No. 3654) for
building permits to construct either a thirty-six_(36) or thirty-eight (38) foot, two (2)-story
structure consisting of a four (4) stall pazking garage on the first floor and a single family
dwelling unit on the second floor; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 1999, Ronald J. Severson also made application to the BZA
(BZA file No. 99-164) far a front yud setback variance of nine (9) feet from the minimum
required twenty-five (25) feet to sixteen (16) feet in order to construct a thirty-eight (38) foot
building [the thirty-six (36) foot building does not require variances]; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 1999, the HPC conducted a public hearing on the building
pernut applications and at the close of the hearing, moved to grant the application as for the
reasons stated in HPC Resolution No. 3654, adopted July 22, 1999 a copy of which as attached
hereto and incorporated as e�ibit 1; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Laurel Frost , Patricia
Leonard and Greg and Cazol Clark (the Neighbors), duly filed on August 4, 1999 an appeal from
the decision in HPC Resolution No. 3654 and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City
Council for tl�e purpose of considering the actions taken by the HPC; and
1�,�, .1, a o0 0
� RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Page 1 of 3
��o°
S
i WHEREAS, the Neighbors appeal from the HPC decision was duly set before the Saint d O- � ° �'�
2 Paul City Council for public hearing on September 22, 1999. On that date, being advised that
3 additional applications and approvals were required before construction could proceed, the City
4 Council, in Council File No. 99-1092, resolved for the purposes of council economy, to lay the
5 matter over unril such time as the need for all variances and site plan approvals for the subject
6 building were determined and either approved or denied so that all appeals relating to 420
7 Portland could be considered in one public hearing. A copy of Council File No. 99-1092 is
8 attached hereto and incorporated as eachibit 2; and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
26
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
WHEREAS, after a series of layovers requested by the parties, the BZA, on October 24,
1999, after first having provided notice to affected property owners was finally able to conduct a
public hearing on Ronald J. Severson's front yazd variance application for the thirty-eight (38)
foot building. At the close of the public hearing, the BZA moved to deny the front yazd variance
application for the reasons stated in its resolution No. 99-163, dated November 8, 1999, a copy of
which is attached hereto and incorporated as exhibit 3; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 1999 and acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 64.206(a),
Ronald 3. Severson filed an appeal from the BZA determination and requested a hearing before
the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; and
WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson also made application for administrative site plan
approval of the thirty-eight (38) foot, two-story building with nine (4) parking spaces [four in the
building, two in an already existing gazage and three surface spaces] although it is not cleaz, fiom
the records of the department of license, inspections and environmental protection the exact date
of such application; and
WHEREAS, in December 1999, the zoning administrator approved the proposed site pian
for a thirty-eight (38) foot building on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2000 and pursuant to Legislative Code § 64300(j), the
Neighbors duly filed an appeal of the decision of the zoning administrator and requested a
hearing before the PC; and
34 WHEREAS, on April 6, 2000, after a series of scheduling conflicts between the
35 appellants, a public hearing was conducted by the PC's Zoning Committee after having provided
36 notice to affected parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Zomng Committee moved to
37 recommend granting appeal. On April 14, 2000, an PC resolution No. 04-28, the PC granted the
38 Neighbors' appeal for the reasons stated therein. A copy of PC resolution No. 00-28 is attached
39 hereto and incorporated as e�ibit 4; and
40
41 WHEREAS, on May 8, 2000 Ronald J. Severson filed an appeal of the PC decision
42 pursuant to SPLC 64.300(k) and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of
43 considering the actions taken by the said commission; and
44
45 WHEREAS, consistent with City Council Resolution No. 99-1042, the Neighbor's
46 appeal from the decision in HPC resolution No. 3654 and the appeals of Ronald J. Severson from
47 the decisions of the BZA in its resolution No. 99-163 and tl�e Planning Commission in its
48 resolution No. 00-28, were consolidated and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§
49 64.206-64.208 and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
p Page 2 of 3
A
`S' �S
Saint Paul City Council on May 24, 2000 where all interested parties were given an opportunity
to be heard; and
4 WHEREAS, having heazd the statements made and having considered the applications,
5 the reports of staff, the records, minutes and resolutions of the HPC (building permits for either
6 36 or 38-foot building), the BZA (variances for a 38-foot building) and the PC (site plan for 38-
7 foot building), the Council does HEREBY;
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
RESOLVE, to:
1. Deny the appeal of Greg and Carol Clark, Patricia Leonard and Laurel Frost
from the decision in FiPC resolution No. 3654 having found no enor in any fact,
finding or procedure of the HPC approval of building permits for either 36 or 38
foot buildings.
2. Deny the appeals of Ronald J. Severson from the decision of the BZA to deny
a variance for a 38-foot building in its resolution No. 99-163 and from the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny site plan approval for a 38-foot
building in its resolution No. 00-28, finding no error in any fact, finding or
procedure in the decisions of either the BZA or the PC; AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, having found no errors in the fact, findings or
procedures of the HPC, the BZA or the PC, the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts
as its own and incorporates herein by reference, the findings and conclusions of the HPC, the
BZA and the PC as contained in their respective resolutions noted above; AND
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
all the appellants, the zoning administrator, the planning administrator, the HPC, the BZA, and
the PC.
O6 —7e'�0
Requested by Department of:
By:
Fozm App by City Attorney
sy: . f"�!-��LS�� 7( I� JC9
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By'
Apps
By:
\` y �� +
Adopted by Council: Date �op �
l
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
�l
OO„" !�
City Attomey's
OAiE Wff111iED
August 1, 2000
GREEN SHEET
N
266-8710
20�� - CAIISCIIt
TOTAL �E OF SIGNATURE PAGES
��
❑ qif 4ii0pEY ❑ OIYtlSAI[ _
❑ wuwcwts�uc�aow. ❑ wuwry�aEaw�ccra
❑ wYORIw��xasr�Mq ❑
(CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council on May 24, 2000, denying the appeal of
Frost, Leonard, and Clark, to the decisions of the Historic Preservation Commission and the appeals of
Severson to the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission, all viz 420
Portland Avenue.
PLANNING CAMMISSION
CIB CAMMITTEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
OF TRANSACTION f
SOURCE
ItSONALSERVICE CONiMCfS MUSTANSWERTHE FOLLOWIN6 QUE57ION5:
Has ihis pe�wNfiim ever wrorketl uMer e coM(act tor Nie deparhn8nt7
YES NO
Hes ihis pereon/firm e�er heen a dty anpbyee?
YES NO
Ooes tAis peieoNfirtn po65e66 a Sidll not nom�allypossesseA Dy arry curte'R city employee?
VES NO
Ic Nis petsoMfrm a �erpe[etl vendoYt
VES NO
fA3TlREVENUE BUD(iETED (CIRCLE ON�
ACiMTY NUMBER
YES NO
(��M
ao -'1yo
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Nancy,
August 7, 2000
Nancy Anderson, Council Secretary
Peter Warner. CAO
Council Session August 9, 2000.
Consent Agenda Item 12. Substitute Resolution
la,�. °l
C�,..�.:a �•-•�-�
��� � 2-.
With respect to Consent Agenda Item No. 12, "Resolution memorializing the CounciPs May 24°
decision denying the appeals concerning 420 Portland Avenue," please substitute the attached
Resolution in place of the draft distributed in the packet. The draft dishibuted in the packet
contained errors with respect to the HPC resolut3on numbers, the notice that HPC staff distributed
and, upon further examination, a couple of grammaticai lapses.
CM Blakey had signed the resolution for submission. Would he do the same for the substitute?
Thanks. If there are questions, please direct them to me. PWW
Council File # Op — � e1.�
ORIGINAL
Presented B}
Refesed To
RESOLUTION
Green Sheet #_( � 3 Q��
1 WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson is the owner of property commonly own as 420
2 Portland Avenue, legally described as contained in the public files maintai d by the zoning and
3 planning administrators and bearing PIN No. 012823240240; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the said property is in the Historic Hill Preserv ion District and approval by
6 several agencies is necessary in order to obtain building permits i such districts. First, all new
7 building construction permit applications within historic distric require the approval of the
8 Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Second, in the ev t the new construction requires
9 variances from the provisions of the zoning code, authority o do so must be obtained from the
10 Boazd of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Finally, site plans for w construction projects must be
11 reviewed by the zoning administrator. The zoning adm� istrator's decisions may be appealed to
12 the Planning Commission (PC); and
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
WHEREAS, on or about May 15, 1999, i preparation of constructing a new building at
420 Portland Avenue, Ronald J. Severson mad application to the HPC (HPC file No. 3654� for
building permits to conshuct either a thiriy-s� (36) or thirty-eight (38) foot, two (2)-story
structure consisting of a four (4) stall pazki garage on the first floor and a single family
dwelling unit on the second floor; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 1999, onald J. Severson atso made applicarion to the BZA
(BZA file No. 99-164) for a front y d setback variance of nine (9) feet from the minimum
required twenty-five (25) feet to s� teen (16) feet in order to conshuct a thirty-eight (38) foot
building [the thirty-six (36) foot uilding does not require variancesj; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1999, the HPC conducted a public hearing on the building
permit applications after h�ng provided notice to affected property owners and at the close of
the hearing, moved to gr t the application as for the reasons stated in HPC Resolution No. 3654,
adopted July 22, 1999 copy ofwhich is attached hereto and incorporated as exhibit 1; and
WHEREA , acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Laurel Frost , Patricia
Leonard and Gre and Caroi Clark (the Neighbor's), duly filed on August 4, 1999 an appeal from
the decision i C Resolution No. 3654 and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City
Council for t purpose of considering the actions taken by the HPC; and
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
1 WHEREAS, the Neighbor's appeal from the HPC decision was duly set before the Saint
2 Paul City Council for public hearing on September 22, 1999. On that date, being advised that
3 additional applications and approvals were required before construction could proceed, the City
4 Council, in Council File No. 99-1092, resolved for the purposes of council economy, to lay the
5 matter over until such tune as the need for all variances and site plan approvals for the subject
6 building were determined and either approved or denied so that all appeals relating to 420
7 Portland couid be considered in one public hearing. A copy of Council File No. 99-1092 is
$ attached hereto and incorporated as e�ibit 2; and
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
WfIEREAS, after a series of layovers requested by the parties, the BZA, o October 24,
1999, after first having provided norice to affected property owners was finally le to conduct a
public hearing on Ronald J. Severson's front yard variance application for th thirty-eight (38)
00 - 1 �
foot building. At the close of the public hearing, the BZA moved to deny e front yazd variance
application for the reasons stated in its resolution No. 99-163, dated No mber 8, 1999, a copy of
which is attached hereto and incoxporated as eachibit 3; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 1999 and acting pursuant Legislative Code § 64.206(a),
Ronald 3. Severson filed an appeal from the BZA determinatio and requested a hearing before
the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions t en by the BZA; and
WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson also made appl� ation for administrative site plan
approval of the thirty-eight (38) foot, two-story buildi with nine (9) pazking spaces [four in the
building, two in an already existing garage and three urface spaces] although it is not clear, from
the records of the deparhnent of license, inspectio and environmental protection the exact date
of such application; and
WHEREAS, in December 1994, the ning administrator approved the proposed site plan
for a ttririy-eight (38) foot building on the s ject property; and
WHEREAS, on Febn.iary 8, 20 and pursuant to Legislative Code § 64300(j), the
Neighbor's duly filed an appeal of the ecision of the zoning administrator and requested a
hearing before the PC; and
34 WHEREAS, on Aprii 6, 00, after a series of scheduling conflicts between the
35 appellants, a public hearing wa conducted by the PC's Zoning Committee after having provided
36 norice to affected parties. At e conclusion of the hearing, the Zoning Committee moved to
37 recommend granting appeal On April 14, 2000, in PC resolution No. 00-28, the PC granted the
38 Neighbor's appeal for the easons stated therein. A copy of PC resolution No. 00-28 is attached
39 hereto and incorporated s exhibit 4; and
40
41 WHEREAS, n May 8, 200Q Ronald 7. Severson filed an appeal of the PC decision
42 pursuant to SPLC 300(k) and requested a hearing before the City Council far the purpose of
43 considering the a ions taken by the said commission; and
44
45 �AS, consistent with City Council Resolurion No. 99-1092, the Neighbor's
46 appeal fro the decision in HPC resolution No. 365 and the appeals of Ronaid 7. Severson from
47 the deci ons of the BZA in its resolution No. 99-163 and the Planning Commission in its
48 resolution No. 00-28, were consolidated and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§
49 64.206-64.208 and upon notice to all affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
Page 2 of 3
Saint Paul City Council on May 24, 2000 where all interested parties were given an opportunity
to be heard; and p� _7a.p
WIIEREAS, having heazd the statements made and having considered the applications,
the reports of staff, the records, minutes and resolutions of the HPC (building permits for either
36 or 38-foot building), the BZA (variances for a 38-foot building) and the PC (site plan for 38-
foot building), the Council does HEREBY;
RESOLVE, to:
1. Deny the appeal of Grreg and Carol Clazk, Patricia Leonard and aurel Frost
from the decision in HPC resolution No. 365 having found no e r in any fact,
finding or procedure of the HPC approval of building permits or either a 36 or
38.
2. Deny the appeals of Ronald J. Severson from the de sion of the BZA to deny
variances for a 38-foot building in its resolution No. -163 and from the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny site plan appr al for a 38-foot building in
its resolution No. 00-28, finding no enor in any ct, finding or procedure in the
decisions of either the BZA or the PC; AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, having fo d no errors in the fact, findings or
procedures of the HPC, the BZA or the PC, the uncil of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts
as its own and incorporates herein by referenc the findings and conclusions of the HPC, the
BZA and the PC as contained in their respec � e resolutions noted above; AND
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED,�t the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolu6on to
all the appellants, the zoning administr or, the planning administrator, the HPC, the BZA, and
the PC.
OR{G1NAL
Requested by Depastment oE:
Adopted by Council: te
Adoption Certified Council Secretary
By:
Appmved 6y Ma r: oate
By:
By:
Form Approved by City Attomey
By: ��W��� �-�/-OC
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
ClnytorsM.Robinson,Jr.,CiryAttorney QQ -� �lO
a
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Civi1 Division
400 City' Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
Saint Pau[, Minnuota 55102
Telephone: 651 26b8110
Facsimile: 65! ?98-�619
HAND DELIVEftED
July 31, 2000
Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of Frost, Leonard, Clark's from the decisions of the Historic Preservation
Commission and the appeals of Severson from the decisions of the Board of Zoning
Appeals and the Planning Commission, all viz 420 Portland Ave.
Council Action: Deny all three appeals.
Council Action Date: May 24, 2000.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision ofthe City council to deny each
of the appeals in the matter noted above. Please place this matter on the Council's consent agenda
at your earliest convenience. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
�� vw��
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
attachment
�O-`73o
ORlGINAL
Presented By
Refened To
RESOLUTIOh�
CITY OF SATl\'T pAUI,, M NESOTA
�,����
��
Committee: Date
2 �VFIEREAS, a public hearing was duly set for September 22, 1999, before the Council of
3 the Ciry of Saint Paul (Council) for the purposes of considerin� appeals by Gre� and Cazol Clazk,
4 Patricia Leonard and Laurel Frost from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
5 (HPC) in HPC Resolution No. 3654 approving a buildin� permit application to construct a new,
6 single-family, dwellin� within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District on property
7 commonly known as 420 PortIand Avenue; and
y WHEREAS, the Council determined that the proposed single family dwelling may need
1 Q additional regulatory determinations (includin� site p1an review and approval or other variances)
11 before construction can begin; and
12
13
14
l�
16
i7
RIHEREAS, the Council finds that it is appropriate and efricient to first finalize all snch
de?erminations necessary for the proposed sin�le family dwellin� so that in the eveni an appeal is
�aken fron any determination, the appeal(s) may be consolidated into a sin�lz public hearing
before the Council; Iv'OW, THEREFORE, BE IT
1$ ±2ESOLVED, in the interest of Covncil efficiency, 2he appeal of Gre� and Carol Clark,
19 Pat*_icia Leonazd and Laurel F;ost from the decision in HPC Resolution No. 36�4 is continued
20 and 3aid over untii such time as all re�ulatory determina±ions necessary for *.he progosed project
21 at 420 Portland Avenue shall have been acted uoon by the appropriate city depart� boazd or
22 commission; A,h'D, B� yT,
23
2� r �RiI3ER RESOLVE�, that once ai? resulatory determinations have been made and if
2� any are appealed, all appeais sha]l be consolidated with the appeal of H?C Resolution fio. 3654
26 and reset, ��ith wrinen notice to afiected paaies, before tri� Cotmci, for public hearinv; A?vD, BE
27 IT, �
?g
EXH(BIT
�
d
'n
9 ],
Council File r �� l Oq'�
GreenSheetr +p0'�a�,
n l
?
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
FIIRTHER RESOLVED, that if no appeals are taken from any remaining
determination, the public hearing on HPC Resolution No. 3654 shall be reopened w•ith ne�v
notice to the affected parties ofrecord as ofAugust 4, 1999: AND, BE IT
gg-to9�
DO - � �O
FI\'ALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be mailed to Ronald
Se�•erson, Greg and Cazol Clazk, Patricia Leonazd, Laurel Frost Mark VauQht, Esq, John '�lilier,
Esq., the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Herita�e Preservation Conunission and the Department
of License, lnspections and EnvironmentaI Protection.
ORIGINAL
Requeste3 by Depa__x=-c o°:
By:
Form Eon_ c by C`:y Atccrr.=y
s �s7s-. �✓/-✓�.�.-�-� � �� � 5 �
Ag�ro by N.zycr `_.,r n" "_a ""` c"
ay:
��
sy:
V
Adcp[e3 by Cot�=i1: Date _� \ �, \n \qc�c,
—�—�
Acco[_or. Certi:ied by Couacil Secretary
p� _1 �o
CITY OF SAINT PAUL �
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NIJMBER 3654
DATE 22 July 1999
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint
Paul Legislative Code to review building permit applications for e�terior alterations, new construction or
demoliYion on or within designated Heritage'Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling on
properiy located at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street pazking by residents of
415 Summit Avenue; there is a two-stall garage and unpaved driveway and parking areas; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the
following:
III. New Construction, A. General Principies: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hill District is to maintain the districYs scale and quaZity of design. ...New construction should be
compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color, material, building eZements, site
design, and character oJsurrounding structures and the area.
ZII. B. Massing and Height: New construction should canform to the massing, volume, height and scale
of exisfing adjacent structures. Typical residentiat structures in the Historic Hi11 District are 25 to 40
feet high. The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height of all buildings on
both block faces, measuremenu should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs.
III. D. Materials and Details: ... The materials and details of new construction should relate to the
materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roojmaterials are cedar shingles, slate and
tile; asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture of the preferred materials are
acceptable substitutes. ...Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their
appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding struciures.
III. E. Building Elements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for
a balanced and complete design. These eZements for new consiruction should compliment existing
adjacent structures as well.
III. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile oJnew construclion should relate to the predominant roof shape
of ezisting adjacent buildings.
III. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rFrythm cmd detailing of windows and doors in new
construction should be compatible with that of existing adjacent buildings. ...Facade openings of the
same general size as those in adjacertt buildings are encouraged. ...Wooden double-hung windows are
traditional in the Historic Hill District and should be the fzrst choice when selecting new windows.
III. E. 3. Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hill District have roofed front
EXHIBIT
�
a
� 2
�
00 -�20
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 2
porches.... If a porch is not built, the transition jrom private to public space should be articulated with
some other suitable design elemenl.
III. F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than S% out-of-Zine from
the setback of exisling adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be
allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at corners. This happens quite often in the
Historic Hill area and can lend deligh�l variation ta the street.
III. F. 3. Garages cmd Parking: Where alleys do not ezist, gcrrages facing the street or driveway curb
cuts may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single
garage doors shoutd be used to avoid the horizontal orientation of hvo-car gcrrage doors.
Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in
rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping; and
WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upoo the evidence presented at its
June 24, 1999 public heazing on said permit application, made the following findings oFfact (findings
#2-4 are essentially the findings in HPC Resolution #2884 granting approval of the 1997 40'-building
scheme):
1• The applicant seeks approval of two designs, one a 36'-long building which requires no variances
to construct and the other a 38'-long building which requires a front yard setback variance in
order to construct the building 16' from the front property line. The design of hoth schemes is
very similaz to the 40'-long building approved by the HPC on Mazch 27, 1997 (File #2884). The
most significant differences among the three plans concem the site plan: the previously-approved
40' building had a 19.5' front setback and tcvo pazking spaces in the front yazd; the proposed 36'
building has a 25' front setback; the proposed 38' building has a 16' front yard setback; and
neither of the rivo schemes now proposed has front yard parking.
2• The proposed building site is a pivotal and di�cuit site. It is visible from Summit Avenue, it
abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there aze lazge buildings to the south and west that
are close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter
House at 415 Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage
house concept is a reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the following reasons: a) the
site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking fot residents of the Winter House;
b) the parcel has historically been a reaz yard, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appeazs as a reaz
yard due to its relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story cazriage
house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a building that is very close to the
Winter House in proximity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The
Winter House was built on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent
subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to
surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
�
no -�ao
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 3
The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatibie with the size, scale, massing, height, rhy2hm, setback, color,
material, building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the
area."
b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and chazacter would be related to, but do
not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a
balanced and complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be pazallel to that of the Winter House, the street-
facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this
block ofPortland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz yazd nature of the site,
the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic cattiage
house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only
other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and
Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure(the existing
structure is a large, 4-story, brick apartment building with two, two-story front porches
located 18" from the sidewalk while the main building wall is 12' from the front
sidewall:).
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building.
f. Parking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping. Single garage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of double
doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of
anomalies in design and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district
and its character.
4. In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the
Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed buil@ing's design
and materials are related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e, the
Winter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than
mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and the development would not have an
adverse impact on the character-defining features of the site and the azea. The building's design
is similaz to the reaz addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate
for a new secondary structure. A new building of unrelated design and materials would detract
from the historic integrity of the site.
5. The following project details should be noted:
a• The landscape plans shown on the 36' and 38' building schemes differ; the landscape
plan shown for the 38' building is the correct one and should be shown on both sets of
plans.
b. The hedge along the driveway and at the front of the building will be aipine currant,
spaced 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5'.
!.�J
0 0 -
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 4
c. The plans call for a basement window well at the front of the building that was not
proposed in the 1997 scheme. Current plans show both a 3' x 8' well �r,•ith a ladder and a
4' x 8' weli with a step/terrace. The 3' x 8' option is preferable for the 38' building
withl6' front setback scheme; and
WHEREAS, though there are, or may be, zoning issues, ]egal issues, and other issues pertaining to the
proposed development, they aze not within the jnrisdiction of the �Ieritage Preservation Commission; the
commission must grant or deny approval of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code and the district design review guidelines;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a building permit for either of the two proposed schemes for a new singie
family dwelling located at 420 Portland Avenue, subject to the condition that the front window well shall
be 3' x 8' for the 38' building.
MOVED BY Benton
SECONDED BY Murphy
IN FAVOR
AGAIPiST
ABSTAIN
Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are final, subjeM to appeal to the City Council within 14
days by anyone affected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable
buildi�g and zoaing code requirements, and does not constitute approval for tax credits.
7
CITY OF SAI�TT PAUL o o-� �'°
BOARD OF ZO�'ING APPEALS RESOLUTIOi\'
ZONI\TG FILE NUMBER r 99-163
DATE 11/08/99
��'HEREAS, RONALD SEVERSON has applied for a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertainin� to the construction of a ne�i�
residzntial structure that would have a 4-car gara�e on the first floor and a sinele-family home on the.
szcond floor over the garage, in the RT-2 zonin� district at 420 PORTLAiv'D AVENiJE; and
�VHEREAS, the Saint Pau] Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 25, and
November 8, 1999, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of
the Legislative Code; and
�VfiEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon e�•idence przsenied at the public
hzaring, as substantially rzflected in the minutes, made the followin� findin�s of fact:
I. The properly in qi�estioi: can be p�it to a reasonable use under the strict proi•isioru of the code.
A sliohtly smalle; buildin� �vith four parkin� spaces on the first floor and a d�celling unit on the second
floor can be buiit on the property. A sitz plan for this building «�as approved by� tn� Ciry Council in March
1999.
2. The pligl:t of Ilte land otvner is noi due to circeunstances unique to this property, and thzse circumstances
ticere uot created by the land oivner.
The size and irregular shape of the lot and the private ao eement that requires the property o��ner to providz
parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit are unique to the property znd �c•ere not created by the present
prope;ty o��ner. Ho�eever, the pzesent o«�er «�as aware of these circumstances «�hen he bou�h[ the
propzm�.
3. The proposed variance is �:ot in keepin,; tirith the spirit and intent oftiie code, artd is consistznt x•ith t{t�
healtk, sajery, con fort, morals and x�eljare af the inhabitants of the Ciry ojSt. Pa�d.
The reduced front yard setback that ticould be allowed by the variance w•ouid not provide a reasonable
amount of green space and therefore is not in keeping w�ith the spirit and intent of tne code.
4. The propased variance will inrpair a�: adeguate supply ojlight and air to adjacent property, ¢nd wil!
unreasatab[y diminisTt es[ablished properry values within the surrounding area.
The orientation of the building with the side facing Portiand Avenue �t�ould unrezsonably diminish property
values within the surroundin� area.
5. The variance, ifgranted, woul�l no1 penait a�ty use lhat is not permitted under t/:e prorisions of thz code for
tlae property� i�: !he district where the afjzcted land is tocated, nor wotrld it alter or d:ange t'r.e zor.ing
district classification of the propern•.
6. Th2 request jor varimrce is not based prin:arily ai a desire to increase tl:e val«e or incmne potential of thz
pnrcel of land.
EXHIBIT
y Page I oC 2
«
a
s 3
Zv
File f 99-163
IZesalution
�iil
NOR', THEREFORE, BE II RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the request
to �vaive the provisions of Section 61.101 to allow a front yard setback of 16 fezt, in ord�r to construct a
ne«� residential structure that would have a 4-car garage on the first floor and a sin�lz-family home on
the second floor over the gazage, on property loczted at 420 PORTLf��'D AVE\'UE; and le�ally
described as Except the Southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, auditor's subdivision f3&; in accordance with the
epplication for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator, is HEREBY DE�I£D.
I170VED BY : Dlorton
SECONDED BY: witSOn
IN FAVOR: s
AGAINST: o
ABSTAIl\T: 2
bI:�ILED: November 09, 1999
TI�IE LI�IIT: I\o order of the Board of Zonina Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a
buildina or off-street parl;ing facilit}� shal! be valid for a period longer than one
year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained �rithin such
period and such erection or alteration is proceedine pursuant to the terms of such
permit. The Board of Zoaing Appeais or the City� Counci] mar� grant an exfension
not to exceed one year, In grantina such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals
may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City
Council �rithin 15 da}•s by anyone affected by the decision. Buitdine permits shall
not be issued after ao appeal has been filed. If permits hac•e been issued before an
appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease
until the Citr• Council has made a final determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATIO�: I, the andersigoed Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint
Paul, bIinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy rrith
the original record in mr• office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of
said original and of the «•hole thereof, as based on approced minutes of the Saint
Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on October 25, and november 8, 1999,
aad on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection,
350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, blinnesota.
SAI\T P,�UL BO�,RD OF ZO\I\G APPEALS
!` , 1
<.
I���=e.� �.1��
Noel Diedrich
Secretar}• to the Board
Pa�e?of 2
�,
0 0 -'��'°
city of saint paul
planning commission resoiution
file number o0-28 �
date April 14, 2004
tiVHEREAS, Pa[ricia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Greg and Carol Clark, file r 99-117070, filed an
appeal of the decision by the Zonin� Administra[or [o approve a site plan for a carria�e house and
accessory parkin� at 420 Portland, legally described on Exhibit A; and
�VHEREAS, the Zonin, Committee on 4/6/00 held a public hearin� at �vhich all persons present
�vere given an oppoRUnity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance �vith the
requirements of Section 64.300 of [he Sain[ Paul Le�islative Code; and
�VHEREAS, on 4/12/00 the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented at
the public hearing on 4/6/00 as subs[antially reflectzd in the minutes, made the followin� findin�s
of fact:
(1) The site plan is not consistent with the city's adopted comprehensive plan.
(2) The arran�emenc of buildin�s and par't:in� for [he groposed development wi11 unreasonabiy
affecc abuttin� property and its occupants.
(3) The site plan is not consistent with the safet}• and convenience of cehicular and pedestrian
traffic �vithin the site.
i�'O�V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Plannina Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Le'islative Code, the appe2l of the Zonin� Administrator's decision to
approve a site for a carria�e house and accessory parking at 420 Portland be approved.
moved by Gervais
seconded by
in favor ib
against 1 c�or�on>
EXHIBIT
�
0
a
� 4
��U
' Warren E. Pe[erson
�erome P, FiIIa
� Daniel Witt Fram
� Glenn A. Bergman
Iohn Michael Miller
Michael T Oberie
Steven H. Bruns'
Paul W. Fahning
Esiher E. iVicGinnis
Ieffrey I. Cohen
---PETERSOI� -- ---
FPAM BERGMAN
- _ , _3—��,� ,-��,--1 '� = [-�
Jerry Blakey
Councilmember
310-A City Hall
15 West Kei!ogg Boulevarc�
St. Pau(, MN 55102
Patrick Harris
Counci(member
310-C Ciry Hall
15 West Ke(logg Boulevard
St. Paui, MN 55102
Jim Reiter
Councilmember
320-A City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
Kathy Lantry
Councilmember
320-C City Hali
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
RE: 420 Portland Avenue
City Council Agenda - May 24, 2000
PF&B File No. 11127.950001
Dear Council Members:
���i�� s�;te3oo
R p�n SO East Fifth Street
�'lJ SCPauI,MNiilOi-if97
16i1)291-895i
��y 2 3 20�0 16511??8-1753facsimile
���R� a�K�
Direct Dial #{651) 290-6909
Chris Coleman
Councilmember
310-B City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
Jay Benanav
Councilmember
3I0-D City Hall
15 West Keifogg Boufevard
St. Paui, MN 55102
Daniel Bostrom
Councilmember
320-B City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
I am writing this letter on behalf of Ronald Severson regarding the matters on the May 24,
2000, City Council Agenda for consideration relative to 420 Portland Avenue (the "Property").
These matters involve two similar proposals for the development of the Property. They are as
follows:
1. Appeal from HPC approval of Proposaf # 1(described below);
0 0 -"t �o
May 22, 2000
'ALSOADMITTEDIN WISCONSIN
00 -�ao
May 22, 2000
Page 2
2. Appeai from BZA denial of variance request of Proposal # 2(described below);
and,
3. Appeal from Planning Commission's denial of the plan approva( for Proposal #
2.
The history of the proposed development of the Property is long and occasionally contentious.
Because of the long history and numerous collateral issues which have been irvolved
throughout the years, we wouid suggest that all concerned wou(d be served by focusing fihe
inquiry and discussions to specific issues which will be before the Council on May 24, 2000.
The purpose of this letter is to identify these issues and clarify them with respect to each of
the Proposals.
In this regard, first a brief summary of events in the past year and a half would be heipful.
They are as follows:
Historv ot Proposal #1. In February 1999, the City Council considered a site plan for
the development of the Property. This site plan did not require any variances. (This is
referred to as "Proposal #i, and is referenced in the Staff Report as the "36-foot
plan".) Because of an irregularity during the creation of the Property in 1991, the City
Council was put into the position of having to first pass on the effect of a 1991 lot split
as it related to the validity of the creation of the Property. At that City Counci! hearing,
the Council confirmed the validity of the lot split, the existence of the Iot, and approved
Proposal #1.
The basic exterior design of Proposal # 1 had been previously approved by the Heritage
Preservation Commission {"HPC"), so Mr. Severson assumed that he could obtain a
building permit immediately and commence construction. in oiherwords, at that point,
it appeared that all required City approvals had been obtained. However, the HPC Staff
took the position that because there were a few modification to the exterior of the
structure, the matter should go back to the HPC for another review. Although Mr.
Severson did not agree with this initial conclusion of the Staff, he chose to not
challenge it. The HPC approved Proposal #1 in July, 1999. Some of the neighbors
appealed that HPC approval, and it is that appeal which is on the agenda for the May
24, 2000 meeting.
Historv of Pronosal #2. Given the history of the attempts to develop the Property, Mr.
Severson realized that having to bring Proposal #1 back through the HPC would most
likely be a very protracted process. After much consideration, he also decided to
"-'�
,,,
00 7zo
May 22, 2000
Page 3
submit an alternate proposal to the HPC for review. ("Proposal #2", which may also
be referenced in the Staff Report asthe "38-foot Plan") Proposal #2 was essentialiythe
same as Proposal #1 except that it moved the structure nine (9) feet towards Portland
Avenue which resulted in a need for a nine (9) foot front yard variance. The structure
in Proposal #2 is also 2 feet longer and was moved six (6) feet farther from the
condominium at 415 Summit it also and created one additional parking space. The
HPC approved both Proposals. Mr. Severson strongly believed and continues to believe
that Proposal #2 is a better proposal from all perspectives - the only problem is that
it does require a variance. This is also the firm belief of some of the adjacent
neighbors.
Proposal # 2 was then first submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals to pass on the
variance request and also to the Planning Commission for site plan review. Both the
BZA and the Planning Commission denied the requests for the variance and approval
of the site plan. These denials with respect to Proposal #2 were both appealed by Mr.
Severson. These appeals are on the Agenda for May 24, 2000.
***�*****
We would like to make the following points of clarification:
Proposal # 1. The site plan for Proposal # 1 is identical to the one which was approved by
the City Council in March, 1999. The modifications to the exterior are minimal and have been
approved by the HPC. In short, the site plan for Proposal # 1 as it relates to the foot print of
the structure and similar matters has already been reviewed, considered and approved by the
City Council and is not now before the City Counci( for further review. Nothing has changed
in the last year which would compef or even justify overruling the HPC's approval.
Proposal # 2. Opponents of this Proposal have characterized it as an attempt by Mr. Severson
to get a"second bite of the apple" or "just another" in a long line of earlier proposals. This is
not the case. Instead, it is more in the nature of a compromise from a proposal for a 40-foot
structure which was previousiy considered and denied. In fact, if Mr. Severson had been
issued the building permit after the City Council's action in March 1999, he would have
commenced construction, and Proposal #2 would not have been advanced. As noted above,
Proposal #2 was set forth onlv when he was required to start a protracted review process all
llt should be noted that the parking areas of the Property will aiso be forthe occupants
of the condominium at 415 Summit.
,.•..
ao-1ao
May 22, 2000
Page 4
over again (i.e„ the HPC's approval of the first modifications for the exterior). Given that time
frame, he deemed it appropriate to present Proposal #2 as an alternative and better proposal
for the development of the Property. This is not a situation where Mr. Severson obtained
approval, then decided he wanted something completely different and suggested another
proposal.
Our comments in support of Mr. Severson's appeal of the BZA's and Planning Commission's
action will be forthcoming in a subsequent letter or addressed at the City Council meeting.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation.
/,�`�
�hael Miller
��I�I�AI7
cc: Ronald Severson
Tom Beach
Aaron Rubenstein
F:\usersVOH Nlseverson.counci I.Itc 2.wpd.wpd
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Narm Coleman, Mayor
December 14, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City CouncIl Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
OFFICE OF LICENSE, .NSPECTIONS AND OO � I aC
ENVIRON�IENTAL PROTECTION
Roberl Kessler, Direaor �
3
BUIIDZNGINSPEC170NAND Telephone:6I2-2669L�01
DESIGN Facsimile: 612-266-9099
350 St Peter Street
Suite 370
SaintPau[, Minnesata 55702-I510
Re: Public hearing for a new carriage house proposed for 420 Por[land Avenue
Dear Ms. Anderson:
We would like to conf'um that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, Januazy 5,
2000 for the following cases concerning a new carriage house proposed to be built at 420 Portland Avenue:
� Appeal of decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission
Purpose: Appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to approve the design.
Appellant: Greg and Carol Clazk, Patricia Leonard, Laurel Frost
FIle Number: HPC FIle 3654
� Appeal of decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals
�� Purpose: Appeal of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a variance to reduce the
required front yazd setback.
Appellant: Ron Severson
File Number: Zoning File 99-163
� Site plan review
Purpose:
Applicant:
Review the site plan.
Ron Severson
We have confirmed this date with the office of Councilmember Blakey. Our understanding is that this public
heazing request will appeu on the agenda of the City CouncIl at your euliest convenience and that you will
publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul I.egal Ledger.
Please call Tom Beach at 651-266-9086 or Aazon Rubenstein at 651-266-9�78 if you have any quesuons.
Sincerely,
Tom r'rZ.
Zoning Section
f �� y �
���
Aazon Rubenstein
Heritage Preservation
G\USERS�BEACHTOM\991Q3uv�poaa20x
SA(HT
PAUL
�
AAAA
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
May 16, 2000
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hail
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RobertKusler, Direc[or � � ����
ZAA'RY PROfESS70NAL Tetephone: 6I2-2669090
BUIIDZNG Farsimile: 612-266-9099
S�ze 3W 672-266-9I24
350 SY. Pner Strea
Smiu Paul, Minnesota 55102-ISIO
RE: 420 Portland Avenue
Public hearing at City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 24, 2000
Zoning File 99-117070
Dear Ms. Anderson:
The City Council is schednled to consider three appeals concerning the proposed construction of a
� carriage house and parking at 420 Por[land Avenue:
— The Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to approve the project
— The Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a variance
— The Planning Commission's decision to deny the site plan.
� J
PR03ECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal calls for a two-story structure designed to resemble a carriage house. It would have one
apartment unit that would occupy the second floor and part of the basement. The fust floor would
provide gazage pazking spaces for four cazs. A total of nine pazking spaces would provided on the site.
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED B'f' THE CTI'Y COUNCIL
1. Appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to approve the design of the
carriage house.
Greg and Carol Clazk, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel Frost have appealed the decision of the Heritage
Preservation Commission to grant approval of Ronald Severson's building permit application to
construct a new single-family dwelling at 420 Portland Avenue, in the Historic Hill Heritage
Preservation Dish-ict. The City Council fust considered this appeal on September 22, 1999, and laid
over the matter so that HPC, BZA, and the site plan issues could be reviewed together at one time by
the Council. The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the subject permit
application on June 24, 1999, at which time the properry owner, Mr. $everson, and the appellants'
attorney, Mark Vaught, addressed the Commission. The Commission a) voted 9-1 to approve the
permit application following the close of the public hearing and b) voted 7-0 at the following
month's HPC meeting to pass a resolution granting approval of the requested building permit. The
Commission's findings aze stated in its resolution, which is attached. The HPC approved two
building schemes - one for a 36'- long building, which requires no variances to construc� and the
other for a 38' - long building, which would require a front yard sethack variance to construct.
The grounds for this appeal, stated in Mr. VaughYs August 4, 19991etter of appeal, aze that the HPC �
approval "is not in concert with the provisions of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legis2arive Code
[which creates and govems the HPC], is premature, violates my clients' due process rights, and
approves an illegal use of the properry."
The 420 Portland site has been the subject of development interest for at least, 11 yeazs. Jn 1989, the
HPC and BZA approved plans for construction of a carriane house on the site, which project
included one dwelling unit and five garage stalls, in a sort of L-shaped building, and three, off-street
pazking spaces. In 1992, the HPC and BZA approved mod�cations to that plan, which included two
dwelling units in an L-shaped, carriage-house like, structure and 14, under�ound parking spaces.
The two HPC- approved bui2ding schemes which are the subject ofthis appeai aze variations on a
plan approved by the HPC in 1997, and approved, on appeal, by a 6-0 City Council vote in 1998.
The 199� HPC approval was the result of Fve meetings, over a period of 20 months, between Mr.
Severson and HPC members, to develop a desia for the building that conforms to the Hill District
desi� b idelines. The 1998 appeal by Patricia Leonard, Gregory Clark, and Carol Clark, was
denied "on the basis that there has been no showing that the Commission made any error in fact
finding or procedure in this matter." (CF #98-357)
2. Appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a front yard setback variance.
The current plan for a 38-foot long building requires a zoning variance for front qud setback because
the carriage house would be16 feet from the front proper[y Iine on Portland Avenue, compazed to a
required minimum setback of 25 feet. Ron Severson, the properry owner, applied for the variance
but it was denied by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals in November 1999. The variance was denied on �
the grounds that a smaIler building could be built without a variance and that the variance would not
provide adequate �een space and would uareasonably diminish neazby property values. (See
attached copy of BZA resolution.)
The City Council approved a site plan with a slightty smaller siruct�a�e and one less pazking space in
March 1999. This site plan did not require a variance. The City Council had previously denied a
variance for a site plan with a slightly larger structure in 1998. There were other eazlier proposals for
the properry and zoning variances were approved for these in the eazty 1990's. A comptete zoning
history for the properiy can be found in the staff report for the Board of Zoning Appeals which is
included in this packet.
3. lteview of the siYe plan.
A site plan for the project must be approved before building permits can be issued. Staff
administratively approved the site plan in February 2000. An appeal was filed by Greg and Cazol
Clazk, Pairicia Leonard and Lauret Frost. A public hearing was held on the appeal and on April 14,
2000 the Planning Commission upheld the appeal. They found that staff should have denied the site
plan on the grounds that it was not consistent with the comprehensive plan, that the arrangement of
the buildina and pazking would unreasonably affect abutting property, and that the gazage and
pazking were not consistent with the vehicular and pedestrian tra�c withia the siYe.
A PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 24.
Please noiify us if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides presented at the pubtic hearing.
Sincerely, �;
�a�,e�, l�:.E�.���,, -���„�,�
Aazon Rubenstein Tom Beach
�
00 -� ao
C �
ATTACHNIENTS
Heritage Preservation Commission
page 1........ City Council Resolurion layin� over HPC appeal
Pa= --•-•--•
page4........
page8........
page 10...._..
pagel2.......
page 14 _......
Appealletter
HPC resolurion �anting approvai
Case summary of 6/24/99 HPC meeting
Case memo from staff to HPC
HPC application information
Sanbom insurance map
page 15 ....... 1998 City Council resolution upholding HPC approval on appeal
Board of Zoning Appeals
page 18 ....... Appeal of BZA decision to City Council
page 20 ....... BZA resolution denying variance
page 22 ....... BZA minutes staff report and application for variance
page 41 ....... BZA resolution from April 1998 denying vaziances for eazlier desia
Site Plan Review
page 43 ...._.. Appeal of Planning Commission's decision to City Council
paae 44 Planning Commission April 2000 resolution and minutes
page 48 . . . . . . . Staff report
Plans and maps
page49.......
page50.......
page55.......
page65.......
� page 73 .......
page 77.......
Location maps
Plans for current 38-foot building proposal
Plans for 36-foot bui]ding
Plans for 40-foot building
Plans approved by HPC in 1989
Plans approved by HPC in 1992 (revisions to 19$9 plans)
�
QRIGINAL
Presented By
RESOLUTION
� � i ' � • �
��L/ �I!..i �/,!�/
Council File k g � �Qq'�
Green Sheet N ( oo �t a 3
« �
Referred To
Committee: Date
2 WF�REAS, a public hearing was duly set for September 22, 1999, before The Council of
3 the City of Saint Paul (Council) for the purposes of considering appeals by Crreg and Cazol Clazk,
4 Patricia Leonard and LaureI Frost from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
5 (HPC) in HPC ResoluTion No. 3654 approviag a building germit application to construct a new,
6 single-family, dwelling within tbe Historic Hill Heritage Preservarion District on property
� commonly Iaiown as 420 Portland Avenue; and
9
ia
12
12
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Wi�REAS, the Council determined that the proposed single family dwelling may need
addirional regulatory determinations (including site plan review and approval or other variances)
before construction can begin; and
�3'FiE12.EAS, the Council finds that it is appropriate and ef&cient to first fmalize all such �
determinafions necessary for the proposed sin�Ie famiIy dwelIing so that in the event an appeaI is
taken from any determittation, the appeal(s) may be consoli3ated into a sin�le public hearing
before the Councii; NOW, TFIEREFORE, BE IT
a2�'..SOLVEB, in the interest of Council efficiency, zhe appeal of Greg and Carol Clatk,
Patricia Leonazd and Laurel Frost from the decision in HPC Resolution No. 36�4 is continued
and Iaid over untii such time as all regulatorp determinations necessary for the proposed project
aT 420 Portland Avenne shall have been acted upon by the apprepriate city departrnent, boazd or
commission; A.1�TD, BE iT,
r vRi I'�E�2 I2�SO�.V��, that once all regutatory determinations have been made and if
any are appealed, alI appeals shatl be consolidated wlth the appeal of HPC Resolution No. 3654
and reset, ��ith cvritten noiice to affected parties, before th� Councii for public heariag; ANI3, BE
IT,
�
i
2
3
4
.6
7
8
9
`l`t-1o93.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that if no appeals aze taken from any remaining
deterniination, the public hearing on HPC Resolution No. 3654 shall be reopened with new
notice to the affected parties of record as of August 4, 1999: AND, BE TT DO -���
F'INALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be mailed to Ronald
Severson, Crreg and Cazol Clark, Pahicia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Mark Vaught, Esq, John Miller,
Esq., the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Department
of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection.
��R�G��A�
Requested by Department of:
Hy:
zo�n Appr � d by City Atto='ney
s �".�l✓d✓�„�.�. ��f/7fg�
Apnroved ay Mayo= for Sebmission to Council
By: — 1 \
�proved by Mayor:
a <
Date
By:
�
Adopted by Council: Date 1\`. lc� \q_�`y�
���.
Ado�cion Certified 6y Council Secratary
S. MA,RK VAUGHT
Attornev At Law
Suite 700
Six Wesc Fifth Saeet
Sainx Paul, Minnesora 55102-1412
(651)297-64D0
FAX (651) 224-8328
e-mail: markvaught@wor2dnesatt.net
August 4, 1999
Aaron Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Planner
City of Saint Paul, L.I.E.P.
Suite 300, Lowry Proiessional Building
350 Saint Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Heritage Preservation File No. 3654
Dear Mr. Rubenstein:
�
�?
}
�
�;.
L`t
N
On behalf of my clients, Crreg and Cazol Clark, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel
Frost, please consider this letter as an appeal to the City Council pursuant to the
provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code of the above-referenced resolution and the
approval embodied therein, which was passed by the Heritage Preservation Coxnmission
on July 22, 1499. The grounds are that said approvai is not in concert with the provisions
of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, is premature, violates my clients' due
process rights, and approves an illegal use of the property.
Very huly yours,
,�" � �--.
S. Mark Vaught
Attorney at La��
�,;%;
.
�
�
�
�
0 0-7�
�
�
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
HERTTAGE PRESERVATION COA�IlVIISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NUMBER
DATE
3654
22 July 1999
R'HEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservafion Commission is anthorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint
Paul Legislative Code to review building permit applications for e�cterior alterations, new cons�truction or
demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling on
property located at 420 Portland Avenue within the FTistoric Hili Heritage Preservation District; aud
WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street parking by residents of
415 Summit Avenue; there is a twastall gazage and unpaved driveway and puking azeas; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Presezvation District guidelines for design review include the
following:
Ill. New Construction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hit1 District is to maintain the district's scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be
compatible with the size, scale, massing, height rhythm, sefback, color, maferial, building elements, site
design, and chm�acter of surrounding structures and the area.
III. B. Massing artd Height: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height mzd scale
of existing adjacent structures. Typical residentiad structures in the Histvric Hill District are 25 to 40
feet higk The height of new construction should be no Zower than the average height of all buildings on
both block faces,- meas�ements should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs.
III. D. Materials arzd Details: ...The materials and details ofnew construction should relate to the
materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferredroof materials are cedar shingles, slate and
tile,- asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture of the preferred materials are
acceptable substirutes. ...Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their
appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrotazding structures.
7II. E. Building Elements: Individuat elements of a buitding shouZd be integrated into its composition for
a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construction shoudd compliment existing
adjacent struchves as we17.
ZII. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile of new construction should relate to the predominant roofshape
of existing adjacent buildings.
III. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and doors in new
conshzrction shouZd be compatible with that of existing adjacenf buildings. ...F'acade openings of the
same general size as those in adjacent buildings are encouraged. ... Y�ooden double-hung windows are
iraditional in the Historic Hil1 District and should be the first choice when seZecting new windows.
III. E. 3. Porches and Decks: In generad, houses in the Historic Hi11 District have roofed front
�
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 2
•
porches.... If a porch is not built, the tremsition from private to public space should be mliculafed wilh
some other suitable design element.
III. F. Site, 1. Setbac,k• New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than 5% out-of-Zine from
the setback of exisiing adjacent buiZdings. Sefbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be
allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at comers. This happens quite often in the
Historic HFZI area cmd can lend delightful variation to the street.
III. F. 3. Garages and Pw��king: Where alleys do not e.rist, gcmages facing the street or driveway curb
cuts may be acceptrrble. Garage doors shouZd not face the street. If this is found necessary, single
gc�age doors should be used to avofd the horizontal orientation of two-car garage doors.
Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be loca7ed in
rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street cmd sidewalk by
landscaping, and
W$EREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
June 24, 1999 public hearing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact (findings
#2-4 aze essentiatly the fmdings in HPC Resotutiou #2884 granting approvai of the I99� 40'-building
scheme):
I. The applicant seeks approval of two designs, one a 36'-long building which requires no variances �
Yo construct and the other a 38'-long building which requires a front yard setback variance in
order to construct the building 16' from the front properiy line. The design of both schemes is
very similaz to the 40'-long building appmved by the HPC on March 27, 1997 (File #2884). The
most significant differences among the three pIans concem the site p1an: the previously-approved
40' building had a 19.5' front setback and two parking spaces in the front yazd; the proposed 36'
building has a 25' front setback; the proposed 38' building has a 16' front yazd setback; and
neither of the two schemes now proposed has ftont yard pazking.
2. The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visibie from Summit Avenue, it
abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are luge buIldings to the south and west that
are close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the rear yard of the Winter
House at 415 Sumuiit Aveaue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage
house concept is a reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the following reasons: a) tUe
site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street pazking for residents of the Winter House;
b) fhe parceI fias historicatly been a rear yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appears as a rear
yazd due to iTs relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story cairiage
house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a building that is very close to the
Winter House in pro�mity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc_ The
Winter Hovse was buiIt on a fhrougfi-lot witfi Summit and PortIand frontages; the recent
subdivision of the site chaages neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to
surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
�
�
0 0 -�ao
�
HPC Resolurion: File #3654, p. 3
3. The proposed structure conforms to the dishict guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the s3ze, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color,
material, bnilding elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the
azea."
b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character would be related to, but do
not mimic, the adjacent VJinter House. Individual design elements aze integrated for a
balanced and complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be parallel to that of the Winter House, the street-
facing elevation would be perpendiculaz to the sireet like those of other struchues on this
block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz yazd nature of the site,
the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the ]ustoric carriage
house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only
other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and
Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure(the e�usting
structure is a lazge, 4story, brick apartment building with two, two-story front porches
located 18" from the sidewallc while the main building wall is 12' from the front
sidewalk).
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building.
� f. Pazking spaces wouid be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by '
landscaping. Single gazage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of double
doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. Tfiese sorts of
anomalies in desian and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district
and its character.
4. In addition, the proposed su�cture and sSte development conform to the federal Secretary of the
Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design
and materials aze related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
Winter House; the design distinguishes beriveen what is new and what is historic rather than
mimics the historic shucture and confuses the two; and the development would not have an
adverse i[npact on the chazacter-defining features of the site and the azea. The building's design
is similaz to the rear addirion of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appmpriate
for a new secondary structure. A new building of unrelated design and materials would detract
from the historic integrity of the site.
5. The following project details should be noted:
a. The landscape plans shown on the 36' and 38' building schemes differ; the landscape
plan shown for the 38' building is the correct one and should be shown on both sets of
plans.
� b. The hedge along the driveway and at the front of the building will be alpine currant,
spaced 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5'.
�
HPC Resolurion: File #3654, p. 4
c. The plans call for a basement window well at the front of the buiiding that was not
proposed in the 199� scheme. Curtent plans show both a 3' x 8' well with a ladder and a
4' x 8' well wit6 a step/terrace. The 3' x 8' option is preferable for the 38' building
withl6' front setback scheme; and
WHEREAS, though there aze, or may be, zoaing issues, legal issues, aad other issues pertaining to the
proposed development, they aze not within the jurisdiction of the Heritage Preservarion Commission; the
commission must grant or deny approval of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code and the district design review guidetines;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a building permit for either of the two proposed schemes for a new single
family dwelling located at 420 Portland Avenue, sabject to the condition that the front window well sha11
be 3' x 8' for the 38' building.
MOVED BY Benton
SECONDED BX Murphy
�
IN FAVOR 7
AGAINST 0 �
ABSTAIN 0
Decisions of the $eritage Preservation Commission are final, snbject to appeal to the City Council within 14
days by anyone affected by the decuion. This resoIution does not o6viate ffie need for meeting applicable
building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitnte approval for t� credits.
u
7
oo-'�ap
Saint Paal Heritage Preservafion Commission
. Case Snmmary
Re: 420 Portland Avenne, Ronald Severson, Construct new single family dwelling, HPC File #3654
24 Jnne 1999
Rubenstein showed photographs and slides of the site and surrounding azea, reviewed the cover memo,
and noted the following details: landscaping would include an alpine current hedge along the driveway
and at the front, planted 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5; new to these plans is a front
window well for a basement bedroom (of rockfaced block, 3' x 8' with a ladder or 4' x 8' with a step/
terrace); the materials and details aze the same as those spec�ed for the previously-approved plan.
Errigo: why is the HPC looking at this again? Rubenstein responded.
Younkin recused himself ftom participating in the case.
Ron Severson: bought the land in 1996. Previous City Council approval for a building on the lot did not
include a variance. Asking for HPC appmval of both plans; the 38' building is preferable—it is more
centered on the lot. Both proposals provide two parking spaces for (each o fl the other three units in
415 Summit and have four single garage doors. Am willing to modify the designs if necessary.
Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland: live in fust floor unit overlooking the site; have always assumed
something would be built here. Supported the 1997 proposal and suppart the current proposal. I
� suggested the west elevation bay and like it—it adds visual interest. Severson has been very cooperarive
with regazd to the landscaping—has agreed to let neighbors help with its design and maintenance. I prefer
the building to be as close to the sh�eet as possible-#o maximize moming sunlight to my unit. Only two
houses on Portland meet the required 25' front setback, which is therefore inappropriate. The rhyttun of
the street and neighborhood is such that a 16' front setback is preferable to a 25' setback, but I support
both plans.
Mazk Vaught: representing Greg and Cazol Clatk, Patricia Leonard, and Laurel Frost. I am not able to
speak cogently about the project and will therefore ask for a layover. BZA did not approve the variances
for the project that the HPC approved and, on appeal, the City Council upheld the denial. My clients
have a long standing interest in this properry; they haue not had fair oppor[unity to address this issue as
they did not know about tlus meeting until this past Tuesday after 6:00 p.m. I know of no affirmative
obligation to notify (neighbors or affected parties). I haven't even had a chance to look at the
information. In the interest of fairness, and with BZA review on July 12`", there need be no rush to
approve or vote on the matter.
Murphy asked about the 64-day time limit and Heide asked about due process.
Vaught: believe the 60-day limit can be automatically extended by writing a letter to the applicant
Errigo: urge everyone to focus on the design review issues and not on other, legal issues.
There was no other public testimony and the public hearing was closed.
•
� I
HPC Case Summary re: 420 Portland Avenue, File #3654
Page Two
Bellus: moved one-month layover (two weeks if necessary); Murphy seconded.
Lazson: concemed that 3Q minutes atready spent and notfiing anyone coutd say affects the design review
guidelines.
Heide: strongly disagree with a layover, the changes from the plans approved in 1997 are slight
The Iayover motion failed on a 3- 7 vote.
$eide moved approval of both proposed designs; Hargens seconded.
$ellus asked for separate votes on each scheme, which request was refused.
The motion to gtant approval of a building permit for either scheme passed 9-1(Bellus).
summary prepared by Aazon Rubenstein
�
�
�
�
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIItONMENIALPRO7ECTION
RobenKessler, Directo�
� J
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Commission
FROM: Aazon Rubenstein ft�
ItE: 420 Portiand / File #3654
DATE: 21 June 1999
LOY�RYPROFFSSIONAL BUILDA'G
Suite 300
350 St Peter Street
S�tPaub M'�esota 55702-ISIO
oo-�a�
Tel ephone: 651 d 669090
Facsunite: 651-266-9D99
�
�
�
Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a new "carriage" house at
420 Portland Avenue, immediately west of Nathaa Hale Pazk. Mr. Severson is seeking HPC approval
of two schemes. One involves a 36' long building with a 25' front setback; this project requires no
variances. The second plan, preferred by Mr. Severson, is a 38' long building with a 16' front setback,
for which a front yazd setback variance would be needed. The Boazd of Zoning Appeals will review
Mr. Severson's vaziance request on July 12, 1999.
The two proposed plans aze very similaz to one another and to plans for a 40' long building with a
19.5' front setback that the HPC approved on March 27, 1997. That 1997 approva] was the result of
� five meetings with the HPC: a concept review in 7uly 1995, an informal concept review in November
1996, an HPC hearing in February 1997, a Design Review Committee meeting in Mazch 1997, and
approval at the March 1997 HPC meeting. The HPC approval was appealed to the City Council by
some residents of the adjacent building at 415 Summit Avenue. The appeal was denied, and the HPC
decision affirnied, by a 6- 0 Council vote on February 25, 1998.
The previously approved pian and the rivo proposed plans are compazed in the table at the end of this
memo.
�
The proposed building site is a flat, dirt lot used for off-street pazking for the residents of 415 Summit
(the E. W. Winter House). A rivastall garage was built on the lot several yeazs ago. The
420 Portland lot was formerly the rear yazd of 415 Summit; it was split off from the 415 Summit lot
in 1990. Owners of the four condominiums at 415 Summit have an easement on 420 Portland which
requires that two pazking spaces be provided at 420 Portland for each condominium unit.
Mr. Severson proposes the 36' long building because it requires no variances. He prefers the 38' long
building, however, for the following reasons: a) it provides more living space; b) it provides 9' wide,
rather than 8.5' wide, garage spaces; c) it is sited 6' further from the Winter House, which provides
more sunlight to the residents of the building to the west at 436 Portland, and d) it has 9 rather than 8
pazking spaces.
A revised landscape plan is shown on the site plan for the 38' building. The landscaping for a 36'
building would be similaz to that shown on the plan for the 38' building and not as shown on the site
plan for the 36' building.
/ �
HPC, 6,21.99, re: 420 Portland Av., p. 2
�
The previously approved plaa had a 19.5' froat setback and two parking spaces in the front yazd, one
of which was directiy in front of the building. The proposed 38' building has a 16' front setback and
puts the ninth pazking space behind the building rather than in front of it To the west of the subject
site is a large, four story, brick apartment building at 436-38 Portland. The front wall of the building
is set back appmximately 12' from the sidewalk and the two, two-story porches are setback 18" &om
the sidewalk. Tfiis is tfie only building on the south side of Portland between Summit/Western and
Arundel.
Please see the attached HPC resolution approving the 40' long building (File #2884) for relevant
portions of the Historic Hill district guidelines pertaining to new constructioa.
420 PORTLAND AVENCJE
COMPARISON OF TI� THREE SCHEMES
ISSUE
front setback
distance from 4t5
Summit
roofline (all
schemes have
same appro�mate
height)
east elevation
west elevarion
north and south
elevations—same
alt schemes
# pazking spaces
front yazd pazking
APPROVED 40'
SCHEME
19.5'
10'
PROPOSED 36'
SCHEME
25'
10'
g�lz 1llp 10/12 truncated hip
(flat deck at
center)
4 windows, paired
3 single windows
4 windows, no bay
E
2 spaces
7 windows, bay
8
none
PROPOSED 38'
SCHEME
16'
16'
10/12 truncated hip
(flat deck at
center)
4 single windows
7 windows, bay
0
none
�
�
l(
��
a
�
GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT
DE°ARTMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL
I
CITY OF SAINT PAUL r-1� (��
OFFICE OF LICFn�ISE, INSPECITONS APID � --
ENVIl20NMEiVTALPRO'CECZTON I
SUlLDING INSPECTIONAND DESIGN �
350 St Peter Street - Suite 300 �-"� P�jt pjp
��SaiuP¢u{Mwusota5S70?-ISIO 6i1-266-9090 �
00—'120
�;c:ult �n', Ie � y>^�7� � , .Sc PLAN NO_
DESCRI ION OF PRO ECL � -
DATE� �'�' ��l OWNER�rc� � Cit�K�clr�
OWNERSADORESS_ `1'js c��%l1�7 #a �_G�I Y�"� ,S-'� 16a
❑ OlD f TYPE OF
Cr�'�IEW TYPE CONST. �%cc C OCCUPANCY Siµ �E ,.�
GRADING STUCCOOR
�UILD ❑ AND EXC ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE
ALTER LJREPAIR
NUMBER
�Lcr
WARD
1
LOT
STRUC-
TURE
ESTI
��
iTAILS d�
�r��,ci �3�+
OT. BLOCK
; — 1
WIDTH DEPTH
7L�cf ,5�
W�DTH
.���
VAWE
l.11/ `
0
[.] WRECK
CROSSSTREETS
. 11... _
�/
LENGTH
3G�
BA
YES ❑ NO
:ARPNCE BV�LO4NG L�NE
���� FRONT AEAf
�5 j � �
HEIGHT STORIES
2 �i � �i �
TOTAL f�00R ApEA
sn. Fr. �j�csb
INCLUDEBASEMENT
- �r K � _ c.(i/ Y � �/� G
�)� l� `�- z 4u � � GI�e521h:-n
� TL(�� J� /� 1l J�' A/1�.� -nJ_ 7S?-�� v 7t��?�
ARCHITECT
PERM�TFEE
PLAN CHECK
STATE
SURCHARGE
STATE
VAIUATION
T NO.
� J O'
� TOTAL FEE
APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL �N-
FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT
All PERTINENT STATE REGUlA7tON5 CASH�ER USE oNIY
AND CITY ORDINANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN VALIDATED TH�S IS YOUR PERMIT
PLIED WITH IN PERFORMING THE WORK
FOR WHICH TH�$PERMIT IS ISSUED.
I�jp;_� I ADDRESS ,/n_ {/�/� f p
nF .�nR �fi{Zl /' ti �/ �at?� � `�� °�'
1 �
�
June 16,1999
Memo To: Aaron Rubenst�, He age Preservation Commission
From: Ron Severson , Oz�- �'"'
Re: 420 Portland Avenue Carriage House
I am enclosing two copies of tne elevations and site plans for the 38 foot
carriage house with the request that this plan be considered for approval at
the June 24`� meeting of the commission.
I believe you now ha�e copies of the elevations and site pIans for the 40
foot carriage house which was previously approved, the revised 36 foot
house which needs no variance and the encIosed 38 foot house which will
be considered for a variance at the 7uly 12`� meeting of the zoning board.
It is my hope that both of the plans under consideration can be approved at
the June commission meeting so that I would be in a position to proceed
with construction whether or not the zoning board approves the requested
variance.
Please call me if you need additional information.
.�
�
U
�
�
-;�
�
�r
_ --
.�-� �� ____..�.._ _
h _lw\ta.�.^„�++-�-.� _....._. .e - _ _ � ._ _
° � r...'�.'��.... �__` '..:.. �
. . . , ♦ 6_�ee.
� ������ ' - . . . . � . _ _� - ., ��
�'_ ' �'.'..:i':.�.i'..i:...-I_::.�i(��.::1�:
. .. __ _ _ ' . � . .. .
_____ . ti.�..
' �
. . ... .. �.: " -
I / .__ .3 . ' ♦ � ' • . . ' . .: . . ' .._ _
..� ..'.:': ' : . - . '. . . . �
�-' ... .. . ' . _ ' . � � .
� � .
� ..�
� � �.�" �
- - --- - . _ . b O 12-0
� . _ . _ - ---._. - - -----=-
�---?� = --:.� � . - -- ------ ---- -- -- ' .,.-1--� . . - . .
��°== ""== - N�3=LS3M, -�� _—";_�_ ��
.. — -=
,. �—� ----
�-d�., i� �- ie - T --`&,
, .� � � �� _ _ - i � �
-- . ' - `,-_� � _. .. -. - _ � ... .
�- ------- - - - - - - - �-.:. --
-c — - --- — � - - �:;_ ,.
- - �_ �`. _ ', ,- - - _
- — . ,.:
� --�� � � �� _. _ �� — � — -�.-- --
: . ..� a` t - ' .��"E • -- �t--' •> �5�__
J. �_ ♦ r ` �'�`
e - ._'�_' _ _ '_ __ _ � � P � "' -.- _�__
; . .�� '�, ` . �� _
' _—_ �, _— . ' ` '_— � `` `� o\ "_ '_. - '� � ' '
�. ` ` :ro Z• ��' ,�
v ' ' . "
_ _ _ ' _' � .. �� � .�v'.•-�� �.= -. - '_ —�-- �' _
"
__-__� _ . ♦__..' : . .. :- -___.C'_ _.._'_____--�'- ' '
- - a •' m - . ----- --- --------
. ' _' t , � � ' -
- � . �, . . � . ;� ..
,�- 'd i •' . r.. \` , � ' - .Iy . .
_ _ _ "' "- '
�. J'S � '--".- -'--'.-" _-� --.._....�Q._....-:-- -__ . .---- ---- '--- -"-----� -'---�'-'_" -- - ---"-
. � � ' � � °� - - �-� T - �'_.`_- -� --�.. . --
_ -'- �.-� �� �,.. . @ � -
. . O' � � _ _ . �. .
_ " �„� , t�3! _
— . -- �` � --- -----<— — — ,_ -- --
G�. O�
� ----'� v 1 , o � ; 2a�� ' , - --- -_¢ .... --�-- —
-- � � - --�� --: - ' =° `� ° �i- .
1 ' � � . �-- ---- . ..
� � _" _." P? `� ,0 '_- 1 '
. - . .. ___._.__ ____ _ _ .
' _'__ "
,.�--� — ---- - ----��------- - - ---..
� - - -- = -- �
z ; : �.--,� � .a
_ ,
� -�_-�-_ -- --- - -.: _- _- - o-_ -- -- - � -��- -_�- --
� � . a, � ------- � �
��-�---' �-- - ---- .._-. . .__ 0--- ----a-=�'�
�
--� -- �----- --- ._.._ -----_� a�=- 0 ` = _---- ---._J _.
' � - --- -' . " . .. i ' 0 _` � � . . .
� S - -_ 4 � ' -- — .o ----- --' - �60 . ' - � — V
� - �,, : °` , d . v
-__- � � �s'-�:- -__�---�->_ - - �'�-- Z
- t . �. �='' ' ♦ � , - �
< + `� ♦ � �
_ 2 � �� .
. � � * � 2 �Y �'~ d � �" � ` N , ^�
_ . ___I^ �s� __'_ _ ' ^ ` o\ ; � O '__, i �I' . .__ = _N _____'. �
� ° � i 0 4°� �
�
"C� P d>_ 0 0 , r
� t4 '_"� � , „ �0 . � �_
' - __ _ _� to ` t ' .
--__ . ..k � H� 2 , � . '— �0 LY
—1�— ._
- - .� ----� ---'- ---- - - - ------�� ----- O
— O L -- �� _ pp
_. 47 - ' -
- -- � - ��. '- -- -� _ . __ . _. .. - : - - - - Z
—.�:. � _ x _ . .t�=• � - ------- --- ------- - -- Q
� - " . : v' ' i�� - -V�
_ -- -- - —�--- -- -- -x -- - - - " � � -
o.
t� . . - �ro t _ v� : — -:,�,.+t�o _ a C�
Q � — � ' �^�-''��: ` >�"_:: - -_ ' _ . _,_. ..r.--,�:._ O
+{- .�= = _� i �. t �
• � . " �� .d�,,at:�'��' , .= � . ' .�.
� '� _ �J e -
- . ! _ °; ' ' - av - - 1 � `�
' ' �ti ". �' . d£ OZ i _"_i _'_ __ ' _ .`_'3 � '_
- , . v Z .� ; i �
— ,.
�-_ L �--°�--------------= =� �3E}-N�f122#t€�e ---_------- -_ . � -- �
-- i- �v-- �aa. _ =vs=_.
�
.- ;� � ...`�� - 6, �
- . ,_ ,r 6z 2 , �� ..
` ' ��H
.. . �. . . '. . . . n . . . . _- •. - � " ^
_�.+_. . . . ��
�_._. ,. . -. ," _ _ . _ ' —__ __ '. _. .. _.. . _ ___ .�
N
.. . . 1 � � c , � . � . _ �' � .�
. � 1 i H� " i� .----� . 'S d Q'
Co�zcil Fi2e
o�i��Na�
Presented By
Referred To
Green Sheet
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAWT PAUL, MWNESOTA
�
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson made application to the Heritage Preservation
Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73 for a building
permit to construct a carriage-house-like stnictare at 420 PortIand Avenue within the Historic
Hi11 Heritage Preservation District; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1997, the commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposal. After discussion, the matter was laid over and the project was a�ain reviewed on
March 13, 1997, and fmally approved on Mazch 27, 1997. However, the commission,
inadvertently, did not formatly pass a resolution approvin� the project until January 8, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on Aprii 8, 1997, Gregory Clark, Carol Ciazk and Patricia Leonazd
appealed the March 27, 1997, commission decision but elected to enter into negotiations with the
applicant in fhe fiope that the applicant and the appellants might resoive their differences; and
WHEREAS, the ne�otiations between fhe parfies failed to reach an acceptable
compromise and the appellants requested that their appeal be heard by the Saint Paul City
Council; and
WfiEREAS, the commission in its ResoIution No. 2884 granted approvaI of the building
permit based upon revised plans includin� only the east elevation marked 3C-1, and subject to .
the condition that an appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows in light of
the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation guidelines. In particular, based upon the evidence
presented at the Mazch 27, 1997, public hearing, the commission made the following findings of
fact:
The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visible from
Summit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are
Iazge buildings to the south and west that are close to the property lines.
This lot can be construed as both the rear yard of the Winter House at 415
Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed
carria�e house concept (and "front yard° pazkinQ adjacent to PortIand) is a
reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the follo�zn� reasons: a)
the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking for
residents of the Winter House; b) the pazcel has historically been a reaz
yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appeazs as a reaz yazd due to its
relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story
carria�e house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a
buildin� that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is
related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The Winter House
� -3s7
� l�O�s �! �
�
�
��
z
4
� 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
7
48
49
0 R 1 G 1 N�uilt on a through-lot with Summit and Portland fronta�es; the recent
subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the
Winter House to surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height,
rhythm, setback, color, material, building elements, site design,
and chazacter of surtounding structures and the azea."
b. The building elements, materials, scaIe, height, and character
would be related to, but do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House.
Individual design elements aze integrated for a balanced and
complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be parallel to that of the
Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular
to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz
yazd nature of the site, and the carriage house nature of the
proposed building, the fact that the historic cazriage house on the
site was located up to the north properiy line, and the fact that the
only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland
between Western and Arundel) is located closer to the street than
would be the proposed structure.
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house
nature of the building.
f. Pazkin� spaces would be adequately screened from the street and
sidewalk by landscaping. Sin�le gazage doars would avoid the
horizontal orientation of double doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity
of a through-lot. These sorts of anomalies in design and
development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic
district and its character.
3. In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the
federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an
historic site. The proposed building's design and materials are related to
and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
R'inter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is
historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and
the development would not have an adverse impact on the chazacter-
definin� features of the site and the azea. The buildin�'s desian is similaz
to fhe reaz addition af the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is
appropriate for a new secondary structure. A new building of unrelated
desi�n and materials would detract from the historic inte�rity of the site;
and
G� �.5�
/ � J --�
0 0 1�0
(�b
��.` J✓ �
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
OR(GINAL
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06{h), Tricia
Leonazd, Greg Clark, and Cazol Clark duly filed with ihe Council an appeal from the
determination made by the commission and requested that a hearing be held before the City
Council for the purpose of considering the acrions taken by the said commission; and
VVHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was set on for January 28,
1998, but, at the request of appetiants' attomey, the matter was postponed to February 25, 1998;
and
WHEREAS, on February Z5, 1998, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City
Council, where all interested parties were given an opportuniiy to be heazd; and
WHEREAS, having heard the statements made and having considered the application,
the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the commission, the Council does
hereby;
RESOLVE, to deny the appeal of Patricia Leonard, Gregory Clazk and Carol Clazk on
the basis that their has been no showin� that the commission made any error in fact finding or
procedure in tIus matter; and
BE IT �URTHER RESOLVED, that Yhe City Clerk shall mail a copy of Yhis resolution
to Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clark and Cazo1 Clazk, the Zoning Administrator and ihe Heritage
Preservation Commission.
�
�
Requested by Department of:
Adopted by CounciZ: Date _�3��s�
Adontion Certified by Council Se tary
BY: 1
Approved by Mayor: te
By:
By:
Form Appzoved by City Attor..ey
B �.� �/�1 .��, Y- 2 �'' 9�
Approved 6y Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
�
t �
�
SRIw'T
TpVi
�
�OIIA
APPUCATfON FOR APPEAL
Depanment of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
II00 City Hall Anner
25 West Founh Sbeet
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
Address �/5 Stt��n. �{ �� '� �
City �`�f. �:,� � St.� Zip S.5/o]._ Daytime phon�i/� 37F U>7j
�
PROPERTY Zoning File
LOCATION ... ..
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeai to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals [�City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph _
appeai a decision made by the ��t,�l o'f �,�1i
on _ d/cn�/: � , 19�. File
(date of decision)
of the Zoning Code, to
� , �i- %� 3
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Pianning Commission.
� -� ►-� �, �L
ll-� 3- r �
��_ �/�!�•`�"'
�
Attach additiona/ sheet
Applicant's
Date 11 City agent
1
� �
.
�
Appeal of the Board of Zoning AppeaYs resolution #99-163
dated
November 8, 1999
on
420 Portla�d Ave.
Reasons for the appeal:
The resolution by the Board of Zoning Appeals found that my application met the
requirements for a variance on points number five and six but did not meet the
requirements on points number one through four.
It is my contention that the Board of Zoning Appeals is in error in there findings.
1. On the findings of facts on points one through four. The Zoning Board
sfaff concluded,through their evaluation of my request,that I did meet the �
requirements of each of the first four provisions as well as the last two. I
believe that the staff conclusions are correct as they are written.
2. Based on the history of action on this lot in which the board in 1990 and
again in 1992 found that this same lot did meet aN six requirements for a
variance and did grant the requested variances.
�� ���
�.) i 5 ��.�nrn� � C� � � �--
�
�4
CITY OF SAIi�TT PAUL po _�,,o
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMBER: TM 99-I63
� DATE 11/08/99 -
WHEREAS, RONALD SEVERSON has applied for a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code pertainin� to the construction of a ne�v
residential structure that �vould have a 4-caz gaza?e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on the
second floor over the garage, in the RT-2 zonin� district at 420 PORTLAND AVENIJE,; and
�VHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 25, and
November 8, 1999, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of
the Le�islative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public
hearin�, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followin� findin�s of fact:
1. The property in qzrestio�: can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
A slightly smaller buildina with four parkin� spaces on the first floor and a dwellin� unit on the second
floor can be built on the properry. A sitz plan for this building was approved by the City Council in March
1999.
� 2. The pZight of the land owner is not due to circumstances uniqe�e to this properry, and these circumstances
were not created by the land owner.
The size and irregular shape of the lot and the private agreement that requires the property owner to provide
parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit are unique to the property and were not created by the present
property owner. However, the present o�rner was aware of these circumstances when he bought the
property.
3. The proposed variance is not in keepin� �e�ith the spirit and intent of the code, and is co�uistent wizh t3:e
heaZth, safety, con:fort, morals and w•elfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
The reduced front yard setback that would be aliowed by the variance would not provide a reasonable
amount of green space and therefore is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance will impair an adeqtcate suppZy of light and air to adjacent property, and will
ztnreasonably diminish established property valeres within the st�rraz�nding area.
The orientation of the building with the side facing Portland Avenue would unreasonably diminish property
values within the surrounding area.
5. The variance, if granted, woc�ld not perntit any use that is not permitted zrnder the provisions of the code for
the property in t3ze district where the afjected land is tocated, nor woutd it atter or change the zoning
district classification of [he properry•.
� 6. Tl:e request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the vali�e or income potential of the
parcel of fartd.
Page 1 of 2
C�
File r 99-163
1Zesolution
N06V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals that the request �
to �vaive the provisions of Section 61.101 to allow a front yard setback of 16 feet, in order to construct a
new residential structure that would have a 4-caz gara�e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on
the second floor over the gara�e, on property located at 420 PORTLAND AVENiJE; and le�ally
described as Except the Southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, auditor's subdivision #38; in accordance with the
application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator, is HEREBY DE1V'IED.
MOVED BY: Morton
SECONDED BY: w�lson
IN FAVOR: s
AGAINST: o
ABSTAIN: 2
NIAILED: November 09, 1999
TI�IE LI�IIT: No order of the Board of Zonina Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a
building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period lonaer than one
year, uniess a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained Fvithin such �
period and such erecfion or alferation is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such
permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an estension
not to esceed one pear. In grantina such ectension, the Board of Zoning Appeals
may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPE.4L: Decisions of the Board of Zonina Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City
Council within 15 dacs by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall
not be issued after an appeal has been filed. IF permits have been issued before an
appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease
until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATION: I, the �tndersigned Secretary to tfie Board oFZonina Appeals for the City ofSaint
Pau1,lVlinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoina copy with
Yhe original tecord in mr office; and find the same to be a true and correcf copy of
said oriainal and of the rvhole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint
Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meetina held on October 25, and 1� ovember 8,1999,
and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection,
350 St, Peter Street, Saint Paul, biinnesota.
SAI\T PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
�� � ��
d�i�� �:��
Noel Diedrich
Secretary to the Board
Pa�e 2 of 2
�
� ,�
ao-�ap
��
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 25, 1999
PRESENT: Mmes. Liston and Morton; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Kramer, Scherman and WIlson of
the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Aardwick,
Mr. Beach, and Ms. Diedrich of the O�ce of License, Inspection, and Environmental
Protection.
ABSENT: Mmes. Bogen, Maddox *
* Both Excused
The meeting was chaired by Brian Alton, Vice Chair.
RONALD SEVER50N (#99-1631 420 PORTLAND AVENUE: The applican[ is proposing to
construct a new, residendal structure that would have a 4-car gara�e on the First floor, and a single-
family home on the second floor over the garage. The building has been designed to look like an
historic carriage house. In addition to the 4 spaces in the new building, there would also be 3 surface
spaces, and 2 spaces in an existin; gara;e, for a totai of 9 parking spaces on the site. One of these
parkin� spaces would be for the carriage house unit, and the other 8 would be for an existing 4-unit
� condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit). A variance for minimum front yard setback. A
front yard setback of 16 feet is proposed for the carriage house, a setback of 25 feet is required, for a
variance of 9 feet.
Mr. Beach showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval.
The applicant, Ronald Severson, 415 Summit Avenue {f2, was present. Ae said he also owns a unit in
the condominium to the south of it. His unit is the one unit that overlooks the parking area. His wife
and he bought the property in 1996, with the intent of building a sin�le family house that they were
going to live in and use as the retirement house. They realized, at the time, that there was easement for
parking on the property. Each of the plans that they considered has taken that into consideration.
There has always been pazking foi two off-street parking spaces for each of the offier three owners in
the condominium in which he lives.
Mr. Severson continued that there was a question that Tom Beach taiked a littie bit about, whether or
not it was a legal lot split back in 1990, 6 years before he bou�ht it. That set him back a long way,
because that had to be resolved. And, iYs been resolved, so it is a legal buildable lot. He can build a
carriage house on it. He has developed pians for a 36 foot carriage house. He didn't have a copy of
the packet, but he had almost all the information from Tom so if he is missing somethin� you'll have to
excuse him. He thinks they have the 36 foot site plan as part of the packet. ThaYs a buildable plan but
it's not the best that can be built on that lot. So he's here asking for ihat variance because he thinks
that what he's proposing will be a better development for that lot, and for the nei;hborhood, and for
the people that live in that condominium.
� He said that what he's requesting, and he thinks they have the site plan in front of them, - to emphasize
Page 1 of 13
2 ��-
- he has Heritage Preservation Commission approval for this, This building that he's proposing meets �
the requirements for that area. I[ wi11 be a real asset to that particular lot because of the lar;e, 4-story
brick buildin� that's next to it. He thinks i[ will improve the visual - the view actually from the park
lookin� toward the lot, because this is a tum-of-the-century, carriage house. It's architecturaily
desi;ned and, as Heritage Preservatioa Cocnmission has pointed out, it meets the reqairements for chat
area and of ihat rype of a carria;e house back in the 1900's. Incidentally, there was a carria;e house
aimost on that spot at the rurn of the century - 2-story high, 321c32. It disappeared sometime, probably
around the 1920's. So, in a way, they're repiacing the carriage house that was there for a good, long
period of time.
He's askin� for a 16-foot front yard: a nine foot variance. For several reasons. First of all, he would
like to increase the size of the carriage house to 38 feet. 36 foot is adequate, as far as mee[ing the
requirements of the ordinance. But 38 feet would allow the 4 cars that are goin� to park in there to
have approximately a 9-foot space, and would make it easier to maneuver throu�h the parking lot and
into that space.
Part of his easement requiremen[ is that he provides 2, off-street parking spaces. This carriage house
will provide 1 parking spot for each of the 2 people that live in the same condominium that he dces,
and the other people already have an existing garage, so that gives each of them lparking space and
then would aIlow anothet parking space for him when he and his wife move into this carriage house.
38 feet is not a lot of extra space in terms of living space - about 40 square feet IYs still only a6out
17 `/o of the totai buildable area, so it's way under the square foota�e allowed for that area. Ic also
allows - he thinks the maneuverability would be improved because of being able to make a litde easier
tum into a wider space. •
He's centered the 38-foot building on ihe lot. That allows for 16 feet between the two buildings. And
16 feet between the sidewalk and the front of the building. He thinks the 16 feet between the 2
buildings is important because of the concerns about space not bein� so close - not lookin� like it's
attached. A 38-foot buiiding aIso is - both buildings are acceptable by Heritage Preservation
Commission - but he thinks this is a little better looking building if you were standing in the park
lookin� toward the pazking lot. IYs a symmetrical building with a setback next to the haliway being the
same on both sides. It does Iook better. It's better for the neighborhood.
Ae also would like to - by moving it to 16-foot front yard setback, he can put a nice parking space on
the south side of that building. The importance of that is for - it's emphasized on Friday and Saturday
nighcs when the Universiry Club starts parking cars for those patrons on Pordand Avenue. Big buitdin�
next to it - he believes it's somethin; like 14 total uniu but only 13 parkin� - off-street, parking spaces.
They depend a lot on Portland Avenue. Maybe one parkina space won't make a lot of difference but
he thinks it will. Ae thinks it's importan[.
He also wanted to point out, if you took at the whole bIock, the building next to this - to the west of
this - is almost right on the sidewalk. His bein; 16-feet back, obviously he's not goina to block any
view of rhe park. If you count 8 uniu on that block total, with 36 Portland bein� 2 entrances and
therefore 2 units, only 2 of those buildin;s meet the requirement of 25 feet. 2 of them are less than 16
feet to the front sidewalk, so his building is not going to be on the street. In fact, he thinks it will be
more out of place if you move i[ 25 feet back and increase that lawn area,
He has a landscaped plan that was deveioped by 2 of his neighbors. He's worked �vith them on it but �
Page 2 of 13
� �
w .�
00 -� a�
� what he's goin� to do with landscaping, - he's agreed, before he pulled a buildins permit, iha[ he will
put �5,000.00 into escrow, under the control of his nearest neighbor, who is the first floor direcfly
across from him and supports this buildin„ to ensure when all the buildin� is done, there will be funds
availabie forlandscaping.
They can live with a 36-foot, if they have to. But it's not the best plan. His wife and he have tried
very hazd to develop, what they think will be, a really good plan for this neighborhood. That will look
the best. They'll have the best pazkin„ and the best way of maneuvering on this lot. Incidentally,
he'll be providin� - each of those spots will be provided without charge or cost to the other people in
the nei�hborhood. Because he's obli�ated throu�h easement to provide these. Hz could leave it as an
outside parking spot - he'd rather each of them have a stall inside of a garage, for obvious reasons,
because we're comin� into our winter now. He's offered to do that. It's a requirement anyway. He
offered it way back before they even started on this. Those are his reasons for asking for the variance.
He thanked the Board and stated he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Alton referred to a statement about other residences in the area, and he asked if Mr. Severson was
talking about across the street on Portland Avenue, the average setback. Mr. Severson said every
setback - that fuil block across the street - on his side, there is only one building. There's six buildings
across the street. Those are the ones that he mentioned - oniy 2 of them meet the requirements.
Ms. Liston had a question she said was relative to the yellow sheet and the staff recommendation. On
che yellow sheet description it says the front yard setback is proposed for the carriage house. A setback
for 2� feet is required for a variance of 10 feet. In the staff recommendation it reads 16 feet. Mr.
� Severson said 16 feet is being applied for. It was a typo.
Mr. Scherman asked, that those people that come out of the garage that he has there, how do they get
over to 415 Summit. Mr. Severson said part of - there'll be a sidewalk, which isn't put in yet. Mr.
Scherman asked if they can come out of the back? Mr. Severson said, yes, there's a door so that
they'll be able to walk along the front of the garage, come out of the back, and then go ri�ht up the
steps. That's the back door to all of the units, where those steps are. And that will be a concrete walk.
Mr. Scherman also asked what a`day lily' was. Mr. Severson said he should hace the landscaper in
the neighborhood, who drew up the landscaping and recommended the plantings and so forth. Mr.
Severson said he didn't know. He was looking forcvard to seeing it.
Lou Sudheimer came forward and said he lived about 100 feet across the street, kitty corner, at 439
Portland. Sort of in front of the 4-story condominium building. He just wanted to refresh the people
that have been on the Board for quite some time, and update some of the peopie that are new on the
Board. This has been going on for a long time, and he's been involved throu�h Historic Hiil Homes
with the previous owner, as weli as tryin; ro support Mr. Severson in his endeavors to get what he has
considered to be an excellent set of desi�ns of carria�e houses, to replace the one that went missing
many, many decades ago. And solve some of the parking problems for the owners of these
condominiums that have evolved over time. The original group of people that �•ere involved in ihe
building, for the most part, were lOQ 7 in favot of this. Unfoctunately, there's been some new people
that have come in who began to be a�ainst it for reasons that they will have to explain to the Board
shortiy. But he just wanted to refresh the group that, when these issues first camz up, there were a
si�nificant number of nei�hbors who came down and took time out of their days to appear in favor of
� this. They, of course, have lost interest and tenaciry over time, but the majority of his neighbors are in
favor of this. There are, as in many nei;hborhood siruations, there is a split but he would gauge that
Page 3 of 13
f �
the preponderance of people are in favor. And just wanted to add his opinion that this plan is better �
than the plan that Mr. Severson was forced to adop[ with a slightly smaller carriage house, and with
one fewer off-street parking stall, in order to come up with a plan that would require no variances.
This plan does require a small variance, but it does provide a significantly, more funccional garage
situation, and it provides an extra stall, which is very critical, even for some of the people that are
objecting to it. It's very unfortunate that a small, well-fmanced clique of neighbors has been able to
delay this approval, multiple times.
There were no others to speak in favor; Chair then invited those opposed to address the Board.
Mark Vaught, an attorney, Suite 700, 6 West FiBh Street, came forward, and stated he represented
Greg and Carol Clark, owners of one of the condominium units at 41� Summit Avenue, Patricia
Leonazd, owner of the unit, and Laurei Frost, who lives in the other building, immediately to the other
side of this particular lot, that they saw in the photos. He apologized in advance if it happens. He was
carrying a cell phone in his pocket and he has to leave it tumed on because he tried a case to a jury in
Hennepin Counry last week and the jury is out deliberating, as he speaks. And Judge Connelly has
required him to carry it. So if it gces off, he apologizes in advance. He's goin� to have to take a short
delay and answer it and, perhaps; some of the neighbors who are present and other people might, at
ihat point, make their commenu, if he hasn't finished his. He hates thai when that happens, and he
really hates it when people talk on cell phones in restauranu, and it wouldn't be on if he wasn't
required to have it on. But he lmows Mr. Alton and Mr. Warner, as attomeys, appreciate the fact that
sometimes you simply have to be on call.
Mr. Vau�ht said without impugning anyone's morives, and he's not doing that, there's been so much �
revisionist history that's uanspired here, borh in the Sraff Report and what Mr. Severson, and
particularly what Mr. Sudheimer said, which is almost all so far off the mark as to be unbelievable. He
said he hardly knows where to start. The one thing that he would like to ask, he doesn'c know whether
he's seen a copy of the staff report, the staff report he has does not have the neither the staff report or
the resolution from when this matter was before the Board of Zoning Appeals in 199�, nor does it have
the Staff Report and/or ihe Resolution - he apologized, 1997 he meant - no, 1995, - nor dces it have
the Staff Report or the Resotution that was passed tha[ was before them when this matter was back
before them in April of 1998. And he's presumi�g that the Board doesn't have that information either.
Mr. Alton replied that they do have the 1998 Resolution and they do have - on page 21 - and 22.
Mr. Vaught said he thought it was helpful because he thinks, if they look at that Staff Report and that
ResoIution, it will help tfiem guide them through this decision because it is not at aIt a simple decision
and it is not at all as simple as Mr. Severson would have it seem. He feels kind of like Yo�i Berra,
where he should say he feels like deja w all over again, over again, over again, over a�ain, over
again. By his count, these two proposals, and there realiy are two, not that aze on your table, but two
that were presented to the Heritage Preservation Commission, and two before the City Council. One
that requires a variance, the so-called 36 foot proposal, and that doesn't require a variance the 36 foot
proposai, and tha[ which does, ihe so-called 38 foot proposal, and by his rough count, and he couid
stand to be corrected on this, but by his rou;h count, since Mr. Severson has purchased this properry,
and at least 1996, those are between the 5`" and the 8 different proposals that he's advanced for this
property, depending on how you count and how you do the variations, and tha[ really is the source of
his taking great exception to what Mr. Sudheimer said. For which you mi�ht impl}� if you believed �
what Mr. Sudheimer said that, somehow, this is back here because this weli-financed clique of
Page 4 of 13
L�
ao -�aQ
� neighbors keeps bringing it back here. It's back here because Mr. Severson keeps changing his mind
and advancing new proposals to them, thaYs why it's back here. Not because of anything that ihe
neighborhood or the neighbors have done. Whether they feel personally offended by being
characterized as a weli-financed clique, he'll leave that to them. But he wants to set the record straight,
in that respect.
But they're not here today because of anything the neighbors did. They're here because Mr. Severson
re-tooled the proposais two more 6mes, afrer the last time he was in front of the Ciry Council, in
March of this year. So he wants to go through just a little bit of the history and he panicularly wants to
bring the focus to bear on the history of this Body's consideration of that. Because the last two times,
before this, that this plan has been before - a plan has been before his Body for requesting variances,
this Body has denied those variances. And he would submit to them, particularly if they look at the
plan in the 1998, Aprii 1998 time that it was before them, that there's really no material difference
between this particular plan advanced, this particular time, and the plan that they turned down then,
and which turned down, by the way, was upheid by the Ciry Council, not overturned by them. And
the plan in addition that was before them - in - he's going to say in 1995 - which this Body also tumed
down the variance request - that that also did not materially differ from this particular proposai. Now
he doesn't see frankly anything that's particularly changed other than City Council action on Heritage
Preservation Commission issues, which are not the same as the issues that face the Board. And Mr.
Severson is simply throwing up another proposal against the wall, afrer runnin; up a�ainst one road
block or another. Now the procedural history, and he says this all the time, and probably the reason
he's sayin� it is because he just got done saying this to a jury 15 dmes about hocv you ought to rely
upon your own recollection if it's different than his. But his recollection of this as it's been before you
� the last few times, is Mr. Severson put together a proposal that he took to the Herita;e Preservation
Commission, and this happened in 1997. That matter was not before the Board bzcause it did not
require any variances. And he wants to pause at that point, because they're goin; to hear him say this
a couple times more in his presentation, that proposal did not require any variances. If he was
prepared to proceed with the proposal, and advance one that did not require anp ��ariance, how pray
tell, can staff recommend to you, and how can you adopt a resolution that says in effect the properry in
question cannot be put to a reasonabie use under the strict provisions of the Code. Because, quite
frank(y, as far as what they do is concerned, he's aiready put at least 3 or 4 plans forward, including
one that's currently on the City Council agenda waiting a decision on an appeal that complies with the
strict provisions of the Code.
The question really is, reasonable use. It's not whether you want to do it that way, it's not whether it's
convenient to do it that way, it's does the Code strictly prohibit - it's a strict adherence to the Code -
prohibit you from a reasonable use and he would argue that it doesn't. And he would argue that there's
plenry of history to buttress that, and he'd argue that Mr. Severson's own comments today put the lie to
the fact that somehow there's some unreasonable restriction. He himself said to you he can live with
the 36 foot proposal. Well, if he can live with the 36 foot proposal, then there's no unreasonable
limitation.
He excused himself because his cell phone was ringin�, but he came back momencarily and continued.
When the matter was before them in 1995, it didn't materiaily differ from this proposal - it was the
same orientation; it.was a bi� cork in a small bottle. And it's still a big cork in a small bottle. You
turned it down then, and the decision wasn't overturned. In between times, Mr. Secerson took a
� compiying plan, that didn't require your action throu�h the Heritage Preservation Commission to the
Ciry Council and the City Councii approved it. But he didn't build it. Instead, he chose to come back
Page 5 of 13
L�
before the Board, in 1997, with another plan which did require variances and which they considered at �
that particular point. And he remembers quite a bit of the discussion, as he's sure those of the Board
that were there remember that discussion. And there was a lot of discussion about the fact that the 97
ptan didn't materially differ from the 1995 plan and they, in fact, at that point denied it, and you can
see the resolution for themselves. Not the - the 98. He keeps saying 97 and he means 98. The 1998
plan that was before them in April 1998 that they turned down, there was quite a bit of discussion about
how that didn't materially differ from the plan earlier and there was no reason to approve. And he
commended them to language that's in that particular resolution. He knows a number of them sat here
at that particular point and he guesses he has to say to them that he sees nothin� different about ihis
particular plan except it's one more variation of the same basic plan that doesn't chan�e a whit, as a
matter of fact, from what you turned down in April of 1998. And isn't affected. And so what
happened to that April 1998 decision? I[ was appealed to the Ciry Council. And the City Council
upheld your decision. Mr. Severson was not ailowed to build that April 1998 propasal.
And what happened aRer that? Well, Mr. Severson then submitted another plan in May, or later as he
recalls it in 1998, with a smaller carriage house that didn't require the variances. So that matter
however was iurned down - tha[ site plan was not approved by the Zoning Administrator - it went to
the Ciry Council and the City CounciI ultimately approved it. But lets understand two things. They
didn't act to overtum a decision of yours, because you never reviewed that plan. And the second thing
that they did is, it was a plan that conformed to the Code and didn't require variances whatsoever.
Ei[her one of two things. Either Mr. Severson was being genuine, or he's being disingenuous about
that particular proposal, but it would not have required any variances whatsoever. But did he build
afrer the City Council acted? He did not. What did he do instead? He threw up two more plans. The
one before you, and the 38 foot plan, and the 36 foot plan, which he took to the Heritase Preservarion �
Commission a[ the same time. Now, curiously, they approved them both, and they certainly have that
abiliry. He can't telt them that they can't. It would seem to him more logical that they would have said
to han, at that point, you know you've been back here, pal, 15, - 5, 6, 7 times. Pick which one of
these you want, and decide which one you want to build, and we'll act on it. But they acNally acted on
both of them. That decision was appealed by his clients to the City Council and it still sics there
awaiting the outcome of this decision, because what the City Council said in effect to Mr. Severson was
exactly that - we're not going to buy a pig in a poke here, which one of these two plans do you want.
Let's get them all here so we can discuss them all. So he didn't build that either. Even the Heritage
Preservation Commission approved it. And it conforms.
So now we're back with the other half of that particular proposal, and he might add, by the way, fie
doesn't know what necessarily effect it has, or how it relates, but he might add, if you look on the Staff
Report, in this particular case, you will see that this proposal, thaYs before you today, was submitted in
June of this year. And that it was prepared to come to you much eariier than that. Why didn't it come
to you? Because Mr. Severson canceled the hearing. He decided not to have it come fonvard to them
at that parucular point. Which he wouId say, logically, he thinks is an admission that he was perfecfly
willin� at that point to accept the 36 foot plan that was going through the Herita�e Preservation
Commission and, hence, to the City Council, and it was only back here before them now because the
City Council wouldn't act on the Ilerita;e Preservation Commission appeal until you had acted on this.
He was not so sure, although he mieht be able to answer that question, where if the Ciry Council had
gone ahead and acted at that particular point on the 36 foot proposal that was approved by the Heritage
Preservation Commission, that he �vouldn't have already pulled a buildin� permit for that. He doesn't
know. And nobody knows. And it's terribly confusing to him and he's been involved in this issue for �
almost 3 years. He knows it's confusing to his cIients. And if it's not confusing to any of them, they're
Page 6 of 13
� �
00 —7Ja
much better at this than he is. There's so many of these different proposals that get chrown up. So
� they're back there now.
L.ePs look at the staff recommendation. There are certain tesu. They aren't immutable in the sense that
you can't use your own judgment in deciding whether they've been met or whether they aren't. But
they are certain that he thinks, on any rational reading of the facts with respect to his 38 foot proposal,
Mr. Severson has simply not met the tes[. In all due respect to Mr. Beach, and he's know�n him for a
number of years, he thinks he's simply wrong in the conclusions that he urges upon them. And the
musc e�regious of which is the first. And that is that the properry in question cannot be put to a
reasonabie use under the strict provisions of the Code. It then goes on to urge you to conclude that
he's met this finding, but really talks about preferences, not reasonability. FIe mi�ht like to do a lot of
things that he can't do with his own residence because the Code doesn't let him. But because he wanu
to do them, in this case, because Mr. Severson wanu to add 2 feet to his carriage house, that doesn't
mean that the Code is unreasonabie when the Code says that he can't. And even when he says that he
wants to do that, you have to judge that a;ainst the fact that he has submitted another proposa136 feet,
which does meet the provisions of the Code, and which he's told you he could live with. A;ain, thaYs
a matter of preferences. And preferences don't necessarily add up to unreasonableness. Where is the
unreasonably strict provisions of the code that allow him to do something that would otherwise would
be reasonable. He's already told you he'll build the 36 foot one, if he has to. So he would argue that,
utterly and completely on the basis on the facts, that test hasn't been made. If he'd come in here and
said, `I can only do 38 feet, this doesn't work with anythin� than 38 feet, I can't do ail the parking
spaces that I have to do, I can't do everythin� else that I want to do unless I make it 38 feet' and if the
Board concludes, then, that the Code requires him to be allowed to build 38 feet rather than something
� that compiies with the Code, then he might have met that test. But thaYs not the facts, and all of us
know it. He said he'll live with 36 feet and, therefore, he �vould submit to the Board, ihat that falls,
and this request for variance ought to fall, on that very first test.
And while they're passing over the issue, he just wanted to make a couple of comments about Mr.
Beach's other rationale for concludin; that the suict provisions of the Code bar a reasonable use, and
that is this business about how you can make the parking spaces a little wider. Well, you know folks,
there are so many square feet on this lot. And quite honestly, his clients' objection to this, from the
very beginning, has been that putting any building that even remotely is like this, is just too big on this
particular lot. Given that Mr. Severson also has the legai requirement to provide all these parking
spaces, which are, in effect, how he must do it, he doesn't have any choice: he's got to have 9 parking
spaces on this particular lot on the buiiding and on the lot. Well, if you make the carria�e house a litfle
bit bi�ger so you can make those parking spaces a little bit bigger, therefore, you make the other
parkin� spaces a little bit smaller. And so there isn't any more room. This isn't a case where you can
push something and it shoves out somewhere else. The size of the other parking spaces has to be
materiaily affected in a negative way by increasing the size of the parking spaces in the carriage house.
By increasing it from 36 feet to 38 feet.
And you also heard that Mr. Beach said, and he thinks Mr. Severson repeated it, that these parking
spaces with the 36 feet carria;e house comply with the law. They do comply with the law. It makes
maneuvering a little difficult. Well, again, difficult is one thin�. Unreasonably strict is another. And
if they comply with the law, either the law with respect to how big a parkin� space is ri;ht, in which
case the 36 feet proposal meets that, and there's no reason to vary it, and certainly no reason to
� conclude that applying it is an unreasonable limitation. Or the parking requirements w�ith respect to
width are not correct in which case somebody somewhere ought to investigate what the code says and
Page 7 of 13
/ P
whether it ought to be changed. But he argues that he ought not to do that on a piece meal basis you �
ought to do it on the basis of following the law where you can. He jusc doesn't think that the parking
argument with respect to the minimal increase of size in the parking spaces in the garage. Good
heavens, there are 4 of them in there, If you increase it 2 feet at most, and that's assumin; that every
inch of ihose 2 feet is going to be assi�ned to those 4 parking spaces and he don't know that they can
necessarily conclude that, that means that you're going to increase each parking space by the grand
sum total of 6 inches. And he would argue that that's not enough to ailow them to conclude that ihere's
some strict interpretation of the Code that requires it to be done.
The other item with which he thinks, and some of the other parties and some of the residenu wili talk
about it, but he thinks the other thin, that caught his eye as he looked through it is the statement that
the variance if granted would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the Code
for the property in the district - so on and so forth- that's #5 by the way. And Mr. Beach urges you
upon the conclusion that the zoning code permits single family house with parking. Well it certainly
does. But the Zoning Code dcesn't permit single family houses with parking in the front yard or the
side yard for that matter. Because of the way tfiat this house is oriented, and believe him that was Mr.
Severson's choice, nobody's else's, with respect with how he wishes to orient it - you have in effect the
only piace on those 2 biocks on Pordand Avenue where you have parking that is in the front yard. He
would certainly say it's the front yard but at most it's the side yazd and it would be ri�ht up against the
set back from the street. Much has been made of the fact that the rest of these buildings particularly on
that side are set up close. But ail of the pazking for the buildings on that side of the street is behind the
building. There isn't any of it in front of the building. And there isn't any of it right up on the street,
which is whac would be the case here. And he would argue to the Board that the code prohibiu without
additional variances, prohibits sideyard parking and it also prohibiu front yard parkina. And he �
assumes the Board - he knows they have - dealt with that issue before. And so he �vould ar�ue that that
test is also not met on its face. That, blarandy and brutatly on its face, there is not a su�cient factual
basis for you to conclude that because it is not as simple as a one family home with parking. It's as
complicated as a one family home with parking in the sideyard and/or the frontyard which is not of the
same character as any other building on that particular street.
So - and then he just simply wants to echo - and he knows that they have and he assumes that they've
read it - because he commends it to them although he must say that may be the first rime in the 9 years
that he ever sat on the pIanning commission or since tfiat he said anything about District 8 and anything
that they said that he thought was laudatory and logical but he does think that in this particular case that
they do present some arguments with respect to their recommendation that you deny this. That do in
fact have some logic. And he knows that Mark Voerding will echo some of those. This is not a
materially different matter than the 2 other times this was before the Board. It is the essentially the
same proposal. You tumed it down the other 2 6mes. And he argues thac they ought not to be fooled
by somebody saying that the City Council's approved because the Ciry Council has never approved a
plan for this site that required vaziances. Not in 1995, not in 1998. They have approved a building for
this, but every one of them has conformed to the strict provisions of the code. So to say that you ought
to do this just because the City Council acted in approving a site plan over the zonine administrators'
objection earlier this year doesn't reaily compare apples with appies. Because that site plan did not
have variances, and Mr. Severson did not build that. This requires variances. This is already a
building with the strict provisions of the code that absolutely stretches this lot. And co put - to ailow
these variances as a matter of personal choice, when Mr. Severson has admitted that he can do it within
the strict provisions of the Code, he doesn't think was what the variances was met to be. Mr_ Vaught �
then thanked the board for their time.
Page 8 of 13
i t
D O -'l�o
� Next, Mark Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, came forward. He said he feels like this is like a piece of
fly paper that keeps sticking_ No matter how you try to get rid of it. It doesn't get resolved. He said
he was not part of the well-fmanced clique. He was there on his own time and at his own expense to
represent to the Board the position of the Ramsey Hill Associa[ion. He's a board member and Chair of
the I.and Use Committee.
Before he starrs with that, there was one comment that he wanted to make. He said he was acruaily
quite disappointed. He didn't know why staff can persist in misrepresentin� the facu in a part of this
case. There was no legal lot split in 1990. There was no legal lot split in `91, there was no legal lot
split in 1992, there was no legai lot split in his view that has occurred. The City Council approved -
took an action regarding the lot split last year. That issue is not before the City Council. That issue is
not appealed to the ciry council. It was an action that he would argue is arbitrary and capricious and
inappropriate for the City Council to make. That part - his opinion aside - it is a fact that no lot split
occurred in 1990. No legal lot split. What is a fact is that a) city staff person took a rubber stamp and
put a red mark of approval on the plans, signed his name to it, he had no authority to do that , he
possibiy committed a crime in doing so, certainly his power. A lot split in that instance oniy under the
code within the power of this body. This body has never taken an ac[ion regarding this lot split. So he
wishes such misrepresentations on this matter would cease.
Mr. Alton, Acting Chair, stopped Mr. Voerding at that point. He said, 2 thin�s - please confine his
comments to the application to the zoning variance and secondly Mr. Beach did not misrepresent any
fact to this Board. The fact of the matter is that a lot split did occur in 1990. You're speakin; of
legally approved - thaYs correct he suspecu. And perhaps they can have Mr. Warner give them an
� opinion on that. But, he advised, ptease do not characterize Mr. Beach's statement in this, regazding
the history of the case as a misrepresentation. Because thaYs not true. With respect to whether you
can accuse someone - a clerk of a crime in 1990 - I don't think that thaYs relevant.
Mr. Voerding continued his comments. He said that the Ramsey Hiii Association continues to oppose
this project. First of ali the design contains none of the feamres that are required for a primary
residential structure. Secondly the lot should never have been spiit from 415 Summit creating this
siruation. And also putting 415 Summit out of compliance with the zoning code. Thirdly based on last
week's communiry issues meeting, the proposal does not meet any of the requirements necessary to
grant the variance. And fourthly, the proposal requires sideyard parking for which a variance would
be required and is not being sought at this time. They also remain concerned about the number of
variances requested to maximize or over-maximize the use of property that occur within their district
and they are working toward a review of the Zoning Code to ascertain what amendments if any may be
necessary to ailow full use without variances. They continue to work in that direction. And so it
would be - the position of ihe Ramsey Hill Association, that the Board continue in iu denial of the
variances for this projec[.
Gre� and Carol Clark came forward and said they're residenzs of 415 Summit. Mr. Clark said they
have a 2 car garage that is on the existing land now. They've been goin� on their fourth year there.
They have not been able to use their gara�e because of the condition of that back lot. The condition
that it's in. They haven't been able to use their garaQe for 4 years. He's hearing about the sidewalk in
between the existing 415 and 420 and now a car parked in there. He questions about how they're
goin� to be able to get into their house in the winter time it's a bloody mess. Any ways where this
� parking - or [he sidewalk and the vehicle that would be parked there - how they would be able to get
into their home now.
Page 9 of 13
��
Carol Clark said she thinks that when they refer to tktis sidewalk - that is on association property and �
Mr. Severson's unit would not be a part of their association. That sidewaik does not exist nor have
they talked about putting anything like that in there. So to clear that up. #2 under the Findings, the
property cannot be put to zeasonable use. They have offered to buy the ptoperty from Mr. Severson,
they being the association to use if just for the purpose of parking and trying to figure out something
that would be conducive not only to their building but to the neighborhood and sdll to preserve green
space which has always been a big issue. To have a structure abutting a park, which is some of the
only green space in the neighborhood, ihey are against that. The plighT of the Iandowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property - Mr. Severson knew entirely what �vas happening with that lot.
He's been the one that's lived in that properry 415 Summit the lon�est. When Dennis Grozy, the
ori�inai owner and the one who did get the other proposals approved by the Ciry Council, owned it,
Mr. Severson was against building anything there. And he knew what the problems and what the
issues were with building on that lot. In reference to fiaving people say that they wouId rather have a
building there and it would make a better view than wha[ 420 Portland or 430 or whatever the building
is next door - have to the park than what they have. She doesn't agree with that. One of the neighbors
also - and she'll submit this to the Board - has written a letter. She just faxed it today.
She has concerns about the light and the value of her properry. One day she came home and Mr.
Severson had hired a surveyor to mark off the back lot of his property. In speakin� to the surveyor,
even the surveyor was concerned about the size of the building on the size of the lot. He said he
couldn't figure out - and again it was his personal opinion - how a building could fi[ on a lot that size.
His concern aiso was in re�ard to parking for the rest of the peopie. He said where are you going to
put all the cars and how are they goin� to tum around. Which leads again to their plight with their
garage. They haven't been able to use it. Now as you see, there's another pazking spot at the end of it. �
She doesn't know how even if they could use it - they could back out - there would be a car there - or
the 4 car garage that he's proposing, how they're going to back out with a car at the end of the
properry. And the other point, the desire to increase his value - the request for variance is not based on
the desire to increase the value or income - a�ain, they have offered to buy this from him and do the
ri�ht thing for what they think is good for the neighborhood. He said that he would sell but he
wouldn't seli to them. Which she guesses, kind of fiu in with this. That why wouldn't he sell to them.
It would be the most logical thin� to do.
If you look at the drawings that have been submitted she thinks the drawings look like there's a lot
more space back there than there is - actually is. And again, on the drawing it looks like they couid
just back riaht out of their gara;e, kind of make a u tum and go out the driveway. With a car there,
there's no way - at the end of ihe other parking space that he's proposing. She doesn't see how [heq
could do that. And especially if another car was comin� out of the garages that he proposes to build.
In his letter, he refers to the site plan with the restricted 9 feet front yard variance improves the
building and the lot and they're therefore asking for the variance. Again she doesn't see how this
improves anythin� back there. It just adds to what she would say is further congestion. And then the
parking space tha[ he has at the foot of their gara�e, her understanding is that it is still considered
sideyard parking in this issue. And then he also refers to the 32x32 2 story carria�e house. They've
been at this a long time. And no where has she seen any plans showing that this �cas a carriage house.
She's seen things that have referred to it as an outbuildin�. And a�ain 32x32 foot that is a lot smaller
than a 956 sq feet home that he is proposing to put back there.
The last thing she would like to say is a;ain in regards to the improvement. If he wanted to improve �
something back there, she doesn't see why it hasn't been done thus far. There's pites of rocks,
Page 10 of 13
�I
00 -�ao
� nei�hbors complain about how it looks, improving it doesn't have to be building something back there.
It could make it look decent to the neighborhood with giee� space, trees, whatever. Hz talks about the
55,000.00. She question the �5,000.00. As far as will it really happen. When they bou,;ht, they had a
site plan that was approved by the Ciry Council by Zoning, it showed their garage, it showed parking
spaces. It showed pavin�. That's never happened either. And that's something that the city approved.
So when she hears these improvements she really has some questions and concerns. And she guesses
the last thin� that she would like to say is that the tenants in their - that currently exist the previous
owners, Linda Meyer and Jim Hau�land, they were both a�ainst buildin� anything back there. And
they were there at least 2 years before Greg and she came which was 96. The previous owner was
Dennis Rosie. Yes he was for it but he was aiso the developer of the structure in the back. And to
finish, she would like the Board to come and look if they would at the property and what he is
proposin„ just to see.
Mr. Alton, commented that he thought all of the Board has been there.
Mr. Clark added, lasfly, that they are not weil-financed. It is a sacrifice on their part.
Chris Yerkes, secretary for the Summit Universiry Planning Council, spoke next. He's been invoived
with the planning council since 1992. He doesn't want to look at personalities in this. He doesn't want
to look at whether it's a legal or illegai lot split. ThaYs a different issue. He wants to look at the issue
thaYs in front of them. He's a little concerned that there's a sideyard parking that is not in front of them
when the plan dces call for that. That is not taken up at the same time. He doesn'i like to take things
piecemeal. He's a volunteer with the Summit University Plannin� Council. That's why he's here.
� He's takin� time off from work to be before the Board.
Just wanted to outline the letter that they've had. He's assumed that they've looked at the City code for
guidance for when they authorize and don't authorize variances. Everybody involved - the builder
when he first split, the builder, the current petitioner when he bought it - knew what the codes were,
kne�v what he would have to do and where he would have to go to have a variance granted. Unless
he's wrong, the section ouflined there he has to qualify under all 6 of those, not just 1,2,and 3, but
even if one of those is not taken then he would not qualify for a variance.
At the community issues meeting last Tuesday he presented 2 plans. One that he presented perfectly,
happily. He said I don't need any variances for this. I can build it today. I can start construction
tomorrow. And then he presented a plan with the variance that he's asking for. That makes it fall out
right under number one. Under number 2 the plight of the landowner isn't due to his circumstances.
He bought it with the full understanding of what the easement requirements were, and what the lot
looked like. #3, keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. fIe thinks the code is there and looking
at #l5 and 6 and back at i, he doesn't think it is in keeping with the spirit and intent. N4 they took a
neucral point at the community issues meeting. And he's not speaking for himself - he's speaking for
the community. As has been given to him over the past many years, sitting in on communiry issues
meetings on this - you could if you talk about air and light he believes a lot of this looks towards
buildin� and air shafrs and current downtown buildin�s and thin�s like that. But if you want to look at
this particular one, with it further back, it affects the air and the light of 415 Summit. With it further
forward it affects 436 Portland. So they just took a neutral point on that. f{5 - i� wouldn't pernut any
use under the provision of the code. It would certainly affect it. If this variance is granted it would
� allow parking in the front yard. If there was a 25 feet setback parking a car 16 feet from the front is
requires a variance. #6 iYs not primarily based on a desire to increase the value or income. Whether
Page 11 of 13
32
it's value but he asked the petitioner himself, why would you like [o have this variance. He said he
would like to have an extra parkin� place and he'd like to have extra room in the garaQe. You can �
interpret that how you want. He thinks that increases value but he did not say that direcfly.
Since there was no one else to speak in opposition, Chair invited the applicant to remrn and answer any
questions.
John Miller, attorney wiih Peterson, Fram & Bergman, St. Paul, who represented Ron Severson in this
matter, and has for a number of years on this particular properry. Mr. Vaughc and he have probably
a�reed many times on this, sometimes in hearing rooms sometimes via correspondence, sometimes in
person. Finally there are a couple of thin;s that Mr. Vaught said today that he asrees with. First of all,
he agrees that this is deja w ail over. They've been down this road many times before, not only before
this board, but through various subcommittees, and up to the City Council a number of times on it.
However he does disagree with his characterization that each of these visits to the various city boazds is
occasioned by changes in Mr. Severson's ptans. He does agree with him also in his comment that there
appears to be a lot of revisionist history that's going on with the project that's been goin� on for a
number of years - twisu and turns. There is going to be some revisionism. You're goin� to look back
and take a look at the same evenu and reach different conclusions. He could point out a number of
areas in which he disagrees with Mr. Vaughu statement of the history of the matter. But he thinks that
that would - is probably not somethin� tfiat this Board's interested in. If they are he'd be happy to do
it. Along with the revisionist history approach, also a number of other irrelevant comments have been
made today. And again he's not goin� to point those out.
The one that he was going to mention, he believes the chair also already has commented on and he �
would concur with his comments with respect to the validiry for effect for the lot split back in 1990.
He's not going to - it's not his position to give the Board any legal advice with respect to that. If there's
further clarification he's sure that Mr. Warner would be happy to do that. He would like to just
comment in passing he believes that the important thin� for the boar@ to do - or he would submit that
the important thing for them to do would be to focus in on the appIication as it exisu today. Try to put
aside the whole long gnarled and tangled history of this. And look at the staff report and analyze the
staff report on its own merits. He's not going to go through point by point 6 criteria which have to be
met. Su�ce it to say that they agree with the stafYs position with respect to each of those poinu.
He would like to just comment briefly though on the - what is referred to as reasonable use or the
unreasonableness of it. The phrase reasonable use as used in the ordinance is not a phrase thaYs
capable of precise definition. There's probably no more single troubling phrase to nail down than
reasonable use. And boards for their various municipalides develop their own definition and
appiication of how that phrase is going to be used on a case by case basis. They essentiaily create their
own precedent. And iYs important he believes - with that in mind that this request the Board look back
at some of iu previous decisions with respect to what constitutes unreasonable use under the
circumstances or if the properry can't be put to a reasonable use. To use that prece@ent. Just by way
of example, he only uses these examples because these are the ones that he's most familiar with, he
would submit that the 2 previous requests for variances are not terms of reasonable use that much
different from the request that Mr. Severson is making today.
Mr. Severson came forward and said if there were questions he wanted to answer ihem. It's really
hard to sit back and have inaccurate information goin� forth. �
Page 12 of 13
3 .3
Do-'1ao
Mr. Alton noted that the Board is not going to judge this case based on personalities or statements
� regarding personali[ies made by either party.
Mr. Severson added that iYs probably not real relevant, but there's been 4 proposals not 8 to 12. He
could list them aIl for them. They've been changed because of problems that they've had with them.
Like one that had the front yard parking. They moved it to the back and had to come back. He oniy
wanted to - John Miller and himself - if there were quesTions, he wanted the board to lmow that he was
availabie.
There were no questions by the Board, therefore, Mr. Alton closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Morton moved to deny the variance, based on finding # 1, the property can be put to a reasonable
use under the strict provisions of the Code.
Mr. Wilson seconded the motion for denial.
Mr. Donohue stated that he thought it was unreasonable to deny this variance based on the fact that this
building, if it is moved 25 feet back, it diminishes the functional utility of the building to the point - he
thinks that it doesn't make sense not to grant the variance because Iong-term it's going to affect ffie
value of the condos that are using these units because the garage units are going to be smaIler, less
functional, and the rurn around areas. He doesn't agree with denying the variance.
Mr. Wilson asked, when they speak about the garage area, they're increasing the garage by 2 feet.
� They're goin� from - they've got 4 spaces in that garage. And leYs say that the walls are 8 inches a
piece. They're increasing that maneuvering that's so minimal. But what you are doing by increasing
the 2 feet, as he sees it, you're increasing the size of the units upstairs. He thought that's part of this
argument to get this additional footage. Is to increase the top section of this home. Not the garage.
As far as the maneuvering area in the yard itself, to me that looks like it's going to be pretty tight to
begin with. So he thinks that as far as maneuvering in the yard is going to be tou�h. But he dcesn't see
that argument for increasing the maneuverability in the garage - he doesn't buy it. He thinks it's the
upstairs that's going to add value io the building.
Mr. Donohue responded that he's got a garage right now that if it was 6 inches wider he could pull his
vehicle into it.
Mr. Scherman stated he agreed with what Mr. Donohue said.
Mr. Alton then asked for a roll call, and the motion to deny the variances passed on a vote of 4 to 2
(Sherman, Donohue).
by:
�
John Hardwick
Approved by:
Gloria Bo;�n, Secretary
Page 13 of 13
3 `f
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
1. APPLICANT: RONALD SEVERSON
2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance
3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
DATE OF NEARING:
FILE # 99-163
10/25/99
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN # 012823240240 (See file for compiete legal description)
5. PLANNING DISTRICT:
6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 20NING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
7. STAFF INVEST(GATION AND REPORT: DATE: 7/6l99 BY: Tom Beach
8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12/11/99 DATE RECENED: 6/8/99
A. PURPOSE: The applicant is proposing to construct a new residential structure that wouid have a 4
car garage on the first floor and a single-family home on fhe second floor over the garege. The building
has been designed to look like an historic carriage house. There would be a total of 9 parking spaces
on ;he property (4 spaces in the new building, there would also be 3 surface spaces, and 2 spaces in an
existing garage). One of these parking spaces would be for the carriage house unit and the other 8
would be for an existing 4unit condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit).
B. ACTION REQUESTED: A variance for minimum front yard setback. A front yard setback ot 16 feet is
proposed for the carriage house; a setback of 25 feet is required for a variance of 9 feet
C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is an irregular shaped parcel with an area of 5,428 square
feet It is currently used for parking by the 4unit condominium at 415 Summit (fhe property immediately
south of 420 Portland). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on gravel/dirt. The site is located in the Historic Hill Preservation Disfrict.
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Single-family and duplex (RT-2)
Easf: Nathan Hale Park (RT-2)
South: Four-unit condominium (RT-2)
West Multi-family condominium (RM-2)
D. HlSTORY: Since 9990 there have been a number zoning cases for this property:
— In 1990 fhe City approved a lot spiit that split this parcel from north end of the parcel at 415 Summit.
— Later in 1990 the Board of Zoning Appeals approved variances to construct a new carriage house
unit with a 5 car garage beneath tfie unit subject to conditions. This was appealed to the City
Council by the Parks Department. The Council upheid the variance but modified the conditions.
The project was never built.
— in 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeais granted variances to construct a two-unit carriage house with
a 14-car underground garage.
— In 1993 the Board of Zoning Appeal granted a one year extension of the 1992 variances 6ut the
project was never buiit.
— In 1994 there was a proposal to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 garage stalls under
�
�
�
35
p ,p _� ao
the carriage house and in detached garages. Variances were appiied for but appiication was
� — withdrawn before the Board of Zoning Appeals took any action.
In 1995 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a carriage house unit with 3 parking
spaces beneath the unit and 6 other surface parking spaces.
— In 1996 Ron Severson, the appiicant in this case, purchased the property.
— in 1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a pian similar to the current proposal. The
City Councii upheld this approval on appeal in February 1998.
— in Aprii 1998 the Board of Zoning Appeais denied variances for a carriage house with 4 parking
spaces beneath the carziage house and 5 o�her parlting spaces. This decision was appealed to the
City Council. The City Councii upheld the decision to deny the variances. The City Counci{ aiso
instructed the City Attomey's office to look into the legal status of the original 1990 lot split because
that the lot split was approved by staff without a public hearing even though the lot split required a
variance. (See attached site pian and BZA resolution.)
— In May 1998 Ron Severson submitted a revised site plan with a slightly smailer carriage house and
one less parking space. This site plan did not require any variances. fiowever, the Zoning
Administrator denied the site plan based on advice from the City Attorney's office that the 1990 lot
spiit was not valid because the lot split needed a variance and a pubiic hearing shouid have been
held on the variance. Mr. Severson appealed that decision to the Planning Commission and in
November 1998 the Planning Commission upheid the decision to deny the site plan. Mr. Severson
then appealed this decision to the City Council and in March 1999 the City Councii reversed the
decision of the Pfanning Commission and approved the site pian. The Councii said that the fact that
the lot split in '1990 did not follow the required procedures shouid not prevent approvai of the site
pian. The City Council aiso concluded that, under its authority, it would approve any setback
variance that was required for the lot split. (See attached site plan and City Council resolution)
E. CURRENT PROPOSAL: in June 1999 Ron Severson submitted the current site pian to City staff. It
� cails for a carriage house and 9 parking spaces (4 in the carriage house, 2 in an existing garage and 3
more surFace spaces). This site plan is slightly different than the one approved by the City Council
eariier in the year.
A. The carriage house is 38 feet long (instead of 36 feet). This allows a larger dwelling unit over the
carriage house and wider parking spaces in the carriage house.
B. A surface parking space has been added behind the carriage house for a totaf of 9 spaces. This
provides each unit in 415 Summit 2 spaces plus 1 space for the carriage house.
To accommodate these changes the front yard setback has been reduced from 25 feet to 16 feet. The
reduced setback requires a variance.
7he Heritage Preservation Commission approved the cuRent site p{an and building p{ans on June 24.
This decision was appealed to the City Councii. The Council decided to defer action on the Heritage
Preservation appeal untii the Board of Zoning Appeais has acted on the variance so all appeals can be
heard at the same time.
F. FINDINGS: The Board of Zoning Appeais may grant a variance if it meets the foilowing findings:
1. The property in quesfion cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The variance meets this finding. The variance will allow the carriage house to be 2 feet longer and
so the parking spaces on the first floor of the carriage house can be wider. Maneuvering to get into
these spaces is 5ght because the site is small and the extra width will make it easier to get in and
out of these parking spaces. The extra width will aiso permit the carriage house dweiling unit to be
siightly larger.
� 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
�1 u
The variance meets this finding. The plight of the land owner is due to the size and irreguiar shape �
of the lot and to the private agreement that requires the property owner to provide parking spaces
for the units at 415 Summit. These circumsfance are unique and were not created by the land
owner.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and infent of the code, and is consistenf with the
health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabifants of the City of St. Paui.
The variance meets this finding. The intent of the code in requiring minimum front yard setbacks is
to ensure that there is some consistency in setbacks and to provide green space. The proposed
front yard setback is consistent with (and actuaily slightly larger than) the fron2 yard setback for the
large condominium buiiding to the west which is the oniy other building on the block face. The front
yard wouid be landscaped and would provide adequate green space i� the front yard of the
properiy. Addifional green space is provided for the block by adjacenY Nathart Hate Park.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and ai� to adjacent properfy, nor
will it or unreasonably diminish established property values wifhin the surroanding area.
The variance meets this finding. The variartce to move the cartiage house closer to the street will
improve tight and air to 415 Summit Avenue by moving fhe buitdings farther apart. It will not
unreasonabiy diminish established property values within the surrounding area since the relatively
small carriage house will be set back further from the front property line than the large condominium
buifding next door which is the oniy other buiiding on the biock face.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use fhat 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 classifrcaSon of fhe property.
The variance meets this finding. The zoning code permits a single-famiiy house with parking.
6. 7he request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase fhs vaiue orincome potenSal
ofthe parce! ofland.
The variance meefs this finding. The request for variance is based primarily on the need to provide
parking for the dwelling units at 415 Summit as well as the proposed carriage house unit
G. DISTRIC7 GOUNCIL RECQMMENDATION: District 8 Communiiy Council had not sent ifs
recommendation to staff at the time the staff report was being written. However, in the past, District 8
had opposed variances for this project
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approvai of the
variance to reduce the front yard setback for the proposed buiiding Fo 16 feet.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appiication
Sife plans and elevations for current proposal that requires one variance
Site plan for a proposai that did not need variances and March 1999 City Councii resolution approving it
Site plan for a proposal that required 3 variances and April 7998 BZA resolution denying it
Location maps
G:IUSERSBEACHTOM199163�99t63625 �
� �
�
�
APP�ICATION �OR ZONING VARiANCE
OFFICE OF LICEA'SE, I.-�SPECTIO.�5, A:�D
EiWIRO��;�fEATAL PROTECTID.�' � S 3 I I�
3.i0 St. Peter Street, Suite 300
Saint Paul, Mr�'S�102-I510
266-90U8
APPLICANT
Zorting office use onty ���
r�tz num�e�: � i� - ( (0 3
Fe°: 5 �
Tertatve hearing da:e: 7 Z
Sectian(s}: (� y • � (} j
Cify agert �"��
Name �r'1t.'� l� �F�t �4'Cd� Compzny
Address,� / � o P�� � �-
Ciry��'. � u t State� Zip �� Daytime Phon EL���J 37�-0 i �7
Property interest of applicant (owner, contrect purchaser, etc.) t t 1,t}P �'
Name of owner (if
p�N 6128 23 Z'� O�g2 W�! i
PROPERTY Address/Location C� af .2n-
Legal description
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Lotsize .�l/DO �(�" - Present Zoning Pres=ntUse -/a;�i.�1 � �
Proposed Use
1. Variance(s) requested� ("� (�
) �^ / sek.�t��� '�'E" 51�� d�c�•.�� Ga/�iGa�.e, �ceFe..
� 'TY"°1(-T �cr�
C2�` r���-i ir� � �
2. What physical characteristi s of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone�
(topography, size and shape oi tot, soil condi5ons, etc.}
� � �L/� Q/
3. Explain how ihe strict apptica6on of the provisons of the Zoning Ordinance would result in p=cv{iar or exceptional
practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardships.
CASHIERS US'c ONLY
C�
additional
4 Expiain how the granting o` a variance will not 6e a substantial detriment
to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpese
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Aoniicant's sianature �� ,C� Z ��
__ -_ . _`�=''-- - - --=i�i .
-__. . =_ .. -- �- - "
- -� t - - -
q �- ��
Date G �7 /
APPLICATION FOR A ZOI�TING VARIANCE �
420 Portland Avenue
Ronaid and Mary Severson
Please consider my request for a front yard vaziance of nine feet for my lot
at 420 Portland Ave.
420 Portland Avenue is a 5,428 square foot lot, currently surfaced with
gravel and used as parking for the condominium owners at 415 Summit.
The lot was split off from 415 Summit Ave. and is a separate buiidable lot
with Portland Ave. as the front yard. By easement, the development of this
building site must include two off=street parking spaces for each of the
owners of the condominium owners at 415 Summit.
The lot has an irregular shape with a 50 foot front lot line on Portland Ave.,
a back lot line of 90 feet, a west lot line of 88 feet and an east lot line of
55.7 feet. There is no alley access to this lot.
In 1990, the developer who then owned the lot submitted a request to the �
BZA to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carriage house reqniring
seven variances including a two foot front yard set-back. This request was
approved by the Board. In I992, a second request was submitted for an
expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requiring additional
variances. This request was also approved. Neither of these proposals was
built because of the developer's financial problems.
My wife and I purchased this lot in 1996 with the intent of building a
single-family house for our personal residence. Our plan also includes the
required off-street parking for the condominium residents. During our
efforts to deveiop an appropriate construction plan, the legality of the lot
split was called into question. On February 3, 1999, the St. Paul City
Council affirmed the legality of this lot split by passing a motion making
420 Portland Ave. a separate buildable lot. Although, we can now build a
36 foot carriage house on this site with no variances needed, we believe that
this site plan with the requested nine foot front-yard variance improves the
building and the lot and we are, therefore, asking the BZA for approval of
this variance.
�
39
0 0 -��°
� A front-yard variance of nine feet will provide a 16 foot front yard. The
carriage house would be 38 foot in length with four tuck-under garages.
The carriage house would be centered on the lot, allowing a separation of
15 feet from the main house and providing room for an additional parking
space. This house will cover 956 square feet with 1,620 square feet
allowed. T'his site p�an provides a total of nine off-street parking spaces
which meets the condominium Declaration requirement of two spaces per
unit and the city requirement of seven total spaces for this lot.
The only other buiiding on this side of the block is a large three story
condominium with a one foot front yard set-back. Of the seven houses on
the North side of the block, only two meet the 25 foot set-back requirement
and two of the set-backs are shorter than the requested 16 feet. Therefore, a
sixteen foot set-back would not be visually obstructing and would be more
harmonious with the piacement of the other houses than a 25 foot set-back.
Since this building is an architectualiy designed turn of the century carriage
house which has HPC approval, the view from Nathan Hale Park is an
improvement over the existing view.
� This architectually designed carriage house conforms with the requirements
for the heritage preservation area and provides the most appropriate plan
that has been proposed for this lot . At the turn of the century, there was a
32' X 32' two-story carriage house located on this property. In effect, our
carriage house replaces this original building.
C�
�.,.
�esolK��� �.►�Y�� �'�qa�J� �r
3 var;aktQs
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
BOARD OF ZO1vING APPEALS RESOLUTION �
ZONING FILE NUMBER 93-026
DATE April 6, 1998
�VHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a variance from the suict application of the provisions of
Sections 61.10 i of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertainin� to the construccion of a new carriage
house with one dwellin� unit and additional pazkin,; spaces in the RT-2 zonino district at 420 Portiand
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearin� on March 2S, 1998,
pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requiremenrs of Section 64.205 of rhe Legislative Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals based upon evidence presented at tfie public
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followin� findings of fact
1. The property in qttestion can be put to a rearonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The irre�ular shape of the loi and the covenant requiring 8 parkin� spaces for the property at 415
Summit Aver.ue make it difficult to dzvelop tfie property. However, the o�r�ner has not explored all �
options such as constructin� a smaller house or repositionin� the house. In 199� variances for a
simifar project �vere denied but the house currently proposed is sti�ht[y Iu�er than the house
proposed in 1995 and has not been si�eficantly repositioned.
2. Th.e plight of the Zand owner is not due to circu»utances unique to this property which were not
created by the Iand otimer.
The sue and irregular shape of the lot and to the covenant that requires the property owner to
provide pazkin� spaces for the units at 41 � Summit were not created by the present owner. However,
the present owner was aware of these circumstances �r�hen he boueht the property.
3. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is not consrstent
with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
The proposed development wouid not provide a reasonabie amount of geen space and therefore the
variances are not in keeping tti�ith the spirit intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance wi11 in:pair an adequate supply of light and air to adjaeent property and
unreasonably diminish establishedproperty vakres within the surrounding area.
The location and size of the proposed carriage house would impair an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent propetty. The orientation of the buildin� with the side facinv PoRland Avenue would
unreasonably diminish property values within the surrounding azea, � �
�f �
t
�
8 0 -?2��
� �. The variance, ifgranted, x�ould not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the
cade for the property in the district tia•herz the affected Zand is located, nor x•ould it alter or change
the zaning district clarsification of the properry.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value ar income potential
of the parcel of land.
NO�V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonut� Appeals that the
application to grant variances from provisions of Sections 61.101 to allow a 12-foot front yard setback
for the carriage house, a 20-foot front yard setback for the surface parkin�, and a 1.2-foot side yard
setback for the carria�e house on property located at 420 Portland Avenue and legally described as (See
Attachment); in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning
Administrator is hereby denied.
MOVED BY:
SECONDED BY:
IN FAVOR:
.
AGAINST:
biAII,ED:
APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning AppeaLs are final subject to appeal to the
City Council ��ithin 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buildina
permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have
been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended
and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final
determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the Cify of
Saint Paul, hiinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing
copy �;ith the or a�inal record in my office; and fmd the same to be a true
and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on
appro�ed minutes of the Saint Paul $oard of Zoning AppeaLs meeting held
on March 23, 1993, and on record in the Office of License Inspection and
Environmental Protection, 350 SL. PeYer StreeY, Saint Paul, blinnesota.
S.�T PAUL BOARD OF ZO�'L\G APPEALS
�
Sue Syvstegaard
Secretary to the Board
A:1930'_6dZR.DtiY
°# �°
t
_ 4"�
' ' "__ '_'x rr,lil
APPLICA�
Department
Z�niag Sec1
II00 Ciry• H
15 Tf'est Fnt�
Saint Paul, ,
266-6589
APPELtANT
A r p..�' , •.
Y(�' �, ��.._ Rr-�: �...�
s �6 PJ<<,., �
Z,Jo�4 rZ..^I aa.�<r
PROPERTY
,,, � s �- LOCATION
S��'
C:tY C� S PRU� Li_? -�
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiica!ion is he�eby made for an app=al to the:
�let+..:h¢ 4�n.
�—, a,._.� ., s_ .
y �-�- ❑ CitV Council
S22a832H P.�92
und=� th= provisions of Ch2p;er 64, 5=dion� , paragraph�b� &(Jbf tne Zoning Code, to
a�peai a d=cision made by the �� P3m_ni�sat�/pL>*min3 �.�-,
(da(= c•` d=cision)
�9_ Fife number.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you fe_I th=re has be=n ar, error ir. aay r_quirement,
�°'^��.. ce�ision or re£usal made by an administra`.ive officiaf. or an e�ror in fact, procedure or
Fn;�ing mad= by the Board cf Zoning Appeais or the Pianr,i�g Commission.
��n3 �istratrg/Pl�rirrl �� ea� i*� �rirz� t2= site glar: f� tt�
[aoj�-t h�4x1 at tl� ficst tYat ti� site fs tl� Faoja esdsts as a x�u1t of an
;���t �t ��it, tt� �a c� 7.arirr� p��s ry�i �,�y t� c�n tre �n�;c�nt�s
�� f@' �� to �rt tk� proja:t, the �te z`�s �.�zt vicdati�s
� t� �irr, �, i•rLr?i-r3 frtnt/sir� pa , _ - c , ' , � ,y,.,.. �t 1�,';
C��It'dl P�K.'tS tD .� vmTitrlim ��7� �'g'�u^ ai13 �^'�n<
th; c�e at415 Sumdt Acsn� zn3 g36 R-�-r�A��. �t aa�ri }x tt� ��� l,.,r� �
�';a� ad�itiona! shset ifr
/+�n�.cant's
Llat_ 2 /8/� City ag=_nt
S. P�;c Uaix�t, Attc�� for P�
�
ti
t
�
� �
_ �
� C
�
` 3
1: �
T
3 t
� �
i
� �
v �
M �
.
r�
LJ
TO'RL F.�?02
�� J 3
po-��o
! city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
fite number o0-28
date April 14, 2000
�VHEREAS, Patricia Leonard, I,aurel Frost, Gre� and Carol Clark, file � 99-117070, filed an
appeal of the decision by the Zonin� Administrator to approve a site plan for a carria�e house and
accessory parkin� at 420 Portland, le�ally described on Exhibit A; and
�VHEREAS the Zonin� Committee on 4/6/00, held a public hearin� at which all persons present
�vere given an opportunity to be heard pursuan[ to said application in accordance with the
requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code; and
�VHEREAS, on 4/12/00 the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented at
the pubiic hearina on 4/6/00 as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�vin� findings
of facr.
(1) The site plan is not consistent �vith the city's adopted comprehensive plan.
� (?) The arran�ement of buildin�s and parkin� for the proposed development will unreasonably
affect abuttin� property and its occupants.
(3) The site plan is no[ consistent with the safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic within the site.
1�'O�V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appeal of the Zonin� Administrator's decision to
approve a siCe for a carria�e house and accessory parkin� at 420 Portland be approved.
moved by Gervais
seconded by
in favor 16
against_ � (Gordon)
�
��v
MINUTES OF THE ZONIIYG COMMITTEE
Thursday, Apri! 6, 2000 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3` Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Keitogg Boulevard
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Engh, Faricy, Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Mardell and Morton
Peter Warner
Carol Martineau, A(lan Torstenson, Joel Spoonheim of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Fieid.
Patricia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Greg & Carol Clark - 99-117-070 - Appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's approvai of a site plan for a carriage house and 9 parking spaces focated at 420
Portland Avenue, behind 415 Summit, befween Western and Arundel.
Tom Beach showed siides and presented the staff report. Mr. Beach stated the staff recommends
approval of ffie site ptan subject to a sef back variance approved by the City Council.
Upon the inquiry of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Beach stated there was a public hearing for the site
plan. The lot split was not mentioned at the hearing.
Mr. Mark Vaught, Attorney for the appiicant, appeared and submitted a photograph depicting the
38 foot carriage house and a written document dated April 6, 2000, listing the procedural grounds
for the appeai which outlined severai points: 1) The building is too large for the lot. There was no
opportunity for neighborhood input on the site plan review; 2). There was two prior deniais of
variances for this plan; 3). The ptan keeps changing and being resubmitted and ; 4) the 38 foot
proposal was submitted bythe developer after approval of a 36-foot proposal, requiring new rounds
of hearings and appeals. The Substantive Grounds for the Appeal listed are: 1) According to the
Zoning Code the massing of the proposed building on the lot is inappropriate. In1999 when the lot
was spiit off it did not have a Public Hearing wfiich makes the lot sp(it illegai; 2} The orientation
of the buiiding on the lot is incorrect and it cannot be oriented to the front because there is a
restrictive covenant that requires the owner of this lot to furnish parking for 8 cars. 3) There is a
prohibition on the Zoning Code regarding side yard parking in the City without a variance, znd there
are severat parking spaces that wi(f require side yard parking. 4} The ingress and egress is (acking
for maneuverability in front of the garage; 5) The proposed building is Yo close to 415 Summit
Avenue which causes parking problems. 6) The tenants have a blanket easement for pedestrian
purposes over the entire property at 420 Portland Avenue. 7) If tha carriage house is bu:lt and all
the parking spaces are used it would create probiems emptying the dumpster.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Vaught stated the orientation of the carriege house
is a problem.
Mr. Mark Voerding, Chair of the Ramsey Hiil Association Land Use Committee, appeared and
stated the Ramsey Hill Association is opposed to 1he project and presented 5 poinYS: 1.) Under the
terms of the easement agreement with the Condo Association at 415 Summit Avenue, 3 parking
�
�
C�
��
Zoning Committee Minutes
Aprii 7, 2000
� File #: 99-117-070
Page 2
bo-�o
spaces must be provided; 2) The site plan indicates compact parking spaces which the Zoning
Code does not recognize for residential parking. This would eliminate one parking space.
3) Because of the size of the structure and its location on the lot, there is insufficient maneuvering
lanes and tuming radiuses provided for vehicles. 4) One of the parking spaces located on the
side yard is prohibited by the Zoning Code except with a variance. 5) There is insufficient green
space provided for a residential unit.
Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Clark appeared and made 3 points 1) The carriage house wouid be abutting
the park which wouid be the front yard. 2) There is not enough green space for this parcel.
3) The property should be landscaped and used for parking in lieu of a buiiding because of parking
problems.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Clark stated she was more concerned with the
building being too ciose to 415 Summit Avenue.
Mr. Ronald Severson, the applicant made 2 points 1) The 36 foot carriage house doesn't require
setbacks and has been approved by the HBC. 2) The carriage house is in compliance with the
code except for a 9 foot variance allowing a 16 foot front yard. Mr. Severson also presented a
photograph of a 38 foot carriage house with 997 square feet. Mr. Severson explained he worked
with the neighborhood, the architects from the Heritage Preservation Committee and the City staff
in creating the carriage house and it is less than half the size of the 2 carriage houses that were
� approved for the lot. The 38 foot carriage house is set in the middle of the lot and it provides i 6
feet between the main house and the proposed building and ai 6 foot front yard setback. The size
does conform with City Codes in relationship to parking. Mr. Severson also stated he is setting up
an escrow account of $5,000.00 for landscaping.
Mr. John Miller, Attorney for John Severson, appeared and stated the lot split is legal, it was
challenged in 1990 and addressed by the City Cou�cil in 1999 and they specifically stated the lot
split was legal. When the 36 foot proposai was before the board in October in1988 ii was rejecfed
because the Pianning Commission believed the lot split was invalid. They adopted a resolution to
that effect and the City Council approved the 36 foot plan. The 38 foot plan requires one 9 foot
front yard variance. The blanket easement that exists pursuant to the private declaration placed
on the property is not necessarily relevant. The parking spaces were determined based on the
City Code.
Mr. Mervin Hough appeared and stated he bought the property located at 436 Portland in 1971.
Mr. Hough also explained he served on the Board of Ramsey Hill and the Old Town restorations
did a number of projects in the Ramsey Hiil Association. They were an important organization in
renovating Ramsey Hill. They moved and built houses and 5 structures are closer to the street
than 25 feet. He also showed photos of various project and new garages in the area that are close
to the street. They knew a parking facility would eventually be built on thaf space. A 16 foot
setback is appropriate in the Ramsey Hill area.
Mr. Hough also showed an old plat map showing a carriage house on the northeast corner of the
� subject lot with no setback from the east lot line and touching Portland. The setback of this carriage
house is keeping with the appropriate neighborhood guidelines.
Ms. Bragette Bachmeier, 459 Portland Avenue appeared in opposition and stated the appiicant
�
Zoning Committee Minutes
Apri17, 2000
File #: 99-117-070
Page 3
worked with the neighborhood in designing this building and it the design does incorporate the
neighborhood esthetics.
Mr. Mark Vaught appeared and stated the issue is the nine parking spaces that are required on the
lot. The lot split that took place in 1990 left the building at 415 Summit Avenue less than 8 feet
from the property line which would not be conforming. The garage on t�e land limits putting the
carriage house on the other side of the lot.
The public hearing was closed.
At the question of Commissioner Engh, Mr. Beach stated the Zoning Code does not require the
building to be square with the property line. There are setback requirements but the angle of the
buiiding is not addressed by the code. The probiem is Summft and Portland Avenue come
together at an angle which means the building would be askew to Portland Avenue or toward the
house that is on Summit Avenue.
Upon further question of Commissioner Engh, Mr. Beach expiained to buiid the building, Mr.
Severson needs approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals,
and Site Pian Review. All three processes are being heard so the City Councii can consider them
all at one time.
Commissioner Morton moved to approve the appeat on the basis of findings E-1, E-5 and E-7
related to the comprehensive plan, arrangement of the building and traffic. Commissioner Kramer
seconded it.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-3.
Adopted Yeas - 5
Drafted by:
,
�
��` ('t :�.� ���ic���,cr2nn �,t�
Carol Martineau
Recording Secretary
Nays - 3 (Engh, Gordon, Mardell)
Submitted by:
l (ii � ) �.� �I.C�"li
Tom Beach �t,
Zoning Section
�
�
�
- j �
� o -'1 aa
C J
20NING COMMtTi'EE STAFF REPORT
1. APPLiCANT: Patricia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Greg and Carol Clark
FILE # 99-117070
2. CLASSIFICATION: Appeai of an Administrative Approvai of a Site Pian DATE OF HEARING: 4!6/00
3. LOCASION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN # 012823240240 (See file for complete legal description)
5. PLANNING D{STRICT: 8
6. PRESENTZONING: RT-2
7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT:
8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 6/6/00
ZONINCa CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
DATE: 2l24100 BY: Tom Beach
DATE RECEIVED: 2/8/00
A.. ACTION REQUESTED: The applicants are appealing stafPs decision to approve a site plan with
conditions. The site ptan calls for a carriage house apartment and 9 parking spaces. The parking
spaces would be for the carriage house and the adjacent residences. The grounds for appeal are listed
in Section F below.
� This project has already been before the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Heritage Preservation
Commission.
- The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance in November 1999 to reduce the front yard setback
from 25 feet to 16 feet. This decisio� has been appealed by the property owner to the City Councii.
- The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the site pian and building pians in June 1999.
This decision has been appealed by the neighbors to the City Council.
The City Council has instructed staff that it wants to hear aii the appeals on this project at one pubiic
hearing, including any appeai of the site pian review. Staff approved the site plan subject to the
condition that the City Council must approve the setback variance.
B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is an irregular shaped parcel with an area of 5,428 square
feet. It is currentiy used for parking by the 4-unit condominium at 415 Summit (the property immediately
south of 420 Portland). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on gravelldiR The site is located in the Historic Hilf Presecvation District
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Singie-Yamily and dupiex (R7-2)
East: Nathan Hale Park (RT-2)
South: Four-unit condominium (RT-Z)
West Muiti-family condominium (RM-2)
C. HISTORY OF PREVIOUS PROPOSALS: There have been a number of eariier proposals and zoning
actions for this property since 1990:
- In 't980 the City approved a lot spiit that split this parcel from north end of the parcei at 415 Summit.
� - Later in 1990 the Board of Zoning Appeais approved variances to construct a new carriage house
unit with a 5 car garage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This was appealed to fhe City
� E'
Councii by the Parks Department The Councif uphe(d ffie variance but modified the conditions.
- In 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances to construct a hvo-unit carriage house with �
a 14-car underground garage.
- In 1994 there was a proposal to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 garage stalls under
the carriage house and in detached garages. Variances were applied for but appiication was
withdrawn before the Board of Zoning P,ppeais took any action.
- In 1995 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a carriage house unit with 3 parking
spaces beneath the unit and 6 surface parking spaces.
- In 1996 the current property owner purchased the property.
- In 1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a plan similar to the current proposai. The
City Council upheld this approval on appeal in February 1998.
- tn 1998 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a 10 foot front yard setback for a building
fhat was 40 feet long with a parking space in the front yard. The City Council uphetd the denial.
(See attached site plan.)
- In March 1999 the City Councii approved a site plan for a slighUy smaller (36 feet long) buiiding with
8 parking places. This ptan did not require any variances. Af the same time, the City Council
affirmed that the lot spliY that created fhe !ot in 1990 was valid. (See attached site plan.)
D. CURRENT PROPOSAL: The current site plan calls for a carriage house with one dwelling unit and 9
parking spaces (4 in the carriage house, 2 in an existing garage and 3 more surface spaces). Eight of
these parking spaces are to 6e used by 415 Summit Avenue under a private agreement that went with
the sale of the property.
This current site pian represents a middle ground between a pian that was denied in 1998 and a plan
approved by the City Council in March 1999. (Site plans for these projects are attached.)
- The current site plan calls for a carriage house that is 38 feet long (compared to 40 feet for the 1998
pian and 36 feet for the 19 for the 1999 plan. �
- A total of 9 parking spaces are propased (compared to 9 spaces feet for the 199& plan and 8
spaces for the 1999 plan).
- A front yard setback of 16 feet from the front property line is proposed (compared to a setback of 10
feet feet for the 1998 ptan and 25 feet for the 1999 plan}.
E. STAFF APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN: Staff approved the current site plan in December 1999,
subject to a variance for front yard setback being granted by the Ciry Council. Staff determined that the
site plan was consistent with al1 of the required cortditions rf it obtained the variance:
_(1) The cify's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the city
The site plan is consistent with the recently adopted Nousing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
which encourages construction of housing units suitabie for "empty nesters" (page 14) and supports
"designs that use the smaller development sites creatively" (page 16).
(2) Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The plan is consistent with applicable ordinances except for the required front yard setback. A front
yard setback of 16 feet if proposed compared to the required setback of 25 feet The property
owner apptied for a variance but the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance. The property
owner has appealed this decision to the City Council.
(3) PreseivaSon of unique geologic, geographic or historica!!y significant characferis6cs of the city and
environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the �
plans for the project as being compatible with the historic character of the area. Neighborfng
�
D D - 'l i-t7
property owners have appeaied this decision to the City Council.
• (4) Protec8on ofadjacent and neigh6oring properties through reasonable provision for such maffers as
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, fighf and air, and fhose
aspects of design which may have substan6ai effecfs on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site p4an is similas to the one that was approved by
the City Council in March 1999. The main difference is that the carriage house structure has been
moved 9 feet closer to the front property line.
�{5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order fo assure
abutting properFy and/or ifs occupants will not be unreasonably atfected.
The site pian is consistent with tfiis finding. The arcangement of the carriage house buifding would
be 9 4eet further away from the adjacent residence at 415 Summit Avenue.
(6) Creafion of energy-conserving design through fandscaping and location, orientation and elevatio� of
structures.
The sfte plan is consiste�t with this finding.
—(7j Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffc both within the site and in relation to
access streets, inciuding tra�c circuiation features, the locations and design of entrances and exits
and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The current site plan would permit each parking space
� in the garage to be 6 inches wider than what was cailed for in the earlier approved plan. This wiif
make them easier to drive in and out of.
(8) The satisfactory availability and capacify of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions to any
drainage problems in the area of the development.
The site pian is consistent with this finding. Similar to the previously approved plan, drainage will be
handied by grading the site so that storm water is directed out the driveway to the street.
(9) Su�cient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The property owner has an agreement with an adjacent
property owner to spend up to $5,000 on landscaping along the west property line.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Acf (ADA),
including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sediment control as spec�ed in the Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Control Nandbook. "
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
F. GROUNQS FOR APPEAL: The appeal contends that the Zoning Administrator erred in approving the
� site pian for the reasons listed beiow. Staffs response to each of these is aiso given:
1. °The site for fhe projecf exrsts as a resu/t of an il/ega! /ot splif. °
The lot split was approved by City stafF in 1990 wiYhout requiring a public hearing. After that, a
�� �
number of zoning actions conceming proposals on this propeRy went before the City Counci! over
the next years and the issue ot fhe )oY split was not raised. When the issue of the bt sptiY was �
reised in 1998, the Cily Counci! )ooked inio the issue. !n March 1999 the City Council dectared that
the lot split was lega! at the same meeting where they approved an earlier version of the site ptan.
No new facts conceming the lot spiit have been presented since then.
2. °The Board of Zoning Appeals had previously turned down the applicanYs request for variances to
construct the pmject."
The 8oard of Zonirtg Appeal's decision on the variance is under appeai and wiii be heard by the
City Council. StafPs approval of the site plan is subject to a variance being granted.
3. "The site represents several violafions of the zoning code, including front/side yard parking,
setback requiremenfs.'
The site meets all zoning code requirements except for front yard sefback. The property owner
has applied for a variance to permit a 16 foof front yard sefback and the City Councii will consider
this. The proposed carriage house and ail parking spaces meet the side yard setback requirement
of 4 feet and atl other zoning requirements.
4. °Serious detrimenfal effects fo fhe surrounding properly, including that owned by the appellants in
this case 415 Summif and 436 Portland. °
The plan is simi(ar fo the one approved by the City Council in March 1999. In approving that plan
fhe City Council found that it would not have a detrimentai affect on the surrounding property. The
main difference is that current plan wouid move the carriage house 9 feet further 415 Summit,
which would lessen any impact.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings, staff recommends that the appeal of the
decision to approve the site plan be denied. �
ATTACHMENTS
Page 1 qppeal
Page 3 Site plan and elevations for the current proposal
Page 9 Site plans for earlier proposals (for comparison)
Page 11 Location maps
G.LCOMMOMSi[e Plan�99163ceverwnl991t7WOspr.zc
�
� �� G
�1.
�a-��O
�
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
�
10.
11.
12.
13.
1 Y.
15.
16.
17.
S L7NRAY-BATTZECREEK-HIGHW OOD
HAZEL PARK H.4DE\-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE
DAYfON'S BLUFF
PAYIv�E-PHALEN
T�ORTH END
THO�fAS•DALE
SUMMZI'-iJ��VERSITY
WEST SEVE�+TH
COMO
HAMLI\�E-;�IID4�iAY
ST. AtvTHOYY PARK
hiERRL�'�i PARK-LEXL��GTO�' H."..VLLI\�-S?VELLItiG H.A�iiL��
hLACA? ESTER GRO�L4.*�'D
HIGHLA.�'D
SUtii1 HIL.T.
DOWi�
��
,
`F9� /63 r
�ON1NG �lLE ' '
�_-
CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO` PLA.`7ti'I?vG DISTRICTS
• • • • • • •
: a ,:.� � �
CHURCH
ME
_ • g '
�) C O O Q�5 o O
��� �y•
(Q ¢ O O� O O¢ �
�
1j O O O O O O
Qb2�c�va /��• � S
' O ¢ -¢- _ � J
� � O p
Z
O �
O � � O a
. . '
��ip �����
0
APPLICANT �"�' `�� �����"�
PURPOSE CL)N ST�UG� CIETzR(/4�Y� _ I'�QJ��
FtLE # ���� DATE
PLNG. DIST—� MAP # � �
SCALE 1' = 200'
tEGEND
�� hpc district boundary
� subject ProPerty —`.;`„�'—
0 one family • • ^ comr���
� twofamity ♦ �� industria(
A.�� muttipte famity V vacant
:J� � _ �'7'°f .�°.%i�
/t.
�
:ULS CHURCH
JE
�jc
/E
T
��o�
s
�
-�
,
i
�
:���`�
5 �
��
��
�f�
�
T
G�TY:=P'LANtdiN.G `.
A°?LICkN�� � ��� " !
�U��l�s~ ■ ��
99-/s3
Y D�TE_
PLNG. DtST� h1A° +°-
�
�.J � � LEGEND
.�.�.� zoning dis;rict Lt�unda•y
�. �_ � subi'� P�oP'"'r
/ O O�? fdr,lily
� ¢ }'N� fdf�lllj�
� �
__�. ��-4 I'tUliipl? yZ^il�
r�C,or,n�-
� � n �
� r... I�ivUSl:id�
V v2:3':
._._� � - --- � . .. �'-
r.�.�_ ' _ L! !'^. C _ . _ S�'L
I O Qr
a QU J �
oC ga es
e = wC� �5 " °..
• w W Q O6 5 = O
0 o U1d'U vv� � >
3 a =
". i-
�`n IN r.
�
I�
= � ��
�i�r �N
1 �_
, °
�� 1
W
� � I
a g g
zm f��
�m
a p
�
� o . z :
Q N u�i p O
o � �
3
J
� 3f4�BAV ONtll1NOd z
a'
�� awnn(ae °
o N �
��o
S3: '� rrv.�aacs
._
.6 1
� � =o .
^ Vm
�^ryl
1�
= n �
� 3i �
go
g~= � \
�6�
�7 �
.sbz
4 �
� ;� ,
i � i �
� --- ---�
Z�
WlJ
�m(�
a
w�
�� �
00
� .5
\ HSYtlI /
^
\ � �
\ ��� �
p /
' � e
`
� �
♦
�`
7 \ � ' d
O�
l
.SZ I •9 I
15'�3 .0�'OS
� `\
I �y '.•
� ;
�6
n��n �.� �
� MOONVA
S53tl'J3
_ _ _
�
,
�
,Q
, o o�
_ i � �t,,,�
� � �Q
i �- �v
0
�e
_ _�
�
1
_ _ _ I
aoaoc��o
i
a 9o � ry5 E
o h
/ �y1
Q �-i s /
O
6
�'�.
� . .
.�
.
.
. �,
� ` \
\
\ \
�
� \
:
� ��
,
a- � �
� � .O6
' / `
I
. , � ..
n
� �
� ��
�
s
3
Q
J
d
W
N
U
3
N
>
�
a
R
�
c
O
V
�
y
O
G
a
�
.
�
0
3
O
h
L'
a
:�
�
�
w
00
d
0
0
�
0
w
N
�
R
•
A
L
�
d �
.c y
m
C �
� o ��
� �N �
R� �
T
o�U.
N �
N c�'J �
� L �
U � .
� Y i
U
V .D �
O y
R' o �
b � 1
N �
1
ro
o c� �
C
� a .�'
U Q �
� ��
� • • •
_ —
> ' (A ✓� � v
O
� �< Z U o r� � m
0
L
�� mX �� wZ� ¢ W C �2 r WV
QU' WW �X XN IYUN =.� �O O CJQ U� tY1Qi
p? Z� �� < ClZ \C V2 �2' Z� d X DY
W�
UN d(J NO N�'I <2� N0 ipID IDID 1/�� �� V �
n �n _c
� ��lt� 1 � � � i t � < <
�
N
O
N
�
��
Z Z
3 3
D �
Wy K
m� V
X
N �� �
v NO <
�L
0
N
N
�
b
�
N
m
�
^��
O
0
N
IH��H �Nfi�
..Il-.8
�
U
a
3
m
n
ro
N
�
N
0
O
■
� _
�H�I 9N(117:
t- ..t/£ LL-.L
w
z
0
¢
0
0
4
ao -7so
Z
O
Q I
�
W
W
�
Q �
u� I
O
II
h
✓� �l � !
y
> � �, o
� � V p3¢ � �p m �
� � m OC WZ� ¢ W ¢ � �2 � wU
"' o _<—� tn3z z m div d �n<
Q U' „W Y WCJ� N� O� N� Y V'Q V x CLL
wT zC �<� oza >< <'¢ �a �?� a °c
v�n ac�i n No nn ¢i� �nm iom Inm r v.� o v�i U¢
� Z
3 � 3
O pa O
cx�
V m V
_ O
� �N �
N — �
a NO c
N' �
L
0
m
N
�
i
N
0
<
N
�
N
m
O
U
W
�
a
i�
. .
. .
■
I. .
n
.
.I
. ..
. .
� —1
Nf \
L
0
N
N
w
(...
I...
. . .
. . .
�
�
z
�J
H
Q
�
�
J
W
� I^
V'
w
�
�
_�
II
�
�
�
✓E �
�
e� -7�0
�
0
� �
��
0
�
O
�
N
� �
N
��
< ¢S
N ti
N 4SU
c�a
zs
0
n N o
W
� (� �
❑ C� C�
{��
Z
0
�
Q
>
w
J
W
_
�
�
O
� � ��
n
U
0
N�
r O
N�
m
N
� m
❑ N
� m
��
��
O
.�'2
ZF
OQ
��
0
z
0
�
d
>
�
�
�
_
F
�
0
�
�
�
��
�� �
a , _ �jo
�
n .
�
z
Qo
�,
�-
� ��
o :
o �°
L�' M
�
°� ��
�NEV✓
� q ORIV
/ NEW
TREE
ARROWS INOICATE
DRAINAGE SLOPE ?�"
��
o`
J�
0
�
�� �
-L P�'�
�� � �
P �
i/
/ ./
�
��
oi
^ i .
i�, �
` , �
C L S T\ //
-��
9,p � G
������
� o�eP i
PROPERTY LINE
FENCE
w �
Z�
J
r
� �
�
w
a
0
�
a
�
�
W I
�
O n
°p
_� I
�,
i SITE PLAN
I t/t6" = 1'-0
��
. ���,
Q
Q�
. �
O �
� . 4 '��/�
G �P� Q P �
O k'� Q P�`�� � \ �
/
"� / CONC. OR �
ASPHALT
� �PAVEMENT
17\IT��
�
�
/i
�Q wiN�ow
°o
.
�
�� /
PR��OSED
G�LOF7 & �
� � y � ��.
_� � .
_ .,
a �� .
HEDGE — - — — —
90.00' � • � _
N52°52'25"E
ensErneNr
sraRs
PORCH
475 SUMMIT AVE
z i�2 sroRr
WOOD FRAME BUILDING
�pdS�D 3.6� �il,bl(��
- Tt�rs � �au,ow(u(� g
�AFr�iS o�
A
O�
9 �'O
9
e � G �F� GF �GF
\ 9 'QO
9•
5
0
i
��' � ExiSTtNG
� iREE
� � S �O
I f �ql�"
� CO C. WALK
&�iEPS w/
�R N RA�LwG
& GATE
— Ex�STiNG
� .:� �.�5
�
I o;
�,
NI C%'
NI
I
� ��
ti� � �
�
-�' -
— � m
< �
�
f-1,
9 � ° ��
bA
� �3
w o
z �
F `°
� �
w 0
a� 3
� I �
� N
OU
�
�
.�
.fl
ol
�
1
� �
M
� 'LS
¢ o
-o 0
� �
o w
a �
� o �
� v a
����ti
�
�
� �
on �
.� o
�
A �
� o
� U
� w
R I �
� � �
�
o � o,
� U �
.� � �
� � U
C> > �
� ��
U � �'
.� N �
s.� � �
� Sr C�
O
o c 3
c
�� U
o ° .3
.�z�
�
�
w
vi . . .
DO-��
w
� N �
JN � m Y
W Z Z L�O� CS � m
� 'n � o o �z � W � r w
W W fO�T O� Z� 2 q � 'aU S� NQ
�C W X X� K - 0 L'p _ � U G U C{i
�i Z� m o- nZa =< "< =< z � a< ��
c�v+ ao � aN u ¢i� u>m �m �m �� o v�i �c
u1 (D� N
O O
�X
m 0< �
I Ix 1
c av> a
m
N
�
N
IN
�Z .
m0¢
ON4
2�
�rN
wV
Z��'
62�
w
N
�
N
b
0
�
W
N
W
N
�
�
0
��
0
�
N
m
N
�
N
�
0
�
d
00 0
� � �
1N`J�H
0
a
¢
J.H913H 9Nf713J �
I-.l ••ro/£ tl-.L
� �� vi 1 ' �
� ¢I pj O
� 4{
�I �� 4
°1 �i NI �
Z
0
� /
�l _
� �
L.I.J �
J -
W�
F � II
W ��
��
�-
�
F
W
N �
� �K
�� Ww
pz ` zt
W2 Q7
CJN dp
2
O
u� m< m
o x o
m m m
I Ix 1
a a� �
��
0
�
O
J(I)
Z Z �Q�
04 � K �
tOr O O N32 �N �N �
�
° m<e ° m nzy =¢ �a =�
I X X I Z7
nN �n 42� v>m iom �nm
w a
N m Y
�
0 � m
�S
�StJ d � yU
m U Q V � CLL
� �� b x �c
< U
C I/�� O u�> �¢
N � � I I
N 1
Z ' I
O � �
� fa 0
N
�
❑
� � ❑
m
e .
N
0
� I �) �
N
N
�
N
D ^
u
❑ ��
� u
� �
. .
. .'
i . .'',
. .
�
i�i
�
u
z;
o ,
F"�
�`
/
�..��
J
W
{�
�
� 2
T
�
��
�
M
i
�
s
��
�
d o —� 1 �
�
�
z
0
�_
Q
>
�_
�
�,
_ �-
�-- ��
�_
o�
z n
�
�
�
? 1
�
0
�:� =
O
N�
�
N
�
Y� �� � I (I
�f � ��
BI�I � ��'
� �, � Il��
�� �4((
91
�N
��
0
�_
$V
a<
v�
0
�
'
zi
O�
�-
Wi_
���
z��
�lu
O I �°
�1�
�
.� i
.� `
. �
Oa-��
�
�� ..
�
Z
Q
J
�
LL..
�
�
�
�
`
�
\I �
�
z
Q
J
�
J
LL
.7 _
� O
� I
� '
L1J II
� �
...1 M
�
`�I
f
do -��-o
�
��
��, .
r — — —
I
I � N
I � �
aN N
m � o
1 Z r
N � �0 �
m �
� 0N N � ,.Z-,2
W
� I
I — — — 8.9x0.Z � I
W
NI
�
�, o I
p 8. XO.Z a,
r
s.sxsa
w °�
a o
�
� i
1 CJQ
z°
ON
� I
bZ${ >Z8Z bZBI
' _ _ _ _
' o
� �
S
� �
0
� �
X
N � o
m
L7J �
U
Q — — — — — — -
� — — — — — — —
Q I
� I o
8
I i
I o
I x
I �
I
52100Q Ol 3d0'iS - JNIdd01 "�N0.9 'NIW
..Z /M SNNYid 'JNO� a35S3NIS3ild ..S
�
�
�
C� I
�..V I
V
Q — — — — — —
� — — — — — —
Q �
U
I
I
I
�
i
+ j bZ8L bZ8Z bZ81 � I
I l'73M MOONIM SS3?!'J3 � �
° o
2
0
0
0
�
d
0
x
m
—
�
(
l
4
I
O�
i�
W
OI
aZ
0
o�
�N I
4
O �
O
z
N �
Z
Q
J
�
�
�
O
�I
��
�I �
0
�
11
�
�Y�
�
9
:i�
�
�
0
�
�
z
c
J
�
�
�
�
J
LL
�
z
�
U
IJ.1
�
�
��
�/7 �
�
=
� ��
z�
' � r
W y� cnmV
U-r �>� F
�N,��, Z�r-
h0C 3 0¢ �
¢otiwm�'< �
G �r �' F
��UN��y
U�wNCbN �
I `�
U
Z
Z
G
2
�
Q
m
o = o
m w
v: u ��o� a�
� W
�� O O u�Z O� U
> VIV N
(JF.� �- Z y���m p420 1
�V< S �t� v�mo 4
" � tA�m�p� ��a> ?
Z ¢ Or (> N U V �
' n < t`" y �3_ O U
< [C � O�iV '�' bh Z m
n-��i = c Em��`n m
�
W
�
Q
�
Q
U
� ao -?�ro
:io � oz
�o
�? Z KUS
�Z0 O O LL3V
�_ ' V O�
oa �a z�
U� K V�Z
N ' \ C\ : - rv
N_ N3 <lp(_j
I p
�W
�.Q
1
N I
�
� i
O �
� i
� i
m I
S
U
w
�
�
�.� �
_
�
'--
�
O
�
�
W
m
1Y.OI3H `JNfli37 H'Jf10J
>n �r_o
N
W
U
Q
�
Q
v
w
<
�
l .I �
a.
O
�
;
Z
O
V
w
N
Zi �
J I
m I
�
II
D
%�
��
� 6
NOTE:
AP,P,O'NS INDICATE
DRARIAGE SIOPE
��
O�
S�'
0
�
�� � {
�
���� �10
C� ` �t'/� i�
NEN! �
TREE
—� /
�/ � �" � �
� .� � �
� / ��
l��- � >
I �� l � \ / � \ /
q C „ � /
o j
� PROPERIY LWE
�
I 90 — —
w�
z
J '
r
�)
C
u
a
0
�
a
�
�
W
� M
O �
�O �
��
M
N .
SITE PLAN
1/16" = 1'-0"
h •'1,�t' `l1
PA710
\Y� �/ DPIV�Pi,•\Y
� � ��y
��
,; �o
��
�,� � EXISTiNG %
O UtACS
Q�{f� ��' i� �
� � �
� ASPHALT --'�
�PAVEMcN7
\ 420'PORTLAND q'
4/
H�DGEJ ,"
90.00' �
�� � �
NR"I ARBOR-
VITAE iREES
BASEhICNT-�
STAIRS
A
'pT
9 '�'O
e-� 9 �
G� �
� '�o
o \
� �' �ExlSilil,
7REE
S ��Ft+i, 9
� ��
Q
C
�
IR
�
I/
•
' yo,p �
ti
V �
I
o ,�
,�o �
f �
— T
�� � � � R
o �
R
1 9 0 0 ^' � �
q � o
A. �s �
,3 a �
� � �
� o Q
o � w s �
�� � � �
0
C �U -O
.� o 'c
y V �
C� y ._,
� �U
� U �
a c U
c y
� �
, � U
v ❑ c
R �
g � �
i p � R
� L1. a.
� T m � >
> 7 O � �
Q � II. C C
a 'u R � �
� a ..� �
� �
o �° �
a = N
�
° � �
v a v� . .
u +
z _
� �
r
r I
�
W
a
O
�
�
�
�
415 SUMMIT AVE.
2 7/2 STORY
NlOOD FRAME BUtLDlNG
/'1 SITE PLAN
�J r. - oo.-0..
•
, > p /� �
/�o.l rt c� t`.a�t i i� c( r r,r'��/ 1 �� �%4
E '\ \
� >
� �i
.�i �
>
� �
� � i c�`��4r
� Q� V�•
i ��F����
� QVP�' /r
��
9
PORCH
oa �'t�
�
�
�
z
0
�
a
>
w
�
LL,
}--�
�
�
LL1
�
� 'r
y`\ �
�
�
z
0
�-
�
>
�
�
�
�
N
w
�
C J
�.
,a
��
00 -'1do
•
�
�
m
N�
W O
ZN �
�-
W� p
�-�q0
�NV3�
m
N
N �I W
N
�I �O
� rx
a
� '�3 V
N Z �
�I �C
�I Nr
a
N
O I � N
1
■� �
.
1�
I�
� � J
,^
Z
O
�
E.
>I
�.,
��
�,.,
Si
�I
�
�
z
0
�
u
�
n
;� �
� �
�
�
f
z
0
F-
�
>
w
�
cL
S
F--
�
�
N
�
a
o ;
i' T �
ba-�d-o
.
�
C
O
Z
`I
z
�
J
�
L1_
Q
�
�
�
°� ^.
� �
i
� �
�
�
L
O
Z
�
�
�
�
�� �
`,
z
�
J
�
�
�
�
LL
0
z
Q
U
w
�
�
•;:
i(
� �
a� -�a�
�
�
.
w
�
a
0
z
5
`e
e
e
0
CI
a
u
a
3
7
N
N
a
Z
�
H
�
� c
2 �
F o
Q �
z =
� C C..
s
G
V
�
�
�
�
Q_
�
�
�
'�
C"
�
�
O
�� �
N
� � �
�^� �
�� `� �
U �Z
z_a � r�
F� �� �L�
ir � � �
.cs� ..�"� �
.F'" C J ��J
-xt.' �� ::�
<> _�
�` _-. CL �
�`, '
;��'•_ '
`.: �
C`� � N�
O�
�1
1
� F -.
� �� ��
t
� N �J r :
`1, _ � C .
� � � �.:
�" c _"
�_..-__�
I __
Ci '" .:
�'..- ;
o �
rn�'
W
N
L�
� ...�
���
�
�
5
�
•
ti � l. _ `' ,�<�
'� v � _�' � . - : � � rx�-7ac�
a
�
�
U
Z
�_ x
?� a
� �
�= 3
:�
W� �
�i�� Q
� ,. < r-+
�ti �
'N-� �'< �
Q z
✓,'=� C
�,
E �� ; �
z�z �
r��� f-1
_ ,�
� � � z=
° � o°
o� �_ ��
�� A �y / �j : , �
{� :,: :� L-'�� C � Z
� z< a=
= G:,^ ra��
r�= �� �a�
u;° `n� ���
� ��Z COi
�l 0�3 ��_
,.x., � .� _ o .� =
�' ��hZr° A
�� Vm� ~ V2
C �^' �C�
OH=
�.= C-"'Z' C.'+C.
��'" > ��''S= ��,
r» U = � C-� U :
F
0
a
Fi
h
�
�
�
a
� Y
o =
r' 5 �
u� - -
� i
�?
z� �:�
�Z L
z� z�
'` 5 �° �
�+� �>
r� _ �_
�� G:-
m �'+5
�^ OZ
c
< �
�z
C H
o p
C H �
_' � z
�; p r�
I"- -�.
Isz �C
I'' Y ��-+ [y
I : _ Fy �--�
�^Z ��
��= z
)O` H
Iz F'U�
�
)8� W�
0
::
11
�
�
r
W
�
w
O
� U
�n y
v '�"" '
�
. �. . �
�
�
�
r.�-�
`i.
A
a
�
O
a
C
Y
�
U
z
�n
F�
�
�-
��
u�
[:� ^�
� �;
-�N., `>"'�
Q�=
�_�
�
Hc:
6. i a
� o? �
W
a
�
�
Q
�
z
�
�
La
�
�
�i
�
�+
�
F j
�<
��
�:�
�3
��
�i =
0
�>
U�'
3
e
i�l �
F_
�J
� =_
�z3
�,�?
G=+=�
��6
���
� i?
�5i
'�`��°�;
; �.,' ��; �:�a"
..�,.�' .:z;in".
�:'`;F�' ,
z>a„.' ;_;: .w�
' ��� T � .:.f�m+�k��
..-_... tiJ`:: [>`E"s.
z °°
Z
� �
� H .
�qz
��U�
c��,s<
� /.j � !--� oZ
F '1 p.J N
� O =�
VH<?
Q���,
��z<
06
�f F-( �-'�, J
� � <;
���i
C�Uz<
�
/-e �
�
Q�
� O
�U
�
��
��
G G
� �
Z..) t
cy
a �=
� ��
��nZ
�U�z`
�
�.
� L�
�z�<
[�� �
wQ=;
�x_
�O«
�c�z3
�z��
q��>
Hz=�
�O??
�
�
.-�'. 5
�'�
z�
HZ
��
a 5
C.� �
��
�m
F�
G�-� `'
Z
3
s
>
_
z°
�v
��
F-
�_
�'+_
r--�
Os
C�" i
r :.s..:.
? �
°��'. <
` G
t7
�
C �
o �-+
� Q r�
�%iZ0 ��
�i� � W
�,-
- N - �?i p'�Q
�-U � �
E" C_ � .-�
�,zZ � -�.
°-' z �5
o;; �
.� L?;� E CQ
E� �' � ��
�--i
O�V L-ld,'
r. �'
, C "9 �
�
� , �'
( .�
�� .
�
�
�
z
0
�
H
�
w
a
w
x
,
��
lt�
F
�
� �
. : i '
�, ,�; �
� �
� o �
m .,�`�
�- � N
o '`�
�
+� N
N
�L `t d
_ � �
ti �
v�
�
ti
� �
i � � � �
:> � vl� a
�, `� a �
`.:° ���
.� --
��� ��
�
a -
�
c
�n
O �
H �?
'' V ��� ' � „
� �
Q�'7�
�'
�-�� 1=
��:_
•• • �
C�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
T'orm Coteman, Mayor
OFACE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVA20N:vSENTAL PROTECTION
Robe't Kesslei Dlreaar
Telephone: 651-266-9090
Facsimile: 651-266-9099
December 21, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
LOWRYPROF£SSIONAL BUILDIA'G
Suite 300
350 Sr. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-I510
RE: 420 Portland Avenue
Public hearing at City Council scheduled for Wednesday, January 5, 2000
Zoning File 49-117070
Dear Ms. Anderson:
•
.
_, The City Council is scheduled to consider three actions concerning the proposed canstruction of
a carriage house at 420 Portland Avenue: appeal of HPC decision, appeal of BZA decision, and
review of site plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal calls for a two-story structure designed to resemble a carriage house. It would have one
residential unit that would occupy the second floor and part of the basement. The first floor would
provide gazage pazking spaces for four cars. A total of nine parking spaces would be provided on the
site.
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Appeal of the Heritage Preservafion Commission's decision to approve the project.
Greg and Cazol Ciuk, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel Frost have appealed the decision of the
Heritage Preservation Commission to grant approval of Ronald Severson's building permit
application to construct a new singie family dwelling at 420 Portland Avenue in the Historic Hill
Heritage Preservation District. The City Council first considered this appeal on September 22,
1999 and laid over the matter so that HPC, BZA, and site p1an issues could be reviewed together
at one time by the Council. The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the
subject permit application on June 24, 1999 at which time the propetry owner, Mr. Severson, and
the appellants' attomey, Mazk Vaught, addressed the commission. The commission a) voted 9-1
to approve the permit application following the close of the public heazing and b) voted 7-0 at the
following month's HPC meeting to pass a resolution granting approval of the requested building
permit. The commission's fmdings are stated in its resolution, which is attached. The HPC
approved two building schemes—one for a 36'-long building which requires no variances to
construct and the other for a 38'-long building which would require a front yard setback variance
to construct.
The grounds for this appeal, stated in Mr. VaughYs August 4, 1999 letter of appeal, are that the
HPC approval "is not in concert with the provisions of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code (which creates and govems the HPC], is premature, violates my clients' due process rights,
and approves an illegat use of the property."
The 420 Portland site has been the subject of development interest for at least ten years. In 1989,
the HPC and BZA approved plans for construction of a carriage house on the site, which project
included one dwelling unit and five gazage stalls in a sort of L-shaped buitding and three off-
street parking spaces. In 1992, the HPC and BZA approved modifications to that plan which
included two dwelling units in an L-shaped, carriage-house-like, shvcture and 14 underground
pazking spaces.
The two HPC-approved building schemes which aze the subject of this appeal aze vaziations on a
plan approved by the HPC in 1997 and approved, on appeal, by a 6- 0 City Council vote in 1998.
The 1997 HPC approval was the resalt of five meetings, over a period of 20 months, between
Mr. Severson and HPC members to develop a design for the building that conforms to the Hill
District design guidelines. The 1998 appeal by Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clark, and Carol Clark,
was denied "on the basis that their has been no showing that the commission made any error in
fact fmding or procedure in this matter." (CF #98-357)
2. Appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a front yard setback varinance.
The plan requires a zoning variance becaase We catriage house would be set back 16 feet from
the front property line on Portland Avenue, compazed to a requ'ved minimum seYback of 25 feet.
Ronald Severson, the properry owner, applied for a variance but it was denied by the Boazd of
Zoning Appeals in November 1999. The variance was denied on the grounds that a smaller
building could be built withoaY a variance and that the variance would not provide adequate
green space and would unreasonably diminish neazby property values. (A copy of the resolution
is attached.)
The City Council approved a site plan with a slightly smaller structure and one less parking space
in March 1999. This site plan did not require a vaziance.
The City Counci] denied a variance for a site plan with a siightly larger structure in 1998.
There were other eazlier proposals for this property. A complete zoning history for the property
can be found in the staff report for the Boazd of Zoning Appeals which is inctuded in this packet.
3. Review of the site plan.
Tfie site plan for the project must be approved before building permits can be issued. However,
the siTe plan cannot be approved unless the zoning variaace is approved. (A staffreport on the
current site plan is attached. It lists the all of the findings that must be made to approve or deny a
site plan.)
A PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5.
Please notify us if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides presented at the public
hearing.
C�
•
SincereIy,
./`� ( � -�.. _
1 ��u..11-EUi(,�,l�v
, •
,
L�
Aazon Rubenstein
Heritage Preservation
Tom Beach
Site Plan
�li �
.
C�
cc: City Councilmembers
Robert Kessler, LIEP
Peter Wamer, CAO
Ronald Severson
lohn Miller
Mark Vaught
Greg and Carol Clazk
Patricia Leonazd
Laurel Frost
ATTACFIl�4ENTS
Heritage Preservation Commission
page 1........ City Council resolution ]aying over HPC appeal
page 3 . . . . . . . . Appeal letter
page 4 . . . . . . . . HPC resolution granting approva]
page 8........ Case summary of 6/24/99 HPC meeting
page 10 ....... Case memo from staff to HPC
page 12 ...... HPC application information
pa�e 14 ....., Sanborn insurance map
page 15 ....... 1998 City Council resolution uholding HPC approval on appeal
Board of Zoning Appeals
page 18.......
page20.......
page4l .......
Site Plan Review
page 43
Plans and maps
Appeal to City Council
Resolution, minutes, staff report and application for variance
April BZA 1998 resolution denying request for three variances
Staff report
page 46 . . . . . . . Location Maps
page 49 ....... Plans for current 38-foot building proposal
page 55 ....... Plans for 36-foot building
page 65 ....... Plans for 40-foot building
page 73 ....... Plans approved by HPC in 1989
page 77 ,...... Plans approved by HPC in 1992 (revisions to 1989 plans)
�
ORIGfNAL
�soLUTionT
Presented By
Referred To
Council File r g—� Q4 a,
GreenSheet foo�a3
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MI. NESOTA
�w1 /�}��W,�1
1� �
Committee: Date
2 WHEREAS, a pubIic hearing was duly set for September 22, 1999, before the Council of
3 the City of Saint Paul (Council) for the purposes of considering appeals by Greg and Cazol Clark,
4 Patricia Leonard and Laurei Frost from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
5 (HPC) in HPC Resolution No. 3654 apptoving a building permit application to construct a new,
6 single-family, d�velling within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District on property
7 commonly kno�m as 420 Portland Avenue; and
8
9 WHEREAS, the Council determined That the proposed single family dw'el(ing may need
14 additional regulatory determinations (including site plan revie�i and approca2 or other variances)
lT
12
13
14
1�
I6
I7
18
19
20
21
??
23
24
25
2b
27
28
before consuuction can begin; and
WHEI2EAS, the Councit finds that it is appropriate and efficient to fi:st finalize aIl sucfi S
determinations necessary for the proposed singIe family dwelIing so that in the event an appeai is
�aIcen from any deternlination the appeal(s} may be consolidated into a single public hearin�
before the CounciI; NO�V, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, in the interest of Council efficiency, the appeal of Greg and Cazol Clazk,
Patricia Leonazd and Laurel F;ost from the decision in HPC Resolution No. 36�4 is continued
and laid o� er until such time as all regulatory determinations necessary For the proposed project
at 420 Portland A�enue sha11 have been acted upon by the appropriate cit�• department, board or
commission: Ai\'ll, BE IT,
FU'RTHER RESOLVED, that once all re�uiator;� determinations have been made and if
any are appealed, all apgeals sha11 be consolidated ci�ith the appeal of HPC Resolution No. 3654
and reset, u�th written notice to af2ected pazties, before the Cotmcii for pubtic heazing; AND, BE
IT,
�
1
2
3
4
• 5
6
7
8
9
qg-loq�
FURTHER RESOLVED, that if no appeals aze taken from any remaining
determination, the public hearing on HPC Resolution No. 3654 shall be reopened with new Q7
notice to the affected parties of record as of August 4, 1999: AND, BE IT
FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be maited to Ronald
Se� erson, Greg and Carol Clark, Patricia Leonazd, Laurel Frost Mark Vaught, Esq, John ':viiller,
Esq.. the Board ofZoning Appeals, the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Department
of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection.
•
ORiGINAL
Requested by Departmer.[ o::
By:
Form Appr d by City Attornep
sy: 7liCS-�G✓L Iv /7 `(�
Approw_d by Mayor for Senn:s=_±or. cc rn„-,.-= �
Hy:
�?x
sv:
N
Adopted by Couacil: Date �\,_, \n \qQU
—�--T� �
Adonccor. Certi°ied by Council Secr�tary
S. MARK vAUGHT
Anorney At La:e
Su¢e 700
S�x West fifrh Saeet
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1412
(651)297-6400
FAX (651) 224-8328
e-maiL markvaught� woddnetaa.net
August 4, 1999
� r;
'.
��
N
•
Aaron Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Planner
City of Saint Paul, L.I.E.P.
Suite 300, Lowry Praiessional Building
3�0 Saint Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Heritage Preservation File No. 3654
Dear Mr. Rubenstein:
On behalf of my clients, Greg and Cazol Clark, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel
Frost, please consider this letter as an appeal to the City Council pursuant to the
provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code of the above-referenced resolution and the
approval embodied therein, which was passed by the Heritage Preservation Commission
on July 22, 1999. The grounds aze that said approval is not in concert with the provisions
of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paui Legislative Code, is premature, violates my clients' due
process rights, and approves an illegal use of the property.
Very truly yours,
:��-` � n/�
S. Mark Vaught
Attomey at La�•
•
•
�
. -._ �__�,.��.
i-y _
�
�
�
CITY OF SAI1��T PAUL �
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NUMBER
DATE
3654
22 July 1999
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint
Paui Legislative Code to review building permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or
demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling on
property located at 420 Portiand Avenue within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street pazking by residents of
415 Summit Avenue; there is a rivastall garage and unpaved driveway and pazking azeas; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the
following:
III. New Construction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hill District is to maintain the dishicYs scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be
compatible with the size, scale. massing, height, rhythm, setback, color, material, building eZements, site
design, and character of surrounding structures and the area.
III. B. Massing and Height.• New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height and scale
of existing adjacent structures. Typical residential structures in the Historic Hill District are 25 to 40
feet high. The height of new consmrction should be no lower than the average height of a11 buildings on
" both block faces; measurements should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs.
III. D. Materials and Details: ...The materials and details of new construction should relate to the
materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and
tile; asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture oJ'the preferred materials are
acceptable substitutes. ...Materials, including their colors, wi11 be reviewed to determine their
appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding structures.
III. E. Building Elements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for
a baZanced and complete design. These elements for new construction should compliment existing
adjacent structures ar we11.
III. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile ofnew construcfion should relate to the predominant roof shape
of existing adjacent buiZdings.
III. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and doors in new
construction should be compatible with that of existing adjacent buildings. ...Facade openings of the
same general size as those in adjacent buildings are encouraged. ... Wooden double-hung windows are
traditional in the Historic Hi11 District and shouZd be the first choice when seZecting new windows.
IIZ E. 3. Porches and Decks: Zn general, houses in the Historic Hi11 District have roofed front
�
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 2
porches.... If a porch is not built, the transition from private to public space should be articulated with
some other suitable design element.
III. F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than 5% ouFOf-line from
the setback of existing adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater rhan those of adjacent buildings may be
allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at carners. This happens quite often in the
Historic Hill area and can lend delightful variation to the street.
III. F. 3. Gmages and Parking: Where alleys do not exist, gcrrages facing the street or driveway curb
cuts may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single
garage doors should be used to avoid the horizontal orientation of two-car garage doors.
Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in
rear yrnds. ...All parking spaces should be adeguately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping; and
C�
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
June 24, I999 public heazing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact (findings
#2-4 are essentially the findings in HPC Resolution #2884 granting approval of the 1997 40'-building
scheme): �
1. The applicant seeks approval of rivo designs, one a 36'-long building which requires no variances
to construct and the other a 38'-long building which requires a front yazd setback vaziance in
order to construct the building 16' from the front property line. The design of both schemes is
very similaz to the 40'-long building approved by the HPC on Mazch 27, 1997 (File #2884). The
most significant differences among the three plans concem the site plan: the previously-approved
40' building had a 19.5' front setback and two pazking spaces in the front yard; the proposed 36'
building has a 25' front setback; the proposed 38' building has a 16' front yard setback; and
neither of the two schemes now proposed has front yazd pazking.
2. The proposed buiIding site is a pivotai and difficult site. It is visible &om Summit Avenue, it
abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are lazge buildings to the south and west that
aze close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter
House at 415 Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage
house concept is a reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the following reasons: a) the
site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street pazking for residents of the Winter House;
b) the pazcel has historically been a reaz yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appeazs as a reaz
yazd due to its relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historicaily a two-story carriage
house on the site; and d) it provides a design solurion for a building that is very close to the
Winter House in proxitttity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The
Winter House was built on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent
subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to
surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
�
�
e� -�av
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 3
•
3. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color,
material, building elements, site design, and chazacter of surrounding structures and the
azea."
6. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and chazacter would be related to, but do
not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a
balanced and complete design.
c, Though the side elevation wouid not be pazallel to that of the Winter House, the street-
facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this
block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the rear yazd nature of the site,
the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic carriage
house on the site was located up to the north Qroperty line, and the fact that the only
other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Westem and
Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure(the existing
structure is a lazge, 4-story, brick apartment building with two, two-story front porches
located 18" from the sidewalk while the main building wall is 12' from the front
sidewalk).
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building.
� f. Parking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping. Single garage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of double
doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of
anomalies in design and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district
and its chazacter.
4. Tn addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the
Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design
and materials aze related to and compatibie with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
Winter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than
mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and the development would not have an
adverse impaet on the character-defming features of the site and the area. The building's design
is similaz to the reaz addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate
for a new secondary sttucture. A new building of untelated design and materials wouid detract
from the historic integrity of the site.
5. The following project details shouid be noted:
a. The landscape plans shown on the 36' and 38' building schemes differ; the landscape
plan shown for the 38' building is the correct one and should be shown on both sets of
plans.
� b. The hedge along the driveway and at the front of the building will be alpine currant,
spaced 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5'.
�
HI'C Resolution: File #3654, p. 4
c. The plans call for a basement window wel] at the front of the building that was not
proposed in the 1997 scheme. Current plans show both a 3' x 8' well with a ladder and a
4' x 8' well with a step/terrace. The 3' x 8' option is preferable for the 38' building
with 16' front setback scheme; and
WFIEREAS, though there aze, or may be, zoning issues, legal issues, and other issues pertaining to the
proposed devetopment, they aze not within the jurisdiction of the Heritage Preservation Commission; the
commission must grant or deny appro��al of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code and the district design review guidelines;
NOW, TfIEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that based on the above fmdings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a building permit for either of the two proposed schemes for a new singie
family dwelling located at 420 Portland Avenue, subject to the condition that the front window well shall
be 3' x 8' for the 38' building.
� MOVED BX Benton
SECONDED SY Murphy
IN FAVOR
AG.AII\'ST
ABSTAIN
Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are final, subject to appeal to the City Council within 14
' days by anyone affecied by The decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting appticable
" building and zoning code requiremeats, and does not constitute approval for tax crediu.
•
�
LJ
�
�
�+ - �
Saint Paul Aeritase Preservation Commission
� Case Summary
Re: 420 Portland Avenue, Ronald Severson, Construct new single family dwelling, HPC Fi1e #3b54
24 June 1999
Rubenstein showed photographs and slides of the site and surrounding azea, reviewed the cover memo,
and noted the following details: landscaping would include an alpine current hedge along the driveway
and at the front, planted 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5; new to these plans is a front
window we11 for a basement bedroom (of rockfaced block, 3' x 8' with a ladder or 4' x 8' with a step/
terrace); the materials and details are t(�e same as those specified for the previously-apptoved plan.
Errigo: why is the HPC looking at this again? Rubenstein responded.
Younkin recused himself from participating in the case.
Ron Severson: bought the land in 199b. Previous City Council approval for a building on the lot did not
include a variance. Asking for HPC approval of both plans; the 38' building is preferable—it is more
centered on the lot. Both proposals provide two parking spaces for (each ofl the other three units in
415 Summit and have four singie gazage doors. Am willing to modify the designs if necessary.
Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland: live in first floor unit overlooking the site; have always assumed
something would be built here. Supported the 1997 proposal and support the current proposal. I
� suggested the west elevation bay and like it—it adds visual interest. Severson has been very cooperative
with regard to the landscaping—has agreed to let neighbors help with its design and maintenance. I prefer
the building to be as close to the street as possible—to maximize moming sunlight to my unit. On(y two
houses on Portland meet the required 25' front setback, which is therefore inappropriate. The rhythm of
the street and neighborhood is such that a 16' front setback is preferable to a 25' setback, but I support
both plans.
Mark Vaught: representing Gteg and Carol Cluk, Patricia Leonard, and Laurel Frost. I am not able to
speak cogently about the project and will therefore ask for a layover. BZA did not approve the variances
for the project that the HPC approved and, on appeal, the City Council upheld the deniaL My ciients
have a]ong standing interest in this property; they have not had fair opportunity to address this issue as
they did not know about this meeting until this past Tuesday afrer 6:00 p.m. I know of no affirmative
obligation to notify (neighbors or affected parties). I haven't even had a chance to look at the
information. In the interest of faimess, and with BZA review on July 12� there need be no rush to
approve or vote on the matter.
Murphy asked about the 60-day time limit and Heide asked about due process.
Vaught: believe the 60-day limit can be automatically extended by writing a letter to the applicant.
Errigo: urge everyone to focus on the design review issues and not on other, legal issues.
There was no other public testimony and the public hearing was closed.
�
�
HPC Case Summary re: 420 Portland Avenue, File #3654
Page Two
BeI[us: moved one-month layover (two weeks if necessary); Murphy seconded.
Larson: concemed that 30 minutes already spent and nothing anycne could say affects the design review
guideIines.
Heide: strongly disagee with a tayover; the changes from the plans approved in 1497 aze slight.
The layover motion failed on a 3- 7 vote.
Heide moved approval of both proposed designs; Hargens seconded.
Bel�us asked for separate votes on each scheme, which request was refused.
Tbe motion to grant approval of a buiiding permit for either scheme passed 9- 1(Bellus).
summary prepared by Aaron Rubenstein
�
� �
U
n
U
�
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECl'[ONS FutiD
ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION
RobertKessle�, Drrecfor
�
CITY OF SAR�iT PAUL
l.'orm Coleman, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Commission
FROM: Aazon Rubenstein ��.
RE: 420 Portland / File #3654
DATE: 21 June 1999
Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a new "carriage" house at
420 Portland Avenue, immediately west of Nathan Hale Pazk. Mr. Severson is seeking HPC approval
of two schemes. One involves a 36' long building with a 25' front setback; this project requires no
vaziances. The second plan, preferred by Mr. Severson, is a 38' long building with a 16' front setback,
for which a front yard setback vaziance would be needed. The Boazd of Zoning Appeals will review
Mr. Severson's variance request on July 12, 1999.
LOWRYPROFESSIOh'AL BUILD/,VG
Suite 300
350 S[ Peter Sveet
Saint Paul, Misu�esota 55102-I S!0
� �ac�
Telephone: 6J7-266-9090
F¢csimile: 651-766-9099
�
�
�
The rivo proposed plans are very similar to one another and to plans for a 40' long building with a
19.5' front setback that the HPC approved on Mazch 27, 1997. That 1997 approval was the resuit of
� � five meetings with the HPC: a concept review in July 1995, an informal concept review in November
1996, an HPC heazing in February 1997, a Design Review Committee meeting in Mazch 1997, and
approval at the March 1997 HPC meeting. The HPC approval was appealed to the Ciry Council by
some residents of the adjacent building at 415 Summit Avenue. The appeal was denied, and the HPC
decision affirmed, by a 6- 0 Council vote on February 25, 1998.
The previously approved pian and the two proposed ptans are compazed in the table at the end of this
memo.
�
The proposed building site is a flat, dirt lot used for off-street parking for the residents of 415 Summit
(the E. W. Winter House). A two-stall gazage was built on the lot several years ago. The
420 Portland lot was formerly the reaz yazd of 415 Summit; it was split off from the 415 Summit lot
in 1990. Owners of the four condominiums at 415 Summit have an easement on 420 Portland which
requires that rivo pazking spaces be provided at 420 Portland for each condominium unit.
Mr. Severson proposes the 36' long building because it requires no variances. He prefers the 38' long
building, however, for the following reasons: a) it provides more living space; b) it provides 9' wide,
rather than 8.5' wide, gazage spaces; c) it is sited 6' further from the Winter House, which provides
more sunlight to the residents of the building to the west at 436 Portland, and d) it has 9 rather than 8
pazking spaces.
A revised landscape plan is shown on the site plan for the 38' building. The landscaping for a 36'
building would be similaz to that shown on the plan for the 38' building and not as shown on the site
plan for the 36' building.
��
HPC, 6.21.99, re: 420 Portland Av., p. 2
�
The previously approved plan had a 19.5' front setback and rivo pazking spaces in the front yard, one
of which was duectly in front of the building. The proposed 38' building has a 16' front setback and
puu the ninth pazking space behind the building rather than in front of it. To the west of the subject
site is a lazge, four story, brick apartment building at 436-38 Portland. The front wall of the building
is set back approximately 12' from the sidewalk and the rivo, two-story porches aze setback 18" from
the sidewalk. This is the only building on the south side of Portland between Summit/Westem and
Arundel.
Please see the attached HPC resolution approving the 40' long building (File #2884) for relevant
portions of the Historic Hill district guidelines pertaining to new construction.
420 PORTLAND AVENUE
COMPARISON OF Tf� THREE SCHEMES
ISSCTE
front setback
- distance from 415
Summit
roofline (all
schemes have
sante approximate
height)
east elevation
west elevation
north and south
elevations—same
all schemes
# parking spaces
front yazd pazking
APPROVED 40'
SCHEME
19.5'
10'
PROPOSED 36'
SCHEME
25'
10'
8/12 hip 20/12 tnmcated hip
(flat deck at
center)
4 windows, paired
4 windows, no bay
3 single windows
7 windows, bay
�
2 spaces
8
none
PROPOSED 38'
SCHEME
16'
16'
I O/12 truncated hip
(flat deck at
center}
4 single windows
7 windows, bay
�
none
.
n
U
/I
�
GENERAL BUiLDiNG PERMIT
DEPARTMENT C{TY OF SAINT PAIiL
t
CITY OF SAINT PAUL r•I 5-`�� �
OFFICE OF LICE\SE, INSPEC[70`:S AA'D � -
E�ViRONME\TALPROTECTiOti �
BCILDhY'G LVSPEC770.V AND DES/G.V �
3�0 St Peter Street - S«ite 300 � PHmjt NO,
��SaearPaul.Mirmesoea5510?-l5I0 6i1-?66-9090 �
oo- ���
�� �� �r, a �. .�° PLAN NO.
� -` DESCRt ION OF PRO ECT �- ^�
OATE 7'�`� g�f OWNER �t'Y�l?Jc� J. ��?�X✓�OrJ
OWNERSADDRESS `T/S c�`G!?�/l'�T #� � G� I {�3"� � �
❑ OlD I TYPE OF /
C�'�1EW TYPE CONST. r%ceC OCCUPAtdCY 5r (r ��f
GRADING STUCCO OR
C�YBUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE
ALTER U REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK
STREET SIDE Cf70555TREETS
�
9
�L�=
WAR
�
LOT
STRUC-
TURE
���ti�
LOT BLOCK
W�OTH I
7L ��
��
WIDTH
.�7�
TED VA�VE
�j,�����
OETAllS & REMnRi
INCI.UDE BASEMENT
l
' _ wv. ,.� ��_ `
s�� )l� � z � 1 � �'��1x�,�-�
��li �c» �`/9- li�� _ �''ih� - el-��' - �3 -�4-�Z4a
ARCHITEC
CONTRACTOq
MASON
FERMIT FEE
OIAN CHECK
STATE
SUFCHARGE
STATE
YALUAT40N
L'
G- �
• '�OTAL FEE
APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL IN�
FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT
Ai,l PERTINENT STATE REGUlAT10NS CASH�ER USE ONLv
ANO C�TY ORDINANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN VA�IDATEO TMIS IS YOUR PERMIT
P�IED WITH IN PERfORMlNG THE WORK
FO� WHICH THI�PERMIT �S ISSUED.
ADORESS J�, ��I _I.A,,, ,SSJO,�
T�ON
IEPTH $IDE l0T CLEARANCE BVILDING L�NE
S'��� ,[/ �✓Jaj/ FROS` AE�
s� �� r� a �
LENGTH HEIGMT STpR1E5
3G � 2�� q �� �
BASEMENT TOTALFLOOfl APEA
�VES ❑ NO SQ. FT. �/�Sb
1 L�
�
June 16,1999
Memo To:
From:
Re:
Aaron Rubenst�, Her tage Preservation Commission
Ron Severson , � �
420 Portland Avenue Carriage House
I am enciosing two copies of the elevations and site plans for the 38 foot
carriage house with the request that this plan be considered for approval at
the June 24�'' meeting of the commission.
I believe you now have copies of the elevations and site plans for the 40
foot carriage house which was previously approved, the revised 36 foot
house which needs no variance and the enclosed 38 foot house which will
be considered for a variance at the July 12�' meeting of the zoning board.
�
It is my hope that both of the plans under consideration can be approved at
the June commission meeting so that I would be in a position to proceed
with construction whether or not the zoning board approves the requested
variance.
Please call me if you need additional information.
��
N
�
�
•
r: �
` _ _ . _ ' -r ' . . . _. .. _ _ .._. ' _ __. _
. _c'—� . _""" " ' � . .
..�.� __ _ _ _ . - . . . . . _. _ . ' . .
� _�
' , r�_ . ' �`""_'"___�_ _ "'__^__
� A ' -t�--- _� •-; -- - -- -----: --- - - -- . - ---- _____.._` __..- ---_
- ��_ �_—=-
-- --r.----=e�= —
='— s _ _�-- ; �-= __"_ -_`O_ - � , ---'N - Ab! ----N2i31S3M-.---. _��-,--�_-- -
�g
� — ' � -�i?: ,� . - - • �e - - - � �--�
� �Lj t •� � i
- . z�= R � -- . ' o
- __�_ —�.Z_� c— � `�' - -- � --- �- � —'_ - - _ — -- ' -- _� _ —
p' �_ g : �
�__ _ _ __. '_ , i, '�: o� `` __' _ � } —'. _'__ _�_ ._ _ _
� . � L �_ ♦ . . �•.�i � ' _ � r� � � �
��..��_ 4 _..`_ —� i'p �= .:`.
r . • lY b ♦ _ . __ _— \ � �.crc —_—�__
i � ♦ ` o _ _ .' .
_.'--. _ �-+ _— - ,� �--- � � r° `�`�' -� � . - - � .. _
.
� - � .-�— .. --•— v . '- ---- - —�— -
------- • . .. ... - • - . - -
- - - -- - - ° ' . v . , . � .
. r � . . . - -`-- �`----
�- . ♦ ; � C'. ____'__-_. . ___ ___ .�__ _'
_ i ♦ � . _ __
_ r : . � �, � - . �
� ; � �,. �` � ' .R
_ ' _ __' "-
�' 1 ... "_ _' _" _" "' Q.- "_ " '__ . -. .
, , _ ' '�. ' _ _ _ _' ' _ -.. . _ _' _ _' ' "" _ _ '
�1> . _
� ' �� ' - �- - ----�--- - - i � ._... _
- � � ' i �� ♦ Q � `,�. ' .. _
� ! � yJ
_ _—�1— �� � ,_V�
---
� � 1 --�� -- — -- - - e - �-- -
' �,,
7 �. _ v ; ' o £� �� � , - - �e -�-- - - --
L�
i p o P �`� ,\ - _J__'.�.___'_
_' —' _'__ ' _ -'____'
. i 'S}7_� _ __ . __... _ '____— ' _ ___'_ _ _ "______—"` __
� . � . +> •� . o �"_— ____
: � ; ' y i � h �'
�
'��_-�—_ -- -� - - -- -- - �---'�_= �� �
.._ ---_- = -=- --- —'
� � � �.
-. . �
-- -� -- � a
�-- ,- �- - - - a --� -- �� - - - -- � �
�' -- - ° ' -_—�
- -- - _ .?-- . -_--- - �
� -- -- -- -� - -- a . _ __�_-_
� -- - - � i
� �— -- — .o. %�';---- -------� -- ---- �-----U
- — � { ' � °' -' - _ _-- `�s _ .g,�Z� 2
� • , 2 } • � —. � -- -
�= � � • �
� � ' �
� � •'' = r `'a � .�, N � �
_ I ---� a -- - °' � o� ,� � .� � - '�
/o
� ° �
�` � � ��
_ f __ _.'� , �� P d>' � �� .
a % � � s �
—ID-_� __ � \y' 2 ,`` • ``� �
�
" _�
O � _ � � � � �`; � _ . _� �
. l ^' � f . ��� ' � �
_ _ __
. �i / � . � . - � Y � . -' � � f = - � __ _ _ __ �
' . ' ` * N / � V �
.. � — — .
O r �
� . . ` re <_��-� _ � -'.N_.O _ _.. ' .� . \� �
Q � T � �- : : - _q ' .r.�,.....� . __.
�o� _ ..r -;.;..._ a
- . 'T' -- � -- .� * i � � � � , a
� d , 's>o.?.,T- �, ` ,. . � , � �
� \ `
. 1 0 � ' �,-_J ' �__
_ _ 1 - ar � _% - -- � --- t. "
�� . l . ae , .. . -
_ � � z .� ; )�
�_ � --• � --
�- �--- ------=� � - _. .- _ ' �
- -- - �. �-�----- ��E1�dC�tl-r__°------- _ _ _
_ � � - �--- _ __�_ _. _ � _.
� �
. i � _ � ,Z � ,.. . � �� i •
� s� � -��
— � ��-- - ��` ( .
"_'_.- '.'�'—__ -' ` " � N (](
� F __" t �S `�� ` _'__ __ ' ' .' "" ____tr ._ ._� H:
�--� V
� � ; ` � �l"�'( _ ,� ':�-., � � S �
Co•.:;.ci1 File
oRI��NA�
Preseated By
Referred To
G:e_z Sh=et
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
•L
2 WHEREAS, Ronald Severson made application to the Heritage Preservation
3 Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73 for a building
4 permit to construct a carria�e-house-Iike structure at 420 PortIand Avenue within the Historic
5 Hili Herita�e Preservation District; and
6
�VHEREAS, on February 27, 1997, the commission conducted a public heazing on the
9
10
lI
I2
I3
14
IS
16
I7
18
29
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
34
40
proposat. After discussion, the matter was laid over and the project was aeain reviewed on
Ma:ch I3, 1997, and finally approved on Mazch 27, 1997. However, the commission,
inadvertently, did not formaIly pass a resolution approving the project until January 8, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on April S, 1997, Gregory Clark, Cazol Clazk and Patricia Leonazd
appealed the Mazch 27, I997, commission decision but elected to enter into negotiations wZth the
applicant in the hope that the applicant and the appelIants might resolve thzir differences; and
WI3EEREAS, the ne�otiations between the parties failed to reach asi acceptabie
compromise and the appeliants requested that tfieir appeal be heazd by the Saint Paul City
CounciI; and
�`T3EREAS, the commission in its Resolution No. 2884 granted approval of the building
permit based upon revised plans incIudin� onIy the east elevation mazked 3C-1, and subject to .
the condition that an appropriate crown moldin� be added above the transom «indows in lisht of
the Historic HiII Heritage Preservation guidelines. In particuIar, based upon the evidence �
presented at the Mazch 27, 1997, pubiic fiearin�, the commission made the followin� findings of
fact:
The proposed buiiding site is a pivotaI and difficult site. It is visible from
Sumcnit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are
Iazge buildines to the south and west that aze close to the property lines.
This Iot can be construed as both the rear yard of the R'inter House at 415
Summit Avenue and as a Iot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed
carriage house concept (and "front yazd" pazking adjacent to Portland) is a
reasonable approach to developin� the pazcel for the follo«in� reasons: a)
the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off=street pazkina for
residents of the �Vinter House; b) the pazcel has historicail}' been a reaz
yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appears as a rear yard due to its
retationship to the Winter House; c) there was historicall}' a two-story
catria�e house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a
buildin� that is very close to the Winter House in proximiry and that is
related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The R'inter House
� - 3.57
� l�Q�s � �
�
U
C�
Cy
2
• 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
� '
6
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4-�
4�
46
7
48
49
0 R! G I N�uilt on a through-lot �vith Summit and Portland frontages; the recent
subdicision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the
�h'inter House to surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height,
rhythm, setback, color, material, building elements, site design,
and chazacter of susounding structures and the azea."
b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and chazacter
would be related to, but do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House.
Individual design elements are integrated for a balanced and
complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be pazallel to that of the
Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular
to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz
yazd nature of the site, and the carriage house nature of the
proposed building, the fact that the historic carria�e house on the
site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the
only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland
between Westem and Arundel) is located closer to the street than
would be the proposed structure.
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house
nature of the building.
f. Pazkin� spaces w�ould be adequately screened from the street and
sidewalk by landscaping. Sin�le gazage doors would avoid the
horizontal orientation of doubie doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the razity
of a through-lot. These sorts o£ anomalies in design and
development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic
district and its chazacter.
In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the
federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an
historic site. The proposed building's design and materiais aze related to
and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
R'inter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is
historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the tw•o; and
the development �vould not have an adverse impact on the chazacter-
definin� features of the site and the azea. The building's desiQn is similar
to the reaz addition of the Winter House w•ith simplified detailing, w�hich is
ap"propriate for a new secondary structurz. A new buildin� of unrelated
desisn and materials would detract from the historic inteerit;� of the site;
and V
� ��
�'—��
1� ...
(b
���✓✓ �
v
2
3
4
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORIGINAL
WFIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Tricia
Leonazd, Greg Clazk, and Carol Clark duly filed with the Council an appeal from the
determination made by the commission and requested that a hearing be held before the City
Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and
`TlHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was set on for 7anuary 28,
1998, but, at the request of appellants' attomey, the matter was postponed to February 25, 1998;
and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 1998, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City
Council, where all interested parties were given an opportuniry to be heazd; and
WHEREAS, having heazd the statements made and having considered the application,
the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the commission, the Council does
hereby;
RESOLVE, to deny the appeal of Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clazk and Carol CIazk on
the basis that their has been no showin� that the commission made any error in fact findin� or
procedure in this matter; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Ciry Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution .
to Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clark and Cazol Clark, the Zoning Administrator and the Heritage
Preservation Commission.
Reques[ed by Department of:
Adcpted by Council: Date I�3����
Adoo:ion Certified by Cow^.cil Se tar
By: �
Apnroved by Mayor: te
By:
Byc
Form Approved by City A[tor.iey
B ��.�' L//1:.�� Y- � �'� 9�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
r �
L
��
oo-� �c�
�
APPLICATIdN FOR APPEAL
Deparlment of Planning axd Economic DevelopmenJ
Zoning Section
II00 Cit}� Ha11 Anner
IS Wes1 Founh Street
Saint Paul, M1Y 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
Address �/s Summ. �ti *E �
City ���_ �� y St.� Zip SJ10 Daytime phon Gi� 37i
PROPERTY Zoning File
LOCATION
�
T.YPE OF APPEAL Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
= Board of Zoning Appeals C�Gity Council
e�nder the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph _
appeai a decision made by the �ii�t�l d'f �,J,
on l��7�/. � , 19�. File
(date of de cis�o�)
Zarting affise us¢ onEy
F���. `l�-IJ7u ?C
Fse ! SA �
Tsntative #teari date:
�� �t3 +c� C� C'euKe`,1
of the Zoning Code, to
� , �- // 3
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
s. G�L- -� 1-h �. �
(l��3 t
A ^ '�
�, � � �J ` / ' � Z_
C �
Attach addifiona/ sheet
ApplicanYs signatu
Date 1/ City agent
�3
�
Appeal of the Board
Reasons for the appeaf:
of Zoning AppeaYs
dated
Navember 8, 1999
on
420 Portfand Ave.
resolution #99-163
The resolution by fhe Board of Zoning Appeals found that my application met the
requirements for a variance on points number five and six but did not meet the
requiremer�ts on points number one through four.
It is my contention that the Board of Zoning Appeals is in error in there findings.
On the findings of facts on points one through four. The Zoning Board
staff concluded,through their evaluation of my request,that I did meet the
requirements of each of the first four provisions as well as the last two. I
believe that the staff concfusions are correet as they are written.
2. Based on the history of action on this lot in which the board in 1990 and
again in 4992 found that this same lot did meet all six requirements for a
variance and did grant the requested variances.
�� X��
�
�-� � 5 ��u�rm� � Ce�. �
•
(�
•• _�
CITY OF SAI\TT PAUL
BOARD OF ZO�'ING APPEALS RESOLUTIO\'
ZO\TI\ FILE I\'UMSER: r 99-163
� DATE 11/08199
��'HEREAS, RONALD SEVERSO\? has applied for a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code pertainin� to the construction of a nen
residential structure that would have a 4-car gara�e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on the
szcond floor ovzr the �arage, in the RT-2 zonin� district at 420 PORTLAiv'D AVENUE; and
�VHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals conducted a public hearin� on October 25, and
I�Tovember 8, 1999, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section b4.205 of
the Legislative Code; and
�VHERPAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals based upon evidence presented at the pubiic
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
1. 77ie property in question can be put to a reasonabte use under the strict provisiau of the code.
A sliehtly smaller building wi!h four parkin, spaces on the first floor and a dwelling unit on the second
floor can be built on the property. A sitz plan for this building �vas approved by thz City Council in March
" 1999.
•` 2. The p1igT:t of the land otivner is not due to circevnstances unique to this property, mid these circumstances
ticere not created by the land otivner.
The size and irregular shape of the lot and the private agreement that requires the property o��ner to providz
parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit are unique to the property and were not created by the present
- property o��ner. However, the present o«ner �vas aware of these circumstances ��hen he bou;ht the
p: opzm�.
3. The proposed variance is ttot in keeping xith the spirit and intent of the code, and is cousistent with IT:e
healdt, safety, con jort, morals and x�elfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St. Paul.
The reduced front yard setback that «ould be allowed by the variance would not provide a reasonable
amount of green space and therefore is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance will in:pair a�: adegt�ate supply of IigJ:t and air to adjacent properry, and will
unreasor:ably diminish estabfished properry values }vithin the surrocuzding area.
The orientation of the building with the side facing Portland Avenue �vould unreasonably diminish property
values within the surrounding area.
5. TJ:e variance, ifgranted, would not perntit mry use that is not permitted under the prorisions of the code for
the properry ii: the district where the afjzcted land is located, nor wozrld it alter or changz the zoning
district classifieation oftlaepropern•.
, 6. Tl:e request for ro•ariance is not based primarily ai a desire to increase the valr�z or incan:e potential of th2
parcel ofla�rd.
Page 1 of 2
2�!
File r 99-163
1Zesolution
I�'O«', THEREFORE, $E IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals that the request •
to waive the provisions of Section 61.101 to aliow a front yard setback of 16 feet, in ordzr to construct a
ne��� residential structure that would fiave a 4-car gara�e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on
the secoad floor over the gara�e, on property located at 420 PORTLAIVD AVE\TUE; and legally
described as Except the Southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, auditor's subdivision #38; in accordance with the
application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zonin� Administrator, is HEREBY DENIED.
MOVED BY: nzorton
SECOl\TDED BY: w;isoa
I1�T FAVOR: s
AGAINST: o
ABSTAIN: z
nI.aILED: November 09, 1999
TI�IE LI�IIT: l�o order of the Board of Zonine Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a
' buildina or off-street parkins facility shalt be valid for a period longer than one
year, unless a bailding permit for such erection or alteration is obtained tivithin such.
period and such erection or alteration is proceedina pursuant to the terms of such
permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the Citc Council ma}� grant an eCtension
not to esceed one year. In granting such exteasion, the Board of Zoning Appeals
may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zontng Appeals are f:nal subject to appeai to the City
Council ticithin 15 da}�s by anyone affected by the decision. Buildina permits shall
not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits hace been issued before an
appea! has been filed, theu the permits are suspended and constructioa shatl cease
until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal.
CERTTFICATI01: I, the nndersigned Secretary tn the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint
Paul, blinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with
the oripinal record in my oFfice; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of
said orivina] and of the sti�hole fhereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint
Paul Board of Zonin; Appeais meeting held on October 25, aad november 8,1999,
and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Encironmental Protection,
350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, hlinnesota.
SAI\T P�UL BOARD OF ZO\I\G APPEALS
_E��,=�.� ��K��
1`'oet Diedrich
Secretan• to tfie Board
Page 2 oF 2
CJ
s�- �
� ���
.,
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
• CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 25, 1999
PRESENT: Mmes. Liston and Ivforton; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Kramer, Scherman and Wilson of
the Board of Zonin; Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorne}•; Mr. Hardwick,
Mr. Beach, and b1s. Diedrich of Che Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental
Protection.
ABSENT: Mmes. Bogen, Maddox *
* Both Excused
The meetin� was chaired by Brian Alton, Vice Chair.
RONALD SEVERSON (k99-1631 420 PORTLAi�� AVENUE: The appticanc is proposing to
construct a ne�.v, residential strucmre that w�ould have a 4-car garage on the first floor, and a single-
family home on the second floor over the garage. The building has been designed to took like an
historic carriage house. In addition to the 4 spaces in the new building, there would afso bz 3 surface
spzces, and 2 spaces in an existin� garaQe, for a total of 9 parking spaces on the site. One of these
parkin� spaces would be for the carria�e house unit, and the other 8 would be for an existin� 4-unit
condominium immediately to che south (415 Summit). A variance for minimum front yard setback. A
#., front yard setback of 16 feet is proposed for the carriage house, a se[back of 25 feet is required, for a
variance of 9 feet.
Mr. Beach showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommenda[ion for approval.
The applicant, Ronald Severson, 415 Summit Avenue #t2, was present. He said he also owns a unit in
the condominium to the south of it. His unit is the one unit that overlooks the parkin; area. His wife
and he bou�ht che property in 1996, with the intent of build'sng a single family house that they were
going to live in and use as the retirement house. They realized, at the time, that there was easemenc for
parkin� on the properry. Each of the plans that they considered has taken that into consideration.
There has always been parking for two off-street parking spaces for each of the other three owners in
the condominium in which he lives.
b1r. Severson continued that there was a question that Tom Beach talked a little bit about, whether or
not it was a legal lot split back in 1990, 6 years before he bought it. That set him back a long way,
bzcause that had to be resolved. And, it's been resolved, so it is a legal buiidable lot. He can build a
carriage house on it. He has developed plans for a 36 foot carriage house. He didn't have a copy of
the packet, but he had aimost all the information from Tom so if he is missing something you'll have to
excuse him. He thinks they have the 36 foot site plan as part of the packet. T'hat's a buiidable plan bu�
it's not the best that can be built on that loc So he's here asking for that variance because he thinks
that wha[ he's proposing will be a better development for that lot, and for the nei;hborhood, and for
the peopte that live in chat condominium.
� He said thac what he's requestine, and he thinks they have the site plan in front of them, - to emphasize
Page 1 of 13
2 2-
- he has Heritage Preservacion Commission approval for this. This building that he's proposing meets •
the requirements for that area. It will be a real asset to that pazticular lot because of the lar;e, 4-srory
brick buildin� thal's next to it. He thinks it will improve the visual - the view actually from the park
laokin; tocvard the lot, because this is a turn-of-the-century, carria�e house. It's archi[ecturally
desi;ned and, as Heritage Preservation Commission has pointed oat, it meets the requirements for that
area and of that type of a carriage house back in the 1900's. Incidentally, there cvas a carria�e house
aimost on that spot at the turn of the century - 2-story high, 32x32. It disappeared sometime, probably
atound the 1920's. So, in a way, they're replacing the carriage house that was there for a good, long
period of time.
He's askin� for a 16-foot front yard: a nine foot variance. For several reasons. First of all, he would
like to increase the size of the carriage house to 38 feet. 36 foot is adequate, as far as meecing the
requirements of the ordinance. But 38 feet would allow the 4 cars that are goin; to park in there to
have approximately a 9-foot space, and would make it easier to maneuver throu;h the parking lot and
into that space.
Part of his easement requirement is that he provides 2, off-street parking spaces. This carriage house
will provide 1 parking spot for each of the 2 people that live in the same condominium that he does,
and the other people alreadp have an existing garage, so chat gives each of them lparkin; space and
then wouId allow another parking space for him when he and his wife move into this carria�e house.
38 feet is not a lot of extra space in terms of tivin� space - about 40 square feet It's still onIy abou[
179 of the total buiidable area, so it's way under the square footage allowed for chat area. I[ aiso
allows - he thinks the maneuverability would be improved because of being able to make a little easier
Nrn into a wider space. �
He's cen�ered the 38-foot bailding on the toc. That aliows for 16 feet between the two buildin;s. And
16 feet between the sidewalk and the front of the building. He thinks the 16 feet benveen che 2
„ buildines is important because of the concerns about space not being so close - not lookin; like iPs
, attached. A 38-foot building also is - both buildings are acceptable by Herita�e Preservation
Commission - but he thinks this is a little better looking building if you were standing in the park
looking coward the parking Ioc It's a symmetrical building with a setback next to the hall�vay being the
same on both sides. It does look better. It's better for the neighborhood.
He also would like to - by moving it to 16-foot front yard setback, he can put a nice parkin� space on
[he south side of that buiiding. The importance of that is for - it's emphasized on Friday and Sarurday
nights when the Universiry C[ub starts parking cars for those patrons on Portland Avenue. Big buiiding
next to it - he believes it's someihing like 14 totat units but only 13 parkin� - off-street, parking spaces.
They depend a lot on Portland Avenue. Maybe one parking space won't make a lot of difference but
he thinks it will. He thinks it's important.
He aIso wanted to point out, if you took at the whole block, the buildin� next to this - to the west of
this - is almost ri�ht on che sidewalk. His bein� 16-feec back, obviousty he's not goin; to block any
view of the park. If you count 8 units on thai block total, wirh 36 Portlaad bein; 2 entrances and
therefore 2 units, only 2 of those buildin�s meet the requirement of 25 feet. 2 of them are less than 16
feet to the front sidewalk, so his building is not going to be on the street. In fact, he thinks it will be
more out of piace if you move it 25 feet back and increase that lawn area.
He has a landscaped plan ihat was developed by 2 of his neighbors. He's worked �c•i�h them on it but �
Page 2 of 13
� �
c�-�a�
• ��hat he's going to do with landscaping, - he's a�reed, before he pnlled a buildin� permit, that he wil]
put 55,000.00 into escrow, under the control of his nearest nei2hbor, k�ho is fr�e fi:st floor directly
across from him and suppor[s this buildin„ to ensure when ali the building is dor.e, there v,•ill be funds
availab]e for landscaping.
They can live with a 36-foot, if thzy have [o. But it's not the best plan. His wife and he have tried
very hard to develop, what they think will be, a really good plaa for this neighborhood. 'Il�at u ili look
the best. They'll have ihe best parking, and the best way of maneuvering on this ]ot. Incidentally,
he'll be providing - each of those spots wili be provided without charge or cost to the other people in
the neighborhood. Because he's obli�ated through easement to provide these. Hz could leave it as an
outside parkin� spot - he'd rather each of them have a stall inside of a garage, for obvious reasons,
because we're coming in[o our winter now. He's offered to do that. Tt's a tequirement anyway. He
offered it way back before they even started on this. Those are his reasons for askin� for the variance.
He thanked the Board and stated he would be happy to answer any questions.
Dfr. Alton referred to a statement about other residences in che area, and he asked if Mr. Severson was
[alkin, about across the s[reet on Portland Avenue, the avera�e setback. Mr. Severson said every
secback - that full btock across the street - on his side, there is oniy one buitding. There's six buildin�s
across the street. Thuse are the ones that he mentioned - only 2 of thzm meet the requirements.
his. Liston had a question she said was relative to the yellow sheet and the staff rzcommendation. On
� the yellow sheet description it says the front yard setback is proposed for the carriagz house. A setback
for 2� feet is required for a variance of 10 feet. In the staff recommendation it reads 16 feet. Mr.
� Severson said 16 feet is being applied for. It was a rypo.
,% Mr. Scherman asked, that those people that come out of the garage that he has there, how do they get
over to 415 Summit. Mr. Severson said part of - there'll be a sidewalk, which isn't put in yet. Mr.
- Scherman asked if they can come out of the back? Mr. Severson said, yes, there's a door so that
they'1] bz able to walk along the front of the gara;e, come out of the back, ar.d a':zn go ri�ht up the
steps. That's the back door to al! of the units, where those steps are. And that wi11 be a concrete walk.
blr. Scherman also asked what a`day lily' was. Mr. Severson said he should ha�e the fandscaper in
the neighborhood, who drew up the landscaping and recommended the plantings and so forth. Mr.
Severson said he didn't know. He was looking forward to seeing it.
Lou Sudheimer came forward and said he lived abou[ 100 feet across the stree[, kicey corner, at 439
Portland. Sort of in front of the 4-story condominium building. He just wanted to refresh the people
that have been on the Board for quite some time, and update some of the people that are new on the
Board. This has been going on for a lon; time, and he's been involved throu;h Historic Hill Homes
�vich the previous owner, as well as trying to supporc Mr. Severson in his endeavors to get what he has
consideced to be an excellent set of designs of carria�e houses, to replace the one that went missing
many, many decades ago. And solve some of the parking problems for the owners of these
condominiums that have evolved over time. The original group of people that kere involved in the
buildin„ for the most part, were 100`� in favor of this. t3nfortunately, there's been some new people
that have come in who began to be aoainst it for reasons that they will have to explain to the Board
shortly. But he just wanted to refresh the group that, when these issues first camz up, there were a
significant number of neighbors who came down and took time out of their day�s co appear in favor of
• this. They, of course, have lost interest and tenacity over time, but the majority' of his neighbors are in
favor of this. There are, as in many nei,hborhood situations, therz is a splic but he ticou]d gau;e that
Page 3 of 13
L4
the preponderance of people are in favor. And just wanted to add his opinion tha[ this plan is better �
than [he plan that Mr. Severson was forced to adopt with a slightly smaller carria�e house, and with
one fewer off-street parking stall, in order to come up with a plan that would require r.o variances.
This plan does require a small variance, but it does provide a significantly, more funccional garage
simation, and it provides an extra stall, which is very critical, even for some of the people that are
objecting to it. It's very unfortunate that a small, well-financed clique of neighbors has been able to
delay this approval, multiple times.
There were no others to speak in favor; Chair then invited those opposed to address the Board.
Mark Vaught, an attorney, Suite 700, 6 R'est Fifth Street, came forward, and stated he represented
Greg and Carot Ciark, owners of one of the condominium units at 415 Summic Avenue, Pa[ricia
Leonard, owner of the unit, and Laurel Frost, who lives in the other building, immediately to the other
side of this particular lot, that they saw in the photos. He apologized in advance if ic happens. He was
carrying a cell phone in his pocket and he has to leave it turned on because he tried a case to a jury in
Hennepin County last week and the jury is out deliberating, as he speaks. And Jud;e Connelly has
required him to carry it. So if ic goes off, he apologizes in a@vance. He's goin; to have �o take a short
delay and answer it and, perhaps, some of the neighbors who are present and other people might, at
that point, make their comtnents, if he hasn't finished his. He hates that when that happens, and he
really hates it when people talk on cell phones in restaurants, and it wouldn't be on if he wasn't
:.. required to have it on. But he knows Mr. Alton and Mc Warner, as attorneys, appreciatz the fact that
' sometimes you simply have to be on call.
bir. Vau�ht said without impugnin� anyone's motives, and he's not doing that, there's been so much �
revisionis[ history thaYs transpired here, both in the StafPReport and what Mr. Severson, and
parcicularly what Mr. Sudheimer said, which is almost all so far off the mark as to be unbelievable. He
said he hardly knows where to start, The one thing that he would like to ask, he doesn'[ l:now whether
he's seen a copy of the staff report, the staff repoR he has does not have the neicher rhe s�aff report ar
the resolution from when this matter was before the Board of Zoning Appeals in 1995, nor does it have
the S[aff Report and/or the Resolution - he apotogized, 1997 he meant - no, 1995, - nor does it have
[he Staff Report or the Resolution that was passed that was before them when this matter was back
before them in April of 1998. And he's presumiag that the Board doesn't have that information either.
Mr. Alton replied that they do have the 1998 Resolution and they do have - on pa�e 21 - and 22.
Mr. Vaught said he thought it was helpful because he thinks, if they look at that Staff Report and that
Resolution, it will help rhem gaide them through this decision because ii is not at all a simpte decision
and it is not at all as simpie as Mr. Severson would have it seem. He feels kind of like Yo�i Berra,
where he shoutd say he feels like deja vu atl over again, over again, over again, over a;ain, over
a�ain. By his count, these two proposals, and there really are two, not that are on your table, but two
that were presented to the Heritage Preservation Commission, and two before the Ciry Council. One
[hat requires a variance, the so-called 36 foo[ proposal, and that doesn't require a variance the 36 foot
proposal, and [hat which does, the so-called 38 foot proposal, and by his rough count, and he could
stand to be corrected on this, but by his rough count, since Mr. Severson has purchased this property,
and ac least 1996, tbose are between the 5 and the 8`" difFerent proposals that he's advanced for this
properry, depending on how you count and how you do the variations, and that reall} is the source of
his taking great exception to what b1r. Sudheimer said. For which you might impi}� if you believed �
wha[ F�1r. Sudheimer said that, somehow, this is back here because chis weli-financed cIique of
Page 4 of 13
Z�
�► r ��il
• nei�hbots keeps bringing it back here. It's back here because Mr. Severson keeps changing his mind
and advancing new proposats to them, thac's why it's back here. Not because of anything that the
� neiohborhood or the neighbors have done. Whether they feel personally offend�d by being
characterized as a well-financed clique, he'!1 leave that to them. But he wants to set the record straight,
in that respect.
. , .
r
But they're not here today because of anything the neighbors did. They're here because Mr. Severson
re-tooled the proposals two more times, afrer the last time he was in front of the Ci[y Council, in
March of this year. So he wanu to go through just a little bit of the history and he particularly wants to
bring the focus to bear on the history of this Body's consideration of that. Because the last two times,
before this, that this plan has been before - a plan has been before his Body for requesting variances,
this Body has denied those variances. And he would submit to them, particularly if they look at the
plan in the 1998, April 1998 time that it was before them, that there's really no material difference
between this particular plan advanced, this particular time, and the plan that they turned down then,
and which turned down, by the way, was upheld by the City Council, not overrurned by them. And
the plan in addition that was before them - in - he's going to say in 1995 - which this Body also turned
down the variance request - that that also did not material]y differ from this parcicular proposal. Now
he doesn't see frankly anythin� that's particularly changed other than Ciry Council accion on Herita;e
Preservation Commission issues, which are not the same as the issues that face [he Board. And Mr.
Severson is simply throwing up another proposal against the wall, after running up against one road
block or another. Now the procedural history, and he says this all the time, and probab]y the reason
he's sayin� it is because he }ust got done saying this to a}ury IS times about how you ought to rely
upon g�our own recollection if it's different than his. But his recollection of this as it's been before you
the last few times, is Mr. Severson put to,ether a proposal that he took to the Hericase Preservation
Commission, and this happened in 1997. That matter was not before the Board because it did not
require any variances. And he wants to pause at that point, because they're goino to hear him say this
a couple times more in his presentation, that proposal did not require any varianczs. If he was
prepared to proceed ��ith the proposal, and advance one that did not require zn} variance, how pray
tell, can staff recommend to you, and how can you adopt a resolucion that says in effect the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the stricc provisions of the Code. Because, quite
frankly, as far as what they do is concerned, he's already put at least 3 or 4 plans fonvard, including
one that's current]y on the Ciry Council agenda waiting a decision on an appeal that comp]ies with the
strict pro�•isions of the Code.
The question really is, reasonable use. It's not whether you want to do it that wap, it's not whether it's
convenient to do it that way, it's does the Code strictly prohibit - iYs a scrict adherence to the Code -
prohibit you from a reasonable use and he would argue that it doesn't. And he w•ould argue that there';
plenry of history to buttress that, and he'd argue that Mr. Severson's own comments today put tfte lie ta
the fact that somehow there's some unreasonable restriction. He himself said to }ou he can live with
the 36 foot proposal. Well, if he can live with the 36 foot proposai, then there's no unreasonable
limitation.
He excused himself because his ce11 phone was ringing, but he came back momentarily and continued.
When the matter was before them in 1995, it didn't materially differ from chis proposal - it was the
same oriencation; it was a big cork in a small bottle. And it's still a big cork in a small bottie. You
turned it down then, and the decision wasn't overturned. In between times, t�fr. Se�erson took a
• complyin; plan, that didn't require your ac[ion throu�h the Heritage Preserva[ion Commission to the
Ciry Councii and the Ciry Councii approved it. But he didn't build it. Instead, he chese to come back
Page 5 of 13
L�
before the Board, in 1997, with another plan which did require variances and uhich they considered at •
that particular point. And he remembers qui[e a bit of [he discussion, as he's sure those of the Board
that were there remember that discussion. And there was a lot of discussion about the fact that the 97
plan didn't materially differ from the 1995 plan and they, in fact, at that point denied it, and you can
see the resolution for themselves. Not the - the 98. He keeps saying 97 and he means 98. 'Ihe 1998
plan that was before them in April 1998 that they turned down, there was quite a bit of discussion about
how chat didn't material[y differ from the p(an earlier and there was no reason to approve. And he
cornmended thern to language that's in that particalar resotution. He knocvs a number of [hem sat here
at that particular point and he guesses he has to say to them that he sees nothing differenc about this
particular plan except iPs one more variation of the same basic plan that doesn't change a whit, as a
matter of fact, from what you turned down in Aprii of 1998. And isn't affected. And so what
happened to tha[ April 1998 decision? It was appealed to the City Council. And che Ciry Council
upheld your decision. Mr. Severson was not allowed to build that April 1998 proposal.
And what happened after that? �`'eli, Mr. Severson then submitted another p[an in May, or later as he
recalls it in 1998, with a smaller carria;e house that didn't require the variances. So that matter
however was turned down - that si�e plan was not approved by tha Zoning Adminiscracor - ic weat to
[he Ciry Council and the Ciry Council ulcimately approved i[. But lets understand two things. They
didn't act to overmrn a decision of yours, because you never reviewed that pian. And the second thing
; that they did is, i[ was a plan that conformed to the Code and didn't require variances �vhatsoever.
" Ei[her one of two things. Either b1r. Severson was being genuine, or he's bein; disin�enuous about
that particu[ar proposal, but it would not have required any variances whatsoever. But did he build
` afrer che Ciry Councit acred? He did not. What did he do instead? He threw up two more pians. The
" one before you, and the 38 foot plan, and the 36 foot plan, which he took to rhe Hericage Preservation
Commission ac the same time. Now, curiously, they approved them both, and they certainly have that
abiliry. He can't tell them that they cadt. It would seem to him more logical that [hey would have said
to him, at that point, you know you've been back here, pal, 15, - 5, 6, 7 times. Pick �chich one of
`these you want, and decide which one you want to buiid, and we'll act on it. But they actually acted on
t'both of them. That decision was appealed by his clients to the Ciry Council and it still si�s chere
'° awaiting the outcome of this decision, because what the City Council said in effect to Mr. Severson was
exactly that - we're not going to buy a pig in a poke here, which one of these tu�o pians do yo¢ want.
Let's gec them all here so we can discuss them all. So he didn'i build that either. Evea the Heritage
Preservation Commission approved it. And it conforms.
So now we're back with the other half of that particular proposal, and he might add, by the way, he
doesn't know what necessarily effect it has, or how it relates, but he might add, if you look on the Staff
Report, in tfiis particuIar case, you k�ill see tha[ this proposal, that's before you today, was submitted in
June of this year. And chac it was prepared ro come to you much earlier than that. �t�'hy didn't it come
to you? Because Mr. Severson cancele@ the hearing. He decided not to have it come fonvard to them
at that particular point. Which he would say, logically, he thinks is an admission that he was perfectly
willing at that point to accept the 36 foot plan that was going through the Heritage Preservadon
Commission and, hence, to the City Council, and it was only back here before them now because the
Ciry Council wouldn't act on the Herita�e Preservation Commission appeal until you had acted on this.
He was not so sure, alchough he might be able to answer that question, where if the Ciry� Council had
gone ahead and acted at that pazdcutar point on the 36 foot proposat tha[ was approved by-[he Heritage
Preservation Commission, [hat he �eouldn'[ have already puiled a baildin� permit for that. He doesn't
know. And nobody knows. And it's terribly confusing to him and he's been involved in rhis issue for •
almost 3 years. He knows iPs confusing to his clients. And if it's not confusin; [o any of them, they're
Page 6 Of 13
27
�� .
much bz[[er a[ this than he is. There's so many of these different proposals tha[ gec thro�tn up. So
. they're back thete now,
` Let's look at the staff recommendacion. There are certain [ests. They aren't immucahle in the sense that
you can'c use your own judgment in deciding whether they've been met or whecher chey azedc. But
they are cer�ain that he thinks, on any rational reading of the facts with respec[ [o his 38 fooc proposal,
h4r. Severson has simply not met the test. In al1 due respect to bir. Beach, and he's knou•n him for a
number of years, he thinks he's simply wrong in the conciusions that he urges upon them. And the
musc egre�ious of which is die first. And that is that the property in question canno� be put to a
reasonable use under the strict provisions o; the Code. ft then goes on to urge you to conc{ude that
he's met this finding, but really talks about preferences, not reasonability. He mi;hc like to do a lot of
things rhat he can't do with his own residence because the Code doesn't let him. But because he wancs
` to do them, in this case, because Mr. Severson wants to add 2 feet to his carriage house, that dcesn't
mean that the Code is unreasonable when the Code says that he can't. And even when he says that he
v.�ants to do that, you have to judge that against the fact that he has submitted another proposal 36 feet,
which does meet.the provisions of the Code, and which he's told you he could live with, Again, thaYs
a ma[ter of preferences. And preferences don't necessarily add up to unreasonableness. Where is the
unreasonably strict provisions of the code that allow him [o do something that would o[henvise would
be reasonable. He's already told you he'll build the 36 foot one, if he has to. So he would argue that,
utterly and completely on the basis on the facts, that tes[ hasn't been made. If he'd come in here and
said, `I can only do 38 feei, this doesn't work with anything than 38 feet, I can't do all the parking
`. spaces that I have [o do, I can't do every[hing else that I want to do unless I make it 38 feeY and if the
Board concludes, then, that the Code requires him to be allowed to build 38 feet racher ehan somethin;
' that complies with the Code, then he might have met that test. But that's no[ the fac[s, and al1 of us
, know ic. He said he'll live with 36 feet and, therefore, he would submit to the Board, cha� that falls,
-, and this request for variance ou;ht ro fall, on that very firsi test.
And � hile they're passing over the issue, he just wanted to make a couple of comments about Mr.
' Beach's other rationale for concludin; that the strict provisions of the Code bar a rzasonable use, and
that is this business about how you can make the parking spaces a little wider. �Veii, you know folks,
there are so many square feei on this lot. And quite honestly, his ciients' objection �o this, from the
very beginning, has been that puttin; any building that even remote]y is like this, isjus[ too big on this
particular lot. Given that Mr. Severson also has the legal requirement to provide all these parking
spaces, which are, in effect, how he must do it, he doesn't have any choice: he's got ro have 9 parking
spaces on this particular lot on the building and on the lot. Well, if you make the carriase house a little
bit bigger so you can make those parking spaces a little bit bigger, iherefore, you make the other
parking spaces a little bit smaller. And so there isn't any more room. This isn't a case where you can
push somethin� and it shoves out somewhere else. The size of the other parking spaces has to be
materially affected in a negative way by increasing the size of ihe parkin; spaces in the carriage house.
By increasing it from 36 feet to 38 feet.
And you also heard that bir. Beach said, and he thinks Mr. Severson repeated ic, that these parking
spaces with the 36 feet carriage house comply with the law. They do comply with the ]a�r, It makes
maneuverin; a little difficult. Well, again, difficult is one thing. Unreasonably strict is ano�her. And
if they comply with the law, either the law with respect to how big a parkin� space is right, in which
case the 36 feec proposal meets that, and there's no reason to vary it, and certainly no reason to
conclude that applying it is an unreasonable limitation. Or the parking requirements «ith respect to
• �vidth are not correct in which case somebody somewhere ou�ht to investigate what the code says and
Page 7 0: 13
Z�
��hether it ou�ht to be changed. But he argues tha[ he ought not to do that on a piece meal basis you
ou�ht to do ii on the basis of followin, the law where you can. He just doesn't think that the parking •
ar�ument with respect to the minimal increase of size in the parking spaces in the gara�e. Good
heavens, there are 4 of [hem in there, If you increase it 2 feet at most, and [hat's assumin� that every
inch of those 2 feet is going to be assi�ned to those 4 parking spaces and he don'c know chac they can
necessari]y conclude thaT, that means tha[ you're going to increase each parking space by the grand
sum total of 6 inches. And he would argue that thaYs not enough to allow them to conclude that there's
some strict interpretation of the Code that requires i[ to be done.
The other item with which he thinks, and some of the other parties and some of the residents will talk
aboac ic, but he thinks the other thin, that caught his eye as he looked through it is the statement that
the variance if granted wouid not permic any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the Code
for the properry in the disuict - so on and so forth- thaYs #5 by the way. And Mr. Beach urges you
upon the conclusion thai the zoning code permits single family house with parking. Well it certainly
does. But the Zoning Code doesn't permit single family houses with parking in the front yard or the
side yard for that matter. Because of the way that this house is orienced, and believe him that was Mr.
Severson's choice, nobody's e[se's, with respect with how he wishes to orient it - you have in effect the
only place on chose 2 blocks on Pordand Avenue where you have parking that is in the fron[ yard. He
would certainly say it's the front yard but at inost it's the side yard and it woald be righc ap againsr che
set back from the streec. Much has been made of the fact that the rest of these buildinas panicularly on
that side are sec up close. But all of the parking for the buildings on tha[ side of the screet is behind the
buildin�. There isn't any of it in front of the buildin�. And there isn't any of it right up on the street,
which is what would be the case here. And he would argue to the Board that the code prohibits without
additiona2 variances, prohibits sideyard parking and it also prohibits front yard parkina. And he �
assumes the Board - he knows they haye - dealt with that issue before. And so he �couid ar;ue that thac
test is also not met on its face. That, blatantly and brutally on its face, there is not a snfficient faccual
basis for you to conclude that because it is not as simple as a one family home with parkin,. It's as
complicated as a one family home with parking in the sideyard and/or the fronryard which is not of the
same character as any other buildine on that particular street.
So - and [hen he just simply wan[s to echo - and he knows that they have and he assumes that they've
read it - because he commends it to them althongh he must say that may be the frst time in the 4 years
that he ever sat on the planning commission or since that he said anything about District 8 and anything
that they said that he thought was laudatory and logical but he does think that in this parcicular case that
they do present some arguments with respect to their recommendation that you deny this. That do in
fact have some logic. And he knows that Mark Voerding wili echo some of those. This is not a
materialIy different matter than the Z other times this was before the Board. It is the essentially the
same proposat. You turned it down the other 2 times. And he argues [hat they ouohc not to be fooled
by somebody saying that the Ciry Council's approved because the Ciry Council has never approved a
p]an for this site that required variances. Not in 1995, not in 1998. They have approved a building for
this, but every one of them has conformed to the strict provisions of the code. So to say that you ought
to do this just because the Ciry Council acted in approving a site plan over the zonine administrators'
objection earlier this year doesn't really compare apples with apples. Because that si[e plan did not
have variances, and Mr. Severson did not buitd that. This requires variances. This is already a
building with the strict provisions of the code that absolutely stretches this lo[. And ro pu[ - to at[ow
these variances as a matter of personal choice, when Mr. Severson has admitted chat he can do it w�irhin
the scrict provisions of the Code, he doesn't think was what the variances was mec to be. hSr. Vau;h[ .
then thanked [he board for their time.
Page 8 of 13
� 1
m-��
• Next, Mark Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, came forward. He said he feels like this is like a piece of
fly paper that keeps sticking. No matcer how you try to ge[ rid of it. I[ doesn't get rzsolved. He said
" he was not part of the well-financed clique. He was there on his own time and at his o�cn expznse to
represent to the Board the position of the Ramsey Hill Association. He's a board member and Chair of
the Land Use Committee.
Before he starts with that, there was one comment that he wanted to make. He said he was actually
qui[e disappoin[ed. He didn'[ know why staff can persist in misrepresencing the fac[s in a part of [his
case. There was no legai lot split in 1990. There was no legal lo[ split in `91, there �c•as no legal lot
split in 1992, there was no legal lot split in his view that has occurred. The Ciry Council approved -
took an action regarding the lot split last yeac That issue is not before the Ciry Council. That issue is
not appealed to the city councii. It was an action that he would argue is arbitrary and capricious and
inappropriate for the City Council to make. That part - his opinion aside - it is a fact that no lot split
occurred in 1990. No lega( lot split. What is a fact is that a) ciry staff person took a rubber stamp and
put a red mark of approval on the plans, signed his name to it, he had no authoriry to do that , he
possibly committed a crime in doing so, certainly his power. A lot split in that instance only under the
code within the power of this body. This body has never taken an action regardin, this lot split. So he
�,�ishes such misrepresentations on this matter would cease.
h4r. Alton, Actin� Chair, stopped Mr. Voerding at that point. He said, 2 thin�s - please confine his
comments to the application to the zoning variance and secondly Mr. Beach did no[ misrepresent any
facc to this Board. The fact of the matter is that a lot split did occur in 1990. You're speakin; of
le�ally approved - that's correct he suspects. And perhaps they can have Mr. �Varnzr eive them an
� opinion on that. But, he advised, please do not characterize Mr. Beach's statement in this, regarding
the history of the case as a misrepresentation. Because that's not true. With respec� to whether you
,' � can accuse someone - a clerk of a crime in 1990 - I don't think that that's relevant.
Mr. Voerding continued his comments. He said that the Ramsey Hill Association con[inues to oppose
this project. First of ail the desi�n contains none of the fe2tures thai are required for a primary
residential structure. Secondly the lot should never have been split from 415 Summit creating this
siruation. And also putting 415 Summi[ out of compiiance with the zoning code. Thirdly based on ]ast
week's community issues meeting, the proposal does not meet any of che requirements necessary to
grant [he variance. And fourthly, the proposal requires sideyard parking for which a variance would
be required and is not being sought at this time. They also remain concerned about the number of
variances requested to maximize or over-maximize the use of property that occur within their district
and they are working toward a review of the Zoning Code to ascertain what amendments if any may be
necessary to allow full use without variances. They continue to work in that direction. And so it
would be - the position of the Ramsey Hill Association, that the Board continue in its denial of the
variances for this project.
Greg and Carol Clark came forward and said they're residents of 415 Summit. b1r. Clark said they
have a 2 car garage that is on the existin� land now. They've been goin� on their fourth year there.
They have not been able to use their garage because of the condition of that back lo[. "Che condition
tha[ i['s in. They haven't been able to use their garage for 4 years. He's hearing about the sidewalk in
benveen the existing 415 and 420 and now a car parked in there. He questions about how they're
going to be able to get into their house in the winter time it's a bloody mess. Any w-ay�s where this
• parking - or the sidewalk and the vehicle tha[ would be parked there - how they would be able to get
into their home now.
Page 9 of 13
3�
Carol Clark said she thinks that when they refer to this sidewalk - that is oa associacion properry and •
hfc Severson's uni[ wouid not be a patt of their association. That sidewa(k does not exist nor have
they tafked about puiting anyrhin, like that in there. So to clear that up. #2 under the Findin;s, the
properry cannot be put to reasonable use. They have offered to bay che properry from Mr. Severson,
they being the association to use if just for the purpose of parking and trying to fieure out something
that would be conducive not only to their building but to the neighborhood and stii! to preserve green
space which has always been a big issue. To have a structure abutting a park, which is some of the
only green space in the neighborhood, they are against tha[. The plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the properry - Mr. Severson knew en[irely what was happznin� with that lot.
He's been the one that's lived in that progerty 415 Summit the lon�est. When Dennis Grozy, the
originat owner and the one who did get the other proposais approved by the Ciry Council, owned it,
Mr. Severson was a�ainst buildin; anythin; there. And he knew what the probfems and what the
issues were with building on that to�. in refrence to having people say that they wouid rather have a
building there and it would make a better view than what 420 Porttand or 430 or whacever the bailding
is next door - have fo the park than what they have. She dcesn't agree with that. One of ihe neighbors
also - and she'll submit this to the Board - has writien a letter. She just faxed it today.
She has concerns about the ligh[ and the value of her property. One day she came home and b4r.
Severson had hired a surveyor to mark off the back lot of his property, In speakin; to the surveyor,
even the surveyor was concerned about the size of the building on the size of the lot. He said he
Y�, couldn't figure out - and again it was his personal opinion - how a building could fit on a lot that size.
.-His concern aIso was in regard to parkin; for the rest of the peopie. He said where are you going to
puc ati che cars and how are they goin, to tum around. Which leads again to their plight with their
garage. They haven't beea able to use it. Now as you see, there's another parkin; spot at the end of it. �
She doesn't know how even if they could use ii - they could back out -[here wo¢id be a car there - or
the 4 car garage that he's proposin;, how they're going to back oui wiih a car at the end of the
, properry. And the other point, the desire to increase his value - the request for variance is not based on
the desire to increase the vatue or income - again, they have offered to buy this from him and do the
' right thin� for what they think is good for the neighborhood. He said that he would sell but he
,` wouldn't sell to them Which she guesses, kind of fits in with this. That why wouldn't he sell to them.
I� would be the most logical thing ro do.
If you look at the drawings that have been submitted she thinks the drawings look like there's a lot
more space back thete than there is - actuatly is. And again, on the drawing it tooks like they could
just back right out of their gara;e, kind of make a u tum and go out the driveway. With a car there,
there's no way - at the end of the other parking space that he's proposing. She doesn't see how they
cou]d do that. And especially if another car was coming out of the garages that he proposes to build.
In his letter, he refers to the site plan with the restricted 9 feet front yard variance improves the
building and the lot and they're therefore asking for the variance. Again she doesn't see how this
improves anything back there. It just adds to what she would say is further coneestion. And then the
parking space that he has at the foot of their garage, her understanding is that it is s[ill considered
sideyard parking in this issue. And then he also refers to the 32x32 2 story carriase house. They've
been at this a long time. And no where has she seen any plans showing that this �eas a carriage house.
She's seen things that have referred to it as an outbuilding. And again 32x32 foot that is a lot smaller
than a 956 sq feet home that he is proposing to put back there.
The last ching she woutd tike to say is again in regards to the improvemen[. If he «•anted to improve •
somethin� back there, she doesn'[ see why it hasn't been done thus far. There's piles of rocks,
Page 30 of 13
�i
�?,�
• nei�hbors complain about how it looks, improving it doesn't have to be buildino some[h:ng back there.
I� could make it ]ook decent to the neighborhood with green space, trees, whatever. He talks about the
S5,000.00. She question the 55,000.00. As far as will it really happen. When the}• boueht, they had a
site plan that was approved by the Ciry Council by Zoning, it showed their garaQe, it shou�ed parking
spaces. It showed paving. That's never happened either. And that's somethin� that the ciry approved.
So when she hears these improvements she really has some ques[ions and concerns. And she guesses
thz last thin� that she would like to say is tha[ the tenants in their - that current]y exist the previous
owners, Linda Meyer and 7im Haugland, they were both against building anythinQ bacic there. And
they were there at least 2 years before Greg and she came which was 96. The previous owner was
Dennis Rosie. Yes he was for it but he was also the developer of ihe structure in the back. And to
finish, she �vould like the Board to come and look if they would at the properry and wha[ he is
proposing, just to see.
Iv1r. Alton, commented that he thought all of the Board has been there.
n1r. Clark added, lasdy, that they are not well-financed. It is a sacrifice on their part.
Chris Yerkes, secretary for the Summit University Planning Council, spoke next. He's 6een involved
wich the planning council since 1992. He doesn't want to look at personalities in this. He doesn't want
to look at whether it's a legal or illegai lot split. That's a differenc issue. He wancs to look at the issue
that's in front of them. He's a little concerned that there's a sideyard parking that is not in front of them
when the plan does call for that. That is not taken up at the same time. He doesn't like to take thin�s
� piecemeal. He's a volunteer with the Summit Universiry Piannin� Council. That's wh}• he's here.
. He's taking time off from work to be before the Board.
Just wanted to outline the letter that they've had. He's assumed tha[ they've looked at [he City code for
guidance for when they authorize and don't authorize variances. Everybody involved - the builder
when he first split, the builder, the current petitioner when he bou�ht it - knew what [he codes were,
= knew what he would have to do and whete he would have to go to have a variance granred. Unless
he's wrong, the section outlined there he has to qualify under all 6 of those, not just 1,2,and 3, but
even if one of those is not taken then he would not qualify for a variance.
At the community issues meeting last Tuesday he presented 2 plans. One that he presen�ed perfectly,
happily. He said I don't need any variances for this. I can build it today. I can start construction
[omorrow. And then he presented a plan with the variance that he's asking for. That makes it fall out
right under number one. Under number Z the plight of the landowner isn't due to his circumstances.
He bought it with the full understanding of what the easement requirements were, and what the lot
looked Iike. #3, keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. He ihinks the code is there and looking
ac #5 and 6 and back at 1, he dcesn't think it is in keeping with the spirit and intent. #4 they took a
neutral point ac the community issues meeting. And he's not speakin� for himseif - he's speaking for
the community. As has been given to him over the past many years, sitting in on communiry issues
meetings on this - you could if you talk about air and li�ht he believes a lot of this looks [owards
buildin� and air shafrs and current downtown buildings and things like that. But if you �i•ant to look at
this particular one, with it further back, it affects the air and the light of 415 Summit. R'ith it further
fonvard it affects 436 Pordand. So they just rook a neutral point on [ha[. {/5 - ic wouldn'[ pernut any
use under the provision of the code. It would certainly affect it. If this variance is granczd it would
� allow parking in the front yard. If there was a 25 feet setback parkin� a car 16 fee� from the front is
requires a variance. #f6 it's not primarily based on a desire to increase the value or income. Whether
Page 11 of 13
�L
it's value but he asked the petitioner himself, why would you like to have tltis variance. He said he
would like to have an extra parking place and he'd like to have extra room in ihe gara�e. You can •
interpret that how you wan[. He thinks thai increases vatue but he did not say that direcfly.
Since thece was no one else [o speak in opposition, Chair invited the applicant to return and answer any
questions.
John b4iller, attorney with Pe[erson, Fram & Bergman, St. Paul, cvho represented Ron Severson in this
mat[er, and has for a number of years on this particalar properry. Mr. Vaught and he have probably
agreed many times on chis, sometimes in hearing rooms sometimes via correspondence, sometimes in
person. Finally there are a couple of thin�s that Mr. Vau�ht said today that he agrees with. First of all,
he agrees that this is deja vu all over. They've been down this road many times before, not only before
this board, but through various subcommittees, and up to the Ciiy Council a number of times on it.
However he does disagree with his characterization ihat each of these visiu to the various ciry boards is
occasioaed by chaages in Mr. Severson's plans. He does a�ree with him also in his comment that chere
appears to be a lot of revisionist his[ory that's going on with the project that's been goin; on for a
number of years - twists and tums. There is going to be some revisionism. You're goin� to look back
and take a look at the same events and reach different conclusions. He could point ouc a number of
areas in which he disagrees with Mr. Vaughts statement of the history of the matter. Buc he thinks that
chac would - is probably not somethin; that this Board's interes[ed in. If they are he'd be happy to do
ic. Alon, with the revisionist history approach, also a number of other irrelevant commenu have been
made today. And a�ain he's not goin� to point those out.
Thz one that he was going to mention, he be]ieves the chair also already has commented on and he S
would concur with his comments with respect to the validity for effect for the lot splic back in 1940.
He's no[ goin, to - it's not his position to give the Board any tegal advice with respecc to that. If there's
further clarifcation he's sure that Mr. Warner would be happy to do thaL He would like to just
commeni in passin� he beiieves that the important thing for the board to do - or he wouId submit that
the imporcant [hing for them to do wou(d be to focus in on the applicacion as it exists today. Try to put
aside the whole long gnarIed and tangied history of this. And took at the staff report and analyze the
staff report on its own merits. He's not goin; to go through point by point 6 criteria �hich have to be
met. Suffice it to say that they agree with the staff s position with respect to each of those points.
He would like to just comment briefly though on the - what is referred to as reasonablz use or the
unreasonableness of it. The phrase reasonable use as used in the ordinance is not a phrase that's
capable of precise definidon. There's probabiy no more single troubling phrase to nail down than
reasonable use. And boards for their varioas municipaliiies develog their own definition and
application of how that phrase is going to be used on a case by case basis. They essentially create their
own precedenE. And it's important he believes - with tha[ in mind tha[ this request the Board Iook back
at some of i[s previous decisions with respect to what constitutes unreasonable use under the
circumstances or if the property can't be put to a reasonable use. To use that precedent. Just by way
of examp(e, he only uses these examples because these are the ones that he's most familiar � ich, he
would submit that the 2 previous requests for variances are not terms of reasonable use that much
differen[ from the request that Mr. Severson is makin; today.
bfr. Severson came forward and said if there were questions he wanted to answer them. I['s really
hard to sit back and have inaccurate information goin� forth. •
Page 12 of 13
3�
6�Y��
Mr. Alton noted that the Board is not going to judge this case based on personali[ies or s�atemznts
• regarding personalities made by either party.
b1r. Severson added that it's probably not real retevant, buc there's been 4 proposals not 8 to 12. He
could list them all for them. They've been changed because of problems that they've had wi�h them.
Like one that had the front yard parkin;. They moved it to the back and had to come back. He only
wanted to - Iohn Miller and himself - if there were questions, he wanted the board to know that he was
available.
There were no questions by the Board, therefore, Mr. Alton closed the public portion of the meeting.
hfs. Morton moved to deny the variance, based on finding !/ 1, the properry can be put to a reasonable
use under the strict provisions of the Code.
Mr. Wilson seconded the motion for denial.
hfr. Donohue stated that he thought i[ was unreasonable to deny this variance based on �he facc that this
building, if it is moved 25 feet back, it diminishes the functional uti]iry of the buildin; co the point - he
thinks that it doesn'[ make sense noc to grant the variance because tong-term it's going ro affect che
value of the condos that are using these units because the gara�e units are goin; to be smaller, less
functional, and the turn around areas. He doesn't agree with denying the variance.
Mr. Wi]son asked, when they speak about the garage area, they're increasin� [he garage by 2 feet.
They're goin� from - they've got 4 spaces in that gara�e. And ]et's say tha[ the walls are 8 inches a
i._ piece. They're increasing that maneuvering that's so minimal. But what you are doin; by inereasing
the 2 feet, as he sees it, you're increasing the size of the units upstairs. He thought that's part of this
argument to get this additional footage. Is to increase the top section of rhis home. No[ the garage.
As far as the maneuvering area in the yard itself, to me that looks like it's going to be pretty tight to
c begin with. So he thinks that as far as maneuvering in the yard is going to be tou;h. But he doesn't see
that argument for increasing the maneuverabiliry in the garage - he doesn't buy it. He thinks it's the
upstairs that's going to add value to the building.
Mr. Donohue responded that he's got a garage right now that if it was 6 inches wider he could pull his
vehicle into it.
Mr. Scherman stated he agreed with what Mr. Donohue said.
h1r. Alcon then asked for a roll call, and the motion to deny the variances passed on a vote of 4 to 2
(Sherman, Donohue).
by:
�
John Hardwick
Approved by:
Gloria Bog�n, Secretary
Paqe 13 of 13
J �
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
1. APPIICANT: RONALD SEVERSON
2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance
3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
DATE OF HEARING:
FILE # 99-163
� 0/25l99
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: P!N # 012823240240 (See file for complete legal descriptionj
5. PLANtJING DISTRICT:
6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZONtNG CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
7. STAFP (tVVESTtGATiO1V AND t2EPOf2T: DATE: 7/6/99 BY: Tom Beach
8. QEADLtNE FQR ACTtON: 12/1 V98 DATE RECEfVED: 6/8/99
A. PURPOSE: The applicant is proposing to construct a new residentiat structure that wouid have a 4
car garage on the first ftoor and a singie-family home on the second floor over the garage. The building
has been designed to look like an historic carriage house. There would be a total of 9 parking spaces
on the property (4 spaces in the new building, there wouid also be 3 surface spaces, and 2 spaces in an
existing garage). One of these parking spaces wouid be for the carriage house unit and the other 8
would be for an existing 4-unit condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit).
B. ACTION REQUESTED: A variance for minimum front yard setback. A front yard setback of 16 feet is
proposed for the carriage house; a setback of 25 feet is required for a variance of 9 feet
C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is an irregular shaped parcei with an area of 5,428 square
=� feet. It is currently used for parking by the 4-unit condominium at 415 Summit (the property immediately
south of 420 Portiand). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on gravei/dirt. The site is located in the Historic Hill Preservation District.
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Single-family and duplex (RT-2)
East: Nathan Hale Park (RT-2)
South: Four-uniY condominium (RT-2)
West: Mulii-family condominium (RM-2)
D. HlSTORY: Since 1990 there have been a number zoning cases for this property:
—!n '! 990 the City approved a!ot splii that split this parcei from north end of the parcel at 415 Summit.
— Later in 199Q the Board of Zoning Appeais approved variances to construct a new carriage house
urtit with a 5 car garage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This was appealed to the City
Courtcil by the Parks DepartmenL The Council upheld the variance but modified the conditions.
' The project was never built
— In 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeafs granted variances fo construct a fwo-unit carriage house with
a 14-car underground garage.
— In 1993 the Board of Zoning Appea( granted a one year extension of the 1992 variances but the
project was never built.
— in 1994 there was a proposal to buiid a two-unit carriage house with a totai of 9 garage stafis under
I'1
\J
�
n
LJ
3s
ar7 a�
the carriage house and in detached garages. Variances were applied for but appiication was
• _ withdrawn before the Board of Zoning Appeals took any action.
in 1995 the Board of Zoning Appeais denied a variance tor a carriage house unit with 3 parking
spaces beneath the unit and 6 other surfiace parking spaces.
— In 1996 Ron Severson, the applicant in this case, purchased the property.
— In '1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a pian similar to the current proposal. The
City Councii upheld this approva! on appeal in February 1998.
— In April 1998 the Board cf Zoning Appeals denied variances for a carriage house with 4 parking
spaces beneath the carriage house and 5 other parking spaces. This decision was appealed fo fhe
City Councii. The City Council upheld the decision to deny the variances. The City Councii also
instructed the City Attomey's o�ce to 400k into the fegai status of the originaf 19901ot split because
that the lot split was approved by staff without a pubiic hearing even though the lot spiit required a
variance. (See attached site plan and BZA resolution.)
— in May 1998 Ron Severson submitted a revised site plan with a slightly smaller carriage house and
one less parking space. This site pian did not require any variances. However, the Zoning
Administrator denied the site pian based on advice from the City Attorney's office that the 1990 lot
split was not valid because the lot sptit needed a variance and a public hearing shouid have been
heid on the variance. Mr. Severson appeaied that decision to the Planning Commission and in
November 1998 the Planning Commission upheid the decision to deny the site plan. Mr. Severson
then appealed this decision to the City Council and in March 1999 the City Council reversed the
decision of the Planning Commission and approved the site plan. The Council said that the fact that
the lot split in 1990 did not follow the required procedures should not prevent approval of the site
plan. The City Council also concluded that, under its authority, it would approve any setback
variance that was required for the lot split. (See attached site plan and Ciry Council resolution)
E. CURRENT PROPOSAI: in June 1999 Ron Severson submitted the current site plan to City staff. it
� cails for a carriage house and 9 parking sQaces {4 in the carriage house, 2 in an existing gar8ge and 3
�, more surface spaces). This site pian is slightly different than the one approved by the Ciry Council
earlier in the year:
A. The carriage house is 38 feet long (instead of 36 feet). This allows a larger dweiling unit over the
carriage house and wider parking spaces in the carriage house.
_ B. A surface parking space has been added behind the carriage house for a total of 9 spaces. This
provides each unit in 415 Summit 2 spaces plus 1 space for the carriage house.
To accommodate these changes the front yard setback has been reduced trom 25 feet to 16 feet. The
reduced setback requires a variance.
The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the current site pian and buiiding plans on June 24.
This decision was appealed to the City Council. The Council decided to defer action on the Heritage
Preservation appeai untii the Board of Zoning Appeals has acted on the variance so ail appeals can be
heard at the same time.
F. FINDINGS: The Board of Zoning Appeals may grant a variance if it meets the foliowing findings:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonab/e use under the strict provrsrons of the code.
The variance meets this finding. The variance will allow the carriage house to be 2 feet longer and
so fhe parking spaces on the first floor of the carriage house can be wider. Maneuvering to get into
these spaces is tight beCause the site is small and the extra width wili make it easier to get in and
out of tfiese parking spaces. The extra width wiii aVso permit the carriage house dwelling unit to be
siightly larger.
• 2. The plight of the land owne� is due to circumsfances unique to this properfy, and these
circumsfances were nof c�eafed by the land owner.
� �
The variance meets this finding. �he piignt of tne iand owner is due to fhe size and irregutar shape •
of the lot and to the private agreement that requires the property owner to provide parking spaces
for the units at 415 Summit. These circumstance are unique and were not created by the land
owner.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent wrth the
heatth, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Sk Paul.
The variartce meets this finding. The intent of the code in requiring minimum fronf yard setbacks is
to ensure that there is some consistency in seYbacks and to provide green space. The proposed
front yard setback is consistent with (and actualiy siightly larger than) the front yard setback for the
large condominium building to the westwhich is the only other buiiding on the biock face. The front
yard woul8 be landscaped and wouid provide adequate green space in fhe fronf yard of the
property. Additional green space is provided for ihe biock by adjacent NaYhan Hale Park.
4. The proposed variance wi!! not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor
wil! it or unreasonably diminish established property values wifhin the surrounding area.
The variance meets this finding. The variance to move the carriage house cioser to the street wiil
improve light and air to 415 Summit Avenue by moving the buiidings farther apart. It will not
enreasonably diminish established proPerty values within the surrounding area since the re(ative(y
small carriage house will be set back further from the front properiy line than ihe large condominium
building next door which is the only other building on the 61ock face.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of fhe
code for the property in the disfricf whe�e the affected land is located, no� would it alter or change �
the zoning district classification of the property.
The variance meets this finding. The zoning code permits a single-famiiy house with parking.
6. The request for variance is not based primari/y on a desire to increase the value or income potential
of the parcel ofland.
The variance meets this finding. The request for variance is based primarily on the need to provide
parking for the dwelling units at 415 Summit as weil as the proposed carriage house unit.
G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: DisYrict 8 Community Council had not sent its
recommendation to staff at the time the staff report was being wriBen. However, in the pasY, Districi 8
had opposed variances for this project.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATlON: Sased on findings 1 through 6, statf recommends approval of the
variance to reduce the front yard setback for the proposed building to 16 feet.
A'fTACHMENTS:
Applicafion
Site plans and elevations for current proposai that requires one variance
Site plan for a proposai that did not need varia�ces and March 1999 City Councii resolution approving it
Site p(an for a proposa( that required 3 variances and Aprii 1998 BZA resolution denying it
Location maps
G \IISERSIBEACH i OhT99153W91638Z5
•
37
�� ��
�
�
APPLICATiON FOR ZONING VARIANCE
OFFlCE OF LlCERSE, L\SPECTIO.\'S, A.\D
Er`�7RO.�:tfEh'TAL PROTECTIO.�' � 8 3� I 4
3�0 St. Peter S[reet, Suite 3I10
Saixt Pauf, hl.�' S5102-1310
26b-9plIS
AP P LICANT
Zoning office use onty
Fi;a r,ur-b=r �� - � � �
FA�: s Z S
Ter,�a5ve *earing date: 7 Z
5=���,;5;. b I• � o�
City agert �
Name �('?1,'� lc-1 lYt}-Y6"^c1^ Cempa�y
Address �/,� o, 1 /'17YY�• { � �-
Ciry.. -�jt._-��,t� Stat=�ZipSS '��Qayt;mePho.^.�Gl�� ����/ 7]
Property int2rest of applicant (owner, coMrect purcfiaszr, etc )_f'1 �11 A„ P��—
Name of owner (if
PI�V a118 z3 2y o�9z
PROPERTY
w� i
Legai descrip0on
(attach addrf�onal she=t itnecessary)
r � �L
Lot size �� NDn S�f • tY • Pr=sant Zoning P; es=nt U;2 �/=�; �i � �
�� � � _
Proposed Use
2
1." Varance(s)r=questad:
/5 � ���vc�.— S �' si�l� �ccµ..l� C�r�����,c, �-<;<<r-z
��i
C2�` r���c �r� � �
2. 4Vha! physical characteristi s of the property przv_nt its being us=_d f�r any of Ch=_ pe�m�t_d uses in you; zon_?
(topography, size and shape of lot, soil conCi�ons, etc )
� ��L� �/
3 Ezplain how the stnct application af the provisons of the Zoning Ordinance w�ulC c=sult in p=_culsar cr ezc=phonal
pracocal diffculUes or exceptional undue harCships
CASY„?R5 USc ON! Y
A Explam how the grantirg of a variance wiil not be a subs;ar�tai d=_tnm>nt
to tne public good or a subs±antial impairmert o` thz intent and purpcs�
of the Zoning Ordmance
. ��_____.-:_:_�-__- =_=____:
: .
addrtional sheets if needed
_ I/
. „�..,.
. _ „c � Li
APPLICATION FOR A ZOIVING VARIANCE �
420 Portland Avenue
Ronald and Mary Severson
Please consider my request for a front yard variance of nine feet for my Iot
at 420 Portiand Ave.
420 Portiand Avenue is a 5,428 square foot Iot, currently surfaced with
gravel and used as parking for the condominium ownars at 415 Summit.
The lot was split off from 415 Summit Ave. and is a separate buildable lot
with Portiand Ave. as the front yard. By easement, the development of this
building site must inciude two off-street parking spaces for each of the
owners of the condominium owners at 415 Summit.
The lot has an irregular shape with a 50 foot front lot line on Portland Ave.,
a back lot line of 90 feet, a �c�est lot line of 88 feet and an east lot line of
55.7 feet. There is no alley access to this lot.
In 1990, the developer who then owned the lot submitted a request to the �
BZA to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carria�e house requirin�
seven variances including a two foot front yard set-back This request was
approved by the Board. In 1992, a second request was submitted for an
expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requirin� additional
variances. This request was also approved. Neither of these proposals �vas
built because of the developer's financial problems.
My wife and I purchased this lot in 1996 with the intent of building a
single-family house for our personal residence. Our plan also includes the
required off-street parking for the condominium residents. During our
efforts to develop an appropriate construction plan, the le�aiity of the lot
split was called into question. On February 3, 1999, the St. Paul City
Council affirmed the legatity of this lot split by passing a motion making
�ZQ P�J:?�S.R Aye. a separate buildable tot. Atthou�h, we can now buitd a
36 foot carriage house on this site with no variances needed, �ve believe that
this site plan with the requested nine foot front-yard variance improves the
buitding and the tot and we are, therefore, asking the BZA for approval of
this variance. •
3�
oo-7do
� A front-yard variance of nine feet will provide a 16 foot front yard. The
carriage house �vould be 38 foot in lenjth with four tuck-under gara�es.
The carriage house would be centered on the lot, allowinj a separation of
16 feet from the main house and providing room for an additional parking
space. This house will cover 956 square feet with 1,620 square feet
allowed. This site plan provides a totaI of nine off-street parkin� spaces
which meets the condominium Declaration requirement of two spaces per
unit and the city requirement of seven total spaces for this lot.
The only other building on this side of the block is a larje three story
condominium with a one foot front yard set-back. Of the seven houses on
the North side of the block, only two meet the 25 foot set-back requirement
and two of the set-backs are shorter than the requested 16 feet. Therefore, a
sixteen foot set-back would not be visually obstructing and would be more
harmonious with the placement of the other houses than a 2� foot set-back.
Since this building is an architectually designed turn of the century carria�e
house which has HPC approval, the view from Nathan Hale Park is an
improvement over the existin� view.
�
`" This architectually designed carriage house conforms �vith the requirements
� for the heritage preservation area and provides the most appropriate plan
that has been proposed far this lot . At the turn of the century, there was a
32' X 32' two-story carriage house located on this property. In effect, our
carriage house replaces this ori�inal building.
�
��
�esol��:=� �,y�� r�g a�rb �ar
3 YRYiANGQS
CITY OF SAINT PAUL �
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONIti'G FILE NUIYIBER 93-026
Dc'1TE" : Apri16, 1993
WHEF2EAS, Ronald Sevecson has applied fo; a variance from che stricc applicacion of ine provisions of
Sections 61.101 of the Saint Paul Le,islative Code penainin� to the construction of a new carriage
house rcith one Qwetlin� unit and addicionat parkin; spaces in the RT-2 zonin� discrict a: 420 Po¢iand
Avenue; and
NHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conductzd a pubiic hearin; on hfarch 23, 1998,
pursuant [o said appeal in accordance wi�h chz requiremenu of Section 6�.205 oi the Le;islacive Code;
ar.d
R`HEREAS, the Saini Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals bas:d apon evideace pres�nt�d zt a':e pnblic
i�earing, as subscantially reflzcted in the minaces, made the following findin�s of fact:
I. The property in qz�esttan can 62 put to a reasonable uce und2r [he strict provision; of thz code.
The irre�ular shape of the lot and the covenant requiring 8 parkin� spaces for thz propecty at 415
Summit Avecue make it difficult to dzvelop the property. Howecer, the orvner hz; no[ explored ali •
options such as constructin� a smaller house or repositioning the hou>e. In 199� variances for a
simitar project were denied but the house currently proposed is slightly larg:, thsn th� house
proposed in 1995 aad has not been si�ifcantly repo;itioned.
Z. T'F.e pli�ht of the land oiyner is nat due to circumstances uniqz�e to t'r.is property wh.ic'r, tirer2 not
crza!ed by the land otivner.
The size and irre�ular shape of the lot and to the covenant that requirzs the property o��r,er to
provide parking spaces for the units at 41� Summit were not created by the present ouner. Hoti�e�er,
the prasent owner was aware of these circumstances �vhen he 6ouehi the proQerry.
3. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent ojthe code, and is not consistent
with the hea[th, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitanrs of thz Ciry of St. Paul.
The proposed development would not provide a reasonable amount of grezn space and therefore the
cariances are not in keepina ��'ith the spirit intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance tiaill inrpair ars adzquate supply of light and air to adjacent property and
unreasonably diminish established property valc�es within the surrounding arza.
Tne location and size of the proposed carria�e house �vould impair an adzquatz supp(}• of li`ttt and
aic to adjacent propeRy. The orientation of the building �vith the side facir.� Por[_nd Acer.ue wou?d
unreasonably diminish propem� values ti� ithin the surrounding area. •
"1'
�
.ri _.�!
•
��. Thz variance, ifgranted, uould not permir ar., u.re that is not perm.itted :�nd_r ti:= pro:isior.s of [h?
code for the properry in the disnict tirhzre the affected land is loca: e� r.or :: o:�!d r: e./ter or chang2
thz aoning district classifica: ion of tn2 property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase li:z value or ir.�am.z potenrial
of the parcel of land.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals thas ine
a?plication to grant variances from provisions oF 5ections 61.101 to aliow a 12-foo� fron� yzrd sz[back
for 4'�e carriage house, a 20-foo[ fronc }•ard secback for [he surface par!:ing, and a 1.2-fooc side yard
setback for the carria�e house on properry loca[ed a[ 4?0 Portland Avenee and lzgally described as (See
At[achment); in accordance with the applica[ion for variance and the sice plan on file wih the Zoning
Administracor is hereby denied.
MOVED BY:
SECONDED BY:
IN FAVOR:
AGAINST:
, `LAII,ED:
APPE9L: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the
City Council �sithin 13 days by anyone affected by the decision. $uilding
permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits hace
been issued bet'ore an appeal has 6een filed, then the permits are stispended
and construction shall cease untIl the City Council has made a t'inal
determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATIO\: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City oF
Saint Paul, blinnesota, do hereby certify that I fiave compared the foregoing
copy �rith ihe or aoinal record in my office; and find the same to be a true
and correct copp of said ori; nal and of the �vhole thereoP, as bued on
approved minutes of the Saint Paul &oard of Zoaing AppeaLs meeting held
on biarch 23, 1993, and on tecord in the Office of License Inspection and
Enr�ironmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, �Sinnesota.
S.�T P�LZ B0.-1RD OF ZO`"L\G APPE�,LS
•
Sue Synstegaard
Secretarr• to the Board
A:�94C_SdZA.D�Y � 7�
SITE AtAN REVIEW STAPF REPORT
1. APPLlCANT: RONALD 3EVERSON
2. CLASSIFICA710N: Site Plan Review
FILE # 99-t 17070
DATE OF HEARING: 1/5/00
3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTtON: PiN # 012823240240 (See fi(e for comptete legaf description)
5. PLANNttVG DISTRiCT:
6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZONfNG CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
7. STAFF (NVESTIGATfON AND REPORT: DATE: 12/15l99 BY: Tom Beach
8. DEADLfNE FOR ACTiON: ?J1l00 DATE RECEIVED: 12/3/99
A. ACT(ON REQUESTED: Site plan review. (The current site pian and eariier versions are included in
'; at the end of the Council's packet.)
The current site plan cails for a carciage house and 9 parking spaces (4 in the carriage house, 2 in an
existing garage and 3 more surface spaces). This site plan is slightly different than the one approved by
the Ciry Council in the spring of 1999:
— The carriage house in the current site pian is 38 feet long (instead of 36 feet). This allows a larger
dweliing unit ove� the carriage house and wider parking spaces in the carriage house.
— One surface parking space has been added behind the carciage house for a totai of 9 spaces. This
provides each unit in 415 Summit 2 spaces plus 1 space for the carriage house.
To accommodate these changes the front yard set6ack has been reduced from 25 feet to 16 feet. The
reduced setback requires a variance. The Board oP Zoning Appeals denied this variance in November
1999, This decision was appealed to the City Councii.
The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the current site plan and building plans in June 1999.
This decision was appealed to the City Council.
B. SITE AND AREA CONpIT10NS: The site is an irregular shaped parcei with an area of 5,428 square
feet It is currently used for parking by the 4-u�it condominium at 475 Summit (the property immediately
south of 420 Portland). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on grevel/diR The site is located in the Historic Hill Preservation DistricY.
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Single-family and duplex (RT-2)
East Nathan Hale Park {RT-2)
South: Four-unit condominium (RT-2)
West Muiti-family condominium (RM-2
•
�
C. FINDINGS: In order to approve ihe site plan, the Ci2y shali consider and find that the site pian is
consisfent with: �
'�3
�r . �
•
i
(1)
(2?
(3)
The city's adopfed comprehensive pfan and devefopment orproject plans for su6-areas of the city
The site plan is consistent with the recen8y adopted Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
which encourages construction of housing units suitab{e for "empty nesters° (page 14) and
supports "designs that use the smaAer development sites creative4y" (page 16).
,
�
Applicable ordinances of the Gity of Saint Paul.
The plan is consistent with applicable ordinances except for the required front yard setback.
front yard setback of 16 feet if proposed compared to the required setback of 25 feet. The
property owner applied for a variance but the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance.
property owner has appeaied this decision to the City Council.
�
The
P2servation of unique geo%gic, geographic or historically sign�cant characteristics of the city
and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site pla� is consistent with this finding. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the
plans for the project as being compatible with the historic character of the area. Neighboring
property owners have appealed this decision to the City Council.
(4) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable p�ovision for such ma8ers
as surtace wate� drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, �ight and air, and fhose
aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this �rnding. The site pian is simifar to the one that was approved
by the City Council in March 1999.
"(5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to assure
abutting property andlor rts occupants will not be unraasonabiy affected.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The piacement of the buiiding on the site would slide
the new building approximately 9 feet further away from 415 Summit Avenue.
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation and e/evatron
of structures.
The site pian is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traKc both within the sife and in re/afion
to access sfreefs, including fra�c circu�ation features, the locations and design of ent�ances and
exits and parking areas within the sife.
{8}
�
The s+te pian is consistent with this finding. The current site plan would permit each parking
space in the garage to be 6 inches wider than what was calied for in the earlier approved pian.
This wif{ make them easier to drive in and out of.
The satisfactory availabilify and capacity of storm and sanifary sewers, including solutions to any
drainage pro6lems in the area of the development.
The site pfan is consistent with this finding. Simifar to the previousiy approved plan, drainage wiil
be handied by grading tfie site so that storm water is directed out the driveway to the street.
Su�cienf landscaping, fences, wat�s and pa�king necessary fo meet the above objectives.
� �
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The property owner has an agreement with an
adjacent property owner to spend up to $5,000 on )andscaping along the west properly line. •
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
including parking spacas, passenger/oading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consisfent with this finding.
( 71) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specfied in the Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Control Handbook"
The site plan is consistent with this findirtg.
D. DISTRlCT COUNCiI RECOMMENDATION: District 8 Community Councii recommends that the
project be denied.
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The decision on the site plan depends on whaf decisions the City
Council make on the varfance and Neritage Preservation decision:
— tf the City Councit denies the variance and historic preservation decision, the site pian must be
denied.
— If the City Councii approves the variance and hisforic preservation decision, staff recommends
that the site plan be approved.
G 1USERSIBEACH70M199163sev193} f 107Qspr.�
�
�
T �
ri ir
1. SLT\RAY-BATTZECREEK-HIGHti�'OOD
2. HAZEL PARK HAD: \•DROS°ERITY H1T�LCRcST
3. WEST SIDE
4. DAYION'S BLUFF
5. PAYIv`E-PHALEN
�J
6. NOR"I�-I EA1D
� THO�SAS-DALE
SU�i�iTT-U\�IVERSITY
�VEST SEVE�TH
10.
11.
12.
13.
SY.
1�.
1 b.
17.
CO`�f0
HAMLIV'E-;�fIDSVAY
ST'. A.h'THONY PARK
h.��.RRL��i PARK•LEXLtiGTO\ H.=.'{SLIti�-S:��r r r�;G H n,�
2�L4CALESTER GRO�L4_�'D
HIGHLA.�+�
SU�i`:IT � T
DO�V:r70«:�
`�9-1�3
ZONING F1LF ��
J./ ,
CITIZE` PARTICIPATIO` PLeti1'I:�G DISTP,iCTS
• � • • • • •
: ■ ..0 � �
� � � � �- �
. • g '
� C � 0 O� 0 �
�a�-�-`I ��1.
:�
Po2Yt�rvb �4V. � S
` ° � -�- _ � �
0 0 0
z
O J
O � �¢ O Q
`'[� '
¢Z o �'�lLt (.A�1tJ
�
0
APPLIC'ANT �`"�' `�'� 7� ���D"�
PURPOSE C��V y' Ic.UL� C�'����i�'� OJ�G
FiLE ft J �� DATE_LS�
PLNG. DtST�_ MAP # � �
SCA�E 1' = Z00'
LEGEND
��■ hpc district boundary
////////% . - s . . �- .
0 one tamily
¢ two famify
j,�¢Q muitiple family
n�C oRh�
• . � comme�
� �. � industrial
V vacant
.
`� 7 �t��
���
�. ' -�=-- --; -' � /
� � ,� � �� � � ��' ; � 0 � "� �,
iucs cHV,z=.. I y�� I ' I I y , �" > '� `\
X?4�_ �_ I f 1 _ ` _ Q \ rl r
i i " . ' '_ , _ �'._. _ .. , , � �� " (; v ��
g e . . � . O , �\� .
�� �i °° 50 �Q io 47 a�
� � I ( , ; o � .-
✓ E. � ^�,�\\ /
� � ¢ � Y� � l ? / �
�I I ( I 6 O 0 7 ; �� � �\
� : �.� ��\� � .>
� o lo_0000 � o 0 0 0¢-� o `�� �
IE. r �ry �° -- �+1 � ° �
o °
� o o ¢ -� � � �,� : �= E: � €,_ ., `� � R � �NE �
, ° ° o �� '" �- \ o
� �
Z � �� � � � l
. � ,
�� o
� � ,
� o� c� o a o ,�: �� � � 1 � C) ,L
. ''F l°, C.,� V � ��i�� � �� I i8 �J � C
__�
��t� 1..- — .. : -_.�-.----� —
i z� t � ' � � � G���
� ¢ � , _ S �t -� 2 v v v'v v — —
. � z � 6 � � ��,y �� \ z � � `j /
Q 0 � .4 _ � �/ �.J � �p� � � /
I 57A: £ OFF/�r5 � �� �
� ' o ¢ ��c /
. , . R �, _
!` i i a � .I _ •�\`� '� ,- �
` GlTY- P'LANN(�tG
F.�?�IC,�.n;�r/�
?v�?p�
F i�
Pi.NG. DIST�
�
9 9-/4S
D.4TE _
r.�,^.� ;,.
Sr` � • L"cG_�.�
. .��. ZOniny C�S;ri.;; k• �
�_ _/i % sc�i�= P��?=�i
/ O C�^P_ tz-,:ly
� ¢ r,��� �a�,.;ir
s }
'�"+�Q f�',U�;'�r7�'-��,'"'��
L__ �,�
• ♦ � CJ -?':��
� ,.. �. ic�.:s;� __
�/ � �' a':
.._.._. " ` f
�._��.v��.�.�.�.�4�— _ "._�re'aMi=wwa��as��...�.�—� _ __'
Tr� aVli� . .. . .�r
�-
� LL �Q
O a � �
a _ �Q< z� � �"s - 4 - -
: ��y�i� p� � o � w " -
o > N K U v �`n �: � : w « � 3f1NNtl @dVll'JOd �
_ � —
� � aarrt °
§
_ sW
a°�3a°_x Hrvn3a�s
.� .B .6 .SZ .�
�
I
��
�up f ��
/ �_
wg
� o>
�� 1
o,
Q a a
zm 1
��
�m �
a � ;
o �
m
P s a �
��� 1S/3.00OS -
$ wxo
�2 V� `
Q ��� �
�� .
a � p �t3a<3p rt •
\_�
� =W
;� �
¢a
gffi
�� j ��
��
< `
.S'6Z \
� \
� o f �
@� /
�
i I � I � �
C � � 1 � ��'
' 6U
1 � � ---�� ---� �£
Q , w�
— � �� oc
=
wu
� \ HSYtfl /
�
� � \
\ �i
��
��/
p` � Q �
\
�
�\
7 \ � d 3
° o�
____
�
�
_�
____
I a
, o o�
___ ; oo¢�
� a ��
O
�o
__,
a .�Z
I
I
_ — _ (
m f \
�a� oao�
a `
y o�'l`'
� / �y1
a-,i . ,
C
a
�
i
� i
�.
.
\� \
. y ,
'� \
. �
♦
� i
� ��.
,
,-'����,
/ .O6
� �
/
�i � i
° . . ./ ��_—
> o
� om
� ��
° �i
!
n
/ �
3
C
U
�
�
c
r
O
�
O
J �
a
w
N
�
�
II.
�
CD
C
�3
0
w
C
Q
c
O
�
c
�
._
�
�
�
m
�
U
N
O
C
O
a.
L
G�
N
C
Ar
�
�
4
o �
L �
� �
�-0 v
. n
C c�s'
.� O v
� '� 7
U
av U
�, 1
�N.., `
c 0.1 U �
o v �
•y ci V
. o G
� � �E
U `� � �
> �
.,0.'-� Y 't�
"� � U
- � a
U �
o "! �
� � �
a >
� � o
� .� n.
O c� Q
C3 'i7 �
U ¢ �'
N
y r1y `.�. [/Z�
�
� • •
II� . •
W � N �
> N p
� �a Z COC �� E a
. OC OW � -� � �T
'.� o m -� �^3Z `v s�^ � Yu Q � v'iia
p2 Z� \� WVN \� �U� � 2 � G X �V
�..� Q� 2�� Z� O= O O '-'O C o "
UV1 20 NO YSh Q2� Y9m �Om u]m N�- p t(J -C
�` 1� _� �� � � ���
m
N
m
N
� ,s
3 3
o° o
� � �
. a _
-x
m !� =
N �
P NO <
�
��.
0
NI \
L
O
•
�
�
m
N
�
N
�
N
�
N
IH`li?N
'j�jj"I!f;;,1:;!!i`;!;'iif
` ,;
i� Ii�;F i ;p�iii I :i'i!lie�
I��
„g��,ll i ;
; !
� pOC
� Z 7�
m wc�
: pi-N
U
r fl�a
I � Qi�
�
N
�
N
m
N
m
O
U
V
z I
� 1 ❑ C� C� ~ � _
❑��� �
w � O
I
W I�
_ ( II
w � `^��
Qi�
a r
� "
IH��aH �N'11+:1 { ��
t—. t .,</£ s:—.L �Z � i f
-- ii. \:/
2� DI 4.
NI N� i/�j �
`'�' —$— ! .�
� :
j I � �
0 Y
� � � ��C � �� E m
W O Z ZOIi � � E ��a
w Cn mv o . a - in3Z �,n ��n � m dIV c �e �i'c
�
�
Z
O
�
C
>
w
�
w
�
N
�
3
�
y , 3��
r� . �
�
!
z;
o�
_�
C;
>;
":�_
�I
�-- n
N.
�
Oj.-
� I
�
�
i i ��
C�
( � a
NI
�
NI '
�
�
N
,.�
��
i 4 "
{j;
kp
I�
N1
tl 1
li��+�i���i
�• l ,'�'�
I
I !'
I�;f{'i!j;"�
I�III�
I =
❑
Y
N
m
N
�
N
0
��
��
�
�Z
-w
0<
�o
� I
� A I II
�il:
l,l';
�
ZI
�i
r=- f
�I
�
.l.J �
T `
r-- � �I
� �"
� �
in �
�
�� �3
s� .
�
�
�
��
�; i
��
��
�:
� ;:
�
z
4
�
,
O
O
v
�J
J� ��
/ j r�ex'
� TREE
ARROWS �NQICAiE ��
DRAINAGE SLOPE ���`
c��
�\
S�'
m
G�
� .�
�� p �
�� � �
P
Q � OQ �� �� � Q �
� \ Q
/ ,�4'0 ��� i � f
G� Qe' / �
0 4'� Q P�`�� � \ �
/
"'� / CONC. OR --�
ASPHAIT
�+ �PAVEMEN7
.
/ N
��D
�
/ /
EGftESS
wi�vDOw
� /
/ .�
�
�
I /
� � �
�
-- /
` � I
C �� ST \ ` / ,
9,p �y�, � ��o
� � ������
� O`�Q /
PROPERTY UNE
� , fENCEg
w�
?!
J
r
ol
�'
I
�n � o�
oo
� n
�,
� SfTE PLAN
� �„E� - , �-o
PATIO
;� /
PR��OSED
G9RAGE 8�
, LOF7
� \ ; / ��.
/
.� i
. ,,
Q '.
HEDGE — - — -
90.00' � • '
N52°52'25"E
ensEMeNr
STAIftS
PORCH
415 SUMMlT AVE.
z vz sroRY
w00D FRAME 8UILDING
��d5,�v 3�' $�t���r��
—tttrs 4 �o�t,owt�t� 9
���r�5 �
A
�'�T�
9
9p 9 �i F^JG �
\ �'O
a
' � cxisrin�c
� rRe�
�
, � r I ,. S�Q ,
� � � �`�q .
7 I �T
CONC. WALK
' � & 6iEPS w/
IRaN RAIL�NG
� & C�iE
Q cX��6TiNG
� _:_�.CS
i
� �' ;�
�Jlt
�� ��H
� �l h I
— � I � �
— �c– - c�a � �
LL oA �
� O
9� .- ��j _
L"" U
UD ', G'
� � � O
�., o a�i U
J ~ � y
r c° o, �
� � c�' � T
o ( � � � �
a 3 '� � o�i
� � ' �. U � �
� °��° ��°
�.
� � ��
� � � �
.r
o �o N L
�( p. � �
M f �
� � � � 3
� O a. �
� o � ��
�. �
>
°" a o ,�
o � .xZc�:
�
�
�
� o � �
�� m w ra . . .
cxr�ac�
�
� w z Z ��� �Z � m
� O O z 0�` Z C 3 ¢ W
� o� me -o vi"i3z ",n �(n vc < e v '¢
�U � �X Xp W(JN _ 0 O� hQ ..Q V x �
pZ Zr t0< el0 OZO. �¢ V< �' 22 C �U
UN C(� ti CN 76 Q2� Nm Vp Np �� p N-�
I �
� W� �
X
O
W 0X pJ
a a�n o_
�
��
O
=L'
0
�
b
�
N
¢
4
Z
N
b
N
0
N
IN
�S .
m0�
ON�
Z�
Q
1/i� N
�
oz
ai�
W
m
N
0
W
N
m
N
0
N
m
N
m
m
�
�
a
❑o 0
00 0
� � �.�-
r
1H013H �Nr1i3J � 1HOi3H �Nrn3J
„il-.8 .bf�. t-.l ..9/f l�-,L �
�i
O�
4�
N�
-�'`
O I
�
�
>
:�
`f �;
��
w
0
„
�
'� A
J
�
�
w
J N � (tl y�
W Z Z 09� 22 � f0
�O Z C `�
J �S• 9p O O N�i2 �V1 t� � m YU a �D C4
<Z i"'{al O JC JCO �V� NQ O� - O � (JG � J
p_ Z� W« 9 OZd> \ VQ \Q C�� d
UN 6U ^ dN u QSF� ulm bm v�m 4 �� p�( UK
m
�
Z
O
u� m a u
o x o
m �a m
a a u a
�L'
0
�
O
�
N
�
a
N
m
N
N
N
N
N
_
�
�
K
6
❑ 0 C���I
❑oou
o❑a�
❑oo❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
D❑❑I❑
�❑a❑❑�
'❑❑�C�
❑❑�����
nnnn
u u utu
❑ �.� �'�--,
���'u
�����'
u❑❑C�
❑❑Cl�
'�❑I�t❑
z�
0
Q
W
J
�
�
L
>�
0
I
��
�
�
�
�
�7
�
r� �.�
n
u
�
•
z
0
�
<
>
�::
J
W
Y
1--'
N
0
z
✓ ,
�
�
O
ca .
N�
m
N
b ��i�
�
i1114„I�.Il�lillllllu
GL)1).i'�����y �'�
� i: x i t: k N Y
iiu��!��i�l�i ��11�
� P p P
i i � �
� �i i� �• i i �
, 6 n r
. I� .. 1� I� ��
pill'iIL� !�Ip
Hlllll,�:rclil�llllll
4
V�� � U � Y A �I J
�i41.'Il�lli
° uM�ipl
4'��--�e�
N
�1 � � )���a �w
�I �I� �o
!!! !! < II!!i Ui
9! I � il!N ��
�� ������ o
� ��
ui'"''i
�� �`� i:
0
c
�;
,�,.. �j �I
�: . , ,. , �
p;��:;,��;��. O I
�
,:yl�ti�r,� �,� �,,�� ��
��, ,
���,;. ,.,..�,.�,..,�,
0
«
a
�
.
�/ �
�
i! � ��
�
V
�
z
�
�
�
0
0
�
i
�J
�
� �
Z
�
z
�
�
�
J
l:.!
�
Lt.l
J
N
> W
>
�
J
•
�d �
�
'�� ► •
�
� �✓ r .:
�7' � O
< ..
n
a a
�
�
�
� wo a
' > w ^'
p a
y h
0 QQ
I � �
z �—
rv � V 3 (�
m Q `�' �
I � �Z .,Z-.Z
� '
I — — — 8.9XO.Z � � ..
w
i� '
N p
��
� fl � �°�
o s, xo.z & � i
�
8.9X8.Z
S— -
N �
W � �
' io <
0
N
a f
i
I � j
za
0
• I UN
�
>Z8t sZ8�
'° 9
' °
0
� ,
s ��
o�
� o
� Xi
N , o :
a:i
W i
U�
q ————-_�—
� — — — — —
Q
U
o:-—
0
� �,i
i
x,
` �
o.�
x!I
I O .
m 'i
I
5800� Ol :dOIS - ONIdd01 9NOJ 'NIW �� � � '
z im srN�na �vo� c;s;;ais;az ..s s; �Q ,
n „ Fa
a
I i ' so ;
o! or
�:i o n i,
ti�
G� x Z
� � O NQ
� �,� - — _
W
V
Q _ � _—�
v ----- �
?�
, ° o'
x
I � i
°i
� xi
� o�
I �
�
i i rae� yz3z oz8t ,; � —
� 7i3M ,NOONIM SS32393 � I
� I � I
,
� �
C
O
2
0
0
� �
Z
Q
�
�
0 �
QI
�I
~-�
N�
�
�..L.
�
0
1f
�
h
� �
�
, /� .
�. .
! !
� �
� �
�,� �
--�
i
i �
i�
I�
-�-�
�
N
O
<
0
�
Z
Q
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
z�
i�� S �
�Cy s�U
� u' ' `>y `
Z. 2>.-
N,?� pO� �
,�. -F_.i1X J
��
<_ F
J:^ «
V=w n_�;.(J S
I j
�\ \t /
V
Z
Z
0
tl
�' \
_`
2
r
Q
m
�
�
�
�
w
m
�
° c ��
" Z C�
�� T �- �K U
��- U 2 ��� ~ �.-
��_>
�� � � ? 4=1�4�0 �SZm r l
���.G 3 -�,..insa ��
. p= � �n�in�?��> ' G','V f
...v z q�GV`���v <.ijU
- 2` � Oi_ci'u��Of. ZOZ�'.� V
n�@�n C V��N3�5� �a�v�i io
r -
w
C�
Q
�
Q
U
N
W
V
Q
�
Q
U
' � � a
�- U
� � ni °�a v^(IC� h/I ! .l
-Z/t t�-.8 ..ZJL £-.6
0
-i
0
�-�ao
z � =y
UO
Z
-� Oc^
Z` O� -�J
�- ?� �'�<
�i_r s 2ZZ
V=� K
-, T_ h Jf
J _,= =� <��
I
/ i
�
I
rrw �
B �
N
�
�
�
�
0
us
O�
S
v
W
�
Q I I I �
N f i
Z'
O{
�;
V
e
��-
io
Z
'.B � � I D
! m'�
mC l
�
�h � �
4 i� i ,
o� �i�
o�P
�' �7
�
r
� , A =':.
�\.�. o�;�
r,o, �: 1 .,. / �
aReostis ir�p�c�rE �,
pRAl;1AGE SLOPE � [�O p
��
4,� � EXISTIM1iC / j
�� OQ UtACS k
O� Q �}2 ` � _--� !' \
��' 3
� � � 9 � `t
S,� /�
,�C
�
h
�—_.
�/ /
� S• �
. �
/ \ �!
( C�, � /
� CF D
o � :
N
r
�F{�+�Cl�{TM ��l�i�
��\—
' �O
w�
z
J I
Y
F- 1
c
u
G
0
c
4
�
�
W �
�M
O�
O O ( ��
M
N �
� � SlTE PLAN
( i/16" = 1'-0"
f
h•ii-G}�
__.—�-
ASPHALT —�
r PAVchIcNi
_._-� j :� \ .
/
/
-�T
�.� ��ti
L
e� fG �� , � F ���
� �'�O �
0
�' - �ExISTn«;
� TREc"
S`}eN
' <,�
\ 420 �PORTIAND A E. � � �"
�
K� �
/ ��
>
� /
\�i
I��C�I��
TRcE
PA7(0
r+�act-� �
so.eo• a
NEW ARBOP,-
v;TAE iREES
BASEtitc'NT--�
S�hfRS
415 SUMh11T AVE.
2 1/2 STORY
U100D FRr,ME BUIL�WG
� � IP.
� ��� � .� �
��/ �
�
� � p ".I •
� � / O�`" 4r � �
> �O��V` � .' v
/
QVP�� �
?�, �
�•
o , -
/ �� i
� '
Y._ � _ _ _ �� T
=FS W/
R.4ILING
n ,�✓ `
/ �� T ti
�
- � �t � I .�
❑ � ��.J-�,t-q� �,r� � . � � � ° a�
N �
t.J �,J � � 9� � > �
/ l _ �n o
SITE PLAN
i° = t0
,C , � r, � _
>
PORCH
�1 .�'
.Y . � r. ��l
� �. G
f o, a c o
1 i A� " .°
� U �
u !': ^ �
3 T.
� o�^ —° � Q
} f � � ' � � �
� co o .- = i
w r ° �
�r
o `' '3 " �
c o � " (
a y U 3 1
1 c �' '�
! � U �
A � U
o � ?+
° � U
� v° =� a
�
e �
'� V V
O � U
� G �p C
O c. c7
� -�L L
C T _j q �
V n > � 'O
� � O e�
� O "
, 1 C
.p L F ^ .
G 0. � a � G�
p �.�. .. .4 c�s (1� � '
n y N
'�
O � r
N
7 :r f/� . .
i
�n � i
�1i � 1
r 1
U
�
�
�
�
i i
�
(
z
0
r-
4
>
L'J
J
w
F--
( /�
G
w
�
,�a
��
C�
•
�
z
a
�
�
��
J �
L:� _
� II
� �
(+J
� �'
t
��
t' V %
�� . ��I
n
U
�
�
�
�
�
c�
z
O
�
<
>
�
��
_
,--
�
O
Z
(, �
r� �
n
U
�
� �
�
�
z
O
�-
<
>
u
J
L:.:
s
E-
�
O
�
�
:�
�
�
f�Y _ �
•
�
�� �
� ) o
�
� N
� O
��-}\� O
V/
�
Z
< a
� i
� -
� �:
O =
O"
N I .��
u
'? J
��' �K
�
�
�� �
L'
O
' Z
L �
N
I � �
3 0
�
z
<
�
�
0
0
�
a
z
0
U
�::
�
•
��
� �
r� . �
�
C�
.
�:
�..
<
�
�
N
N
O
Z
O
�
4
>
u
h-
N
� b
S .'
F. o
L� '
o�
_�
j ....
���
�
G
J
�
�
, Q
=✓ �
'. �
V
�
�
�
�
�
�
� ��
�� ��
� G
ti
G� �
�� � C 7
" r,
�_.�. C `-- '�.
• � �� y
.p.r� C!7
- -� .
^�f'i L ^
_ � L 7 .:=\
- •" _ N
�=_ �� j
�
�
{j .
�._. ' :.
�
=� _
� � ��
.`
1_ .n ?� r_
�� �_ _
�' `!`: _
V � ( C ' � -- : r
U� rt =.'��.
_� � -
� I '
� ° ! ,.
CI' � '
.n
W
�
� �
J �
•
�
�3 13
E
�
�
. �� �
�
�
d
; ..., ..
i � _ — __ i � d � �
x-�oa = - i` :� ,�
Y� -- - - =
_ � - :
: �,�► -
d� .,�
�
�`
�
z
0
H
�
W
a
�
.� f
�
�
.� ! ! I �
� �
� �
�
�. `" �
. :.: ; .
� r � o � �
,,, � ;.: .
��
�.�. (d �
`� �° �
�
d �
-,—"�...� ci � N
,�,
� � N
wr� �;., � ¢�
� � aa a
Z �+- G
�
I
� �.o �
_� � � � a.
�,�� � �w �
� � �,f � � � q a`
�!:N y � � � �
��
�=.��
N �+•-•
N A� �
� '�� � � �
a � �
G P
•�. � �c' li "f.
Z n. •' � .i �II �
7. �� ; � y� _ t 1�i
� , , � n ,�.� 1--
'f'- ''; ;r;' 1, :.� i
" - �' _ � .
�' I .}~`�
a ib�' i r
b
.t I
� �
1 I
a; r;
''
i
T !
� ;
4`
"
I ;
�
y . .
0' I
1 �
1 ;
I 1
�
S
�: '
1 i
..��-��
Q�
��
�� � T n
W
�
�
��
v �
Y I
�
Q�
�
�-, .
�O
��
�
�z
�
>;
�
�`z
q
�C
��
U
z
Oz
0
�
G
a
W�
� N
r �
� Q
z
� �
�
F--� �
0
�.
u�
^ N
��
VI �
�� �°
� ��
l'
. � . `,4`�J
•F�5rftUN•
'NOTSCE OF POSldC HEARING
ltte Saint Pavl CltyCounctl veill conducy
. a public Wednesday. Jannary 5,
- 20�, at 5:30 p:m. in the City Counc3l
ChamUers; Third �loor, Gity Hall-Courf
House, on-January 6, 2000, to consider
the following cases concerning a new
carria�+e house proposed to be built at 420
Portland Avenue: appeal of Greg and
Cazof Glark, Pataicia Leonazd, and Laurel
FrosC to a' decision of the Heritage
Prese3vation Commission to approve the
design; -appeal of Ron Severspn to a
decis3on of thaBoazd of 7aningAppeals,to
, deny a variance to reduce the required
, , firont yazd setback; and appllcatlon of 12on
Sevexson to revtew the site plati.
- � Dated: Decembec 16, 1999 �
NANCYANDERSON� .� .
- Assistant City Covn� SecFefazp
(Dec. 18) � � '
- . ---81:PADLIEGAT.L�GER=--"
From: Peter Wamer
To: Blakey, Jerry; Mcinemey, Gerry
Date: 4/12/00 10:OSAM
Subject: Agenda Item 43: Severson Appeal, 420 Portland Ave
CM Jerry Blakey and Gerry Mclnemey:
This is a follow up to my conversation with Gerry Mc regarding tonight's Agenda item 43, Ron Severson's
appeal conceming 420 Portland Ave.
1 would advise that you lay this matter over to May 24, 2000 subject to an earlier date if necessary. The
reason for the lay over is as follows: the planning commission will not take up the matter of the neighbors'
appeal of the administrative site plan approval until this coming Friday, April 14. The planning
commission's zoning committee met last week and moved to grant the neighbors' appeal. The zoning
committee's recommendation to grant the appeal will be reviewed on April 14 by the full planning
commission. A party must then appeal the planning commission's decision in order for the Councii to hear
the matter. I am assured by the lawyers for Severson and the neighbors that there will be an appeal to the
Council. An appeal of the site pian approva!/denial wiil allow the Council to consider in one package the
neighbor's appeal of the HPC's approval and Severson's appeals of the BZA and planning commission's
decisions.
Finally, it is possible that the matter could be set for a date earlier than May 24 if one of the parties should
file an appea! soon after the planning commission's decision.
Ifyou have quesfions, pfease call me. PWW
CC: Anderson, Nancy; Beach, Tom; Byrne, Phil
ro
�
� n�.� •
00
�ro�
• o Q„
^. C�
f � �
R �,
�
! � e�o
, C o
A �
m
�
�
O
�
�
.S �nrq��
'��' R�� ��,.
.y l5�fl;,�
i ��i { N�
r
{'�49v
i �
i °}�
� �.. %� ..1r�
i � i� " '
, ! � ��
l � `�'
i
� � � p � i f`,ii
� a{ � ��1���a
e I � "
' . .�� . I.y _—
� 16R
�';Y �i �. ,� y ��... � .
7
i i � . . � : :_ . .
� ��I, �
.Z>•
K � 4�� � , .. c � .
.n.n
.. A4b J �j�I . .. ,
Q'
k.'�'�di`Fi�rfi ia��! .. ���
0
����•��.�� � r �'� e � . ,,,._— � ��
��� �:_
a— � ��.�'�l. /� v f �/�,I�� aaa. t ���
S � i � �M�
��y'ry�� �� � i )� 1 I L I�_ ��� ��"''
Lt� �p II � I
� � � � � �s�` I� U � � � �
� Y
R. '�P�� V ` �' _I�,.�„�,.. -- � -
� . . � �
��e�.�� � � �� F 9 � ;,:
- ; ` '�-
�-' ; � 1 1 �� �T�� ������;
i
� � `` � �� ��1Ws
�� � • �� I � �� � L �������
ppp � ��_ � �
6 � i
� � 4�
, '
��
,
�' �f �',7�`�� � �� � �� � � ! ��I I�� � �,.
1� � , .� 1,. i'�� -{�Ir ilw; �i�n� ,� � ��:
,+� 'V i.V "." i�'�l� 1
� �
�� . t i , , � i � . .. :d�_
:'�
k_
�
�-�;��
�
� / ,``�•\ ' -��,�
� l� �° � � `'ti;� ' /
� r ,.
/ ,- � �
� ' �,�
. ���� �� „
D �I �
�,��� �r���� �,, �- '� � 1 (►�J
��;o�,+�,i "'� �y� �''`� ' �\'S, e � �/�����
� ���s �� . ,
, ' �! � "��,' �'/'/ �
� � '' � i
�'�� �. � ��� ,
�� � � � � ��
I� �� �����'�� �
�,
�� � �. � � �� � . � ,
� � y i � I � � ���� .
,,� ;� � " ���;';I�II��I� ��Ii� 1�����'° ' ��
'<�t
. , , ,� ; �.• � � . � .`� I �
��
,s
,.,
w
����: � �
� P
' .r � ;
�u,. 3 ,��
, ,; F ..
�
��
i
�� I�
1 ��
I �a•�
,� _ �
� �
� j� �� M
ii
♦ � » q�?
. "" ��1►o14rZ�... ' - '! ,�„
/r
�::
�� •
� � -�� „�.,,_.
T '�
_. `4 _/. ,
�+ ���� .
� # v
��i�.. . : ... .. . �.
... � . _. , . _:!
� ��
<E t
EI . ? ,
�ti
i �,; � .:
- �*
,� '� : �
�
�
l. �.N.'�.Y'� .. . .��.
�; `. . .
W .r
' 4�.a,, �
._ . .. ._ _�"� �_ _
d
�� �� � �����
.\
<<
!�' , � � � r,
� ' ��� ��
:.� � '`�., \
�!'
.:
• � ,_
F� � � r���
� pE '
� �
� �
.�
•,;-, �
<� � r
.a � C, � �
` � � P. "/
� L
. �t�i p
/)� l
a. G
: ,���;
, �
�.�. =��
a
�:
�`°� �
� r
,
...: '► �it�� _ °'.
�'/ tA111. ��� .�
�� , �� 'r �� �.` r�.��
� � �_ ��
v� T��� 11il� �. s,�, ��r r �� F9 �i�t 5 i��
�� ������ �P �ii G
� ���,�' '��`
� ^ i ( W� �i��iu
�+w.�. r
�
� �� ��i �. �� � }" �` .a1�� � �,
� �� �
i�.�>+ �� `
�? ,
�>'ai��k,�f��.�l.',�t A�' � � ���,1�'� c i
k
T
��.�i� "'�� •e,t � "' /��� � �� �cflv�i � � 7;
�a°�Y'�Y'��' ��� , � � �
� �.��.�h�����;o
�
� �� r �
'"��`��i� ' � '
��
_ �
.
��' �'l ,/1'� �
R:. �
.. .. _._., . �LL-• � .
���1 t � �
_LI�I�I � ,
i
1
A; , .
� . _ - . ..<z�` ..
_� _ -�_
� °r ` , l
y'. ���
� �
: A ° . '� „��> `
a
,,
,
� �r
� �� � 1 �
� (�,�i;gs� .;�
t�� �,�» �
. �`
�„
i
�;
w\�„ ,�
�r�
u �
o �
�. r
n_ �`
� � '�
� I � a�'
� �
ay:
� �
w.'%
�
� � �
�'., _..� �
wr .
r At:
��f1 ��/ .. _
�i�.,�l�b i, �.l `' r;�:. :
,,c�;
.�,�
,� � � ,
<a fi , ., ,°m�::
� �«'�� ",
-._ , aiC_
:u���+'��'���:;a
.R � _.
::3�` >.r.w� °!: �cx ... .. �
r �� �:.��c�'t�- �
' �` � -',j`- ^ \
,Z'�i• : �` � �".� � � / :
,. ;� / :
� t�
n� v1� � ,1.. .. - ._ i a�"°
�;�. ��`,� r
�- m � r
0.�� • �
�� �A.�1. �i �
j.. �+.-
�� � i�.a_,�:,�. , ,'
��''' �� � -- -" � �
M
�� ..', i ; . .
� \
T . ` ♦ I/ � � i��_ 1
- i ��z ! k� �,. �.ti
�! r � � 1 r� Y. ..
M
� � ��� �� b ��� � � � �'�_
y %' e . . �, �`, � 4�, '
' f �.'7 � . .
; ,. y .
�, � ,� � � � ��;
1, p � i
iI� � `/ ' ���;�' `t ,r'
4 �
��
,,
. F �,�_�:
, �� i �
l
�■
�
�
a� a
?, .
�� I i°"" . a K;. .
�, � � ! �� �- '�' ,
� �t.;��,.j��� �
_
� �: , � ,
r.:��''
i
�
i' fi ���
�� �� e
t- ,�
�� : _ ,
i f A� �
� ,A
' 4
I� �
I � i� J� j� i � t z .
�' ;
i ;.
i( �� � ,
� a�
� � � � �
— �
�
� `�
� �.
��n ,,:� � a �� � - � �
� r;, � :� ,
r � �
!�� �
c< � � : � ,
i :;
� k � �
, 3
,
.
�_m r 1 i��, �� .
�o,.��r,��i r i � �
�
� 1 � � 1
S� s
� `' # �"
4 1
r �C1 1
ry ,`��
., _..
��
' �:
�
i
my
�
�'
fi,
E.
�
'p r
—,�'�I ,�_�.�i�
_ �
� ..! ,'
+�
�,v.2y. .. ._..�.. r. _ .
�4 '
���
! �S
�,�Z�'r
Y � �.� ��' �. � .
s�< Q �� �� \ / .
' � � �'�II'ifr� l � ".
I� i ' �
�. � � � �
� ' i
ii
=- a• - r
1
'/�
�� �
z
�
dw .' ±
! �
�, �,�
4
i
f . +t'. .
a �� ��_.+.— i..�... --
i► .C/ "' __. ,
♦ � - yr,, � ,
���. �,.t�ilt''l�`.�! �w�r".�
��1 ..
Y
/,`. F �p,�.A,�'��� ,:
, �.�i, � �r
",a�,C�f����,�
u
1
�':
_
w
, ` �� ' r .�y..�. . . ...
I
'
,
.$ �� 3t11 ,. ��� .,�
1 FJ �� - ������ ' ���� i � j � \
� j 17��2�'s a9 ��� '
� �� f p � �.�1. �.
� 3 � �3��1 � 9 }� �� �
'..���3-.��{A�F'4'I1 lle�9� � 1�'l�l�i�i �'
� � �. R �°��n,� �,' � 4 �
tr,v�� 1iAw
�,° �.. � �" \\ �'� 11 • N �°� � _ 1i � �
YM15� . � A '+.. ' � .. � � �? .�
! � � .,n,`y"t j �
f�': � . . , ` , .
� , I�'� .
� 'yr , y � ,r, �
Y� � �1�:Li�FIf vj . ,� � � .
l.. � Y T�Y \� �^�_ ...1'.. 7 •.�` .' �..
4 � ��W �� ���1 � ` �.
� ,� � � �I �.�
� ��_ �
�` � ,,M s .� �. � � � �'
� °
,��--" ,/"" or � r � .
�'! V�eltr�•
k �'��� 1 �' %��i �n""e�►�.�Y\ 'r,7li � � � j . �•��
/ � n� , ����
► _.,��ag�'„'� .�> ;;; , ,, �.
,� � ,v, �r ; y .�.
� ,v�
������ . �. . � � � � , v
���iv.z , � A� �
�!-,.�J�.Ii , . � • .
<��
� '� w` ��
I �, �
� � r��
�� �,,. .,
� �:� i a�l. t4 r
�� � N �� �'=�� •
�«�� ����� ���
:o F Gt 9� 1"�.'� � nnd3NEl� _
�� � ��� n,=� ��.
II
� I
I�
P i� , �
�
`� ,� ' g �
��� I �C� �, <;I��,� i��i �.
� �� �, ' h�i � . � � .
� "�-�. � .I ).... � � ' ' f t � !
�� ���• :'� � � �_-9f—'� ..
� �� '�II�� �
� �
�.��n�e��� ,�. �9,'ll��l � "'`�'�� � � ��
.� ;� �. r �r ` � �-s'�
�,,�.�.. .;. �+,; v :; �� �
" ` �� i v��� v
SS« ��% � �� , ,r �
� f '� y ,
. . � , ' .� � <
.'.. .-- i � � �
i i �'
S "'�.
t _ , 1 .
� � � � �
x � � �
, ..f
,
, , �,
� ,
� �a3
P
E ' �
� ' � ry wM
I
�{ 4 � I �
�� ' i a
, ntci c
� �.� Y � e�
;} 5 + �
4 '
fi � $ f A I� _.a,:..,: -
1.� �'��� .:u.^is�i`- ,n.r��` � '
L�' 1 I.pJ1 .... -. ... T
�� � �, > p�.
e�� s. •.<�
� �
'� �.
" . „
— ,�:
,.---- _ _..
—� • �_�.__ _
� ; �=��, :
_ Y �
�._ --= _
� �'f.
✓ I i)
���
� j �l
�t` ��t�l
1 ��I��
I11�)��
�
* -��Nv��
� �r R
, , �,
' � .
J
r ,".5:. �,��,.
� ���,dn�,
� �
, ��
� �
� � ..
j e
��� � + � y �
��
"t..yM �:���'�1
i�
h
a
~ ��� q
y ^
^ �
g
i
�l
���� • .� i ..
�r; " ,�j , ,
�> F t -�
�f;-�_,. ;'4
; a�, , ' . -...«. .. _ :-x�i+.: �, _.
,I� �
\'
: 1 .
� � �'
S � �,
�
� I �:.Ili ��e � !" !f �'�. ����". � .
( �. � . . � � �-w... �•� .
, �' r ,,�. :
f
�Ji� I��_
y � �u
d r� ��'t�
'+���1.1� l � �� 1. _��:.=..
. W y. �A •Y.til 1h it:;�a�
1� �' i AS ' r F L: Mb1A y� ��.j�.� r � ...
.�F..�:;�
/ � � �
�/�,\��
t ` �
�' �
� ., � d e���.
:� ,1�
A .�
��.
; s �' .
�
�
j
� ��,� � �
�`
.,{ � +%
' . � .�
C
t ,� '. � .;;�/! !�J
1 � .
� :�,
� I F I �
� �,\ 1��'; � � .
� � 4 r� ---
�R�� ° �__
�i Tlt c � � � —� � � . .
n
a
0
/
..
} � �' —A �� � � .,...
�
.�_ _
��;
�� �
_�_ _ ,., � '. 'i" --__
�,�.� �
� n,
, ��
., Ji: ,
,�.-� �' ,
' ��
� .-�..L.y ...sk� R�..Q�F� y.,:
l�
� f:
k-"�' �' , F�e' �. �.,? i M,'ti
.., � + " �
. �� "
,�, , .�� ��� �
, ,
' e ,�,r;„ { � -tf �i ��'�
k � �� ��
� � '�i.�,:: v�
, � �. , �, ��;
�i `�� �
_� a ..;s;�
J -_ � �'
;;i al
1�. 4
� t?,�: � �
d
� `,
� i�, ,��
�' �
�
�. � � �''
` �� ,..� � � ,�, i.,,- � -
� ��.r ,:�,�
�
�
t
� t,g
'
� , - i �=-•_.. — n.
_ f � �' '-
,- � _ � �� , .
„
� _�_ ;
- ,�����
� � ���� , � , . �.�,� a. � � �
, --y ,i �.
�.,
i� iS : �.1� :.
� , I `
� � ` � r 1
� � \ If� � .. F� ' �.r
� � `' � i _ "
�Y� at� 1
rta' � ` � + , ii;� , _
a� "���Y k;�-`, Ia_• ;�v
44 'z' r I I �� p� � \ �
�� �� I� `� �
�� � - • ,�,. � �.°"� �
�` . ,�,�_ `.`� ����3
,.
.' ' � -
d; � �y �, \ � � �_ ���' ��
�%� — ' —
_ Tm
_ S�':°� .(,�-1f+
� �
�
�
, = ,• ��
4£ '
✓p-
� ta . . � '.' � ?N � � � a �t ;-.a.� Z
L � rl�... . � .��
F �'" � p" �
,�n �... ir., ;.
i ::�r�'. ' �
;�/:.�
� �°�'/��,—"�'��' i �
�'' �` ' �
� ��. � � �
r
�# Q
�. ,: ; �, :
,
s
;+ ; �� ;
� �. �
t< �;
� GF'
��, � . ( � �M..�i21 � � �*' � . ' '
' 1
�
� / :� �� _
� �✓ � �Illllii .
�
�� �
� � �� .... .
l.., � s,.��;_��.,
, _: T � 1nf�e_F . , .� , �
� � �� �� 18��
,���' � � --�'M,.
I ��
�s ,
:..�rr+�
e.��r R'd
A (
�, � f;,. �
, ��_
_ ,� ,
�� �
u � p2li'�3
�iL11i � , ����i _ .. .
a ',�
� ,
r �
�" '�P�EM:�. ' 7
�
�� — ==
r `
r
, F
e
,
..,
���
�'';
�-,
_ _�,.,�.
-
�,
u ' . -, ��,� �., .
� �^ ` ^�
�� ' � �� �
� � �. - �� 'f ' � . �,' �'�
$� .. � ; ; � �. -.` e�
�K_, Y �
il � �� � ..:�
r , h � ;�
+ r �.
)r �-�. _ -_ �.,, � gt �'� �e � ,
��:� - ""( � � _ ,� {; Y r
�� W � „ a ��
` �! �. � �, .
1
w � M
� � �i. 6
�! �I
I
R� 1`!+
� ;,!
dC� - 7�-�
. . � .. � . . , -..� ---�-�=,�m�e..r—r.
_ ' ' ..��... — - .. . . :,' . .
.,,.. _..., .. . . . . .,. _ _ ,.__ - _ — _
+. 'wyi—� -.�'-.�"�.t��-�_.�..�,�..'_...`..� ' ` ..., � �_.�'.._..�..�...;.
, . '. i�"`.� . � '.�-.,.' N'/�1I� --- N�131-S3'I1A�'� ` ;, .
,., i �j... - _
�1� . . . ,: - ... .. ,.
-- �"+Rp"�, ..,�..,_. .. .._�_ _ � ' . ' .. i�. ���. � ...
- . � �_�,. '� '�,..
-- - ;�::' ' �., -:� - __�:�:• _ _` - : � ._._..
. � N �- -- ._-_ -- ' � � � ,. .,.._._
� �;#°---
' ... � +--- . _�
. . . � ._ � .
. . ,'a�`� . . �`...
� � ,. . .� , . , �..
• �_.__.:_ ._ . �. — ,_� __.•__ i �.� �` . ;' '
r�' • �.�
'..
_ �-.� � ' . .. , . �. L• v "t"" t' — - , - -._ � �,.� -
'_' ti-- ... � . .. , .
.. . ,._... _
.� , '
.. ... .._...r. .
' ` � ___..._. _.__... ..._ ..-,,.��� .-...."'
. �.�T� ` ! � .,\ ,.� i � .,
,d �.. � ,�
.. _ +. � - ~ �� : •
_... -�• -�- ' ....... ...... ... . � ,
:;_
. . w � . _.. .. . . ...
:, ..._. . . .. _._ _. ......-- - - - -..
�. _: �. � ',� . . . � . a__ ... .,.. 'r•. , ...
' ; � , , �-- � _ , • .._ - ------ --.� . _..� .
���, ... �..i � �. -
..,• --
i � i ' . �' � , . . _ . .r_ _. _ _.._.. -.
, .._....,.:' - � • "-'*�` �` ' •
' � � � P _ _ _ . _ .. . �. ; - ,
� -.._. .' . . . .. . "
. . i�---�—•-....._... _. _...�,: .•�.'_"_�.:� - ---e-_• �-_ 'L �.
� - •�-i— -•---• -.� ` ' '� • '��' . .
. ,. •
. .
I ' • -- - �:_-. - — - -.:_ .
9 � • � �,._...,. �...,.__,_,_�
-J'' .- '
� ___:
,.� _. . �.,.� - -_- _. .. . .�. . .._ ._ ' � s �-- ' . �� _ ' :
, . . .. o � � .
; .__, . " .�_.._....... .._... . . : -_.�.. -- - � �... ,..,,,� _
• ci1 .,._:_ _. -- - _.., . _ .. -
1 • . ._ .... -- ^,�,:1� '
: . ` --.. - •
�� --.. .... r:— �---.. ,. .—,--=�-----. ___�___...� !
� . . - , ;_,_ _ �
� • y� % �, �
'-.—. • i � --�- �, fi � �,�,,, - �
, � . �� a' , ,
•'. � � � �• � � ,
� ' \ ti' `C � � .j • . .
� � �
°--�-- • - � �!
� ----.. _
. � , . � N _ , a` ,, �I� ! , • � �
� 'o ♦ � ,
� • �" . : /- ' . � �'' ,�,. �` . •
......... � s '• ;
—..... ..., . __.. �.� � � �� •
� � .
, _. .._.�,i _ ._.. '— ��
_ .� •°•----• ------ .__.-----
.0.. z - . --... " " ;�
-:: .. . ... - -
. ...
._.
...:.tt"3._ . . .. . '" - �----- �..._ _ . _. --
.
:.. _ _�_ _ __� � . • �. . -- . ..
, I . ., .��._" ""_' ' p ,. M ' •. . / �7 . . .
.! �. _— ' •;: � 'o. ._... ,. � . .. . . .
(�j �,�ie�l}�-",:•�,..'._��:':O : " 1
. 1' .` ' .:''.:_....,.... aeF>s«e.y ' • .
� .. , . . y�' . _ �. .� ...:-h3'�. ' �y.� r . .a. .sJP•ti-�. .
}'� . p:;. � � .
. . . 1 � ' ' aL , A�:':'' :. , .�-, ' � � _
1 ••�, _
•T ' � .
1 p _ 1 . �^ .
.. _� , i� . . ar ,°a L__� -- •- .—_ �; .. --
� 1 � , a �� ' � '
. ' • 1 . '
, : _ : � ��...�...........�..JCd�t:��1F � -. .. ..`,�'�_ . - • -
. _ 1� _ ���'..�^ .��....�
.-� ` �..__.'_•
i � .,., r „
,.�. .. , .
�. ' is ..
.. . . T • n... ' _., .
'i �^-.��� ��.�.�'� _ � , . ... ... . . • �
. ;� -- . { _ -.-m .� �%,. , . . ---.- -- - ;� �-Y s 63
1 i A ' � a_ „ � aY__._ N.'-- �-.. A
� 8:
TOTRL P.002
s __ _
% \ : �a� 4 �-�
� rz 'f�
r rb � � � " u Y{ �`+ \ \
��' �u i � �,:
�� �d� � ,�� �\ ��' �� "/i� �.
r l uo � \�� �� 11 �" y+u�
> > � � � ��
�.'s i�� I �r ay;
✓ ; '� ��� ts` ` �
i %�, f � � �ti�A, � .' '� � �
P i a �„ .� .
% y �I
�� �
���� ¢�����u� �. � .�.:.
�''N.� � �� �..,
��� \
y Nli,_ ,�'r' �*
fC i
.�
` � 1.
,� ;
,
a
i
� - � � , ,,: � '
R � �,�I,,j�� i
F
t � ; � `�(, d' t.
? �� i
1 .:�1: ��� ..
'l .:
-
� / � ,. dl�
i _�� � .��. /��.
�I ....� e,7i
i , I
I I �i 7 �j ��
�, �
+� �^ �" �
{ � �
d
I . � r ij� �.:, ��( � � �t ��
� I ��� '� ��� � ' .
i �: �
�
, . . � ����� i� �,
i/ S
.5�� , ;k. , . � ..
Np � { �� i ` �`.'
� M � •,'
t
� ,� .�
,.,
a�
�:.
=, _
_, � . ____ �,
,
e
1
�
nx � «,
�'�r
��%��
< ,
="� w A��y�,pV .� k. 44.�.;.. �' '
�
3 �rs I � ;
,.
�;��; : ,
;r ,
. ;�
�,
�� 1} �� � �,,.� ;
1 �, �, ,
/ A , ,,_ `�`��� f' �►�,I��l� ,; % ' i
�rr 'f tiu��� �� ;
� � �� �, � �
. � ��� - �-- - � � � ' ��,
/ l � I v
i I— .� I
� �s � I�I I �� �--� �
�, ..;�-� c.al
' i ,
I `3 1�
: �, r\\ f' _
� � 9� , -
� ��
� I I �'��
-� .�"' ` ' ,
\ �:,. m
;.,. �� _. -�' ° _.
�F;:'�.`% -. ,.�,,��..--�,�F`
S�,�r�-,�{ _
Presented By
Referred To
Council File # �O ^' 1 e1.�
GreenSheet# ��3�'[q`�
�a
Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson is the owner of properiy commonly known as 420
2 Portland Avenue, legally described as contained in the public files maintained by the zoning and
3 planning administrators and bearing PIN No. 01282324�240; and
4
5 VJHEREAS, the said properry is in the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District and
6 approval by several agencies is necessary in order to obtain building permits in such districts.
7 First, all building permit applications within historic districts require the approval of the Heritage
8 Preservation Commission (HPC). Second, in the event the new construction requires variances
9 from the provasions of the zoning code, authority to do so must be obtained from the Boazd of
10 Zoning Appeals (BZA). Finally, site plans for new construction projects must be reviewed by
11 the zoning administrator. The zoning administrator's decisions may be appealed to the Planning
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
Commission (PC); and
WHEREAS, on or about May 15, 1999, in preparation of constructing a new building at
420 Portland Avenue, Ronald J. Severson made application to the HPC (HPC file No. 3654) for
building permits to construct either a thirty-six_(36) or thirty-eight (38) foot, two (2)-story
structure consisting of a four (4) stall pazking garage on the first floor and a single family
dwelling unit on the second floor; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 1999, Ronald J. Severson also made application to the BZA
(BZA file No. 99-164) far a front yud setback variance of nine (9) feet from the minimum
required twenty-five (25) feet to sixteen (16) feet in order to construct a thirty-eight (38) foot
building [the thirty-six (36) foot building does not require variances]; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 1999, the HPC conducted a public hearing on the building
pernut applications and at the close of the hearing, moved to grant the application as for the
reasons stated in HPC Resolution No. 3654, adopted July 22, 1999 a copy of which as attached
hereto and incorporated as e�ibit 1; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Laurel Frost , Patricia
Leonard and Greg and Cazol Clark (the Neighbors), duly filed on August 4, 1999 an appeal from
the decision in HPC Resolution No. 3654 and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City
Council for tl�e purpose of considering the actions taken by the HPC; and
1�,�, .1, a o0 0
� RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Page 1 of 3
��o°
S
i WHEREAS, the Neighbors appeal from the HPC decision was duly set before the Saint d O- � ° �'�
2 Paul City Council for public hearing on September 22, 1999. On that date, being advised that
3 additional applications and approvals were required before construction could proceed, the City
4 Council, in Council File No. 99-1092, resolved for the purposes of council economy, to lay the
5 matter over unril such time as the need for all variances and site plan approvals for the subject
6 building were determined and either approved or denied so that all appeals relating to 420
7 Portland could be considered in one public hearing. A copy of Council File No. 99-1092 is
8 attached hereto and incorporated as eachibit 2; and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
26
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
WHEREAS, after a series of layovers requested by the parties, the BZA, on October 24,
1999, after first having provided notice to affected property owners was finally able to conduct a
public hearing on Ronald J. Severson's front yazd variance application for the thirty-eight (38)
foot building. At the close of the public hearing, the BZA moved to deny the front yazd variance
application for the reasons stated in its resolution No. 99-163, dated November 8, 1999, a copy of
which is attached hereto and incorporated as exhibit 3; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 1999 and acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 64.206(a),
Ronald 3. Severson filed an appeal from the BZA determination and requested a hearing before
the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; and
WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson also made application for administrative site plan
approval of the thirty-eight (38) foot, two-story building with nine (4) parking spaces [four in the
building, two in an already existing gazage and three surface spaces] although it is not cleaz, fiom
the records of the department of license, inspections and environmental protection the exact date
of such application; and
WHEREAS, in December 1999, the zoning administrator approved the proposed site pian
for a thirty-eight (38) foot building on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2000 and pursuant to Legislative Code § 64300(j), the
Neighbors duly filed an appeal of the decision of the zoning administrator and requested a
hearing before the PC; and
34 WHEREAS, on April 6, 2000, after a series of scheduling conflicts between the
35 appellants, a public hearing was conducted by the PC's Zoning Committee after having provided
36 notice to affected parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Zomng Committee moved to
37 recommend granting appeal. On April 14, 2000, an PC resolution No. 04-28, the PC granted the
38 Neighbors' appeal for the reasons stated therein. A copy of PC resolution No. 00-28 is attached
39 hereto and incorporated as e�ibit 4; and
40
41 WHEREAS, on May 8, 2000 Ronald J. Severson filed an appeal of the PC decision
42 pursuant to SPLC 64.300(k) and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of
43 considering the actions taken by the said commission; and
44
45 WHEREAS, consistent with City Council Resolution No. 99-1042, the Neighbor's
46 appeal from the decision in HPC resolution No. 3654 and the appeals of Ronald J. Severson from
47 the decisions of the BZA in its resolution No. 99-163 and tl�e Planning Commission in its
48 resolution No. 00-28, were consolidated and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§
49 64.206-64.208 and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
p Page 2 of 3
A
`S' �S
Saint Paul City Council on May 24, 2000 where all interested parties were given an opportunity
to be heard; and
4 WHEREAS, having heazd the statements made and having considered the applications,
5 the reports of staff, the records, minutes and resolutions of the HPC (building permits for either
6 36 or 38-foot building), the BZA (variances for a 38-foot building) and the PC (site plan for 38-
7 foot building), the Council does HEREBY;
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
RESOLVE, to:
1. Deny the appeal of Greg and Carol Clark, Patricia Leonard and Laurel Frost
from the decision in FiPC resolution No. 3654 having found no enor in any fact,
finding or procedure of the HPC approval of building permits for either 36 or 38
foot buildings.
2. Deny the appeals of Ronald J. Severson from the decision of the BZA to deny
a variance for a 38-foot building in its resolution No. 99-163 and from the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny site plan approval for a 38-foot
building in its resolution No. 00-28, finding no error in any fact, finding or
procedure in the decisions of either the BZA or the PC; AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, having found no errors in the fact, findings or
procedures of the HPC, the BZA or the PC, the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts
as its own and incorporates herein by reference, the findings and conclusions of the HPC, the
BZA and the PC as contained in their respective resolutions noted above; AND
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
all the appellants, the zoning administrator, the planning administrator, the HPC, the BZA, and
the PC.
O6 —7e'�0
Requested by Department of:
By:
Fozm App by City Attorney
sy: . f"�!-��LS�� 7( I� JC9
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By'
Apps
By:
\` y �� +
Adopted by Council: Date �op �
l
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
�l
OO„" !�
City Attomey's
OAiE Wff111iED
August 1, 2000
GREEN SHEET
N
266-8710
20�� - CAIISCIIt
TOTAL �E OF SIGNATURE PAGES
��
❑ qif 4ii0pEY ❑ OIYtlSAI[ _
❑ wuwcwts�uc�aow. ❑ wuwry�aEaw�ccra
❑ wYORIw��xasr�Mq ❑
(CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council on May 24, 2000, denying the appeal of
Frost, Leonard, and Clark, to the decisions of the Historic Preservation Commission and the appeals of
Severson to the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission, all viz 420
Portland Avenue.
PLANNING CAMMISSION
CIB CAMMITTEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
OF TRANSACTION f
SOURCE
ItSONALSERVICE CONiMCfS MUSTANSWERTHE FOLLOWIN6 QUE57ION5:
Has ihis pe�wNfiim ever wrorketl uMer e coM(act tor Nie deparhn8nt7
YES NO
Hes ihis pereon/firm e�er heen a dty anpbyee?
YES NO
Ooes tAis peieoNfirtn po65e66 a Sidll not nom�allypossesseA Dy arry curte'R city employee?
VES NO
Ic Nis petsoMfrm a �erpe[etl vendoYt
VES NO
fA3TlREVENUE BUD(iETED (CIRCLE ON�
ACiMTY NUMBER
YES NO
(��M
ao -'1yo
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Nancy,
August 7, 2000
Nancy Anderson, Council Secretary
Peter Warner. CAO
Council Session August 9, 2000.
Consent Agenda Item 12. Substitute Resolution
la,�. °l
C�,..�.:a �•-•�-�
��� � 2-.
With respect to Consent Agenda Item No. 12, "Resolution memorializing the CounciPs May 24°
decision denying the appeals concerning 420 Portland Avenue," please substitute the attached
Resolution in place of the draft distributed in the packet. The draft dishibuted in the packet
contained errors with respect to the HPC resolut3on numbers, the notice that HPC staff distributed
and, upon further examination, a couple of grammaticai lapses.
CM Blakey had signed the resolution for submission. Would he do the same for the substitute?
Thanks. If there are questions, please direct them to me. PWW
Council File # Op — � e1.�
ORIGINAL
Presented B}
Refesed To
RESOLUTION
Green Sheet #_( � 3 Q��
1 WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson is the owner of property commonly own as 420
2 Portland Avenue, legally described as contained in the public files maintai d by the zoning and
3 planning administrators and bearing PIN No. 012823240240; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the said property is in the Historic Hill Preserv ion District and approval by
6 several agencies is necessary in order to obtain building permits i such districts. First, all new
7 building construction permit applications within historic distric require the approval of the
8 Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Second, in the ev t the new construction requires
9 variances from the provisions of the zoning code, authority o do so must be obtained from the
10 Boazd of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Finally, site plans for w construction projects must be
11 reviewed by the zoning administrator. The zoning adm� istrator's decisions may be appealed to
12 the Planning Commission (PC); and
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
WHEREAS, on or about May 15, 1999, i preparation of constructing a new building at
420 Portland Avenue, Ronald J. Severson mad application to the HPC (HPC file No. 3654� for
building permits to conshuct either a thiriy-s� (36) or thirty-eight (38) foot, two (2)-story
structure consisting of a four (4) stall pazki garage on the first floor and a single family
dwelling unit on the second floor; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 1999, onald J. Severson atso made applicarion to the BZA
(BZA file No. 99-164) for a front y d setback variance of nine (9) feet from the minimum
required twenty-five (25) feet to s� teen (16) feet in order to conshuct a thirty-eight (38) foot
building [the thirty-six (36) foot uilding does not require variancesj; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1999, the HPC conducted a public hearing on the building
permit applications after h�ng provided notice to affected property owners and at the close of
the hearing, moved to gr t the application as for the reasons stated in HPC Resolution No. 3654,
adopted July 22, 1999 copy ofwhich is attached hereto and incorporated as exhibit 1; and
WHEREA , acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Laurel Frost , Patricia
Leonard and Gre and Caroi Clark (the Neighbor's), duly filed on August 4, 1999 an appeal from
the decision i C Resolution No. 3654 and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City
Council for t purpose of considering the actions taken by the HPC; and
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
1 WHEREAS, the Neighbor's appeal from the HPC decision was duly set before the Saint
2 Paul City Council for public hearing on September 22, 1999. On that date, being advised that
3 additional applications and approvals were required before construction could proceed, the City
4 Council, in Council File No. 99-1092, resolved for the purposes of council economy, to lay the
5 matter over until such tune as the need for all variances and site plan approvals for the subject
6 building were determined and either approved or denied so that all appeals relating to 420
7 Portland couid be considered in one public hearing. A copy of Council File No. 99-1092 is
$ attached hereto and incorporated as e�ibit 2; and
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
WfIEREAS, after a series of layovers requested by the parties, the BZA, o October 24,
1999, after first having provided norice to affected property owners was finally le to conduct a
public hearing on Ronald J. Severson's front yard variance application for th thirty-eight (38)
00 - 1 �
foot building. At the close of the public hearing, the BZA moved to deny e front yazd variance
application for the reasons stated in its resolution No. 99-163, dated No mber 8, 1999, a copy of
which is attached hereto and incoxporated as eachibit 3; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 1999 and acting pursuant Legislative Code § 64.206(a),
Ronald 3. Severson filed an appeal from the BZA determinatio and requested a hearing before
the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions t en by the BZA; and
WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson also made appl� ation for administrative site plan
approval of the thirty-eight (38) foot, two-story buildi with nine (9) pazking spaces [four in the
building, two in an already existing garage and three urface spaces] although it is not clear, from
the records of the deparhnent of license, inspectio and environmental protection the exact date
of such application; and
WHEREAS, in December 1994, the ning administrator approved the proposed site plan
for a ttririy-eight (38) foot building on the s ject property; and
WHEREAS, on Febn.iary 8, 20 and pursuant to Legislative Code § 64300(j), the
Neighbor's duly filed an appeal of the ecision of the zoning administrator and requested a
hearing before the PC; and
34 WHEREAS, on Aprii 6, 00, after a series of scheduling conflicts between the
35 appellants, a public hearing wa conducted by the PC's Zoning Committee after having provided
36 norice to affected parties. At e conclusion of the hearing, the Zoning Committee moved to
37 recommend granting appeal On April 14, 2000, in PC resolution No. 00-28, the PC granted the
38 Neighbor's appeal for the easons stated therein. A copy of PC resolution No. 00-28 is attached
39 hereto and incorporated s exhibit 4; and
40
41 WHEREAS, n May 8, 200Q Ronald 7. Severson filed an appeal of the PC decision
42 pursuant to SPLC 300(k) and requested a hearing before the City Council far the purpose of
43 considering the a ions taken by the said commission; and
44
45 �AS, consistent with City Council Resolurion No. 99-1092, the Neighbor's
46 appeal fro the decision in HPC resolution No. 365 and the appeals of Ronaid 7. Severson from
47 the deci ons of the BZA in its resolution No. 99-163 and the Planning Commission in its
48 resolution No. 00-28, were consolidated and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§
49 64.206-64.208 and upon notice to all affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
Page 2 of 3
Saint Paul City Council on May 24, 2000 where all interested parties were given an opportunity
to be heard; and p� _7a.p
WIIEREAS, having heazd the statements made and having considered the applications,
the reports of staff, the records, minutes and resolutions of the HPC (building permits for either
36 or 38-foot building), the BZA (variances for a 38-foot building) and the PC (site plan for 38-
foot building), the Council does HEREBY;
RESOLVE, to:
1. Deny the appeal of Grreg and Carol Clazk, Patricia Leonard and aurel Frost
from the decision in HPC resolution No. 365 having found no e r in any fact,
finding or procedure of the HPC approval of building permits or either a 36 or
38.
2. Deny the appeals of Ronald J. Severson from the de sion of the BZA to deny
variances for a 38-foot building in its resolution No. -163 and from the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny site plan appr al for a 38-foot building in
its resolution No. 00-28, finding no enor in any ct, finding or procedure in the
decisions of either the BZA or the PC; AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, having fo d no errors in the fact, findings or
procedures of the HPC, the BZA or the PC, the uncil of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts
as its own and incorporates herein by referenc the findings and conclusions of the HPC, the
BZA and the PC as contained in their respec � e resolutions noted above; AND
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED,�t the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolu6on to
all the appellants, the zoning administr or, the planning administrator, the HPC, the BZA, and
the PC.
OR{G1NAL
Requested by Depastment oE:
Adopted by Council: te
Adoption Certified Council Secretary
By:
Appmved 6y Ma r: oate
By:
By:
Form Approved by City Attomey
By: ��W��� �-�/-OC
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
ClnytorsM.Robinson,Jr.,CiryAttorney QQ -� �lO
a
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Civi1 Division
400 City' Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
Saint Pau[, Minnuota 55102
Telephone: 651 26b8110
Facsimile: 65! ?98-�619
HAND DELIVEftED
July 31, 2000
Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of Frost, Leonard, Clark's from the decisions of the Historic Preservation
Commission and the appeals of Severson from the decisions of the Board of Zoning
Appeals and the Planning Commission, all viz 420 Portland Ave.
Council Action: Deny all three appeals.
Council Action Date: May 24, 2000.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision ofthe City council to deny each
of the appeals in the matter noted above. Please place this matter on the Council's consent agenda
at your earliest convenience. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
�� vw��
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
attachment
�O-`73o
ORlGINAL
Presented By
Refened To
RESOLUTIOh�
CITY OF SATl\'T pAUI,, M NESOTA
�,����
��
Committee: Date
2 �VFIEREAS, a public hearing was duly set for September 22, 1999, before the Council of
3 the Ciry of Saint Paul (Council) for the purposes of considerin� appeals by Gre� and Cazol Clazk,
4 Patricia Leonard and Laurel Frost from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
5 (HPC) in HPC Resolution No. 3654 approving a buildin� permit application to construct a new,
6 single-family, dwellin� within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District on property
7 commonly known as 420 PortIand Avenue; and
y WHEREAS, the Council determined that the proposed single family dwelling may need
1 Q additional regulatory determinations (includin� site p1an review and approval or other variances)
11 before construction can begin; and
12
13
14
l�
16
i7
RIHEREAS, the Council finds that it is appropriate and efricient to first finalize all snch
de?erminations necessary for the proposed sin�le family dwellin� so that in the eveni an appeal is
�aken fron any determination, the appeal(s) may be consolidated into a sin�lz public hearing
before the Council; Iv'OW, THEREFORE, BE IT
1$ ±2ESOLVED, in the interest of Covncil efficiency, 2he appeal of Gre� and Carol Clark,
19 Pat*_icia Leonazd and Laurel F;ost from the decision in HPC Resolution No. 36�4 is continued
20 and 3aid over untii such time as all re�ulatory determina±ions necessary for *.he progosed project
21 at 420 Portland Avenue shall have been acted uoon by the appropriate city depart� boazd or
22 commission; A,h'D, B� yT,
23
2� r �RiI3ER RESOLVE�, that once ai? resulatory determinations have been made and if
2� any are appealed, all appeais sha]l be consolidated with the appeal of H?C Resolution fio. 3654
26 and reset, ��ith wrinen notice to afiected paaies, before tri� Cotmci, for public hearinv; A?vD, BE
27 IT, �
?g
EXH(BIT
�
d
'n
9 ],
Council File r �� l Oq'�
GreenSheetr +p0'�a�,
n l
?
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
FIIRTHER RESOLVED, that if no appeals are taken from any remaining
determination, the public hearing on HPC Resolution No. 3654 shall be reopened w•ith ne�v
notice to the affected parties ofrecord as ofAugust 4, 1999: AND, BE IT
gg-to9�
DO - � �O
FI\'ALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be mailed to Ronald
Se�•erson, Greg and Cazol Clazk, Patricia Leonazd, Laurel Frost Mark VauQht, Esq, John '�lilier,
Esq., the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Herita�e Preservation Conunission and the Department
of License, lnspections and EnvironmentaI Protection.
ORIGINAL
Requeste3 by Depa__x=-c o°:
By:
Form Eon_ c by C`:y Atccrr.=y
s �s7s-. �✓/-✓�.�.-�-� � �� � 5 �
Ag�ro by N.zycr `_.,r n" "_a ""` c"
ay:
��
sy:
V
Adcp[e3 by Cot�=i1: Date _� \ �, \n \qc�c,
—�—�
Acco[_or. Certi:ied by Couacil Secretary
p� _1 �o
CITY OF SAINT PAUL �
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NIJMBER 3654
DATE 22 July 1999
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint
Paul Legislative Code to review building permit applications for e�terior alterations, new construction or
demoliYion on or within designated Heritage'Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling on
properiy located at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street pazking by residents of
415 Summit Avenue; there is a two-stall garage and unpaved driveway and parking areas; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the
following:
III. New Construction, A. General Principies: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hill District is to maintain the districYs scale and quaZity of design. ...New construction should be
compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color, material, building eZements, site
design, and character oJsurrounding structures and the area.
ZII. B. Massing and Height: New construction should canform to the massing, volume, height and scale
of exisfing adjacent structures. Typical residentiat structures in the Historic Hi11 District are 25 to 40
feet high. The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height of all buildings on
both block faces, measuremenu should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs.
III. D. Materials and Details: ... The materials and details of new construction should relate to the
materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roojmaterials are cedar shingles, slate and
tile; asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture of the preferred materials are
acceptable substitutes. ...Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their
appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding struciures.
III. E. Building Elements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for
a balanced and complete design. These eZements for new consiruction should compliment existing
adjacent structures as well.
III. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile oJnew construclion should relate to the predominant roof shape
of ezisting adjacent buildings.
III. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rFrythm cmd detailing of windows and doors in new
construction should be compatible with that of existing adjacent buildings. ...Facade openings of the
same general size as those in adjacertt buildings are encouraged. ...Wooden double-hung windows are
traditional in the Historic Hill District and should be the fzrst choice when selecting new windows.
III. E. 3. Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hill District have roofed front
EXHIBIT
�
a
� 2
�
00 -�20
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 2
porches.... If a porch is not built, the transition jrom private to public space should be articulated with
some other suitable design elemenl.
III. F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than S% out-of-Zine from
the setback of exisling adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be
allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at corners. This happens quite often in the
Historic Hill area and can lend deligh�l variation ta the street.
III. F. 3. Garages cmd Parking: Where alleys do not ezist, gcrrages facing the street or driveway curb
cuts may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single
garage doors shoutd be used to avoid the horizontal orientation of hvo-car gcrrage doors.
Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in
rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping; and
WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upoo the evidence presented at its
June 24, 1999 public heazing on said permit application, made the following findings oFfact (findings
#2-4 are essentially the findings in HPC Resolution #2884 granting approval of the 1997 40'-building
scheme):
1• The applicant seeks approval of two designs, one a 36'-long building which requires no variances
to construct and the other a 38'-long building which requires a front yard setback variance in
order to construct the building 16' from the front property line. The design of hoth schemes is
very similaz to the 40'-long building approved by the HPC on Mazch 27, 1997 (File #2884). The
most significant differences among the three plans concem the site plan: the previously-approved
40' building had a 19.5' front setback and tcvo pazking spaces in the front yazd; the proposed 36'
building has a 25' front setback; the proposed 38' building has a 16' front yard setback; and
neither of the rivo schemes now proposed has front yard parking.
2• The proposed building site is a pivotal and di�cuit site. It is visible from Summit Avenue, it
abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there aze lazge buildings to the south and west that
are close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter
House at 415 Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage
house concept is a reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the following reasons: a) the
site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking fot residents of the Winter House;
b) the parcel has historically been a reaz yard, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appeazs as a reaz
yard due to its relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story cazriage
house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a building that is very close to the
Winter House in proximity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The
Winter House was built on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent
subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to
surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
�
no -�ao
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 3
The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatibie with the size, scale, massing, height, rhy2hm, setback, color,
material, building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the
area."
b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and chazacter would be related to, but do
not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a
balanced and complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be pazallel to that of the Winter House, the street-
facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this
block ofPortland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz yazd nature of the site,
the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic cattiage
house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only
other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and
Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure(the existing
structure is a large, 4-story, brick apartment building with two, two-story front porches
located 18" from the sidewalk while the main building wall is 12' from the front
sidewall:).
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building.
f. Parking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping. Single garage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of double
doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of
anomalies in design and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district
and its character.
4. In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the
Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed buil@ing's design
and materials are related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e, the
Winter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than
mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and the development would not have an
adverse impact on the character-defining features of the site and the azea. The building's design
is similaz to the reaz addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate
for a new secondary structure. A new building of unrelated design and materials would detract
from the historic integrity of the site.
5. The following project details should be noted:
a• The landscape plans shown on the 36' and 38' building schemes differ; the landscape
plan shown for the 38' building is the correct one and should be shown on both sets of
plans.
b. The hedge along the driveway and at the front of the building will be aipine currant,
spaced 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5'.
!.�J
0 0 -
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 4
c. The plans call for a basement window well at the front of the building that was not
proposed in the 1997 scheme. Current plans show both a 3' x 8' well �r,•ith a ladder and a
4' x 8' weli with a step/terrace. The 3' x 8' option is preferable for the 38' building
withl6' front setback scheme; and
WHEREAS, though there are, or may be, zoning issues, ]egal issues, and other issues pertaining to the
proposed development, they aze not within the jnrisdiction of the �Ieritage Preservation Commission; the
commission must grant or deny approval of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code and the district design review guidelines;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a building permit for either of the two proposed schemes for a new singie
family dwelling located at 420 Portland Avenue, subject to the condition that the front window well shall
be 3' x 8' for the 38' building.
MOVED BY Benton
SECONDED BY Murphy
IN FAVOR
AGAIPiST
ABSTAIN
Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are final, subjeM to appeal to the City Council within 14
days by anyone affected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable
buildi�g and zoaing code requirements, and does not constitute approval for tax credits.
7
CITY OF SAI�TT PAUL o o-� �'°
BOARD OF ZO�'ING APPEALS RESOLUTIOi\'
ZONI\TG FILE NUMBER r 99-163
DATE 11/08/99
��'HEREAS, RONALD SEVERSON has applied for a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertainin� to the construction of a ne�i�
residzntial structure that would have a 4-car gara�e on the first floor and a sinele-family home on the.
szcond floor over the garage, in the RT-2 zonin� district at 420 PORTLAiv'D AVENiJE; and
�VHEREAS, the Saint Pau] Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 25, and
November 8, 1999, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of
the Legislative Code; and
�VfiEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon e�•idence przsenied at the public
hzaring, as substantially rzflected in the minutes, made the followin� findin�s of fact:
I. The properly in qi�estioi: can be p�it to a reasonable use under the strict proi•isioru of the code.
A sliohtly smalle; buildin� �vith four parkin� spaces on the first floor and a d�celling unit on the second
floor can be buiit on the property. A sitz plan for this building «�as approved by� tn� Ciry Council in March
1999.
2. The pligl:t of Ilte land otvner is noi due to circeunstances unique to this property, and thzse circumstances
ticere uot created by the land oivner.
The size and irregular shape of the lot and the private ao eement that requires the property o��ner to providz
parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit are unique to the property znd �c•ere not created by the present
prope;ty o��ner. Ho�eever, the pzesent o«�er «�as aware of these circumstances «�hen he bou�h[ the
propzm�.
3. The proposed variance is �:ot in keepin,; tirith the spirit and intent oftiie code, artd is consistznt x•ith t{t�
healtk, sajery, con fort, morals and x�eljare af the inhabitants of the Ciry ojSt. Pa�d.
The reduced front yard setback that ticould be allowed by the variance w•ouid not provide a reasonable
amount of green space and therefore is not in keeping w�ith the spirit and intent of tne code.
4. The propased variance will inrpair a�: adeguate supply ojlight and air to adjacent property, ¢nd wil!
unreasatab[y diminisTt es[ablished properry values within the surrounding area.
The orientation of the building with the side facing Portiand Avenue �t�ould unrezsonably diminish property
values within the surroundin� area.
5. The variance, ifgranted, woul�l no1 penait a�ty use lhat is not permitted under t/:e prorisions of thz code for
tlae property� i�: !he district where the afjzcted land is tocated, nor wotrld it alter or d:ange t'r.e zor.ing
district classification of the propern•.
6. Th2 request jor varimrce is not based prin:arily ai a desire to increase tl:e val«e or incmne potential of thz
pnrcel of land.
EXHIBIT
y Page I oC 2
«
a
s 3
Zv
File f 99-163
IZesalution
�iil
NOR', THEREFORE, BE II RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the request
to �vaive the provisions of Section 61.101 to allow a front yard setback of 16 fezt, in ord�r to construct a
ne«� residential structure that would have a 4-car garage on the first floor and a sin�lz-family home on
the second floor over the gazage, on property loczted at 420 PORTLf��'D AVE\'UE; and le�ally
described as Except the Southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, auditor's subdivision f3&; in accordance with the
epplication for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator, is HEREBY DE�I£D.
I170VED BY : Dlorton
SECONDED BY: witSOn
IN FAVOR: s
AGAINST: o
ABSTAIl\T: 2
bI:�ILED: November 09, 1999
TI�IE LI�IIT: I\o order of the Board of Zonina Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a
buildina or off-street parl;ing facilit}� shal! be valid for a period longer than one
year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained �rithin such
period and such erection or alteration is proceedine pursuant to the terms of such
permit. The Board of Zoaing Appeais or the City� Counci] mar� grant an exfension
not to exceed one year, In grantina such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals
may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City
Council �rithin 15 da}•s by anyone affected by the decision. Buitdine permits shall
not be issued after ao appeal has been filed. If permits hac•e been issued before an
appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease
until the Citr• Council has made a final determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATIO�: I, the andersigoed Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint
Paul, bIinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy rrith
the original record in mr• office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of
said original and of the «•hole thereof, as based on approced minutes of the Saint
Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on October 25, and november 8, 1999,
aad on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection,
350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, blinnesota.
SAI\T P,�UL BO�,RD OF ZO\I\G APPEALS
!` , 1
<.
I���=e.� �.1��
Noel Diedrich
Secretar}• to the Board
Pa�e?of 2
�,
0 0 -'��'°
city of saint paul
planning commission resoiution
file number o0-28 �
date April 14, 2004
tiVHEREAS, Pa[ricia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Greg and Carol Clark, file r 99-117070, filed an
appeal of the decision by the Zonin� Administra[or [o approve a site plan for a carria�e house and
accessory parkin� at 420 Portland, legally described on Exhibit A; and
�VHEREAS, the Zonin, Committee on 4/6/00 held a public hearin� at �vhich all persons present
�vere given an oppoRUnity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance �vith the
requirements of Section 64.300 of [he Sain[ Paul Le�islative Code; and
�VHEREAS, on 4/12/00 the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented at
the public hearing on 4/6/00 as subs[antially reflectzd in the minutes, made the followin� findin�s
of fact:
(1) The site plan is not consistent with the city's adopted comprehensive plan.
(2) The arran�emenc of buildin�s and par't:in� for [he groposed development wi11 unreasonabiy
affecc abuttin� property and its occupants.
(3) The site plan is not consistent with the safet}• and convenience of cehicular and pedestrian
traffic �vithin the site.
i�'O�V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Plannina Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Le'islative Code, the appe2l of the Zonin� Administrator's decision to
approve a site for a carria�e house and accessory parking at 420 Portland be approved.
moved by Gervais
seconded by
in favor ib
against 1 c�or�on>
EXHIBIT
�
0
a
� 4
��U
' Warren E. Pe[erson
�erome P, FiIIa
� Daniel Witt Fram
� Glenn A. Bergman
Iohn Michael Miller
Michael T Oberie
Steven H. Bruns'
Paul W. Fahning
Esiher E. iVicGinnis
Ieffrey I. Cohen
---PETERSOI� -- ---
FPAM BERGMAN
- _ , _3—��,� ,-��,--1 '� = [-�
Jerry Blakey
Councilmember
310-A City Hall
15 West Kei!ogg Boulevarc�
St. Pau(, MN 55102
Patrick Harris
Counci(member
310-C Ciry Hall
15 West Ke(logg Boulevard
St. Paui, MN 55102
Jim Reiter
Councilmember
320-A City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
Kathy Lantry
Councilmember
320-C City Hali
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
RE: 420 Portland Avenue
City Council Agenda - May 24, 2000
PF&B File No. 11127.950001
Dear Council Members:
���i�� s�;te3oo
R p�n SO East Fifth Street
�'lJ SCPauI,MNiilOi-if97
16i1)291-895i
��y 2 3 20�0 16511??8-1753facsimile
���R� a�K�
Direct Dial #{651) 290-6909
Chris Coleman
Councilmember
310-B City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
Jay Benanav
Councilmember
3I0-D City Hall
15 West Keifogg Boufevard
St. Paui, MN 55102
Daniel Bostrom
Councilmember
320-B City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
I am writing this letter on behalf of Ronald Severson regarding the matters on the May 24,
2000, City Council Agenda for consideration relative to 420 Portland Avenue (the "Property").
These matters involve two similar proposals for the development of the Property. They are as
follows:
1. Appeal from HPC approval of Proposaf # 1(described below);
0 0 -"t �o
May 22, 2000
'ALSOADMITTEDIN WISCONSIN
00 -�ao
May 22, 2000
Page 2
2. Appeai from BZA denial of variance request of Proposal # 2(described below);
and,
3. Appeal from Planning Commission's denial of the plan approva( for Proposal #
2.
The history of the proposed development of the Property is long and occasionally contentious.
Because of the long history and numerous collateral issues which have been irvolved
throughout the years, we wouid suggest that all concerned wou(d be served by focusing fihe
inquiry and discussions to specific issues which will be before the Council on May 24, 2000.
The purpose of this letter is to identify these issues and clarify them with respect to each of
the Proposals.
In this regard, first a brief summary of events in the past year and a half would be heipful.
They are as follows:
Historv ot Proposal #1. In February 1999, the City Council considered a site plan for
the development of the Property. This site plan did not require any variances. (This is
referred to as "Proposal #i, and is referenced in the Staff Report as the "36-foot
plan".) Because of an irregularity during the creation of the Property in 1991, the City
Council was put into the position of having to first pass on the effect of a 1991 lot split
as it related to the validity of the creation of the Property. At that City Counci! hearing,
the Council confirmed the validity of the lot split, the existence of the Iot, and approved
Proposal #1.
The basic exterior design of Proposal # 1 had been previously approved by the Heritage
Preservation Commission {"HPC"), so Mr. Severson assumed that he could obtain a
building permit immediately and commence construction. in oiherwords, at that point,
it appeared that all required City approvals had been obtained. However, the HPC Staff
took the position that because there were a few modification to the exterior of the
structure, the matter should go back to the HPC for another review. Although Mr.
Severson did not agree with this initial conclusion of the Staff, he chose to not
challenge it. The HPC approved Proposal #1 in July, 1999. Some of the neighbors
appealed that HPC approval, and it is that appeal which is on the agenda for the May
24, 2000 meeting.
Historv of Pronosal #2. Given the history of the attempts to develop the Property, Mr.
Severson realized that having to bring Proposal #1 back through the HPC would most
likely be a very protracted process. After much consideration, he also decided to
"-'�
,,,
00 7zo
May 22, 2000
Page 3
submit an alternate proposal to the HPC for review. ("Proposal #2", which may also
be referenced in the Staff Report asthe "38-foot Plan") Proposal #2 was essentialiythe
same as Proposal #1 except that it moved the structure nine (9) feet towards Portland
Avenue which resulted in a need for a nine (9) foot front yard variance. The structure
in Proposal #2 is also 2 feet longer and was moved six (6) feet farther from the
condominium at 415 Summit it also and created one additional parking space. The
HPC approved both Proposals. Mr. Severson strongly believed and continues to believe
that Proposal #2 is a better proposal from all perspectives - the only problem is that
it does require a variance. This is also the firm belief of some of the adjacent
neighbors.
Proposal # 2 was then first submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals to pass on the
variance request and also to the Planning Commission for site plan review. Both the
BZA and the Planning Commission denied the requests for the variance and approval
of the site plan. These denials with respect to Proposal #2 were both appealed by Mr.
Severson. These appeals are on the Agenda for May 24, 2000.
***�*****
We would like to make the following points of clarification:
Proposal # 1. The site plan for Proposal # 1 is identical to the one which was approved by
the City Council in March, 1999. The modifications to the exterior are minimal and have been
approved by the HPC. In short, the site plan for Proposal # 1 as it relates to the foot print of
the structure and similar matters has already been reviewed, considered and approved by the
City Council and is not now before the City Counci( for further review. Nothing has changed
in the last year which would compef or even justify overruling the HPC's approval.
Proposal # 2. Opponents of this Proposal have characterized it as an attempt by Mr. Severson
to get a"second bite of the apple" or "just another" in a long line of earlier proposals. This is
not the case. Instead, it is more in the nature of a compromise from a proposal for a 40-foot
structure which was previousiy considered and denied. In fact, if Mr. Severson had been
issued the building permit after the City Council's action in March 1999, he would have
commenced construction, and Proposal #2 would not have been advanced. As noted above,
Proposal #2 was set forth onlv when he was required to start a protracted review process all
llt should be noted that the parking areas of the Property will aiso be forthe occupants
of the condominium at 415 Summit.
,.•..
ao-1ao
May 22, 2000
Page 4
over again (i.e„ the HPC's approval of the first modifications for the exterior). Given that time
frame, he deemed it appropriate to present Proposal #2 as an alternative and better proposal
for the development of the Property. This is not a situation where Mr. Severson obtained
approval, then decided he wanted something completely different and suggested another
proposal.
Our comments in support of Mr. Severson's appeal of the BZA's and Planning Commission's
action will be forthcoming in a subsequent letter or addressed at the City Council meeting.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation.
/,�`�
�hael Miller
��I�I�AI7
cc: Ronald Severson
Tom Beach
Aaron Rubenstein
F:\usersVOH Nlseverson.counci I.Itc 2.wpd.wpd
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Narm Coleman, Mayor
December 14, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City CouncIl Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
OFFICE OF LICENSE, .NSPECTIONS AND OO � I aC
ENVIRON�IENTAL PROTECTION
Roberl Kessler, Direaor �
3
BUIIDZNGINSPEC170NAND Telephone:6I2-2669L�01
DESIGN Facsimile: 612-266-9099
350 St Peter Street
Suite 370
SaintPau[, Minnesata 55702-I510
Re: Public hearing for a new carriage house proposed for 420 Por[land Avenue
Dear Ms. Anderson:
We would like to conf'um that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, Januazy 5,
2000 for the following cases concerning a new carriage house proposed to be built at 420 Portland Avenue:
� Appeal of decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission
Purpose: Appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to approve the design.
Appellant: Greg and Carol Clazk, Patricia Leonard, Laurel Frost
FIle Number: HPC FIle 3654
� Appeal of decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals
�� Purpose: Appeal of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a variance to reduce the
required front yazd setback.
Appellant: Ron Severson
File Number: Zoning File 99-163
� Site plan review
Purpose:
Applicant:
Review the site plan.
Ron Severson
We have confirmed this date with the office of Councilmember Blakey. Our understanding is that this public
heazing request will appeu on the agenda of the City CouncIl at your euliest convenience and that you will
publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul I.egal Ledger.
Please call Tom Beach at 651-266-9086 or Aazon Rubenstein at 651-266-9�78 if you have any quesuons.
Sincerely,
Tom r'rZ.
Zoning Section
f �� y �
���
Aazon Rubenstein
Heritage Preservation
G\USERS�BEACHTOM\991Q3uv�poaa20x
SA(HT
PAUL
�
AAAA
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
May 16, 2000
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hail
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RobertKusler, Direc[or � � ����
ZAA'RY PROfESS70NAL Tetephone: 6I2-2669090
BUIIDZNG Farsimile: 612-266-9099
S�ze 3W 672-266-9I24
350 SY. Pner Strea
Smiu Paul, Minnesota 55102-ISIO
RE: 420 Portland Avenue
Public hearing at City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 24, 2000
Zoning File 99-117070
Dear Ms. Anderson:
The City Council is schednled to consider three appeals concerning the proposed construction of a
� carriage house and parking at 420 Por[land Avenue:
— The Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to approve the project
— The Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a variance
— The Planning Commission's decision to deny the site plan.
� J
PR03ECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal calls for a two-story structure designed to resemble a carriage house. It would have one
apartment unit that would occupy the second floor and part of the basement. The fust floor would
provide gazage pazking spaces for four cazs. A total of nine pazking spaces would provided on the site.
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED B'f' THE CTI'Y COUNCIL
1. Appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to approve the design of the
carriage house.
Greg and Carol Clazk, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel Frost have appealed the decision of the Heritage
Preservation Commission to grant approval of Ronald Severson's building permit application to
construct a new single-family dwelling at 420 Portland Avenue, in the Historic Hill Heritage
Preservation Dish-ict. The City Council fust considered this appeal on September 22, 1999, and laid
over the matter so that HPC, BZA, and the site plan issues could be reviewed together at one time by
the Council. The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the subject permit
application on June 24, 1999, at which time the properry owner, Mr. $everson, and the appellants'
attorney, Mark Vaught, addressed the Commission. The Commission a) voted 9-1 to approve the
permit application following the close of the public hearing and b) voted 7-0 at the following
month's HPC meeting to pass a resolution granting approval of the requested building permit. The
Commission's findings aze stated in its resolution, which is attached. The HPC approved two
building schemes - one for a 36'- long building, which requires no variances to construc� and the
other for a 38' - long building, which would require a front yard sethack variance to construct.
The grounds for this appeal, stated in Mr. VaughYs August 4, 19991etter of appeal, aze that the HPC �
approval "is not in concert with the provisions of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legis2arive Code
[which creates and govems the HPC], is premature, violates my clients' due process rights, and
approves an illegal use of the properry."
The 420 Portland site has been the subject of development interest for at least, 11 yeazs. Jn 1989, the
HPC and BZA approved plans for construction of a carriane house on the site, which project
included one dwelling unit and five garage stalls, in a sort of L-shaped building, and three, off-street
pazking spaces. In 1992, the HPC and BZA approved mod�cations to that plan, which included two
dwelling units in an L-shaped, carriage-house like, structure and 14, under�ound parking spaces.
The two HPC- approved bui2ding schemes which are the subject ofthis appeai aze variations on a
plan approved by the HPC in 1997, and approved, on appeal, by a 6-0 City Council vote in 1998.
The 199� HPC approval was the result of Fve meetings, over a period of 20 months, between Mr.
Severson and HPC members, to develop a desia for the building that conforms to the Hill District
desi� b idelines. The 1998 appeal by Patricia Leonard, Gregory Clark, and Carol Clark, was
denied "on the basis that there has been no showing that the Commission made any error in fact
finding or procedure in this matter." (CF #98-357)
2. Appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a front yard setback variance.
The current plan for a 38-foot long building requires a zoning variance for front qud setback because
the carriage house would be16 feet from the front proper[y Iine on Portland Avenue, compazed to a
required minimum setback of 25 feet. Ron Severson, the properry owner, applied for the variance
but it was denied by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals in November 1999. The variance was denied on �
the grounds that a smaIler building could be built without a variance and that the variance would not
provide adequate �een space and would uareasonably diminish neazby property values. (See
attached copy of BZA resolution.)
The City Council approved a site plan with a slightty smaller siruct�a�e and one less pazking space in
March 1999. This site plan did not require a variance. The City Council had previously denied a
variance for a site plan with a slightly larger structure in 1998. There were other eazlier proposals for
the properry and zoning variances were approved for these in the eazty 1990's. A comptete zoning
history for the properiy can be found in the staff report for the Board of Zoning Appeals which is
included in this packet.
3. lteview of the siYe plan.
A site plan for the project must be approved before building permits can be issued. Staff
administratively approved the site plan in February 2000. An appeal was filed by Greg and Cazol
Clazk, Pairicia Leonard and Lauret Frost. A public hearing was held on the appeal and on April 14,
2000 the Planning Commission upheld the appeal. They found that staff should have denied the site
plan on the grounds that it was not consistent with the comprehensive plan, that the arrangement of
the buildina and pazking would unreasonably affect abutting property, and that the gazage and
pazking were not consistent with the vehicular and pedestrian tra�c withia the siYe.
A PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 24.
Please noiify us if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides presented at the pubtic hearing.
Sincerely, �;
�a�,e�, l�:.E�.���,, -���„�,�
Aazon Rubenstein Tom Beach
�
00 -� ao
C �
ATTACHNIENTS
Heritage Preservation Commission
page 1........ City Council Resolurion layin� over HPC appeal
Pa= --•-•--•
page4........
page8........
page 10...._..
pagel2.......
page 14 _......
Appealletter
HPC resolurion �anting approvai
Case summary of 6/24/99 HPC meeting
Case memo from staff to HPC
HPC application information
Sanbom insurance map
page 15 ....... 1998 City Council resolution upholding HPC approval on appeal
Board of Zoning Appeals
page 18 ....... Appeal of BZA decision to City Council
page 20 ....... BZA resolution denying variance
page 22 ....... BZA minutes staff report and application for variance
page 41 ....... BZA resolution from April 1998 denying vaziances for eazlier desia
Site Plan Review
page 43 ...._.. Appeal of Planning Commission's decision to City Council
paae 44 Planning Commission April 2000 resolution and minutes
page 48 . . . . . . . Staff report
Plans and maps
page49.......
page50.......
page55.......
page65.......
� page 73 .......
page 77.......
Location maps
Plans for current 38-foot building proposal
Plans for 36-foot bui]ding
Plans for 40-foot building
Plans approved by HPC in 1989
Plans approved by HPC in 1992 (revisions to 19$9 plans)
�
QRIGINAL
Presented By
RESOLUTION
� � i ' � • �
��L/ �I!..i �/,!�/
Council File k g � �Qq'�
Green Sheet N ( oo �t a 3
« �
Referred To
Committee: Date
2 WF�REAS, a public hearing was duly set for September 22, 1999, before The Council of
3 the City of Saint Paul (Council) for the purposes of considering appeals by Crreg and Cazol Clazk,
4 Patricia Leonard and LaureI Frost from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
5 (HPC) in HPC ResoluTion No. 3654 approviag a building germit application to construct a new,
6 single-family, dwelling within tbe Historic Hill Heritage Preservarion District on property
� commonly Iaiown as 420 Portland Avenue; and
9
ia
12
12
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Wi�REAS, the Council determined that the proposed single family dwelling may need
addirional regulatory determinations (including site plan review and approval or other variances)
before construction can begin; and
�3'FiE12.EAS, the Council finds that it is appropriate and ef&cient to first fmalize all such �
determinafions necessary for the proposed sin�Ie famiIy dwelIing so that in the event an appeaI is
taken from any determittation, the appeal(s) may be consoli3ated into a sin�le public hearing
before the Councii; NOW, TFIEREFORE, BE IT
a2�'..SOLVEB, in the interest of Council efficiency, zhe appeal of Greg and Carol Clatk,
Patricia Leonazd and Laurel Frost from the decision in HPC Resolution No. 36�4 is continued
and Iaid over untii such time as all regulatorp determinations necessary for the proposed project
aT 420 Portland Avenne shall have been acted upon by the apprepriate city departrnent, boazd or
commission; A.1�TD, BE iT,
r vRi I'�E�2 I2�SO�.V��, that once all regutatory determinations have been made and if
any are appealed, alI appeals shatl be consolidated wlth the appeal of HPC Resolution No. 3654
and reset, ��ith cvritten noiice to affected parties, before th� Councii for public heariag; ANI3, BE
IT,
�
i
2
3
4
.6
7
8
9
`l`t-1o93.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that if no appeals aze taken from any remaining
deterniination, the public hearing on HPC Resolution No. 3654 shall be reopened with new
notice to the affected parties of record as of August 4, 1999: AND, BE TT DO -���
F'INALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be mailed to Ronald
Severson, Crreg and Cazol Clark, Pahicia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Mark Vaught, Esq, John Miller,
Esq., the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Department
of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection.
��R�G��A�
Requested by Department of:
Hy:
zo�n Appr � d by City Atto='ney
s �".�l✓d✓�„�.�. ��f/7fg�
Apnroved ay Mayo= for Sebmission to Council
By: — 1 \
�proved by Mayor:
a <
Date
By:
�
Adopted by Council: Date 1\`. lc� \q_�`y�
���.
Ado�cion Certified 6y Council Secratary
S. MA,RK VAUGHT
Attornev At Law
Suite 700
Six Wesc Fifth Saeet
Sainx Paul, Minnesora 55102-1412
(651)297-64D0
FAX (651) 224-8328
e-mail: markvaught@wor2dnesatt.net
August 4, 1999
Aaron Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Planner
City of Saint Paul, L.I.E.P.
Suite 300, Lowry Proiessional Building
350 Saint Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Heritage Preservation File No. 3654
Dear Mr. Rubenstein:
�
�?
}
�
�;.
L`t
N
On behalf of my clients, Crreg and Cazol Clark, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel
Frost, please consider this letter as an appeal to the City Council pursuant to the
provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code of the above-referenced resolution and the
approval embodied therein, which was passed by the Heritage Preservation Coxnmission
on July 22, 1499. The grounds are that said approvai is not in concert with the provisions
of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, is premature, violates my clients' due
process rights, and approves an illegal use of the property.
Very huly yours,
,�" � �--.
S. Mark Vaught
Attorney at La��
�,;%;
.
�
�
�
�
0 0-7�
�
�
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
HERTTAGE PRESERVATION COA�IlVIISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NUMBER
DATE
3654
22 July 1999
R'HEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservafion Commission is anthorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint
Paul Legislative Code to review building permit applications for e�cterior alterations, new cons�truction or
demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling on
property located at 420 Portland Avenue within the FTistoric Hili Heritage Preservation District; aud
WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street parking by residents of
415 Summit Avenue; there is a twastall gazage and unpaved driveway and puking azeas; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Presezvation District guidelines for design review include the
following:
Ill. New Construction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hit1 District is to maintain the district's scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be
compatible with the size, scale, massing, height rhythm, sefback, color, maferial, building elements, site
design, and chm�acter of surrounding structures and the area.
III. B. Massing artd Height: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height mzd scale
of existing adjacent structures. Typical residentiad structures in the Histvric Hill District are 25 to 40
feet higk The height of new construction should be no Zower than the average height of all buildings on
both block faces,- meas�ements should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs.
III. D. Materials arzd Details: ...The materials and details ofnew construction should relate to the
materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferredroof materials are cedar shingles, slate and
tile,- asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture of the preferred materials are
acceptable substirutes. ...Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their
appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrotazding structures.
7II. E. Building Elements: Individuat elements of a buitding shouZd be integrated into its composition for
a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construction shoudd compliment existing
adjacent struchves as we17.
ZII. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile of new construction should relate to the predominant roofshape
of existing adjacent buildings.
III. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and doors in new
conshzrction shouZd be compatible with that of existing adjacenf buildings. ...F'acade openings of the
same general size as those in adjacent buildings are encouraged. ... Y�ooden double-hung windows are
iraditional in the Historic Hil1 District and should be the first choice when seZecting new windows.
III. E. 3. Porches and Decks: In generad, houses in the Historic Hi11 District have roofed front
�
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 2
•
porches.... If a porch is not built, the tremsition from private to public space should be mliculafed wilh
some other suitable design element.
III. F. Site, 1. Setbac,k• New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than 5% out-of-Zine from
the setback of exisiing adjacent buiZdings. Sefbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be
allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at comers. This happens quite often in the
Historic HFZI area cmd can lend delightful variation to the street.
III. F. 3. Garages and Pw��king: Where alleys do not e.rist, gcmages facing the street or driveway curb
cuts may be acceptrrble. Garage doors shouZd not face the street. If this is found necessary, single
gc�age doors should be used to avofd the horizontal orientation of two-car garage doors.
Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be loca7ed in
rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street cmd sidewalk by
landscaping, and
W$EREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
June 24, 1999 public hearing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact (findings
#2-4 aze essentiatly the fmdings in HPC Resotutiou #2884 granting approvai of the I99� 40'-building
scheme):
I. The applicant seeks approval of two designs, one a 36'-long building which requires no variances �
Yo construct and the other a 38'-long building which requires a front yard setback variance in
order to construct the building 16' from the front properiy line. The design of both schemes is
very similaz to the 40'-long building appmved by the HPC on March 27, 1997 (File #2884). The
most significant differences among the three pIans concem the site p1an: the previously-approved
40' building had a 19.5' front setback and two parking spaces in the front yazd; the proposed 36'
building has a 25' front setback; the proposed 38' building has a 16' front yazd setback; and
neither of the two schemes now proposed has ftont yard pazking.
2. The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visibie from Summit Avenue, it
abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are luge buIldings to the south and west that
are close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the rear yard of the Winter
House at 415 Sumuiit Aveaue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage
house concept is a reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the following reasons: a) tUe
site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street pazking for residents of the Winter House;
b) fhe parceI fias historicatly been a rear yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appears as a rear
yazd due to iTs relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story cairiage
house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a building that is very close to the
Winter House in pro�mity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc_ The
Winter Hovse was buiIt on a fhrougfi-lot witfi Summit and PortIand frontages; the recent
subdivision of the site chaages neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to
surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
�
�
0 0 -�ao
�
HPC Resolurion: File #3654, p. 3
3. The proposed structure conforms to the dishict guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the s3ze, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color,
material, bnilding elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the
azea."
b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character would be related to, but do
not mimic, the adjacent VJinter House. Individual design elements aze integrated for a
balanced and complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be parallel to that of the Winter House, the street-
facing elevation would be perpendiculaz to the sireet like those of other struchues on this
block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz yazd nature of the site,
the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the ]ustoric carriage
house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only
other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and
Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure(the e�usting
structure is a lazge, 4story, brick apartment building with two, two-story front porches
located 18" from the sidewallc while the main building wall is 12' from the front
sidewalk).
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building.
� f. Pazking spaces wouid be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by '
landscaping. Single gazage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of double
doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. Tfiese sorts of
anomalies in desian and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district
and its character.
4. In addition, the proposed su�cture and sSte development conform to the federal Secretary of the
Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design
and materials aze related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
Winter House; the design distinguishes beriveen what is new and what is historic rather than
mimics the historic shucture and confuses the two; and the development would not have an
adverse i[npact on the chazacter-defining features of the site and the azea. The building's design
is similaz to the rear addirion of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appmpriate
for a new secondary structure. A new building of unrelated design and materials would detract
from the historic integrity of the site.
5. The following project details should be noted:
a. The landscape plans shown on the 36' and 38' building schemes differ; the landscape
plan shown for the 38' building is the correct one and should be shown on both sets of
plans.
� b. The hedge along the driveway and at the front of the building will be alpine currant,
spaced 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5'.
�
HPC Resolurion: File #3654, p. 4
c. The plans call for a basement window well at the front of the buiiding that was not
proposed in the 199� scheme. Curtent plans show both a 3' x 8' well with a ladder and a
4' x 8' well wit6 a step/terrace. The 3' x 8' option is preferable for the 38' building
withl6' front setback scheme; and
WHEREAS, though there aze, or may be, zoaing issues, legal issues, aad other issues pertaining to the
proposed development, they aze not within the jurisdiction of the Heritage Preservarion Commission; the
commission must grant or deny approval of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code and the district design review guidetines;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a building permit for either of the two proposed schemes for a new single
family dwelling located at 420 Portland Avenue, sabject to the condition that the front window well sha11
be 3' x 8' for the 38' building.
MOVED BY Benton
SECONDED BX Murphy
�
IN FAVOR 7
AGAINST 0 �
ABSTAIN 0
Decisions of the $eritage Preservation Commission are final, snbject to appeal to the City Council within 14
days by anyone affected by the decuion. This resoIution does not o6viate ffie need for meeting applicable
building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitnte approval for t� credits.
u
7
oo-'�ap
Saint Paal Heritage Preservafion Commission
. Case Snmmary
Re: 420 Portland Avenne, Ronald Severson, Construct new single family dwelling, HPC File #3654
24 Jnne 1999
Rubenstein showed photographs and slides of the site and surrounding azea, reviewed the cover memo,
and noted the following details: landscaping would include an alpine current hedge along the driveway
and at the front, planted 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5; new to these plans is a front
window well for a basement bedroom (of rockfaced block, 3' x 8' with a ladder or 4' x 8' with a step/
terrace); the materials and details aze the same as those spec�ed for the previously-approved plan.
Errigo: why is the HPC looking at this again? Rubenstein responded.
Younkin recused himself ftom participating in the case.
Ron Severson: bought the land in 1996. Previous City Council approval for a building on the lot did not
include a variance. Asking for HPC appmval of both plans; the 38' building is preferable—it is more
centered on the lot. Both proposals provide two parking spaces for (each o fl the other three units in
415 Summit and have four single garage doors. Am willing to modify the designs if necessary.
Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland: live in fust floor unit overlooking the site; have always assumed
something would be built here. Supported the 1997 proposal and suppart the current proposal. I
� suggested the west elevation bay and like it—it adds visual interest. Severson has been very cooperarive
with regazd to the landscaping—has agreed to let neighbors help with its design and maintenance. I prefer
the building to be as close to the sh�eet as possible-#o maximize moming sunlight to my unit. Only two
houses on Portland meet the required 25' front setback, which is therefore inappropriate. The rhyttun of
the street and neighborhood is such that a 16' front setback is preferable to a 25' setback, but I support
both plans.
Mazk Vaught: representing Greg and Cazol Clatk, Patricia Leonard, and Laurel Frost. I am not able to
speak cogently about the project and will therefore ask for a layover. BZA did not approve the variances
for the project that the HPC approved and, on appeal, the City Council upheld the denial. My clients
have a long standing interest in this properry; they haue not had fair oppor[unity to address this issue as
they did not know about tlus meeting until this past Tuesday after 6:00 p.m. I know of no affirmative
obligation to notify (neighbors or affected parties). I haven't even had a chance to look at the
information. In the interest of fairness, and with BZA review on July 12`", there need be no rush to
approve or vote on the matter.
Murphy asked about the 64-day time limit and Heide asked about due process.
Vaught: believe the 60-day limit can be automatically extended by writing a letter to the applicant
Errigo: urge everyone to focus on the design review issues and not on other, legal issues.
There was no other public testimony and the public hearing was closed.
•
� I
HPC Case Summary re: 420 Portland Avenue, File #3654
Page Two
Bellus: moved one-month layover (two weeks if necessary); Murphy seconded.
Lazson: concemed that 3Q minutes atready spent and notfiing anyone coutd say affects the design review
guidelines.
Heide: strongly disagree with a layover, the changes from the plans approved in 1997 are slight
The Iayover motion failed on a 3- 7 vote.
$eide moved approval of both proposed designs; Hargens seconded.
$ellus asked for separate votes on each scheme, which request was refused.
The motion to gtant approval of a building permit for either scheme passed 9-1(Bellus).
summary prepared by Aazon Rubenstein
�
�
�
�
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIItONMENIALPRO7ECTION
RobenKessler, Directo�
� J
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Commission
FROM: Aazon Rubenstein ft�
ItE: 420 Portiand / File #3654
DATE: 21 June 1999
LOY�RYPROFFSSIONAL BUILDA'G
Suite 300
350 St Peter Street
S�tPaub M'�esota 55702-ISIO
oo-�a�
Tel ephone: 651 d 669090
Facsunite: 651-266-9D99
�
�
�
Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a new "carriage" house at
420 Portland Avenue, immediately west of Nathaa Hale Pazk. Mr. Severson is seeking HPC approval
of two schemes. One involves a 36' long building with a 25' front setback; this project requires no
variances. The second plan, preferred by Mr. Severson, is a 38' long building with a 16' front setback,
for which a front yazd setback variance would be needed. The Boazd of Zoning Appeals will review
Mr. Severson's vaziance request on July 12, 1999.
The two proposed plans aze very similaz to one another and to plans for a 40' long building with a
19.5' front setback that the HPC approved on March 27, 1997. That 1997 approva] was the result of
� five meetings with the HPC: a concept review in 7uly 1995, an informal concept review in November
1996, an HPC hearing in February 1997, a Design Review Committee meeting in Mazch 1997, and
approval at the March 1997 HPC meeting. The HPC approval was appealed to the City Council by
some residents of the adjacent building at 415 Summit Avenue. The appeal was denied, and the HPC
decision affirnied, by a 6- 0 Council vote on February 25, 1998.
The previously approved pian and the rivo proposed plans are compazed in the table at the end of this
memo.
�
The proposed building site is a flat, dirt lot used for off-street pazking for the residents of 415 Summit
(the E. W. Winter House). A rivastall garage was built on the lot several yeazs ago. The
420 Portland lot was formerly the rear yazd of 415 Summit; it was split off from the 415 Summit lot
in 1990. Owners of the four condominiums at 415 Summit have an easement on 420 Portland which
requires that two pazking spaces be provided at 420 Portland for each condominium unit.
Mr. Severson proposes the 36' long building because it requires no variances. He prefers the 38' long
building, however, for the following reasons: a) it provides more living space; b) it provides 9' wide,
rather than 8.5' wide, garage spaces; c) it is sited 6' further from the Winter House, which provides
more sunlight to the residents of the building to the west at 436 Portland, and d) it has 9 rather than 8
pazking spaces.
A revised landscape plan is shown on the site plan for the 38' building. The landscaping for a 36'
building would be similaz to that shown on the plan for the 38' building and not as shown on the site
plan for the 36' building.
/ �
HPC, 6,21.99, re: 420 Portland Av., p. 2
�
The previously approved plaa had a 19.5' froat setback and two parking spaces in the front yazd, one
of which was directiy in front of the building. The proposed 38' building has a 16' front setback and
puts the ninth pazking space behind the building rather than in front of it To the west of the subject
site is a large, four story, brick apartment building at 436-38 Portland. The front wall of the building
is set back appmximately 12' from the sidewalk and the two, two-story porches are setback 18" &om
the sidewalk. Tfiis is tfie only building on the south side of Portland between Summit/Western and
Arundel.
Please see the attached HPC resolution approving the 40' long building (File #2884) for relevant
portions of the Historic Hill district guidelines pertaining to new constructioa.
420 PORTLAND AVENCJE
COMPARISON OF TI� THREE SCHEMES
ISSUE
front setback
distance from 4t5
Summit
roofline (all
schemes have
same appro�mate
height)
east elevation
west elevarion
north and south
elevations—same
alt schemes
# pazking spaces
front yazd pazking
APPROVED 40'
SCHEME
19.5'
10'
PROPOSED 36'
SCHEME
25'
10'
g�lz 1llp 10/12 truncated hip
(flat deck at
center)
4 windows, paired
3 single windows
4 windows, no bay
E
2 spaces
7 windows, bay
8
none
PROPOSED 38'
SCHEME
16'
16'
10/12 truncated hip
(flat deck at
center)
4 single windows
7 windows, bay
0
none
�
�
l(
��
a
�
GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT
DE°ARTMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL
I
CITY OF SAINT PAUL r-1� (��
OFFICE OF LICFn�ISE, INSPECITONS APID � --
ENVIl20NMEiVTALPRO'CECZTON I
SUlLDING INSPECTIONAND DESIGN �
350 St Peter Street - Suite 300 �-"� P�jt pjp
��SaiuP¢u{Mwusota5S70?-ISIO 6i1-266-9090 �
00—'120
�;c:ult �n', Ie � y>^�7� � , .Sc PLAN NO_
DESCRI ION OF PRO ECL � -
DATE� �'�' ��l OWNER�rc� � Cit�K�clr�
OWNERSADORESS_ `1'js c��%l1�7 #a �_G�I Y�"� ,S-'� 16a
❑ OlD f TYPE OF
Cr�'�IEW TYPE CONST. �%cc C OCCUPANCY Siµ �E ,.�
GRADING STUCCOOR
�UILD ❑ AND EXC ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE
ALTER LJREPAIR
NUMBER
�Lcr
WARD
1
LOT
STRUC-
TURE
ESTI
��
iTAILS d�
�r��,ci �3�+
OT. BLOCK
; — 1
WIDTH DEPTH
7L�cf ,5�
W�DTH
.���
VAWE
l.11/ `
0
[.] WRECK
CROSSSTREETS
. 11... _
�/
LENGTH
3G�
BA
YES ❑ NO
:ARPNCE BV�LO4NG L�NE
���� FRONT AEAf
�5 j � �
HEIGHT STORIES
2 �i � �i �
TOTAL f�00R ApEA
sn. Fr. �j�csb
INCLUDEBASEMENT
- �r K � _ c.(i/ Y � �/� G
�)� l� `�- z 4u � � GI�e521h:-n
� TL(�� J� /� 1l J�' A/1�.� -nJ_ 7S?-�� v 7t��?�
ARCHITECT
PERM�TFEE
PLAN CHECK
STATE
SURCHARGE
STATE
VAIUATION
T NO.
� J O'
� TOTAL FEE
APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL �N-
FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT
All PERTINENT STATE REGUlA7tON5 CASH�ER USE oNIY
AND CITY ORDINANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN VALIDATED TH�S IS YOUR PERMIT
PLIED WITH IN PERFORMING THE WORK
FOR WHICH TH�$PERMIT IS ISSUED.
I�jp;_� I ADDRESS ,/n_ {/�/� f p
nF .�nR �fi{Zl /' ti �/ �at?� � `�� °�'
1 �
�
June 16,1999
Memo To: Aaron Rubenst�, He age Preservation Commission
From: Ron Severson , Oz�- �'"'
Re: 420 Portland Avenue Carriage House
I am enclosing two copies of tne elevations and site plans for the 38 foot
carriage house with the request that this plan be considered for approval at
the June 24`� meeting of the commission.
I believe you now ha�e copies of the elevations and site pIans for the 40
foot carriage house which was previously approved, the revised 36 foot
house which needs no variance and the encIosed 38 foot house which will
be considered for a variance at the 7uly 12`� meeting of the zoning board.
It is my hope that both of the plans under consideration can be approved at
the June commission meeting so that I would be in a position to proceed
with construction whether or not the zoning board approves the requested
variance.
Please call me if you need additional information.
.�
�
U
�
�
-;�
�
�r
_ --
.�-� �� ____..�.._ _
h _lw\ta.�.^„�++-�-.� _....._. .e - _ _ � ._ _
° � r...'�.'��.... �__` '..:.. �
. . . , ♦ 6_�ee.
� ������ ' - . . . . � . _ _� - ., ��
�'_ ' �'.'..:i':.�.i'..i:...-I_::.�i(��.::1�:
. .. __ _ _ ' . � . .. .
_____ . ti.�..
' �
. . ... .. �.: " -
I / .__ .3 . ' ♦ � ' • . . ' . .: . . ' .._ _
..� ..'.:': ' : . - . '. . . . �
�-' ... .. . ' . _ ' . � � .
� � .
� ..�
� � �.�" �
- - --- - . _ . b O 12-0
� . _ . _ - ---._. - - -----=-
�---?� = --:.� � . - -- ------ ---- -- -- ' .,.-1--� . . - . .
��°== ""== - N�3=LS3M, -�� _—";_�_ ��
.. — -=
,. �—� ----
�-d�., i� �- ie - T --`&,
, .� � � �� _ _ - i � �
-- . ' - `,-_� � _. .. -. - _ � ... .
�- ------- - - - - - - - �-.:. --
-c — - --- — � - - �:;_ ,.
- - �_ �`. _ ', ,- - - _
- — . ,.:
� --�� � � �� _. _ �� — � — -�.-- --
: . ..� a` t - ' .��"E • -- �t--' •> �5�__
J. �_ ♦ r ` �'�`
e - ._'�_' _ _ '_ __ _ � � P � "' -.- _�__
; . .�� '�, ` . �� _
' _—_ �, _— . ' ` '_— � `` `� o\ "_ '_. - '� � ' '
�. ` ` :ro Z• ��' ,�
v ' ' . "
_ _ _ ' _' � .. �� � .�v'.•-�� �.= -. - '_ —�-- �' _
"
__-__� _ . ♦__..' : . .. :- -___.C'_ _.._'_____--�'- ' '
- - a •' m - . ----- --- --------
. ' _' t , � � ' -
- � . �, . . � . ;� ..
,�- 'd i •' . r.. \` , � ' - .Iy . .
_ _ _ "' "- '
�. J'S � '--".- -'--'.-" _-� --.._....�Q._....-:-- -__ . .---- ---- '--- -"-----� -'---�'-'_" -- - ---"-
. � � ' � � °� - - �-� T - �'_.`_- -� --�.. . --
_ -'- �.-� �� �,.. . @ � -
. . O' � � _ _ . �. .
_ " �„� , t�3! _
— . -- �` � --- -----<— — — ,_ -- --
G�. O�
� ----'� v 1 , o � ; 2a�� ' , - --- -_¢ .... --�-- —
-- � � - --�� --: - ' =° `� ° �i- .
1 ' � � . �-- ---- . ..
� � _" _." P? `� ,0 '_- 1 '
. - . .. ___._.__ ____ _ _ .
' _'__ "
,.�--� — ---- - ----��------- - - ---..
� - - -- = -- �
z ; : �.--,� � .a
_ ,
� -�_-�-_ -- --- - -.: _- _- - o-_ -- -- - � -��- -_�- --
� � . a, � ------- � �
��-�---' �-- - ---- .._-. . .__ 0--- ----a-=�'�
�
--� -- �----- --- ._.._ -----_� a�=- 0 ` = _---- ---._J _.
' � - --- -' . " . .. i ' 0 _` � � . . .
� S - -_ 4 � ' -- — .o ----- --' - �60 . ' - � — V
� - �,, : °` , d . v
-__- � � �s'-�:- -__�---�->_ - - �'�-- Z
- t . �. �='' ' ♦ � , - �
< + `� ♦ � �
_ 2 � �� .
. � � * � 2 �Y �'~ d � �" � ` N , ^�
_ . ___I^ �s� __'_ _ ' ^ ` o\ ; � O '__, i �I' . .__ = _N _____'. �
� ° � i 0 4°� �
�
"C� P d>_ 0 0 , r
� t4 '_"� � , „ �0 . � �_
' - __ _ _� to ` t ' .
--__ . ..k � H� 2 , � . '— �0 LY
—1�— ._
- - .� ----� ---'- ---- - - - ------�� ----- O
— O L -- �� _ pp
_. 47 - ' -
- -- � - ��. '- -- -� _ . __ . _. .. - : - - - - Z
—.�:. � _ x _ . .t�=• � - ------- --- ------- - -- Q
� - " . : v' ' i�� - -V�
_ -- -- - —�--- -- -- -x -- - - - " � � -
o.
t� . . - �ro t _ v� : — -:,�,.+t�o _ a C�
Q � — � ' �^�-''��: ` >�"_:: - -_ ' _ . _,_. ..r.--,�:._ O
+{- .�= = _� i �. t �
• � . " �� .d�,,at:�'��' , .= � . ' .�.
� '� _ �J e -
- . ! _ °; ' ' - av - - 1 � `�
' ' �ti ". �' . d£ OZ i _"_i _'_ __ ' _ .`_'3 � '_
- , . v Z .� ; i �
— ,.
�-_ L �--°�--------------= =� �3E}-N�f122#t€�e ---_------- -_ . � -- �
-- i- �v-- �aa. _ =vs=_.
�
.- ;� � ...`�� - 6, �
- . ,_ ,r 6z 2 , �� ..
` ' ��H
.. . �. . . '. . . . n . . . . _- •. - � " ^
_�.+_. . . . ��
�_._. ,. . -. ," _ _ . _ ' —__ __ '. _. .. _.. . _ ___ .�
N
.. . . 1 � � c , � . � . _ �' � .�
. � 1 i H� " i� .----� . 'S d Q'
Co�zcil Fi2e
o�i��Na�
Presented By
Referred To
Green Sheet
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAWT PAUL, MWNESOTA
�
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson made application to the Heritage Preservation
Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73 for a building
permit to construct a carriage-house-like stnictare at 420 PortIand Avenue within the Historic
Hi11 Heritage Preservation District; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1997, the commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposal. After discussion, the matter was laid over and the project was a�ain reviewed on
March 13, 1997, and fmally approved on Mazch 27, 1997. However, the commission,
inadvertently, did not formatly pass a resolution approvin� the project until January 8, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on Aprii 8, 1997, Gregory Clark, Carol Ciazk and Patricia Leonazd
appealed the March 27, 1997, commission decision but elected to enter into negotiations with the
applicant in fhe fiope that the applicant and the appellants might resoive their differences; and
WHEREAS, the ne�otiations between fhe parfies failed to reach an acceptable
compromise and the appellants requested that their appeal be heard by the Saint Paul City
Council; and
WfiEREAS, the commission in its ResoIution No. 2884 granted approvaI of the building
permit based upon revised plans includin� only the east elevation marked 3C-1, and subject to .
the condition that an appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows in light of
the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation guidelines. In particular, based upon the evidence
presented at the Mazch 27, 1997, public hearing, the commission made the following findings of
fact:
The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visible from
Summit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are
Iazge buildings to the south and west that are close to the property lines.
This lot can be construed as both the rear yard of the Winter House at 415
Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed
carria�e house concept (and "front yard° pazkinQ adjacent to PortIand) is a
reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the follo�zn� reasons: a)
the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking for
residents of the Winter House; b) the pazcel has historically been a reaz
yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appeazs as a reaz yazd due to its
relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story
carria�e house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a
buildin� that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is
related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The Winter House
� -3s7
� l�O�s �! �
�
�
��
z
4
� 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
7
48
49
0 R 1 G 1 N�uilt on a through-lot with Summit and Portland fronta�es; the recent
subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the
Winter House to surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height,
rhythm, setback, color, material, building elements, site design,
and chazacter of surtounding structures and the azea."
b. The building elements, materials, scaIe, height, and character
would be related to, but do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House.
Individual design elements aze integrated for a balanced and
complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be parallel to that of the
Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular
to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz
yazd nature of the site, and the carriage house nature of the
proposed building, the fact that the historic cazriage house on the
site was located up to the north properiy line, and the fact that the
only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland
between Western and Arundel) is located closer to the street than
would be the proposed structure.
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house
nature of the building.
f. Pazkin� spaces would be adequately screened from the street and
sidewalk by landscaping. Sin�le gazage doars would avoid the
horizontal orientation of double doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity
of a through-lot. These sorts of anomalies in design and
development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic
district and its character.
3. In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the
federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an
historic site. The proposed building's design and materials are related to
and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
R'inter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is
historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and
the development would not have an adverse impact on the chazacter-
definin� features of the site and the azea. The buildin�'s desian is similaz
to fhe reaz addition af the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is
appropriate for a new secondary structure. A new building of unrelated
desi�n and materials would detract from the historic inte�rity of the site;
and
G� �.5�
/ � J --�
0 0 1�0
(�b
��.` J✓ �
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
OR(GINAL
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06{h), Tricia
Leonazd, Greg Clark, and Cazol Clark duly filed with ihe Council an appeal from the
determination made by the commission and requested that a hearing be held before the City
Council for the purpose of considering the acrions taken by the said commission; and
VVHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was set on for January 28,
1998, but, at the request of appetiants' attomey, the matter was postponed to February 25, 1998;
and
WHEREAS, on February Z5, 1998, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City
Council, where all interested parties were given an opportuniiy to be heazd; and
WHEREAS, having heard the statements made and having considered the application,
the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the commission, the Council does
hereby;
RESOLVE, to deny the appeal of Patricia Leonard, Gregory Clazk and Carol Clazk on
the basis that their has been no showin� that the commission made any error in fact finding or
procedure in tIus matter; and
BE IT �URTHER RESOLVED, that Yhe City Clerk shall mail a copy of Yhis resolution
to Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clark and Cazo1 Clazk, the Zoning Administrator and ihe Heritage
Preservation Commission.
�
�
Requested by Department of:
Adopted by CounciZ: Date _�3��s�
Adontion Certified by Council Se tary
BY: 1
Approved by Mayor: te
By:
By:
Form Appzoved by City Attor..ey
B �.� �/�1 .��, Y- 2 �'' 9�
Approved 6y Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
�
t �
�
SRIw'T
TpVi
�
�OIIA
APPUCATfON FOR APPEAL
Depanment of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
II00 City Hall Anner
25 West Founh Sbeet
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
Address �/5 Stt��n. �{ �� '� �
City �`�f. �:,� � St.� Zip S.5/o]._ Daytime phon�i/� 37F U>7j
�
PROPERTY Zoning File
LOCATION ... ..
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeai to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals [�City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph _
appeai a decision made by the ��t,�l o'f �,�1i
on _ d/cn�/: � , 19�. File
(date of decision)
of the Zoning Code, to
� , �i- %� 3
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Pianning Commission.
� -� ►-� �, �L
ll-� 3- r �
��_ �/�!�•`�"'
�
Attach additiona/ sheet
Applicant's
Date 11 City agent
1
� �
.
�
Appeal of the Board of Zoning AppeaYs resolution #99-163
dated
November 8, 1999
on
420 Portla�d Ave.
Reasons for the appeal:
The resolution by the Board of Zoning Appeals found that my application met the
requirements for a variance on points number five and six but did not meet the
requirements on points number one through four.
It is my contention that the Board of Zoning Appeals is in error in there findings.
1. On the findings of facts on points one through four. The Zoning Board
sfaff concluded,through their evaluation of my request,that I did meet the �
requirements of each of the first four provisions as well as the last two. I
believe that the staff conclusions are correct as they are written.
2. Based on the history of action on this lot in which the board in 1990 and
again in 1992 found that this same lot did meet aN six requirements for a
variance and did grant the requested variances.
�� ���
�.) i 5 ��.�nrn� � C� � � �--
�
�4
CITY OF SAIi�TT PAUL po _�,,o
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMBER: TM 99-I63
� DATE 11/08/99 -
WHEREAS, RONALD SEVERSON has applied for a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code pertainin� to the construction of a ne�v
residential structure that �vould have a 4-caz gaza?e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on the
second floor over the garage, in the RT-2 zonin� district at 420 PORTLAND AVENIJE,; and
�VHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 25, and
November 8, 1999, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of
the Le�islative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public
hearin�, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followin� findin�s of fact:
1. The property in qzrestio�: can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
A slightly smaller buildina with four parkin� spaces on the first floor and a dwellin� unit on the second
floor can be built on the properry. A sitz plan for this building was approved by the City Council in March
1999.
� 2. The pZight of the land owner is not due to circumstances uniqe�e to this properry, and these circumstances
were not created by the land owner.
The size and irregular shape of the lot and the private agreement that requires the property owner to provide
parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit are unique to the property and were not created by the present
property owner. However, the present o�rner was aware of these circumstances when he bought the
property.
3. The proposed variance is not in keepin� �e�ith the spirit and intent of the code, and is co�uistent wizh t3:e
heaZth, safety, con:fort, morals and w•elfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
The reduced front yard setback that would be aliowed by the variance would not provide a reasonable
amount of green space and therefore is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance will impair an adeqtcate suppZy of light and air to adjacent property, and will
ztnreasonably diminish established property valeres within the st�rraz�nding area.
The orientation of the building with the side facing Portland Avenue would unreasonably diminish property
values within the surrounding area.
5. The variance, if granted, woc�ld not perntit any use that is not permitted zrnder the provisions of the code for
the property in t3ze district where the afjected land is tocated, nor woutd it atter or change the zoning
district classification of [he properry•.
� 6. Tl:e request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the vali�e or income potential of the
parcel of fartd.
Page 1 of 2
C�
File r 99-163
1Zesolution
N06V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals that the request �
to �vaive the provisions of Section 61.101 to allow a front yard setback of 16 feet, in order to construct a
new residential structure that would have a 4-caz gara�e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on
the second floor over the gara�e, on property located at 420 PORTLAND AVENiJE; and le�ally
described as Except the Southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, auditor's subdivision #38; in accordance with the
application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator, is HEREBY DE1V'IED.
MOVED BY: Morton
SECONDED BY: w�lson
IN FAVOR: s
AGAINST: o
ABSTAIN: 2
NIAILED: November 09, 1999
TI�IE LI�IIT: No order of the Board of Zonina Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a
building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period lonaer than one
year, uniess a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained Fvithin such �
period and such erecfion or alferation is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such
permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an estension
not to esceed one pear. In grantina such ectension, the Board of Zoning Appeals
may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPE.4L: Decisions of the Board of Zonina Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City
Council within 15 dacs by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall
not be issued after an appeal has been filed. IF permits have been issued before an
appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease
until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATION: I, the �tndersigned Secretary to tfie Board oFZonina Appeals for the City ofSaint
Pau1,lVlinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoina copy with
Yhe original tecord in mr office; and find the same to be a true and correcf copy of
said oriainal and of the rvhole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint
Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meetina held on October 25, and 1� ovember 8,1999,
and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection,
350 St, Peter Street, Saint Paul, biinnesota.
SAI\T PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
�� � ��
d�i�� �:��
Noel Diedrich
Secretary to the Board
Pa�e 2 of 2
�
� ,�
ao-�ap
��
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 25, 1999
PRESENT: Mmes. Liston and Morton; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Kramer, Scherman and WIlson of
the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Aardwick,
Mr. Beach, and Ms. Diedrich of the O�ce of License, Inspection, and Environmental
Protection.
ABSENT: Mmes. Bogen, Maddox *
* Both Excused
The meeting was chaired by Brian Alton, Vice Chair.
RONALD SEVER50N (#99-1631 420 PORTLAND AVENUE: The applican[ is proposing to
construct a new, residendal structure that would have a 4-car gara�e on the First floor, and a single-
family home on the second floor over the garage. The building has been designed to look like an
historic carriage house. In addition to the 4 spaces in the new building, there would also be 3 surface
spaces, and 2 spaces in an existin; gara;e, for a totai of 9 parking spaces on the site. One of these
parkin� spaces would be for the carriage house unit, and the other 8 would be for an existing 4-unit
� condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit). A variance for minimum front yard setback. A
front yard setback of 16 feet is proposed for the carriage house, a setback of 25 feet is required, for a
variance of 9 feet.
Mr. Beach showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval.
The applicant, Ronald Severson, 415 Summit Avenue {f2, was present. Ae said he also owns a unit in
the condominium to the south of it. His unit is the one unit that overlooks the parking area. His wife
and he bought the property in 1996, with the intent of building a sin�le family house that they were
going to live in and use as the retirement house. They realized, at the time, that there was easement for
parking on the property. Each of the plans that they considered has taken that into consideration.
There has always been pazking foi two off-street parking spaces for each of the offier three owners in
the condominium in which he lives.
Mr. Severson continued that there was a question that Tom Beach taiked a littie bit about, whether or
not it was a legal lot split back in 1990, 6 years before he bou�ht it. That set him back a long way,
because that had to be resolved. And, iYs been resolved, so it is a legal buildable lot. He can build a
carriage house on it. He has developed pians for a 36 foot carriage house. He didn't have a copy of
the packet, but he had almost all the information from Tom so if he is missing somethin� you'll have to
excuse him. He thinks they have the 36 foot site plan as part of the packet. ThaYs a buildable plan but
it's not the best that can be built on that lot. So he's here asking for ihat variance because he thinks
that what he's proposing will be a better development for that lot, and for the nei;hborhood, and for
the people that live in that condominium.
� He said that what he's requesting, and he thinks they have the site plan in front of them, - to emphasize
Page 1 of 13
2 ��-
- he has Heritage Preservation Commission approval for this, This building that he's proposing meets �
the requirements for that area. I[ wi11 be a real asset to that particular lot because of the lar;e, 4-story
brick buildin� that's next to it. He thinks i[ will improve the visual - the view actually from the park
lookin� toward the lot, because this is a tum-of-the-century, carriage house. It's architecturaily
desi;ned and, as Heritage Preservatioa Cocnmission has pointed out, it meets the reqairements for chat
area and of ihat rype of a carria;e house back in the 1900's. Incidentally, there was a carria;e house
aimost on that spot at the rurn of the century - 2-story high, 321c32. It disappeared sometime, probably
around the 1920's. So, in a way, they're repiacing the carriage house that was there for a good, long
period of time.
He's askin� for a 16-foot front yard: a nine foot variance. For several reasons. First of all, he would
like to increase the size of the carriage house to 38 feet. 36 foot is adequate, as far as mee[ing the
requirements of the ordinance. But 38 feet would allow the 4 cars that are goin� to park in there to
have approximately a 9-foot space, and would make it easier to maneuver throu�h the parking lot and
into that space.
Part of his easement requiremen[ is that he provides 2, off-street parking spaces. This carriage house
will provide 1 parking spot for each of the 2 people that live in the same condominium that he dces,
and the other people already have an existing garage, so that gives each of them lparking space and
then would aIlow anothet parking space for him when he and his wife move into this carriage house.
38 feet is not a lot of extra space in terms of living space - about 40 square feet IYs still only a6out
17 `/o of the totai buildable area, so it's way under the square foota�e allowed for that area. Ic also
allows - he thinks the maneuverability would be improved because of being able to make a litde easier
tum into a wider space. •
He's centered the 38-foot building on ihe lot. That allows for 16 feet between the two buildings. And
16 feet between the sidewalk and the front of the building. He thinks the 16 feet between the 2
buildings is important because of the concerns about space not bein� so close - not lookin� like it's
attached. A 38-foot buiiding aIso is - both buildings are acceptable by Heritage Preservation
Commission - but he thinks this is a little better looking building if you were standing in the park
lookin� toward the pazking lot. IYs a symmetrical building with a setback next to the haliway being the
same on both sides. It does Iook better. It's better for the neighborhood.
Ae also would like to - by moving it to 16-foot front yard setback, he can put a nice parking space on
the south side of that building. The importance of that is for - it's emphasized on Friday and Saturday
nighcs when the Universiry Club starts parking cars for those patrons on Pordand Avenue. Big buitdin�
next to it - he believes it's somethin; like 14 total uniu but only 13 parkin� - off-street, parking spaces.
They depend a lot on Portland Avenue. Maybe one parkina space won't make a lot of difference but
he thinks it will. Ae thinks it's importan[.
He also wanted to point out, if you took at the whole bIock, the building next to this - to the west of
this - is almost right on the sidewalk. His bein; 16-feet back, obviously he's not goina to block any
view of rhe park. If you count 8 uniu on that block total, with 36 Portland bein� 2 entrances and
therefore 2 units, only 2 of those buildin;s meet the requirement of 25 feet. 2 of them are less than 16
feet to the front sidewalk, so his building is not going to be on the street. In fact, he thinks it will be
more out of place if you move i[ 25 feet back and increase that lawn area,
He has a landscaped plan that was deveioped by 2 of his neighbors. He's worked �vith them on it but �
Page 2 of 13
� �
w .�
00 -� a�
� what he's goin� to do with landscaping, - he's agreed, before he pulled a buildins permit, iha[ he will
put �5,000.00 into escrow, under the control of his nearest neighbor, who is the first floor direcfly
across from him and supports this buildin„ to ensure when all the buildin� is done, there will be funds
availabie forlandscaping.
They can live with a 36-foot, if they have to. But it's not the best plan. His wife and he have tried
very hazd to develop, what they think will be, a really good plan for this neighborhood. That will look
the best. They'll have the best pazkin„ and the best way of maneuvering on this lot. Incidentally,
he'll be providin� - each of those spots will be provided without charge or cost to the other people in
the nei�hborhood. Because he's obli�ated throu�h easement to provide these. Hz could leave it as an
outside parking spot - he'd rather each of them have a stall inside of a garage, for obvious reasons,
because we're comin� into our winter now. He's offered to do that. It's a requirement anyway. He
offered it way back before they even started on this. Those are his reasons for asking for the variance.
He thanked the Board and stated he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Alton referred to a statement about other residences in the area, and he asked if Mr. Severson was
talking about across the street on Portland Avenue, the average setback. Mr. Severson said every
setback - that fuil block across the street - on his side, there is only one building. There's six buildings
across the street. Those are the ones that he mentioned - oniy 2 of them meet the requirements.
Ms. Liston had a question she said was relative to the yellow sheet and the staff recommendation. On
che yellow sheet description it says the front yard setback is proposed for the carriage house. A setback
for 2� feet is required for a variance of 10 feet. In the staff recommendation it reads 16 feet. Mr.
� Severson said 16 feet is being applied for. It was a typo.
Mr. Scherman asked, that those people that come out of the garage that he has there, how do they get
over to 415 Summit. Mr. Severson said part of - there'll be a sidewalk, which isn't put in yet. Mr.
Scherman asked if they can come out of the back? Mr. Severson said, yes, there's a door so that
they'll be able to walk along the front of the garage, come out of the back, and then go ri�ht up the
steps. That's the back door to all of the units, where those steps are. And that will be a concrete walk.
Mr. Scherman also asked what a`day lily' was. Mr. Severson said he should hace the landscaper in
the neighborhood, who drew up the landscaping and recommended the plantings and so forth. Mr.
Severson said he didn't know. He was looking forcvard to seeing it.
Lou Sudheimer came forward and said he lived about 100 feet across the street, kitty corner, at 439
Portland. Sort of in front of the 4-story condominium building. He just wanted to refresh the people
that have been on the Board for quite some time, and update some of the peopie that are new on the
Board. This has been going on for a long time, and he's been involved throu�h Historic Hiil Homes
with the previous owner, as weli as tryin; ro support Mr. Severson in his endeavors to get what he has
considered to be an excellent set of desi�ns of carria�e houses, to replace the one that went missing
many, many decades ago. And solve some of the parking problems for the owners of these
condominiums that have evolved over time. The original group of people that �•ere involved in ihe
building, for the most part, were lOQ 7 in favot of this. Unfoctunately, there's been some new people
that have come in who began to be a�ainst it for reasons that they will have to explain to the Board
shortiy. But he just wanted to refresh the group that, when these issues first camz up, there were a
si�nificant number of nei�hbors who came down and took time out of their days to appear in favor of
� this. They, of course, have lost interest and tenaciry over time, but the majority of his neighbors are in
favor of this. There are, as in many nei;hborhood siruations, there is a split but he would gauge that
Page 3 of 13
f �
the preponderance of people are in favor. And just wanted to add his opinion that this plan is better �
than the plan that Mr. Severson was forced to adop[ with a slightly smaller carriage house, and with
one fewer off-street parking stall, in order to come up with a plan that would require no variances.
This plan does require a small variance, but it does provide a significantly, more funccional garage
situation, and it provides an extra stall, which is very critical, even for some of the people that are
objecting to it. It's very unfortunate that a small, well-fmanced clique of neighbors has been able to
delay this approval, multiple times.
There were no others to speak in favor; Chair then invited those opposed to address the Board.
Mark Vaught, an attorney, Suite 700, 6 West FiBh Street, came forward, and stated he represented
Greg and Carol Clark, owners of one of the condominium units at 41� Summit Avenue, Patricia
Leonazd, owner of the unit, and Laurei Frost, who lives in the other building, immediately to the other
side of this particular lot, that they saw in the photos. He apologized in advance if it happens. He was
carrying a cell phone in his pocket and he has to leave it tumed on because he tried a case to a jury in
Hennepin Counry last week and the jury is out deliberating, as he speaks. And Judge Connelly has
required him to carry it. So if it gces off, he apologizes in advance. He's goin� to have to take a short
delay and answer it and, perhaps; some of the neighbors who are present and other people might, at
ihat point, make their commenu, if he hasn't finished his. He hates thai when that happens, and he
really hates it when people talk on cell phones in restauranu, and it wouldn't be on if he wasn't
required to have it on. But he lmows Mr. Alton and Mr. Warner, as attomeys, appreciate the fact that
sometimes you simply have to be on call.
Mr. Vau�ht said without impugning anyone's morives, and he's not doing that, there's been so much �
revisionist history that's uanspired here, borh in the Sraff Report and what Mr. Severson, and
particularly what Mr. Sudheimer said, which is almost all so far off the mark as to be unbelievable. He
said he hardly knows where to start. The one thing that he would like to ask, he doesn'c know whether
he's seen a copy of the staff report, the staff report he has does not have the neither the staff report or
the resolution from when this matter was before the Board of Zoning Appeals in 199�, nor does it have
the Staff Report and/or ihe Resolution - he apologized, 1997 he meant - no, 1995, - nor dces it have
the Staff Report or the Resotution that was passed tha[ was before them when this matter was back
before them in April of 1998. And he's presumi�g that the Board doesn't have that information either.
Mr. Alton replied that they do have the 1998 Resolution and they do have - on page 21 - and 22.
Mr. Vaught said he thought it was helpful because he thinks, if they look at that Staff Report and that
ResoIution, it will help tfiem guide them through this decision because it is not at aIt a simple decision
and it is not at all as simple as Mr. Severson would have it seem. He feels kind of like Yo�i Berra,
where he should say he feels like deja w all over again, over again, over again, over a�ain, over
again. By his count, these two proposals, and there realiy are two, not that aze on your table, but two
that were presented to the Heritage Preservation Commission, and two before the City Council. One
that requires a variance, the so-called 36 foot proposal, and that doesn't require a variance the 36 foot
proposai, and tha[ which does, ihe so-called 38 foot proposal, and by his rough count, and he couid
stand to be corrected on this, but by his rou;h count, since Mr. Severson has purchased this properry,
and at least 1996, those are between the 5`" and the 8 different proposals that he's advanced for this
property, depending on how you count and how you do the variations, and tha[ really is the source of
his taking great exception to what Mr. Sudheimer said. For which you mi�ht impl}� if you believed �
what Mr. Sudheimer said that, somehow, this is back here because this weli-financed clique of
Page 4 of 13
L�
ao -�aQ
� neighbors keeps bringing it back here. It's back here because Mr. Severson keeps changing his mind
and advancing new proposals to them, thaYs why it's back here. Not because of anything that ihe
neighborhood or the neighbors have done. Whether they feel personally offended by being
characterized as a weli-financed clique, he'll leave that to them. But he wants to set the record straight,
in that respect.
But they're not here today because of anything the neighbors did. They're here because Mr. Severson
re-tooled the proposais two more 6mes, afrer the last time he was in front of the Ciry Council, in
March of this year. So he wants to go through just a little bit of the history and he panicularly wants to
bring the focus to bear on the history of this Body's consideration of that. Because the last two times,
before this, that this plan has been before - a plan has been before his Body for requesting variances,
this Body has denied those variances. And he would submit to them, particularly if they look at the
plan in the 1998, Aprii 1998 time that it was before them, that there's really no material difference
between this particular plan advanced, this particular time, and the plan that they turned down then,
and which turned down, by the way, was upheid by the Ciry Council, not overturned by them. And
the plan in addition that was before them - in - he's going to say in 1995 - which this Body also tumed
down the variance request - that that also did not materially differ from this particular proposai. Now
he doesn't see frankly anything that's particularly changed other than City Council action on Heritage
Preservation Commission issues, which are not the same as the issues that face the Board. And Mr.
Severson is simply throwing up another proposal against the wall, afrer runnin; up a�ainst one road
block or another. Now the procedural history, and he says this all the time, and probably the reason
he's sayin� it is because he just got done saying this to a jury 15 dmes about hocv you ought to rely
upon your own recollection if it's different than his. But his recollection of this as it's been before you
� the last few times, is Mr. Severson put together a proposal that he took to the Herita;e Preservation
Commission, and this happened in 1997. That matter was not before the Board bzcause it did not
require any variances. And he wants to pause at that point, because they're goin; to hear him say this
a couple times more in his presentation, that proposal did not require any variances. If he was
prepared to proceed with the proposal, and advance one that did not require anp ��ariance, how pray
tell, can staff recommend to you, and how can you adopt a resolution that says in effect the properry in
question cannot be put to a reasonabie use under the strict provisions of the Code. Because, quite
frank(y, as far as what they do is concerned, he's aiready put at least 3 or 4 plans forward, including
one that's currently on the City Council agenda waiting a decision on an appeal that complies with the
strict provisions of the Code.
The question really is, reasonable use. It's not whether you want to do it that way, it's not whether it's
convenient to do it that way, it's does the Code strictly prohibit - it's a strict adherence to the Code -
prohibit you from a reasonable use and he would argue that it doesn't. And he would argue that there's
plenry of history to buttress that, and he'd argue that Mr. Severson's own comments today put the lie to
the fact that somehow there's some unreasonable restriction. He himself said to you he can live with
the 36 foot proposal. Well, if he can live with the 36 foot proposal, then there's no unreasonable
limitation.
He excused himself because his cell phone was ringin�, but he came back momencarily and continued.
When the matter was before them in 1995, it didn't materiaily differ from this proposal - it was the
same orientation; it.was a bi� cork in a small bottle. And it's still a big cork in a small bottle. You
turned it down then, and the decision wasn't overturned. In between times, Mr. Secerson took a
� compiying plan, that didn't require your action throu�h the Heritage Preservation Commission to the
Ciry Council and the City Councii approved it. But he didn't build it. Instead, he chose to come back
Page 5 of 13
L�
before the Board, in 1997, with another plan which did require variances and which they considered at �
that particular point. And he remembers quite a bit of the discussion, as he's sure those of the Board
that were there remember that discussion. And there was a lot of discussion about the fact that the 97
ptan didn't materially differ from the 1995 plan and they, in fact, at that point denied it, and you can
see the resolution for themselves. Not the - the 98. He keeps saying 97 and he means 98. The 1998
plan that was before them in April 1998 that they turned down, there was quite a bit of discussion about
how that didn't materially differ from the plan earlier and there was no reason to approve. And he
commended them to language that's in that particular resolution. He knows a number of them sat here
at that particular point and he guesses he has to say to them that he sees nothin� different about ihis
particular plan except it's one more variation of the same basic plan that doesn't chan�e a whit, as a
matter of fact, from what you turned down in April of 1998. And isn't affected. And so what
happened to that April 1998 decision? I[ was appealed to the Ciry Council. And the City Council
upheld your decision. Mr. Severson was not ailowed to build that April 1998 propasal.
And what happened aRer that? Well, Mr. Severson then submitted another plan in May, or later as he
recalls it in 1998, with a smaller carriage house that didn't require the variances. So that matter
however was iurned down - tha[ site plan was not approved by the Zoning Administrator - it went to
the Ciry Council and the City CounciI ultimately approved it. But lets understand two things. They
didn't act to overtum a decision of yours, because you never reviewed that plan. And the second thing
that they did is, it was a plan that conformed to the Code and didn't require variances whatsoever.
Ei[her one of two things. Either Mr. Severson was being genuine, or he's being disingenuous about
that particular proposal, but it would not have required any variances whatsoever. But did he build
afrer the City Council acted? He did not. What did he do instead? He threw up two more plans. The
one before you, and the 38 foot plan, and the 36 foot plan, which he took to the Heritase Preservarion �
Commission a[ the same time. Now, curiously, they approved them both, and they certainly have that
abiliry. He can't telt them that they can't. It would seem to him more logical that they would have said
to han, at that point, you know you've been back here, pal, 15, - 5, 6, 7 times. Pick which one of
these you want, and decide which one you want to build, and we'll act on it. But they acNally acted on
both of them. That decision was appealed by his clients to the City Council and it still sics there
awaiting the outcome of this decision, because what the City Council said in effect to Mr. Severson was
exactly that - we're not going to buy a pig in a poke here, which one of these two plans do you want.
Let's get them all here so we can discuss them all. So he didn't build that either. Even the Heritage
Preservation Commission approved it. And it conforms.
So now we're back with the other half of that particular proposal, and he might add, by the way, fie
doesn't know what necessarily effect it has, or how it relates, but he might add, if you look on the Staff
Report, in this particular case, you will see that this proposal, thaYs before you today, was submitted in
June of this year. And that it was prepared to come to you much eariier than that. Why didn't it come
to you? Because Mr. Severson canceled the hearing. He decided not to have it come fonvard to them
at that parucular point. Which he wouId say, logically, he thinks is an admission that he was perfecfly
willin� at that point to accept the 36 foot plan that was going through the Herita�e Preservation
Commission and, hence, to the City Council, and it was only back here before them now because the
City Council wouldn't act on the Ilerita;e Preservation Commission appeal until you had acted on this.
He was not so sure, although he mieht be able to answer that question, where if the Ciry Council had
gone ahead and acted at that particular point on the 36 foot proposal that was approved by the Heritage
Preservation Commission, that he �vouldn't have already pulled a buildin� permit for that. He doesn't
know. And nobody knows. And it's terribly confusing to him and he's been involved in this issue for �
almost 3 years. He knows it's confusing to his cIients. And if it's not confusing to any of them, they're
Page 6 of 13
� �
00 —7Ja
much better at this than he is. There's so many of these different proposals that get chrown up. So
� they're back there now.
L.ePs look at the staff recommendation. There are certain tesu. They aren't immutable in the sense that
you can't use your own judgment in deciding whether they've been met or whether they aren't. But
they are certain that he thinks, on any rational reading of the facts with respect to his 38 foot proposal,
Mr. Severson has simply not met the tes[. In all due respect to Mr. Beach, and he's know�n him for a
number of years, he thinks he's simply wrong in the conclusions that he urges upon them. And the
musc e�regious of which is the first. And that is that the properry in question cannot be put to a
reasonabie use under the strict provisions of the Code. It then goes on to urge you to conclude that
he's met this finding, but really talks about preferences, not reasonability. FIe mi�ht like to do a lot of
things that he can't do with his own residence because the Code doesn't let him. But because he wanu
to do them, in this case, because Mr. Severson wanu to add 2 feet to his carriage house, that doesn't
mean that the Code is unreasonabie when the Code says that he can't. And even when he says that he
wants to do that, you have to judge that a;ainst the fact that he has submitted another proposa136 feet,
which does meet the provisions of the Code, and which he's told you he could live with. A;ain, thaYs
a matter of preferences. And preferences don't necessarily add up to unreasonableness. Where is the
unreasonably strict provisions of the code that allow him to do something that would otherwise would
be reasonable. He's already told you he'll build the 36 foot one, if he has to. So he would argue that,
utterly and completely on the basis on the facts, that test hasn't been made. If he'd come in here and
said, `I can only do 38 feet, this doesn't work with anythin� than 38 feet, I can't do ail the parking
spaces that I have to do, I can't do everythin� else that I want to do unless I make it 38 feet' and if the
Board concludes, then, that the Code requires him to be allowed to build 38 feet rather than something
� that compiies with the Code, then he might have met that test. But thaYs not the facts, and all of us
know it. He said he'll live with 36 feet and, therefore, he �vould submit to the Board, ihat that falls,
and this request for variance ought to fall, on that very first test.
And while they're passing over the issue, he just wanted to make a couple of comments about Mr.
Beach's other rationale for concludin; that the suict provisions of the Code bar a reasonable use, and
that is this business about how you can make the parking spaces a little wider. Well, you know folks,
there are so many square feet on this lot. And quite honestly, his clients' objection to this, from the
very beginning, has been that putting any building that even remotely is like this, is just too big on this
particular lot. Given that Mr. Severson also has the legai requirement to provide all these parking
spaces, which are, in effect, how he must do it, he doesn't have any choice: he's got to have 9 parking
spaces on this particular lot on the buiiding and on the lot. Well, if you make the carria�e house a litfle
bit bi�ger so you can make those parking spaces a little bit bigger, therefore, you make the other
parkin� spaces a little bit smaller. And so there isn't any more room. This isn't a case where you can
push something and it shoves out somewhere else. The size of the other parking spaces has to be
materiaily affected in a negative way by increasing the size of the parking spaces in the carriage house.
By increasing it from 36 feet to 38 feet.
And you also heard that Mr. Beach said, and he thinks Mr. Severson repeated it, that these parking
spaces with the 36 feet carria;e house comply with the law. They do comply with the law. It makes
maneuvering a little difficult. Well, again, difficult is one thin�. Unreasonably strict is another. And
if they comply with the law, either the law with respect to how big a parkin� space is ri;ht, in which
case the 36 feet proposal meets that, and there's no reason to vary it, and certainly no reason to
� conclude that applying it is an unreasonable limitation. Or the parking requirements w�ith respect to
width are not correct in which case somebody somewhere ought to investigate what the code says and
Page 7 of 13
/ P
whether it ought to be changed. But he argues that he ought not to do that on a piece meal basis you �
ought to do it on the basis of following the law where you can. He jusc doesn't think that the parking
argument with respect to the minimal increase of size in the parking spaces in the garage. Good
heavens, there are 4 of them in there, If you increase it 2 feet at most, and that's assumin; that every
inch of ihose 2 feet is going to be assi�ned to those 4 parking spaces and he don't know that they can
necessarily conclude that, that means that you're going to increase each parking space by the grand
sum total of 6 inches. And he would argue that that's not enough to ailow them to conclude that ihere's
some strict interpretation of the Code that requires it to be done.
The other item with which he thinks, and some of the other parties and some of the residenu wili talk
about it, but he thinks the other thin, that caught his eye as he looked through it is the statement that
the variance if granted would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the Code
for the property in the district - so on and so forth- that's #5 by the way. And Mr. Beach urges you
upon the conclusion that the zoning code permits single family house with parking. Well it certainly
does. But the Zoning Code dcesn't permit single family houses with parking in the front yard or the
side yard for that matter. Because of the way tfiat this house is oriented, and believe him that was Mr.
Severson's choice, nobody's else's, with respect with how he wishes to orient it - you have in effect the
only piace on those 2 biocks on Pordand Avenue where you have parking that is in the front yard. He
would certainly say it's the front yard but at most it's the side yazd and it would be ri�ht up against the
set back from the street. Much has been made of the fact that the rest of these buildings particularly on
that side are set up close. But ail of the pazking for the buildings on that side of the street is behind the
building. There isn't any of it in front of the building. And there isn't any of it right up on the street,
which is whac would be the case here. And he would argue to the Board that the code prohibiu without
additional variances, prohibits sideyard parking and it also prohibiu front yard parkina. And he �
assumes the Board - he knows they have - dealt with that issue before. And so he �vould ar�ue that that
test is also not met on its face. That, blarandy and brutatly on its face, there is not a su�cient factual
basis for you to conclude that because it is not as simple as a one family home with parking. It's as
complicated as a one family home with parking in the sideyard and/or the frontyard which is not of the
same character as any other building on that particular street.
So - and then he just simply wants to echo - and he knows that they have and he assumes that they've
read it - because he commends it to them although he must say that may be the first rime in the 9 years
that he ever sat on the pIanning commission or since tfiat he said anything about District 8 and anything
that they said that he thought was laudatory and logical but he does think that in this particular case that
they do present some arguments with respect to their recommendation that you deny this. That do in
fact have some logic. And he knows that Mark Voerding will echo some of those. This is not a
materially different matter than the 2 other times this was before the Board. It is the essentially the
same proposal. You tumed it down the other 2 6mes. And he argues thac they ought not to be fooled
by somebody saying that the City Council's approved because the Ciry Council has never approved a
plan for this site that required vaziances. Not in 1995, not in 1998. They have approved a building for
this, but every one of them has conformed to the strict provisions of the code. So to say that you ought
to do this just because the City Council acted in approving a site plan over the zonine administrators'
objection earlier this year doesn't reaily compare apples with appies. Because that site plan did not
have variances, and Mr. Severson did not build that. This requires variances. This is already a
building with the strict provisions of the code that absolutely stretches this lot. And co put - to ailow
these variances as a matter of personal choice, when Mr. Severson has admitted that he can do it within
the strict provisions of the Code, he doesn't think was what the variances was met to be. Mr_ Vaught �
then thanked the board for their time.
Page 8 of 13
i t
D O -'l�o
� Next, Mark Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, came forward. He said he feels like this is like a piece of
fly paper that keeps sticking_ No matter how you try to get rid of it. It doesn't get resolved. He said
he was not part of the well-fmanced clique. He was there on his own time and at his own expense to
represent to the Board the position of the Ramsey Hill Associa[ion. He's a board member and Chair of
the I.and Use Committee.
Before he starrs with that, there was one comment that he wanted to make. He said he was acruaily
quite disappointed. He didn't know why staff can persist in misrepresentin� the facu in a part of this
case. There was no legal lot split in 1990. There was no legal lot split in `91, there was no legal lot
split in 1992, there was no legai lot split in his view that has occurred. The City Council approved -
took an action regarding the lot split last year. That issue is not before the City Council. That issue is
not appealed to the ciry council. It was an action that he would argue is arbitrary and capricious and
inappropriate for the City Council to make. That part - his opinion aside - it is a fact that no lot split
occurred in 1990. No legal lot split. What is a fact is that a) city staff person took a rubber stamp and
put a red mark of approval on the plans, signed his name to it, he had no authority to do that , he
possibiy committed a crime in doing so, certainly his power. A lot split in that instance oniy under the
code within the power of this body. This body has never taken an ac[ion regarding this lot split. So he
wishes such misrepresentations on this matter would cease.
Mr. Alton, Acting Chair, stopped Mr. Voerding at that point. He said, 2 thin�s - please confine his
comments to the application to the zoning variance and secondly Mr. Beach did not misrepresent any
fact to this Board. The fact of the matter is that a lot split did occur in 1990. You're speakin; of
legally approved - thaYs correct he suspecu. And perhaps they can have Mr. Warner give them an
� opinion on that. But, he advised, ptease do not characterize Mr. Beach's statement in this, regazding
the history of the case as a misrepresentation. Because thaYs not true. With respect to whether you
can accuse someone - a clerk of a crime in 1990 - I don't think that thaYs relevant.
Mr. Voerding continued his comments. He said that the Ramsey Hiii Association continues to oppose
this project. First of ali the design contains none of the feamres that are required for a primary
residential structure. Secondly the lot should never have been spiit from 415 Summit creating this
siruation. And also putting 415 Summit out of compliance with the zoning code. Thirdly based on last
week's communiry issues meeting, the proposal does not meet any of the requirements necessary to
grant the variance. And fourthly, the proposal requires sideyard parking for which a variance would
be required and is not being sought at this time. They also remain concerned about the number of
variances requested to maximize or over-maximize the use of property that occur within their district
and they are working toward a review of the Zoning Code to ascertain what amendments if any may be
necessary to ailow full use without variances. They continue to work in that direction. And so it
would be - the position of ihe Ramsey Hill Association, that the Board continue in iu denial of the
variances for this projec[.
Gre� and Carol Clark came forward and said they're residenzs of 415 Summit. Mr. Clark said they
have a 2 car garage that is on the existing land now. They've been goin� on their fourth year there.
They have not been able to use their gara�e because of the condition of that back lot. The condition
that it's in. They haven't been able to use their garaQe for 4 years. He's hearing about the sidewalk in
between the existing 415 and 420 and now a car parked in there. He questions about how they're
goin� to be able to get into their house in the winter time it's a bloody mess. Any ways where this
� parking - or [he sidewalk and the vehicle that would be parked there - how they would be able to get
into their home now.
Page 9 of 13
��
Carol Clark said she thinks that when they refer to tktis sidewalk - that is on association property and �
Mr. Severson's unit would not be a part of their association. That sidewaik does not exist nor have
they talked about putting anything like that in there. So to clear that up. #2 under the Findings, the
property cannot be put to zeasonable use. They have offered to buy the ptoperty from Mr. Severson,
they being the association to use if just for the purpose of parking and trying to figure out something
that would be conducive not only to their building but to the neighborhood and sdll to preserve green
space which has always been a big issue. To have a structure abutting a park, which is some of the
only green space in the neighborhood, ihey are against that. The plighT of the Iandowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property - Mr. Severson knew entirely what �vas happening with that lot.
He's been the one that's lived in that properry 415 Summit the lon�est. When Dennis Grozy, the
ori�inai owner and the one who did get the other proposals approved by the Ciry Council, owned it,
Mr. Severson was against building anything there. And he knew what the problems and what the
issues were with building on that lot. In reference to fiaving people say that they wouId rather have a
building there and it would make a better view than wha[ 420 Portland or 430 or whatever the building
is next door - have to the park than what they have. She doesn't agree with that. One of the neighbors
also - and she'll submit this to the Board - has written a letter. She just faxed it today.
She has concerns about the light and the value of her properry. One day she came home and Mr.
Severson had hired a surveyor to mark off the back lot of his property. In speakin� to the surveyor,
even the surveyor was concerned about the size of the building on the size of the lot. He said he
couldn't figure out - and again it was his personal opinion - how a building could fi[ on a lot that size.
His concern aiso was in re�ard to parking for the rest of the peopie. He said where are you going to
put all the cars and how are they goin� to tum around. Which leads again to their plight with their
garage. They haven't been able to use it. Now as you see, there's another pazking spot at the end of it. �
She doesn't know how even if they could use it - they could back out - there would be a car there - or
the 4 car garage that he's proposing, how they're going to back out with a car at the end of the
properry. And the other point, the desire to increase his value - the request for variance is not based on
the desire to increase the value or income - a�ain, they have offered to buy this from him and do the
ri�ht thing for what they think is good for the neighborhood. He said that he would sell but he
wouldn't seli to them. Which she guesses, kind of fiu in with this. That why wouldn't he sell to them.
It would be the most logical thin� to do.
If you look at the drawings that have been submitted she thinks the drawings look like there's a lot
more space back there than there is - actually is. And again, on the drawing it looks like they couid
just back riaht out of their gara;e, kind of make a u tum and go out the driveway. With a car there,
there's no way - at the end of ihe other parking space that he's proposing. She doesn't see how [heq
could do that. And especially if another car was comin� out of the garages that he proposes to build.
In his letter, he refers to the site plan with the restricted 9 feet front yard variance improves the
building and the lot and they're therefore asking for the variance. Again she doesn't see how this
improves anythin� back there. It just adds to what she would say is further congestion. And then the
parking space tha[ he has at the foot of their gara�e, her understanding is that it is still considered
sideyard parking in this issue. And then he also refers to the 32x32 2 story carria�e house. They've
been at this a long time. And no where has she seen any plans showing that this �cas a carriage house.
She's seen things that have referred to it as an outbuildin�. And a�ain 32x32 foot that is a lot smaller
than a 956 sq feet home that he is proposing to put back there.
The last thing she would like to say is a;ain in regards to the improvement. If he wanted to improve �
something back there, she doesn't see why it hasn't been done thus far. There's pites of rocks,
Page 10 of 13
�I
00 -�ao
� nei�hbors complain about how it looks, improving it doesn't have to be building something back there.
It could make it look decent to the neighborhood with giee� space, trees, whatever. Hz talks about the
55,000.00. She question the �5,000.00. As far as will it really happen. When they bou,;ht, they had a
site plan that was approved by the Ciry Council by Zoning, it showed their garage, it showed parking
spaces. It showed pavin�. That's never happened either. And that's something that the city approved.
So when she hears these improvements she really has some questions and concerns. And she guesses
the last thin� that she would like to say is that the tenants in their - that currently exist the previous
owners, Linda Meyer and Jim Hau�land, they were both a�ainst buildin� anything back there. And
they were there at least 2 years before Greg and she came which was 96. The previous owner was
Dennis Rosie. Yes he was for it but he was aiso the developer of the structure in the back. And to
finish, she would like the Board to come and look if they would at the property and what he is
proposin„ just to see.
Mr. Alton, commented that he thought all of the Board has been there.
Mr. Clark added, lasfly, that they are not weil-financed. It is a sacrifice on their part.
Chris Yerkes, secretary for the Summit Universiry Planning Council, spoke next. He's been invoived
with the planning council since 1992. He doesn't want to look at personalities in this. He doesn't want
to look at whether it's a legal or illegai lot split. ThaYs a different issue. He wants to look at the issue
thaYs in front of them. He's a little concerned that there's a sideyard parking that is not in front of them
when the plan dces call for that. That is not taken up at the same time. He doesn'i like to take things
piecemeal. He's a volunteer with the Summit University Plannin� Council. That's why he's here.
� He's takin� time off from work to be before the Board.
Just wanted to outline the letter that they've had. He's assumed that they've looked at the City code for
guidance for when they authorize and don't authorize variances. Everybody involved - the builder
when he first split, the builder, the current petitioner when he bought it - knew what the codes were,
kne�v what he would have to do and where he would have to go to have a variance granted. Unless
he's wrong, the section ouflined there he has to qualify under all 6 of those, not just 1,2,and 3, but
even if one of those is not taken then he would not qualify for a variance.
At the community issues meeting last Tuesday he presented 2 plans. One that he presented perfectly,
happily. He said I don't need any variances for this. I can build it today. I can start construction
tomorrow. And then he presented a plan with the variance that he's asking for. That makes it fall out
right under number one. Under number 2 the plight of the landowner isn't due to his circumstances.
He bought it with the full understanding of what the easement requirements were, and what the lot
looked like. #3, keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. fIe thinks the code is there and looking
at #l5 and 6 and back at i, he doesn't think it is in keeping with the spirit and intent. N4 they took a
neucral point at the community issues meeting. And he's not speaking for himself - he's speaking for
the community. As has been given to him over the past many years, sitting in on communiry issues
meetings on this - you could if you talk about air and light he believes a lot of this looks towards
buildin� and air shafrs and current downtown buildin�s and thin�s like that. But if you want to look at
this particular one, with it further back, it affects the air and the light of 415 Summit. With it further
forward it affects 436 Portland. So they just took a neutral point on that. f{5 - i� wouldn't pernut any
use under the provision of the code. It would certainly affect it. If this variance is granted it would
� allow parking in the front yard. If there was a 25 feet setback parking a car 16 feet from the front is
requires a variance. #6 iYs not primarily based on a desire to increase the value or income. Whether
Page 11 of 13
32
it's value but he asked the petitioner himself, why would you like [o have this variance. He said he
would like to have an extra parkin� place and he'd like to have extra room in the garaQe. You can �
interpret that how you want. He thinks that increases value but he did not say that direcfly.
Since there was no one else to speak in opposition, Chair invited the applicant to remrn and answer any
questions.
John Miller, attorney wiih Peterson, Fram & Bergman, St. Paul, who represented Ron Severson in this
matter, and has for a number of years on this particular properry. Mr. Vaughc and he have probably
a�reed many times on this, sometimes in hearing rooms sometimes via correspondence, sometimes in
person. Finally there are a couple of thin;s that Mr. Vaught said today that he asrees with. First of all,
he agrees that this is deja w ail over. They've been down this road many times before, not only before
this board, but through various subcommittees, and up to the City Council a number of times on it.
However he does disagree with his characterization that each of these visits to the various city boazds is
occasioned by changes in Mr. Severson's ptans. He does agree with him also in his comment that there
appears to be a lot of revisionist history that's going on with the project that's been goin� on for a
number of years - twisu and turns. There is going to be some revisionism. You're goin� to look back
and take a look at the same evenu and reach different conclusions. He could point out a number of
areas in which he disagrees with Mr. Vaughu statement of the history of the matter. But he thinks that
that would - is probably not somethin� tfiat this Board's interested in. If they are he'd be happy to do
it. Along with the revisionist history approach, also a number of other irrelevant comments have been
made today. And again he's not goin� to point those out.
The one that he was going to mention, he believes the chair also already has commented on and he �
would concur with his comments with respect to the validiry for effect for the lot split back in 1990.
He's not going to - it's not his position to give the Board any legal advice with respect to that. If there's
further clarification he's sure that Mr. Warner would be happy to do that. He would like to just
comment in passing he believes that the important thin� for the boar@ to do - or he would submit that
the important thing for them to do would be to focus in on the appIication as it exisu today. Try to put
aside the whole long gnarled and tangled history of this. And look at the staff report and analyze the
staff report on its own merits. He's not going to go through point by point 6 criteria which have to be
met. Su�ce it to say that they agree with the stafYs position with respect to each of those poinu.
He would like to just comment briefly though on the - what is referred to as reasonable use or the
unreasonableness of it. The phrase reasonable use as used in the ordinance is not a phrase thaYs
capable of precise definition. There's probably no more single troubling phrase to nail down than
reasonable use. And boards for their various municipalides develop their own definition and
appiication of how that phrase is going to be used on a case by case basis. They essentiaily create their
own precedent. And iYs important he believes - with that in mind that this request the Board look back
at some of iu previous decisions with respect to what constitutes unreasonable use under the
circumstances or if the properry can't be put to a reasonable use. To use that prece@ent. Just by way
of example, he only uses these examples because these are the ones that he's most familiar with, he
would submit that the 2 previous requests for variances are not terms of reasonable use that much
different from the request that Mr. Severson is making today.
Mr. Severson came forward and said if there were questions he wanted to answer ihem. It's really
hard to sit back and have inaccurate information goin� forth. �
Page 12 of 13
3 .3
Do-'1ao
Mr. Alton noted that the Board is not going to judge this case based on personalities or statements
� regarding personali[ies made by either party.
Mr. Severson added that iYs probably not real relevant, but there's been 4 proposals not 8 to 12. He
could list them aIl for them. They've been changed because of problems that they've had with them.
Like one that had the front yard parking. They moved it to the back and had to come back. He oniy
wanted to - John Miller and himself - if there were quesTions, he wanted the board to lmow that he was
availabie.
There were no questions by the Board, therefore, Mr. Alton closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Morton moved to deny the variance, based on finding # 1, the property can be put to a reasonable
use under the strict provisions of the Code.
Mr. Wilson seconded the motion for denial.
Mr. Donohue stated that he thought it was unreasonable to deny this variance based on the fact that this
building, if it is moved 25 feet back, it diminishes the functional utility of the building to the point - he
thinks that it doesn't make sense not to grant the variance because Iong-term it's going to affect ffie
value of the condos that are using these units because the garage units are going to be smaIler, less
functional, and the rurn around areas. He doesn't agree with denying the variance.
Mr. Wilson asked, when they speak about the garage area, they're increasing the garage by 2 feet.
� They're goin� from - they've got 4 spaces in that garage. And leYs say that the walls are 8 inches a
piece. They're increasing that maneuvering that's so minimal. But what you are doing by increasing
the 2 feet, as he sees it, you're increasing the size of the units upstairs. He thought that's part of this
argument to get this additional footage. Is to increase the top section of this home. Not the garage.
As far as the maneuvering area in the yard itself, to me that looks like it's going to be pretty tight to
begin with. So he thinks that as far as maneuvering in the yard is going to be tou�h. But he dcesn't see
that argument for increasing the maneuverability in the garage - he doesn't buy it. He thinks it's the
upstairs that's going to add value io the building.
Mr. Donohue responded that he's got a garage right now that if it was 6 inches wider he could pull his
vehicle into it.
Mr. Scherman stated he agreed with what Mr. Donohue said.
Mr. Alton then asked for a roll call, and the motion to deny the variances passed on a vote of 4 to 2
(Sherman, Donohue).
by:
�
John Hardwick
Approved by:
Gloria Bo;�n, Secretary
Page 13 of 13
3 `f
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
1. APPLICANT: RONALD SEVERSON
2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance
3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
DATE OF NEARING:
FILE # 99-163
10/25/99
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN # 012823240240 (See file for compiete legal description)
5. PLANNING DISTRICT:
6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 20NING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
7. STAFF INVEST(GATION AND REPORT: DATE: 7/6l99 BY: Tom Beach
8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12/11/99 DATE RECENED: 6/8/99
A. PURPOSE: The applicant is proposing to construct a new residential structure that wouid have a 4
car garage on the first floor and a single-family home on fhe second floor over the garege. The building
has been designed to look like an historic carriage house. There would be a total of 9 parking spaces
on ;he property (4 spaces in the new building, there would also be 3 surface spaces, and 2 spaces in an
existing garage). One of these parking spaces would be for the carriage house unit and the other 8
would be for an existing 4unit condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit).
B. ACTION REQUESTED: A variance for minimum front yard setback. A front yard setback ot 16 feet is
proposed for the carriage house; a setback of 25 feet is required for a variance of 9 feet
C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is an irregular shaped parcel with an area of 5,428 square
feet It is currently used for parking by the 4unit condominium at 415 Summit (fhe property immediately
south of 420 Portland). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on gravel/dirt. The site is located in the Historic Hill Preservation Disfrict.
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Single-family and duplex (RT-2)
Easf: Nathan Hale Park (RT-2)
South: Four-unit condominium (RT-2)
West Multi-family condominium (RM-2)
D. HlSTORY: Since 9990 there have been a number zoning cases for this property:
— In 1990 fhe City approved a lot spiit that split this parcel from north end of the parcel at 415 Summit.
— Later in 1990 the Board of Zoning Appeals approved variances to construct a new carriage house
unit with a 5 car garage beneath tfie unit subject to conditions. This was appealed to the City
Council by the Parks Department. The Council upheid the variance but modified the conditions.
The project was never built.
— in 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeais granted variances to construct a two-unit carriage house with
a 14-car underground garage.
— In 1993 the Board of Zoning Appeal granted a one year extension of the 1992 variances 6ut the
project was never buiit.
— In 1994 there was a proposal to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 garage stalls under
�
�
�
35
p ,p _� ao
the carriage house and in detached garages. Variances were appiied for but appiication was
� — withdrawn before the Board of Zoning Appeals took any action.
In 1995 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a carriage house unit with 3 parking
spaces beneath the unit and 6 other surface parking spaces.
— In 1996 Ron Severson, the appiicant in this case, purchased the property.
— in 1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a pian similar to the current proposal. The
City Councii upheld this approval on appeal in February 1998.
— in Aprii 1998 the Board of Zoning Appeais denied variances for a carriage house with 4 parking
spaces beneath the carziage house and 5 o�her parlting spaces. This decision was appealed to the
City Council. The City Councii upheld the decision to deny the variances. The City Counci{ aiso
instructed the City Attomey's office to look into the legal status of the original 1990 lot split because
that the lot split was approved by staff without a public hearing even though the lot split required a
variance. (See attached site pian and BZA resolution.)
— In May 1998 Ron Severson submitted a revised site plan with a slightly smailer carriage house and
one less parking space. This site plan did not require any variances. fiowever, the Zoning
Administrator denied the site plan based on advice from the City Attorney's office that the 1990 lot
spiit was not valid because the lot split needed a variance and a pubiic hearing shouid have been
held on the variance. Mr. Severson appealed that decision to the Planning Commission and in
November 1998 the Planning Commission upheid the decision to deny the site plan. Mr. Severson
then appealed this decision to the City Council and in March 1999 the City Councii reversed the
decision of the Pfanning Commission and approved the site pian. The Councii said that the fact that
the lot split in '1990 did not follow the required procedures shouid not prevent approvai of the site
pian. The City Council aiso concluded that, under its authority, it would approve any setback
variance that was required for the lot split. (See attached site plan and City Council resolution)
E. CURRENT PROPOSAL: in June 1999 Ron Severson submitted the current site pian to City staff. It
� cails for a carriage house and 9 parking spaces (4 in the carriage house, 2 in an existing garage and 3
more surFace spaces). This site plan is slightly different than the one approved by the City Council
eariier in the year.
A. The carriage house is 38 feet long (instead of 36 feet). This allows a larger dwelling unit over the
carriage house and wider parking spaces in the carriage house.
B. A surface parking space has been added behind the carriage house for a totaf of 9 spaces. This
provides each unit in 415 Summit 2 spaces plus 1 space for the carriage house.
To accommodate these changes the front yard setback has been reduced from 25 feet to 16 feet. The
reduced setback requires a variance.
7he Heritage Preservation Commission approved the cuRent site p{an and building p{ans on June 24.
This decision was appealed to the City Councii. The Council decided to defer action on the Heritage
Preservation appeal untii the Board of Zoning Appeais has acted on the variance so all appeals can be
heard at the same time.
F. FINDINGS: The Board of Zoning Appeais may grant a variance if it meets the foilowing findings:
1. The property in quesfion cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The variance meets this finding. The variance will allow the carriage house to be 2 feet longer and
so the parking spaces on the first floor of the carriage house can be wider. Maneuvering to get into
these spaces is 5ght because the site is small and the extra width will make it easier to get in and
out of these parking spaces. The extra width will aiso permit the carriage house dweiling unit to be
siightly larger.
� 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
�1 u
The variance meets this finding. The plight of the land owner is due to the size and irreguiar shape �
of the lot and to the private agreement that requires the property owner to provide parking spaces
for the units at 415 Summit. These circumsfance are unique and were not created by the land
owner.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and infent of the code, and is consistenf with the
health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabifants of the City of St. Paui.
The variance meets this finding. The intent of the code in requiring minimum front yard setbacks is
to ensure that there is some consistency in setbacks and to provide green space. The proposed
front yard setback is consistent with (and actuaily slightly larger than) the fron2 yard setback for the
large condominium buiiding to the west which is the oniy other building on the block face. The front
yard wouid be landscaped and would provide adequate green space i� the front yard of the
properiy. Addifional green space is provided for the block by adjacenY Nathart Hate Park.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and ai� to adjacent properfy, nor
will it or unreasonably diminish established property values wifhin the surroanding area.
The variance meets this finding. The variartce to move the cartiage house closer to the street will
improve tight and air to 415 Summit Avenue by moving fhe buitdings farther apart. It will not
unreasonabiy diminish established property values within the surrounding area since the relatively
small carriage house will be set back further from the front property line than the large condominium
buifding next door which is the oniy other buiiding on the biock face.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use fhat 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 classifrcaSon of fhe property.
The variance meets this finding. The zoning code permits a single-famiiy house with parking.
6. 7he request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase fhs vaiue orincome potenSal
ofthe parce! ofland.
The variance meefs this finding. The request for variance is based primarily on the need to provide
parking for the dwelling units at 415 Summit as well as the proposed carriage house unit
G. DISTRIC7 GOUNCIL RECQMMENDATION: District 8 Communiiy Council had not sent ifs
recommendation to staff at the time the staff report was being written. However, in the past, District 8
had opposed variances for this project
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approvai of the
variance to reduce the front yard setback for the proposed buiiding Fo 16 feet.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appiication
Sife plans and elevations for current proposal that requires one variance
Site plan for a proposai that did not need variances and March 1999 City Councii resolution approving it
Site plan for a proposal that required 3 variances and April 7998 BZA resolution denying it
Location maps
G:IUSERSBEACHTOM199163�99t63625 �
� �
�
�
APP�ICATION �OR ZONING VARiANCE
OFFICE OF LICEA'SE, I.-�SPECTIO.�5, A:�D
EiWIRO��;�fEATAL PROTECTID.�' � S 3 I I�
3.i0 St. Peter Street, Suite 300
Saint Paul, Mr�'S�102-I510
266-90U8
APPLICANT
Zorting office use onty ���
r�tz num�e�: � i� - ( (0 3
Fe°: 5 �
Tertatve hearing da:e: 7 Z
Sectian(s}: (� y • � (} j
Cify agert �"��
Name �r'1t.'� l� �F�t �4'Cd� Compzny
Address,� / � o P�� � �-
Ciry��'. � u t State� Zip �� Daytime Phon EL���J 37�-0 i �7
Property interest of applicant (owner, contrect purchaser, etc.) t t 1,t}P �'
Name of owner (if
p�N 6128 23 Z'� O�g2 W�! i
PROPERTY Address/Location C� af .2n-
Legal description
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Lotsize .�l/DO �(�" - Present Zoning Pres=ntUse -/a;�i.�1 � �
Proposed Use
1. Variance(s) requested� ("� (�
) �^ / sek.�t��� '�'E" 51�� d�c�•.�� Ga/�iGa�.e, �ceFe..
� 'TY"°1(-T �cr�
C2�` r���-i ir� � �
2. What physical characteristi s of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone�
(topography, size and shape oi tot, soil condi5ons, etc.}
� � �L/� Q/
3. Explain how ihe strict apptica6on of the provisons of the Zoning Ordinance would result in p=cv{iar or exceptional
practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardships.
CASHIERS US'c ONLY
C�
additional
4 Expiain how the granting o` a variance will not 6e a substantial detriment
to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpese
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Aoniicant's sianature �� ,C� Z ��
__ -_ . _`�=''-- - - --=i�i .
-__. . =_ .. -- �- - "
- -� t - - -
q �- ��
Date G �7 /
APPLICATION FOR A ZOI�TING VARIANCE �
420 Portland Avenue
Ronaid and Mary Severson
Please consider my request for a front yard vaziance of nine feet for my lot
at 420 Portland Ave.
420 Portland Avenue is a 5,428 square foot lot, currently surfaced with
gravel and used as parking for the condominium owners at 415 Summit.
The lot was split off from 415 Summit Ave. and is a separate buiidable lot
with Portland Ave. as the front yard. By easement, the development of this
building site must include two off=street parking spaces for each of the
owners of the condominium owners at 415 Summit.
The lot has an irregular shape with a 50 foot front lot line on Portland Ave.,
a back lot line of 90 feet, a west lot line of 88 feet and an east lot line of
55.7 feet. There is no alley access to this lot.
In 1990, the developer who then owned the lot submitted a request to the �
BZA to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carriage house reqniring
seven variances including a two foot front yard set-back. This request was
approved by the Board. In I992, a second request was submitted for an
expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requiring additional
variances. This request was also approved. Neither of these proposals was
built because of the developer's financial problems.
My wife and I purchased this lot in 1996 with the intent of building a
single-family house for our personal residence. Our plan also includes the
required off-street parking for the condominium residents. During our
efforts to deveiop an appropriate construction plan, the legality of the lot
split was called into question. On February 3, 1999, the St. Paul City
Council affirmed the legality of this lot split by passing a motion making
420 Portland Ave. a separate buildable lot. Although, we can now build a
36 foot carriage house on this site with no variances needed, we believe that
this site plan with the requested nine foot front-yard variance improves the
building and the lot and we are, therefore, asking the BZA for approval of
this variance.
�
39
0 0 -��°
� A front-yard variance of nine feet will provide a 16 foot front yard. The
carriage house would be 38 foot in length with four tuck-under garages.
The carriage house would be centered on the lot, allowing a separation of
15 feet from the main house and providing room for an additional parking
space. This house will cover 956 square feet with 1,620 square feet
allowed. T'his site p�an provides a total of nine off-street parking spaces
which meets the condominium Declaration requirement of two spaces per
unit and the city requirement of seven total spaces for this lot.
The only other buiiding on this side of the block is a large three story
condominium with a one foot front yard set-back. Of the seven houses on
the North side of the block, only two meet the 25 foot set-back requirement
and two of the set-backs are shorter than the requested 16 feet. Therefore, a
sixteen foot set-back would not be visually obstructing and would be more
harmonious with the piacement of the other houses than a 25 foot set-back.
Since this building is an architectualiy designed turn of the century carriage
house which has HPC approval, the view from Nathan Hale Park is an
improvement over the existing view.
� This architectually designed carriage house conforms with the requirements
for the heritage preservation area and provides the most appropriate plan
that has been proposed for this lot . At the turn of the century, there was a
32' X 32' two-story carriage house located on this property. In effect, our
carriage house replaces this original building.
C�
�.,.
�esolK��� �.►�Y�� �'�qa�J� �r
3 var;aktQs
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
BOARD OF ZO1vING APPEALS RESOLUTION �
ZONING FILE NUMBER 93-026
DATE April 6, 1998
�VHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a variance from the suict application of the provisions of
Sections 61.10 i of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertainin� to the construccion of a new carriage
house with one dwellin� unit and additional pazkin,; spaces in the RT-2 zonino district at 420 Portiand
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearin� on March 2S, 1998,
pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requiremenrs of Section 64.205 of rhe Legislative Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals based upon evidence presented at tfie public
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followin� findings of fact
1. The property in qttestion can be put to a rearonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The irre�ular shape of the loi and the covenant requiring 8 parkin� spaces for the property at 415
Summit Aver.ue make it difficult to dzvelop tfie property. However, the o�r�ner has not explored all �
options such as constructin� a smaller house or repositionin� the house. In 199� variances for a
simifar project �vere denied but the house currently proposed is sti�ht[y Iu�er than the house
proposed in 1995 and has not been si�eficantly repositioned.
2. Th.e plight of the Zand owner is not due to circu»utances unique to this property which were not
created by the Iand otimer.
The sue and irregular shape of the lot and to the covenant that requires the property owner to
provide pazkin� spaces for the units at 41 � Summit were not created by the present owner. However,
the present owner was aware of these circumstances �r�hen he boueht the property.
3. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is not consrstent
with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
The proposed development wouid not provide a reasonabie amount of geen space and therefore the
variances are not in keeping tti�ith the spirit intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance wi11 in:pair an adequate supply of light and air to adjaeent property and
unreasonably diminish establishedproperty vakres within the surrounding area.
The location and size of the proposed carriage house would impair an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent propetty. The orientation of the buildin� with the side facinv PoRland Avenue would
unreasonably diminish property values within the surrounding azea, � �
�f �
t
�
8 0 -?2��
� �. The variance, ifgranted, x�ould not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the
cade for the property in the district tia•herz the affected Zand is located, nor x•ould it alter or change
the zaning district clarsification of the properry.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value ar income potential
of the parcel of land.
NO�V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonut� Appeals that the
application to grant variances from provisions of Sections 61.101 to allow a 12-foot front yard setback
for the carriage house, a 20-foot front yard setback for the surface parkin�, and a 1.2-foot side yard
setback for the carria�e house on property located at 420 Portland Avenue and legally described as (See
Attachment); in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning
Administrator is hereby denied.
MOVED BY:
SECONDED BY:
IN FAVOR:
.
AGAINST:
biAII,ED:
APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning AppeaLs are final subject to appeal to the
City Council ��ithin 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buildina
permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have
been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended
and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final
determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the Cify of
Saint Paul, hiinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing
copy �;ith the or a�inal record in my office; and fmd the same to be a true
and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on
appro�ed minutes of the Saint Paul $oard of Zoning AppeaLs meeting held
on March 23, 1993, and on record in the Office of License Inspection and
Environmental Protection, 350 SL. PeYer StreeY, Saint Paul, blinnesota.
S.�T PAUL BOARD OF ZO�'L\G APPEALS
�
Sue Syvstegaard
Secretary to the Board
A:1930'_6dZR.DtiY
°# �°
t
_ 4"�
' ' "__ '_'x rr,lil
APPLICA�
Department
Z�niag Sec1
II00 Ciry• H
15 Tf'est Fnt�
Saint Paul, ,
266-6589
APPELtANT
A r p..�' , •.
Y(�' �, ��.._ Rr-�: �...�
s �6 PJ<<,., �
Z,Jo�4 rZ..^I aa.�<r
PROPERTY
,,, � s �- LOCATION
S��'
C:tY C� S PRU� Li_? -�
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiica!ion is he�eby made for an app=al to the:
�let+..:h¢ 4�n.
�—, a,._.� ., s_ .
y �-�- ❑ CitV Council
S22a832H P.�92
und=� th= provisions of Ch2p;er 64, 5=dion� , paragraph�b� &(Jbf tne Zoning Code, to
a�peai a d=cision made by the �� P3m_ni�sat�/pL>*min3 �.�-,
(da(= c•` d=cision)
�9_ Fife number.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you fe_I th=re has be=n ar, error ir. aay r_quirement,
�°'^��.. ce�ision or re£usal made by an administra`.ive officiaf. or an e�ror in fact, procedure or
Fn;�ing mad= by the Board cf Zoning Appeais or the Pianr,i�g Commission.
��n3 �istratrg/Pl�rirrl �� ea� i*� �rirz� t2= site glar: f� tt�
[aoj�-t h�4x1 at tl� ficst tYat ti� site fs tl� Faoja esdsts as a x�u1t of an
;���t �t ��it, tt� �a c� 7.arirr� p��s ry�i �,�y t� c�n tre �n�;c�nt�s
�� f@' �� to �rt tk� proja:t, the �te z`�s �.�zt vicdati�s
� t� �irr, �, i•rLr?i-r3 frtnt/sir� pa , _ - c , ' , � ,y,.,.. �t 1�,';
C��It'dl P�K.'tS tD .� vmTitrlim ��7� �'g'�u^ ai13 �^'�n<
th; c�e at415 Sumdt Acsn� zn3 g36 R-�-r�A��. �t aa�ri }x tt� ��� l,.,r� �
�';a� ad�itiona! shset ifr
/+�n�.cant's
Llat_ 2 /8/� City ag=_nt
S. P�;c Uaix�t, Attc�� for P�
�
ti
t
�
� �
_ �
� C
�
` 3
1: �
T
3 t
� �
i
� �
v �
M �
.
r�
LJ
TO'RL F.�?02
�� J 3
po-��o
! city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
fite number o0-28
date April 14, 2000
�VHEREAS, Patricia Leonard, I,aurel Frost, Gre� and Carol Clark, file � 99-117070, filed an
appeal of the decision by the Zonin� Administrator to approve a site plan for a carria�e house and
accessory parkin� at 420 Portland, le�ally described on Exhibit A; and
�VHEREAS the Zonin� Committee on 4/6/00, held a public hearin� at which all persons present
�vere given an opportunity to be heard pursuan[ to said application in accordance with the
requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code; and
�VHEREAS, on 4/12/00 the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented at
the pubiic hearina on 4/6/00 as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�vin� findings
of facr.
(1) The site plan is not consistent �vith the city's adopted comprehensive plan.
� (?) The arran�ement of buildin�s and parkin� for the proposed development will unreasonably
affect abuttin� property and its occupants.
(3) The site plan is no[ consistent with the safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic within the site.
1�'O�V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appeal of the Zonin� Administrator's decision to
approve a siCe for a carria�e house and accessory parkin� at 420 Portland be approved.
moved by Gervais
seconded by
in favor 16
against_ � (Gordon)
�
��v
MINUTES OF THE ZONIIYG COMMITTEE
Thursday, Apri! 6, 2000 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3` Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Keitogg Boulevard
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Engh, Faricy, Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Mardell and Morton
Peter Warner
Carol Martineau, A(lan Torstenson, Joel Spoonheim of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Fieid.
Patricia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Greg & Carol Clark - 99-117-070 - Appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's approvai of a site plan for a carriage house and 9 parking spaces focated at 420
Portland Avenue, behind 415 Summit, befween Western and Arundel.
Tom Beach showed siides and presented the staff report. Mr. Beach stated the staff recommends
approval of ffie site ptan subject to a sef back variance approved by the City Council.
Upon the inquiry of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Beach stated there was a public hearing for the site
plan. The lot split was not mentioned at the hearing.
Mr. Mark Vaught, Attorney for the appiicant, appeared and submitted a photograph depicting the
38 foot carriage house and a written document dated April 6, 2000, listing the procedural grounds
for the appeai which outlined severai points: 1) The building is too large for the lot. There was no
opportunity for neighborhood input on the site plan review; 2). There was two prior deniais of
variances for this plan; 3). The ptan keeps changing and being resubmitted and ; 4) the 38 foot
proposal was submitted bythe developer after approval of a 36-foot proposal, requiring new rounds
of hearings and appeals. The Substantive Grounds for the Appeal listed are: 1) According to the
Zoning Code the massing of the proposed building on the lot is inappropriate. In1999 when the lot
was spiit off it did not have a Public Hearing wfiich makes the lot sp(it illegai; 2} The orientation
of the buiiding on the lot is incorrect and it cannot be oriented to the front because there is a
restrictive covenant that requires the owner of this lot to furnish parking for 8 cars. 3) There is a
prohibition on the Zoning Code regarding side yard parking in the City without a variance, znd there
are severat parking spaces that wi(f require side yard parking. 4} The ingress and egress is (acking
for maneuverability in front of the garage; 5) The proposed building is Yo close to 415 Summit
Avenue which causes parking problems. 6) The tenants have a blanket easement for pedestrian
purposes over the entire property at 420 Portland Avenue. 7) If tha carriage house is bu:lt and all
the parking spaces are used it would create probiems emptying the dumpster.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Vaught stated the orientation of the carriege house
is a problem.
Mr. Mark Voerding, Chair of the Ramsey Hiil Association Land Use Committee, appeared and
stated the Ramsey Hill Association is opposed to 1he project and presented 5 poinYS: 1.) Under the
terms of the easement agreement with the Condo Association at 415 Summit Avenue, 3 parking
�
�
C�
��
Zoning Committee Minutes
Aprii 7, 2000
� File #: 99-117-070
Page 2
bo-�o
spaces must be provided; 2) The site plan indicates compact parking spaces which the Zoning
Code does not recognize for residential parking. This would eliminate one parking space.
3) Because of the size of the structure and its location on the lot, there is insufficient maneuvering
lanes and tuming radiuses provided for vehicles. 4) One of the parking spaces located on the
side yard is prohibited by the Zoning Code except with a variance. 5) There is insufficient green
space provided for a residential unit.
Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Clark appeared and made 3 points 1) The carriage house wouid be abutting
the park which wouid be the front yard. 2) There is not enough green space for this parcel.
3) The property should be landscaped and used for parking in lieu of a buiiding because of parking
problems.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Clark stated she was more concerned with the
building being too ciose to 415 Summit Avenue.
Mr. Ronald Severson, the applicant made 2 points 1) The 36 foot carriage house doesn't require
setbacks and has been approved by the HBC. 2) The carriage house is in compliance with the
code except for a 9 foot variance allowing a 16 foot front yard. Mr. Severson also presented a
photograph of a 38 foot carriage house with 997 square feet. Mr. Severson explained he worked
with the neighborhood, the architects from the Heritage Preservation Committee and the City staff
in creating the carriage house and it is less than half the size of the 2 carriage houses that were
� approved for the lot. The 38 foot carriage house is set in the middle of the lot and it provides i 6
feet between the main house and the proposed building and ai 6 foot front yard setback. The size
does conform with City Codes in relationship to parking. Mr. Severson also stated he is setting up
an escrow account of $5,000.00 for landscaping.
Mr. John Miller, Attorney for John Severson, appeared and stated the lot split is legal, it was
challenged in 1990 and addressed by the City Cou�cil in 1999 and they specifically stated the lot
split was legal. When the 36 foot proposai was before the board in October in1988 ii was rejecfed
because the Pianning Commission believed the lot split was invalid. They adopted a resolution to
that effect and the City Council approved the 36 foot plan. The 38 foot plan requires one 9 foot
front yard variance. The blanket easement that exists pursuant to the private declaration placed
on the property is not necessarily relevant. The parking spaces were determined based on the
City Code.
Mr. Mervin Hough appeared and stated he bought the property located at 436 Portland in 1971.
Mr. Hough also explained he served on the Board of Ramsey Hill and the Old Town restorations
did a number of projects in the Ramsey Hiil Association. They were an important organization in
renovating Ramsey Hill. They moved and built houses and 5 structures are closer to the street
than 25 feet. He also showed photos of various project and new garages in the area that are close
to the street. They knew a parking facility would eventually be built on thaf space. A 16 foot
setback is appropriate in the Ramsey Hill area.
Mr. Hough also showed an old plat map showing a carriage house on the northeast corner of the
� subject lot with no setback from the east lot line and touching Portland. The setback of this carriage
house is keeping with the appropriate neighborhood guidelines.
Ms. Bragette Bachmeier, 459 Portland Avenue appeared in opposition and stated the appiicant
�
Zoning Committee Minutes
Apri17, 2000
File #: 99-117-070
Page 3
worked with the neighborhood in designing this building and it the design does incorporate the
neighborhood esthetics.
Mr. Mark Vaught appeared and stated the issue is the nine parking spaces that are required on the
lot. The lot split that took place in 1990 left the building at 415 Summit Avenue less than 8 feet
from the property line which would not be conforming. The garage on t�e land limits putting the
carriage house on the other side of the lot.
The public hearing was closed.
At the question of Commissioner Engh, Mr. Beach stated the Zoning Code does not require the
building to be square with the property line. There are setback requirements but the angle of the
buiiding is not addressed by the code. The probiem is Summft and Portland Avenue come
together at an angle which means the building would be askew to Portland Avenue or toward the
house that is on Summit Avenue.
Upon further question of Commissioner Engh, Mr. Beach expiained to buiid the building, Mr.
Severson needs approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals,
and Site Pian Review. All three processes are being heard so the City Councii can consider them
all at one time.
Commissioner Morton moved to approve the appeat on the basis of findings E-1, E-5 and E-7
related to the comprehensive plan, arrangement of the building and traffic. Commissioner Kramer
seconded it.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-3.
Adopted Yeas - 5
Drafted by:
,
�
��` ('t :�.� ���ic���,cr2nn �,t�
Carol Martineau
Recording Secretary
Nays - 3 (Engh, Gordon, Mardell)
Submitted by:
l (ii � ) �.� �I.C�"li
Tom Beach �t,
Zoning Section
�
�
�
- j �
� o -'1 aa
C J
20NING COMMtTi'EE STAFF REPORT
1. APPLiCANT: Patricia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Greg and Carol Clark
FILE # 99-117070
2. CLASSIFICATION: Appeai of an Administrative Approvai of a Site Pian DATE OF HEARING: 4!6/00
3. LOCASION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN # 012823240240 (See file for complete legal description)
5. PLANNING D{STRICT: 8
6. PRESENTZONING: RT-2
7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT:
8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 6/6/00
ZONINCa CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
DATE: 2l24100 BY: Tom Beach
DATE RECEIVED: 2/8/00
A.. ACTION REQUESTED: The applicants are appealing stafPs decision to approve a site plan with
conditions. The site ptan calls for a carriage house apartment and 9 parking spaces. The parking
spaces would be for the carriage house and the adjacent residences. The grounds for appeal are listed
in Section F below.
� This project has already been before the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Heritage Preservation
Commission.
- The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance in November 1999 to reduce the front yard setback
from 25 feet to 16 feet. This decisio� has been appealed by the property owner to the City Councii.
- The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the site pian and building pians in June 1999.
This decision has been appealed by the neighbors to the City Council.
The City Council has instructed staff that it wants to hear aii the appeals on this project at one pubiic
hearing, including any appeai of the site pian review. Staff approved the site plan subject to the
condition that the City Council must approve the setback variance.
B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is an irregular shaped parcel with an area of 5,428 square
feet. It is currentiy used for parking by the 4-unit condominium at 415 Summit (the property immediately
south of 420 Portland). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on gravelldiR The site is located in the Historic Hilf Presecvation District
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Singie-Yamily and dupiex (R7-2)
East: Nathan Hale Park (RT-2)
South: Four-unit condominium (RT-Z)
West Muiti-family condominium (RM-2)
C. HISTORY OF PREVIOUS PROPOSALS: There have been a number of eariier proposals and zoning
actions for this property since 1990:
- In 't980 the City approved a lot spiit that split this parcel from north end of the parcei at 415 Summit.
� - Later in 1990 the Board of Zoning Appeais approved variances to construct a new carriage house
unit with a 5 car garage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This was appealed to fhe City
� E'
Councii by the Parks Department The Councif uphe(d ffie variance but modified the conditions.
- In 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances to construct a hvo-unit carriage house with �
a 14-car underground garage.
- In 1994 there was a proposal to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 garage stalls under
the carriage house and in detached garages. Variances were applied for but appiication was
withdrawn before the Board of Zoning P,ppeais took any action.
- In 1995 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a carriage house unit with 3 parking
spaces beneath the unit and 6 surface parking spaces.
- In 1996 the current property owner purchased the property.
- In 1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a plan similar to the current proposai. The
City Council upheld this approval on appeal in February 1998.
- tn 1998 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a 10 foot front yard setback for a building
fhat was 40 feet long with a parking space in the front yard. The City Council uphetd the denial.
(See attached site plan.)
- In March 1999 the City Councii approved a site plan for a slighUy smaller (36 feet long) buiiding with
8 parking places. This ptan did not require any variances. Af the same time, the City Council
affirmed that the lot spliY that created fhe !ot in 1990 was valid. (See attached site plan.)
D. CURRENT PROPOSAL: The current site plan calls for a carriage house with one dwelling unit and 9
parking spaces (4 in the carriage house, 2 in an existing garage and 3 more surface spaces). Eight of
these parking spaces are to 6e used by 415 Summit Avenue under a private agreement that went with
the sale of the property.
This current site pian represents a middle ground between a pian that was denied in 1998 and a plan
approved by the City Council in March 1999. (Site plans for these projects are attached.)
- The current site plan calls for a carriage house that is 38 feet long (compared to 40 feet for the 1998
pian and 36 feet for the 19 for the 1999 plan. �
- A total of 9 parking spaces are propased (compared to 9 spaces feet for the 199& plan and 8
spaces for the 1999 plan).
- A front yard setback of 16 feet from the front property line is proposed (compared to a setback of 10
feet feet for the 1998 ptan and 25 feet for the 1999 plan}.
E. STAFF APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN: Staff approved the current site plan in December 1999,
subject to a variance for front yard setback being granted by the Ciry Council. Staff determined that the
site plan was consistent with al1 of the required cortditions rf it obtained the variance:
_(1) The cify's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the city
The site plan is consistent with the recently adopted Nousing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
which encourages construction of housing units suitabie for "empty nesters" (page 14) and supports
"designs that use the smaller development sites creatively" (page 16).
(2) Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The plan is consistent with applicable ordinances except for the required front yard setback. A front
yard setback of 16 feet if proposed compared to the required setback of 25 feet The property
owner apptied for a variance but the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance. The property
owner has appealed this decision to the City Council.
(3) PreseivaSon of unique geologic, geographic or historica!!y significant characferis6cs of the city and
environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the �
plans for the project as being compatible with the historic character of the area. Neighborfng
�
D D - 'l i-t7
property owners have appeaied this decision to the City Council.
• (4) Protec8on ofadjacent and neigh6oring properties through reasonable provision for such maffers as
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, fighf and air, and fhose
aspects of design which may have substan6ai effecfs on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site p4an is similas to the one that was approved by
the City Council in March 1999. The main difference is that the carriage house structure has been
moved 9 feet closer to the front property line.
�{5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order fo assure
abutting properFy and/or ifs occupants will not be unreasonably atfected.
The site pian is consistent with tfiis finding. The arcangement of the carriage house buifding would
be 9 4eet further away from the adjacent residence at 415 Summit Avenue.
(6) Creafion of energy-conserving design through fandscaping and location, orientation and elevatio� of
structures.
The sfte plan is consiste�t with this finding.
—(7j Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffc both within the site and in relation to
access streets, inciuding tra�c circuiation features, the locations and design of entrances and exits
and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The current site plan would permit each parking space
� in the garage to be 6 inches wider than what was cailed for in the earlier approved plan. This wiif
make them easier to drive in and out of.
(8) The satisfactory availability and capacify of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions to any
drainage problems in the area of the development.
The site pian is consistent with this finding. Similar to the previously approved plan, drainage will be
handied by grading the site so that storm water is directed out the driveway to the street.
(9) Su�cient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The property owner has an agreement with an adjacent
property owner to spend up to $5,000 on landscaping along the west property line.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Acf (ADA),
including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sediment control as spec�ed in the Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Control Nandbook. "
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
F. GROUNQS FOR APPEAL: The appeal contends that the Zoning Administrator erred in approving the
� site pian for the reasons listed beiow. Staffs response to each of these is aiso given:
1. °The site for fhe projecf exrsts as a resu/t of an il/ega! /ot splif. °
The lot split was approved by City stafF in 1990 wiYhout requiring a public hearing. After that, a
�� �
number of zoning actions conceming proposals on this propeRy went before the City Counci! over
the next years and the issue ot fhe )oY split was not raised. When the issue of the bt sptiY was �
reised in 1998, the Cily Counci! )ooked inio the issue. !n March 1999 the City Council dectared that
the lot split was lega! at the same meeting where they approved an earlier version of the site ptan.
No new facts conceming the lot spiit have been presented since then.
2. °The Board of Zoning Appeals had previously turned down the applicanYs request for variances to
construct the pmject."
The 8oard of Zonirtg Appeal's decision on the variance is under appeai and wiii be heard by the
City Council. StafPs approval of the site plan is subject to a variance being granted.
3. "The site represents several violafions of the zoning code, including front/side yard parking,
setback requiremenfs.'
The site meets all zoning code requirements except for front yard sefback. The property owner
has applied for a variance to permit a 16 foof front yard sefback and the City Councii will consider
this. The proposed carriage house and ail parking spaces meet the side yard setback requirement
of 4 feet and atl other zoning requirements.
4. °Serious detrimenfal effects fo fhe surrounding properly, including that owned by the appellants in
this case 415 Summif and 436 Portland. °
The plan is simi(ar fo the one approved by the City Council in March 1999. In approving that plan
fhe City Council found that it would not have a detrimentai affect on the surrounding property. The
main difference is that current plan wouid move the carriage house 9 feet further 415 Summit,
which would lessen any impact.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings, staff recommends that the appeal of the
decision to approve the site plan be denied. �
ATTACHMENTS
Page 1 qppeal
Page 3 Site plan and elevations for the current proposal
Page 9 Site plans for earlier proposals (for comparison)
Page 11 Location maps
G.LCOMMOMSi[e Plan�99163ceverwnl991t7WOspr.zc
�
� �� G
�1.
�a-��O
�
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
�
10.
11.
12.
13.
1 Y.
15.
16.
17.
S L7NRAY-BATTZECREEK-HIGHW OOD
HAZEL PARK H.4DE\-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE
DAYfON'S BLUFF
PAYIv�E-PHALEN
T�ORTH END
THO�fAS•DALE
SUMMZI'-iJ��VERSITY
WEST SEVE�+TH
COMO
HAMLI\�E-;�IID4�iAY
ST. AtvTHOYY PARK
hiERRL�'�i PARK-LEXL��GTO�' H."..VLLI\�-S?VELLItiG H.A�iiL��
hLACA? ESTER GRO�L4.*�'D
HIGHLA.�'D
SUtii1 HIL.T.
DOWi�
��
,
`F9� /63 r
�ON1NG �lLE ' '
�_-
CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO` PLA.`7ti'I?vG DISTRICTS
• • • • • • •
: a ,:.� � �
CHURCH
ME
_ • g '
�) C O O Q�5 o O
��� �y•
(Q ¢ O O� O O¢ �
�
1j O O O O O O
Qb2�c�va /��• � S
' O ¢ -¢- _ � J
� � O p
Z
O �
O � � O a
. . '
��ip �����
0
APPLICANT �"�' `�� �����"�
PURPOSE CL)N ST�UG� CIETzR(/4�Y� _ I'�QJ��
FtLE # ���� DATE
PLNG. DIST—� MAP # � �
SCALE 1' = 200'
tEGEND
�� hpc district boundary
� subject ProPerty —`.;`„�'—
0 one family • • ^ comr���
� twofamity ♦ �� industria(
A.�� muttipte famity V vacant
:J� � _ �'7'°f .�°.%i�
/t.
�
:ULS CHURCH
JE
�jc
/E
T
��o�
s
�
-�
,
i
�
:���`�
5 �
��
��
�f�
�
T
G�TY:=P'LANtdiN.G `.
A°?LICkN�� � ��� " !
�U��l�s~ ■ ��
99-/s3
Y D�TE_
PLNG. DtST� h1A° +°-
�
�.J � � LEGEND
.�.�.� zoning dis;rict Lt�unda•y
�. �_ � subi'� P�oP'"'r
/ O O�? fdr,lily
� ¢ }'N� fdf�lllj�
� �
__�. ��-4 I'tUliipl? yZ^il�
r�C,or,n�-
� � n �
� r... I�ivUSl:id�
V v2:3':
._._� � - --- � . .. �'-
r.�.�_ ' _ L! !'^. C _ . _ S�'L
I O Qr
a QU J �
oC ga es
e = wC� �5 " °..
• w W Q O6 5 = O
0 o U1d'U vv� � >
3 a =
". i-
�`n IN r.
�
I�
= � ��
�i�r �N
1 �_
, °
�� 1
W
� � I
a g g
zm f��
�m
a p
�
� o . z :
Q N u�i p O
o � �
3
J
� 3f4�BAV ONtll1NOd z
a'
�� awnn(ae °
o N �
��o
S3: '� rrv.�aacs
._
.6 1
� � =o .
^ Vm
�^ryl
1�
= n �
� 3i �
go
g~= � \
�6�
�7 �
.sbz
4 �
� ;� ,
i � i �
� --- ---�
Z�
WlJ
�m(�
a
w�
�� �
00
� .5
\ HSYtlI /
^
\ � �
\ ��� �
p /
' � e
`
� �
♦
�`
7 \ � ' d
O�
l
.SZ I •9 I
15'�3 .0�'OS
� `\
I �y '.•
� ;
�6
n��n �.� �
� MOONVA
S53tl'J3
_ _ _
�
,
�
,Q
, o o�
_ i � �t,,,�
� � �Q
i �- �v
0
�e
_ _�
�
1
_ _ _ I
aoaoc��o
i
a 9o � ry5 E
o h
/ �y1
Q �-i s /
O
6
�'�.
� . .
.�
.
.
. �,
� ` \
\
\ \
�
� \
:
� ��
,
a- � �
� � .O6
' / `
I
. , � ..
n
� �
� ��
�
s
3
Q
J
d
W
N
U
3
N
>
�
a
R
�
c
O
V
�
y
O
G
a
�
.
�
0
3
O
h
L'
a
:�
�
�
w
00
d
0
0
�
0
w
N
�
R
•
A
L
�
d �
.c y
m
C �
� o ��
� �N �
R� �
T
o�U.
N �
N c�'J �
� L �
U � .
� Y i
U
V .D �
O y
R' o �
b � 1
N �
1
ro
o c� �
C
� a .�'
U Q �
� ��
� • • •
_ —
> ' (A ✓� � v
O
� �< Z U o r� � m
0
L
�� mX �� wZ� ¢ W C �2 r WV
QU' WW �X XN IYUN =.� �O O CJQ U� tY1Qi
p? Z� �� < ClZ \C V2 �2' Z� d X DY
W�
UN d(J NO N�'I <2� N0 ipID IDID 1/�� �� V �
n �n _c
� ��lt� 1 � � � i t � < <
�
N
O
N
�
��
Z Z
3 3
D �
Wy K
m� V
X
N �� �
v NO <
�L
0
N
N
�
b
�
N
m
�
^��
O
0
N
IH��H �Nfi�
..Il-.8
�
U
a
3
m
n
ro
N
�
N
0
O
■
� _
�H�I 9N(117:
t- ..t/£ LL-.L
w
z
0
¢
0
0
4
ao -7so
Z
O
Q I
�
W
W
�
Q �
u� I
O
II
h
✓� �l � !
y
> � �, o
� � V p3¢ � �p m �
� � m OC WZ� ¢ W ¢ � �2 � wU
"' o _<—� tn3z z m div d �n<
Q U' „W Y WCJ� N� O� N� Y V'Q V x CLL
wT zC �<� oza >< <'¢ �a �?� a °c
v�n ac�i n No nn ¢i� �nm iom Inm r v.� o v�i U¢
� Z
3 � 3
O pa O
cx�
V m V
_ O
� �N �
N — �
a NO c
N' �
L
0
m
N
�
i
N
0
<
N
�
N
m
O
U
W
�
a
i�
. .
. .
■
I. .
n
.
.I
. ..
. .
� —1
Nf \
L
0
N
N
w
(...
I...
. . .
. . .
�
�
z
�J
H
Q
�
�
J
W
� I^
V'
w
�
�
_�
II
�
�
�
✓E �
�
e� -7�0
�
0
� �
��
0
�
O
�
N
� �
N
��
< ¢S
N ti
N 4SU
c�a
zs
0
n N o
W
� (� �
❑ C� C�
{��
Z
0
�
Q
>
w
J
W
_
�
�
O
� � ��
n
U
0
N�
r O
N�
m
N
� m
❑ N
� m
��
��
O
.�'2
ZF
OQ
��
0
z
0
�
d
>
�
�
�
_
F
�
0
�
�
�
��
�� �
a , _ �jo
�
n .
�
z
Qo
�,
�-
� ��
o :
o �°
L�' M
�
°� ��
�NEV✓
� q ORIV
/ NEW
TREE
ARROWS INOICATE
DRAINAGE SLOPE ?�"
��
o`
J�
0
�
�� �
-L P�'�
�� � �
P �
i/
/ ./
�
��
oi
^ i .
i�, �
` , �
C L S T\ //
-��
9,p � G
������
� o�eP i
PROPERTY LINE
FENCE
w �
Z�
J
r
� �
�
w
a
0
�
a
�
�
W I
�
O n
°p
_� I
�,
i SITE PLAN
I t/t6" = 1'-0
��
. ���,
Q
Q�
. �
O �
� . 4 '��/�
G �P� Q P �
O k'� Q P�`�� � \ �
/
"� / CONC. OR �
ASPHALT
� �PAVEMENT
17\IT��
�
�
/i
�Q wiN�ow
°o
.
�
�� /
PR��OSED
G�LOF7 & �
� � y � ��.
_� � .
_ .,
a �� .
HEDGE — - — — —
90.00' � • � _
N52°52'25"E
ensErneNr
sraRs
PORCH
475 SUMMIT AVE
z i�2 sroRr
WOOD FRAME BUILDING
�pdS�D 3.6� �il,bl(��
- Tt�rs � �au,ow(u(� g
�AFr�iS o�
A
O�
9 �'O
9
e � G �F� GF �GF
\ 9 'QO
9•
5
0
i
��' � ExiSTtNG
� iREE
� � S �O
I f �ql�"
� CO C. WALK
&�iEPS w/
�R N RA�LwG
& GATE
— Ex�STiNG
� .:� �.�5
�
I o;
�,
NI C%'
NI
I
� ��
ti� � �
�
-�' -
— � m
< �
�
f-1,
9 � ° ��
bA
� �3
w o
z �
F `°
� �
w 0
a� 3
� I �
� N
OU
�
�
.�
.fl
ol
�
1
� �
M
� 'LS
¢ o
-o 0
� �
o w
a �
� o �
� v a
����ti
�
�
� �
on �
.� o
�
A �
� o
� U
� w
R I �
� � �
�
o � o,
� U �
.� � �
� � U
C> > �
� ��
U � �'
.� N �
s.� � �
� Sr C�
O
o c 3
c
�� U
o ° .3
.�z�
�
�
w
vi . . .
DO-��
w
� N �
JN � m Y
W Z Z L�O� CS � m
� 'n � o o �z � W � r w
W W fO�T O� Z� 2 q � 'aU S� NQ
�C W X X� K - 0 L'p _ � U G U C{i
�i Z� m o- nZa =< "< =< z � a< ��
c�v+ ao � aN u ¢i� u>m �m �m �� o v�i �c
u1 (D� N
O O
�X
m 0< �
I Ix 1
c av> a
m
N
�
N
IN
�Z .
m0¢
ON4
2�
�rN
wV
Z��'
62�
w
N
�
N
b
0
�
W
N
W
N
�
�
0
��
0
�
N
m
N
�
N
�
0
�
d
00 0
� � �
1N`J�H
0
a
¢
J.H913H 9Nf713J �
I-.l ••ro/£ tl-.L
� �� vi 1 ' �
� ¢I pj O
� 4{
�I �� 4
°1 �i NI �
Z
0
� /
�l _
� �
L.I.J �
J -
W�
F � II
W ��
��
�-
�
F
W
N �
� �K
�� Ww
pz ` zt
W2 Q7
CJN dp
2
O
u� m< m
o x o
m m m
I Ix 1
a a� �
��
0
�
O
J(I)
Z Z �Q�
04 � K �
tOr O O N32 �N �N �
�
° m<e ° m nzy =¢ �a =�
I X X I Z7
nN �n 42� v>m iom �nm
w a
N m Y
�
0 � m
�S
�StJ d � yU
m U Q V � CLL
� �� b x �c
< U
C I/�� O u�> �¢
N � � I I
N 1
Z ' I
O � �
� fa 0
N
�
❑
� � ❑
m
e .
N
0
� I �) �
N
N
�
N
D ^
u
❑ ��
� u
� �
. .
. .'
i . .'',
. .
�
i�i
�
u
z;
o ,
F"�
�`
/
�..��
J
W
{�
�
� 2
T
�
��
�
M
i
�
s
��
�
d o —� 1 �
�
�
z
0
�_
Q
>
�_
�
�,
_ �-
�-- ��
�_
o�
z n
�
�
�
? 1
�
0
�:� =
O
N�
�
N
�
Y� �� � I (I
�f � ��
BI�I � ��'
� �, � Il��
�� �4((
91
�N
��
0
�_
$V
a<
v�
0
�
'
zi
O�
�-
Wi_
���
z��
�lu
O I �°
�1�
�
.� i
.� `
. �
Oa-��
�
�� ..
�
Z
Q
J
�
LL..
�
�
�
�
`
�
\I �
�
z
Q
J
�
J
LL
.7 _
� O
� I
� '
L1J II
� �
...1 M
�
`�I
f
do -��-o
�
��
��, .
r — — —
I
I � N
I � �
aN N
m � o
1 Z r
N � �0 �
m �
� 0N N � ,.Z-,2
W
� I
I — — — 8.9x0.Z � I
W
NI
�
�, o I
p 8. XO.Z a,
r
s.sxsa
w °�
a o
�
� i
1 CJQ
z°
ON
� I
bZ${ >Z8Z bZBI
' _ _ _ _
' o
� �
S
� �
0
� �
X
N � o
m
L7J �
U
Q — — — — — — -
� — — — — — — —
Q I
� I o
8
I i
I o
I x
I �
I
52100Q Ol 3d0'iS - JNIdd01 "�N0.9 'NIW
..Z /M SNNYid 'JNO� a35S3NIS3ild ..S
�
�
�
C� I
�..V I
V
Q — — — — — —
� — — — — — —
Q �
U
I
I
I
�
i
+ j bZ8L bZ8Z bZ81 � I
I l'73M MOONIM SS3?!'J3 � �
° o
2
0
0
0
�
d
0
x
m
—
�
(
l
4
I
O�
i�
W
OI
aZ
0
o�
�N I
4
O �
O
z
N �
Z
Q
J
�
�
�
O
�I
��
�I �
0
�
11
�
�Y�
�
9
:i�
�
�
0
�
�
z
c
J
�
�
�
�
J
LL
�
z
�
U
IJ.1
�
�
��
�/7 �
�
=
� ��
z�
' � r
W y� cnmV
U-r �>� F
�N,��, Z�r-
h0C 3 0¢ �
¢otiwm�'< �
G �r �' F
��UN��y
U�wNCbN �
I `�
U
Z
Z
G
2
�
Q
m
o = o
m w
v: u ��o� a�
� W
�� O O u�Z O� U
> VIV N
(JF.� �- Z y���m p420 1
�V< S �t� v�mo 4
" � tA�m�p� ��a> ?
Z ¢ Or (> N U V �
' n < t`" y �3_ O U
< [C � O�iV '�' bh Z m
n-��i = c Em��`n m
�
W
�
Q
�
Q
U
� ao -?�ro
:io � oz
�o
�? Z KUS
�Z0 O O LL3V
�_ ' V O�
oa �a z�
U� K V�Z
N ' \ C\ : - rv
N_ N3 <lp(_j
I p
�W
�.Q
1
N I
�
� i
O �
� i
� i
m I
S
U
w
�
�
�.� �
_
�
'--
�
O
�
�
W
m
1Y.OI3H `JNfli37 H'Jf10J
>n �r_o
N
W
U
Q
�
Q
v
w
<
�
l .I �
a.
O
�
;
Z
O
V
w
N
Zi �
J I
m I
�
II
D
%�
��
� 6
NOTE:
AP,P,O'NS INDICATE
DRARIAGE SIOPE
��
O�
S�'
0
�
�� � {
�
���� �10
C� ` �t'/� i�
NEN! �
TREE
—� /
�/ � �" � �
� .� � �
� / ��
l��- � >
I �� l � \ / � \ /
q C „ � /
o j
� PROPERIY LWE
�
I 90 — —
w�
z
J '
r
�)
C
u
a
0
�
a
�
�
W
� M
O �
�O �
��
M
N .
SITE PLAN
1/16" = 1'-0"
h •'1,�t' `l1
PA710
\Y� �/ DPIV�Pi,•\Y
� � ��y
��
,; �o
��
�,� � EXISTiNG %
O UtACS
Q�{f� ��' i� �
� � �
� ASPHALT --'�
�PAVEMcN7
\ 420'PORTLAND q'
4/
H�DGEJ ,"
90.00' �
�� � �
NR"I ARBOR-
VITAE iREES
BASEhICNT-�
STAIRS
A
'pT
9 '�'O
e-� 9 �
G� �
� '�o
o \
� �' �ExlSilil,
7REE
S ��Ft+i, 9
� ��
Q
C
�
IR
�
I/
•
' yo,p �
ti
V �
I
o ,�
,�o �
f �
— T
�� � � � R
o �
R
1 9 0 0 ^' � �
q � o
A. �s �
,3 a �
� � �
� o Q
o � w s �
�� � � �
0
C �U -O
.� o 'c
y V �
C� y ._,
� �U
� U �
a c U
c y
� �
, � U
v ❑ c
R �
g � �
i p � R
� L1. a.
� T m � >
> 7 O � �
Q � II. C C
a 'u R � �
� a ..� �
� �
o �° �
a = N
�
° � �
v a v� . .
u +
z _
� �
r
r I
�
W
a
O
�
�
�
�
415 SUMMIT AVE.
2 7/2 STORY
NlOOD FRAME BUtLDlNG
/'1 SITE PLAN
�J r. - oo.-0..
•
, > p /� �
/�o.l rt c� t`.a�t i i� c( r r,r'��/ 1 �� �%4
E '\ \
� >
� �i
.�i �
>
� �
� � i c�`��4r
� Q� V�•
i ��F����
� QVP�' /r
��
9
PORCH
oa �'t�
�
�
�
z
0
�
a
>
w
�
LL,
}--�
�
�
LL1
�
� 'r
y`\ �
�
�
z
0
�-
�
>
�
�
�
�
N
w
�
C J
�.
,a
��
00 -'1do
•
�
�
m
N�
W O
ZN �
�-
W� p
�-�q0
�NV3�
m
N
N �I W
N
�I �O
� rx
a
� '�3 V
N Z �
�I �C
�I Nr
a
N
O I � N
1
■� �
.
1�
I�
� � J
,^
Z
O
�
E.
>I
�.,
��
�,.,
Si
�I
�
�
z
0
�
u
�
n
;� �
� �
�
�
f
z
0
F-
�
>
w
�
cL
S
F--
�
�
N
�
a
o ;
i' T �
ba-�d-o
.
�
C
O
Z
`I
z
�
J
�
L1_
Q
�
�
�
°� ^.
� �
i
� �
�
�
L
O
Z
�
�
�
�
�� �
`,
z
�
J
�
�
�
�
LL
0
z
Q
U
w
�
�
•;:
i(
� �
a� -�a�
�
�
.
w
�
a
0
z
5
`e
e
e
0
CI
a
u
a
3
7
N
N
a
Z
�
H
�
� c
2 �
F o
Q �
z =
� C C..
s
G
V
�
�
�
�
Q_
�
�
�
'�
C"
�
�
O
�� �
N
� � �
�^� �
�� `� �
U �Z
z_a � r�
F� �� �L�
ir � � �
.cs� ..�"� �
.F'" C J ��J
-xt.' �� ::�
<> _�
�` _-. CL �
�`, '
;��'•_ '
`.: �
C`� � N�
O�
�1
1
� F -.
� �� ��
t
� N �J r :
`1, _ � C .
� � � �.:
�" c _"
�_..-__�
I __
Ci '" .:
�'..- ;
o �
rn�'
W
N
L�
� ...�
���
�
�
5
�
•
ti � l. _ `' ,�<�
'� v � _�' � . - : � � rx�-7ac�
a
�
�
U
Z
�_ x
?� a
� �
�= 3
:�
W� �
�i�� Q
� ,. < r-+
�ti �
'N-� �'< �
Q z
✓,'=� C
�,
E �� ; �
z�z �
r��� f-1
_ ,�
� � � z=
° � o°
o� �_ ��
�� A �y / �j : , �
{� :,: :� L-'�� C � Z
� z< a=
= G:,^ ra��
r�= �� �a�
u;° `n� ���
� ��Z COi
�l 0�3 ��_
,.x., � .� _ o .� =
�' ��hZr° A
�� Vm� ~ V2
C �^' �C�
OH=
�.= C-"'Z' C.'+C.
��'" > ��''S= ��,
r» U = � C-� U :
F
0
a
Fi
h
�
�
�
a
� Y
o =
r' 5 �
u� - -
� i
�?
z� �:�
�Z L
z� z�
'` 5 �° �
�+� �>
r� _ �_
�� G:-
m �'+5
�^ OZ
c
< �
�z
C H
o p
C H �
_' � z
�; p r�
I"- -�.
Isz �C
I'' Y ��-+ [y
I : _ Fy �--�
�^Z ��
��= z
)O` H
Iz F'U�
�
)8� W�
0
::
11
�
�
r
W
�
w
O
� U
�n y
v '�"" '
�
. �. . �
�
�
�
r.�-�
`i.
A
a
�
O
a
C
Y
�
U
z
�n
F�
�
�-
��
u�
[:� ^�
� �;
-�N., `>"'�
Q�=
�_�
�
Hc:
6. i a
� o? �
W
a
�
�
Q
�
z
�
�
La
�
�
�i
�
�+
�
F j
�<
��
�:�
�3
��
�i =
0
�>
U�'
3
e
i�l �
F_
�J
� =_
�z3
�,�?
G=+=�
��6
���
� i?
�5i
'�`��°�;
; �.,' ��; �:�a"
..�,.�' .:z;in".
�:'`;F�' ,
z>a„.' ;_;: .w�
' ��� T � .:.f�m+�k��
..-_... tiJ`:: [>`E"s.
z °°
Z
� �
� H .
�qz
��U�
c��,s<
� /.j � !--� oZ
F '1 p.J N
� O =�
VH<?
Q���,
��z<
06
�f F-( �-'�, J
� � <;
���i
C�Uz<
�
/-e �
�
Q�
� O
�U
�
��
��
G G
� �
Z..) t
cy
a �=
� ��
��nZ
�U�z`
�
�.
� L�
�z�<
[�� �
wQ=;
�x_
�O«
�c�z3
�z��
q��>
Hz=�
�O??
�
�
.-�'. 5
�'�
z�
HZ
��
a 5
C.� �
��
�m
F�
G�-� `'
Z
3
s
>
_
z°
�v
��
F-
�_
�'+_
r--�
Os
C�" i
r :.s..:.
? �
°��'. <
` G
t7
�
C �
o �-+
� Q r�
�%iZ0 ��
�i� � W
�,-
- N - �?i p'�Q
�-U � �
E" C_ � .-�
�,zZ � -�.
°-' z �5
o;; �
.� L?;� E CQ
E� �' � ��
�--i
O�V L-ld,'
r. �'
, C "9 �
�
� , �'
( .�
�� .
�
�
�
z
0
�
H
�
w
a
w
x
,
��
lt�
F
�
� �
. : i '
�, ,�; �
� �
� o �
m .,�`�
�- � N
o '`�
�
+� N
N
�L `t d
_ � �
ti �
v�
�
ti
� �
i � � � �
:> � vl� a
�, `� a �
`.:° ���
.� --
��� ��
�
a -
�
c
�n
O �
H �?
'' V ��� ' � „
� �
Q�'7�
�'
�-�� 1=
��:_
•• • �
C�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
T'orm Coteman, Mayor
OFACE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVA20N:vSENTAL PROTECTION
Robe't Kesslei Dlreaar
Telephone: 651-266-9090
Facsimile: 651-266-9099
December 21, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
LOWRYPROF£SSIONAL BUILDIA'G
Suite 300
350 Sr. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-I510
RE: 420 Portland Avenue
Public hearing at City Council scheduled for Wednesday, January 5, 2000
Zoning File 49-117070
Dear Ms. Anderson:
•
.
_, The City Council is scheduled to consider three actions concerning the proposed canstruction of
a carriage house at 420 Portland Avenue: appeal of HPC decision, appeal of BZA decision, and
review of site plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal calls for a two-story structure designed to resemble a carriage house. It would have one
residential unit that would occupy the second floor and part of the basement. The first floor would
provide gazage pazking spaces for four cars. A total of nine parking spaces would be provided on the
site.
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Appeal of the Heritage Preservafion Commission's decision to approve the project.
Greg and Cazol Ciuk, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel Frost have appealed the decision of the
Heritage Preservation Commission to grant approval of Ronald Severson's building permit
application to construct a new singie family dwelling at 420 Portland Avenue in the Historic Hill
Heritage Preservation District. The City Council first considered this appeal on September 22,
1999 and laid over the matter so that HPC, BZA, and site p1an issues could be reviewed together
at one time by the Council. The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the
subject permit application on June 24, 1999 at which time the propetry owner, Mr. Severson, and
the appellants' attomey, Mazk Vaught, addressed the commission. The commission a) voted 9-1
to approve the permit application following the close of the public heazing and b) voted 7-0 at the
following month's HPC meeting to pass a resolution granting approval of the requested building
permit. The commission's fmdings are stated in its resolution, which is attached. The HPC
approved two building schemes—one for a 36'-long building which requires no variances to
construct and the other for a 38'-long building which would require a front yard setback variance
to construct.
The grounds for this appeal, stated in Mr. VaughYs August 4, 1999 letter of appeal, are that the
HPC approval "is not in concert with the provisions of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code (which creates and govems the HPC], is premature, violates my clients' due process rights,
and approves an illegat use of the property."
The 420 Portland site has been the subject of development interest for at least ten years. In 1989,
the HPC and BZA approved plans for construction of a carriage house on the site, which project
included one dwelling unit and five gazage stalls in a sort of L-shaped buitding and three off-
street parking spaces. In 1992, the HPC and BZA approved modifications to that plan which
included two dwelling units in an L-shaped, carriage-house-like, shvcture and 14 underground
pazking spaces.
The two HPC-approved building schemes which aze the subject of this appeal aze vaziations on a
plan approved by the HPC in 1997 and approved, on appeal, by a 6- 0 City Council vote in 1998.
The 1997 HPC approval was the resalt of five meetings, over a period of 20 months, between
Mr. Severson and HPC members to develop a design for the building that conforms to the Hill
District design guidelines. The 1998 appeal by Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clark, and Carol Clark,
was denied "on the basis that their has been no showing that the commission made any error in
fact fmding or procedure in this matter." (CF #98-357)
2. Appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a front yard setback varinance.
The plan requires a zoning variance becaase We catriage house would be set back 16 feet from
the front property line on Portland Avenue, compazed to a requ'ved minimum seYback of 25 feet.
Ronald Severson, the properry owner, applied for a variance but it was denied by the Boazd of
Zoning Appeals in November 1999. The variance was denied on the grounds that a smaller
building could be built withoaY a variance and that the variance would not provide adequate
green space and would unreasonably diminish neazby property values. (A copy of the resolution
is attached.)
The City Council approved a site plan with a slightly smaller structure and one less parking space
in March 1999. This site plan did not require a vaziance.
The City Counci] denied a variance for a site plan with a siightly larger structure in 1998.
There were other eazlier proposals for this property. A complete zoning history for the property
can be found in the staff report for the Boazd of Zoning Appeals which is inctuded in this packet.
3. Review of the site plan.
Tfie site plan for the project must be approved before building permits can be issued. However,
the siTe plan cannot be approved unless the zoning variaace is approved. (A staffreport on the
current site plan is attached. It lists the all of the findings that must be made to approve or deny a
site plan.)
A PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5.
Please notify us if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides presented at the public
hearing.
C�
•
SincereIy,
./`� ( � -�.. _
1 ��u..11-EUi(,�,l�v
, •
,
L�
Aazon Rubenstein
Heritage Preservation
Tom Beach
Site Plan
�li �
.
C�
cc: City Councilmembers
Robert Kessler, LIEP
Peter Wamer, CAO
Ronald Severson
lohn Miller
Mark Vaught
Greg and Carol Clazk
Patricia Leonazd
Laurel Frost
ATTACFIl�4ENTS
Heritage Preservation Commission
page 1........ City Council resolution ]aying over HPC appeal
page 3 . . . . . . . . Appeal letter
page 4 . . . . . . . . HPC resolution granting approva]
page 8........ Case summary of 6/24/99 HPC meeting
page 10 ....... Case memo from staff to HPC
page 12 ...... HPC application information
pa�e 14 ....., Sanborn insurance map
page 15 ....... 1998 City Council resolution uholding HPC approval on appeal
Board of Zoning Appeals
page 18.......
page20.......
page4l .......
Site Plan Review
page 43
Plans and maps
Appeal to City Council
Resolution, minutes, staff report and application for variance
April BZA 1998 resolution denying request for three variances
Staff report
page 46 . . . . . . . Location Maps
page 49 ....... Plans for current 38-foot building proposal
page 55 ....... Plans for 36-foot building
page 65 ....... Plans for 40-foot building
page 73 ....... Plans approved by HPC in 1989
page 77 ,...... Plans approved by HPC in 1992 (revisions to 1989 plans)
�
ORIGfNAL
�soLUTionT
Presented By
Referred To
Council File r g—� Q4 a,
GreenSheet foo�a3
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MI. NESOTA
�w1 /�}��W,�1
1� �
Committee: Date
2 WHEREAS, a pubIic hearing was duly set for September 22, 1999, before the Council of
3 the City of Saint Paul (Council) for the purposes of considering appeals by Greg and Cazol Clark,
4 Patricia Leonard and Laurei Frost from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
5 (HPC) in HPC Resolution No. 3654 apptoving a building permit application to construct a new,
6 single-family, d�velling within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District on property
7 commonly kno�m as 420 Portland Avenue; and
8
9 WHEREAS, the Council determined That the proposed single family dw'el(ing may need
14 additional regulatory determinations (including site plan revie�i and approca2 or other variances)
lT
12
13
14
1�
I6
I7
18
19
20
21
??
23
24
25
2b
27
28
before consuuction can begin; and
WHEI2EAS, the Councit finds that it is appropriate and efficient to fi:st finalize aIl sucfi S
determinations necessary for the proposed singIe family dwelIing so that in the event an appeai is
�aIcen from any deternlination the appeal(s} may be consolidated into a single public hearin�
before the CounciI; NO�V, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, in the interest of Council efficiency, the appeal of Greg and Cazol Clazk,
Patricia Leonazd and Laurel F;ost from the decision in HPC Resolution No. 36�4 is continued
and laid o� er until such time as all regulatory determinations necessary For the proposed project
at 420 Portland A�enue sha11 have been acted upon by the appropriate cit�• department, board or
commission: Ai\'ll, BE IT,
FU'RTHER RESOLVED, that once all re�uiator;� determinations have been made and if
any are appealed, all apgeals sha11 be consolidated ci�ith the appeal of HPC Resolution No. 3654
and reset, u�th written notice to af2ected pazties, before the Cotmcii for pubtic heazing; AND, BE
IT,
�
1
2
3
4
• 5
6
7
8
9
qg-loq�
FURTHER RESOLVED, that if no appeals aze taken from any remaining
determination, the public hearing on HPC Resolution No. 3654 shall be reopened with new Q7
notice to the affected parties of record as of August 4, 1999: AND, BE IT
FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be maited to Ronald
Se� erson, Greg and Carol Clark, Patricia Leonazd, Laurel Frost Mark Vaught, Esq, John ':viiller,
Esq.. the Board ofZoning Appeals, the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Department
of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection.
•
ORiGINAL
Requested by Departmer.[ o::
By:
Form Appr d by City Attornep
sy: 7liCS-�G✓L Iv /7 `(�
Approw_d by Mayor for Senn:s=_±or. cc rn„-,.-= �
Hy:
�?x
sv:
N
Adopted by Couacil: Date �\,_, \n \qQU
—�--T� �
Adonccor. Certi°ied by Council Secr�tary
S. MARK vAUGHT
Anorney At La:e
Su¢e 700
S�x West fifrh Saeet
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1412
(651)297-6400
FAX (651) 224-8328
e-maiL markvaught� woddnetaa.net
August 4, 1999
� r;
'.
��
N
•
Aaron Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Planner
City of Saint Paul, L.I.E.P.
Suite 300, Lowry Praiessional Building
3�0 Saint Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Heritage Preservation File No. 3654
Dear Mr. Rubenstein:
On behalf of my clients, Greg and Cazol Clark, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel
Frost, please consider this letter as an appeal to the City Council pursuant to the
provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code of the above-referenced resolution and the
approval embodied therein, which was passed by the Heritage Preservation Commission
on July 22, 1999. The grounds aze that said approval is not in concert with the provisions
of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paui Legislative Code, is premature, violates my clients' due
process rights, and approves an illegal use of the property.
Very truly yours,
:��-` � n/�
S. Mark Vaught
Attomey at La�•
•
•
�
. -._ �__�,.��.
i-y _
�
�
�
CITY OF SAI1��T PAUL �
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NUMBER
DATE
3654
22 July 1999
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint
Paui Legislative Code to review building permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or
demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling on
property located at 420 Portiand Avenue within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street pazking by residents of
415 Summit Avenue; there is a rivastall garage and unpaved driveway and pazking azeas; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the
following:
III. New Construction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hill District is to maintain the dishicYs scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be
compatible with the size, scale. massing, height, rhythm, setback, color, material, building eZements, site
design, and character of surrounding structures and the area.
III. B. Massing and Height.• New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height and scale
of existing adjacent structures. Typical residential structures in the Historic Hill District are 25 to 40
feet high. The height of new consmrction should be no lower than the average height of a11 buildings on
" both block faces; measurements should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs.
III. D. Materials and Details: ...The materials and details of new construction should relate to the
materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and
tile; asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture oJ'the preferred materials are
acceptable substitutes. ...Materials, including their colors, wi11 be reviewed to determine their
appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding structures.
III. E. Building Elements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for
a baZanced and complete design. These elements for new construction should compliment existing
adjacent structures ar we11.
III. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile ofnew construcfion should relate to the predominant roof shape
of existing adjacent buiZdings.
III. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and doors in new
construction should be compatible with that of existing adjacent buildings. ...Facade openings of the
same general size as those in adjacent buildings are encouraged. ... Wooden double-hung windows are
traditional in the Historic Hi11 District and shouZd be the first choice when seZecting new windows.
IIZ E. 3. Porches and Decks: Zn general, houses in the Historic Hi11 District have roofed front
�
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 2
porches.... If a porch is not built, the transition from private to public space should be articulated with
some other suitable design element.
III. F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than 5% ouFOf-line from
the setback of existing adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater rhan those of adjacent buildings may be
allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at carners. This happens quite often in the
Historic Hill area and can lend delightful variation to the street.
III. F. 3. Gmages and Parking: Where alleys do not exist, gcrrages facing the street or driveway curb
cuts may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single
garage doors should be used to avoid the horizontal orientation of two-car garage doors.
Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in
rear yrnds. ...All parking spaces should be adeguately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping; and
C�
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
June 24, I999 public heazing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact (findings
#2-4 are essentially the findings in HPC Resolution #2884 granting approval of the 1997 40'-building
scheme): �
1. The applicant seeks approval of rivo designs, one a 36'-long building which requires no variances
to construct and the other a 38'-long building which requires a front yazd setback vaziance in
order to construct the building 16' from the front property line. The design of both schemes is
very similaz to the 40'-long building approved by the HPC on Mazch 27, 1997 (File #2884). The
most significant differences among the three plans concem the site plan: the previously-approved
40' building had a 19.5' front setback and two pazking spaces in the front yard; the proposed 36'
building has a 25' front setback; the proposed 38' building has a 16' front yard setback; and
neither of the two schemes now proposed has front yazd pazking.
2. The proposed buiIding site is a pivotai and difficult site. It is visible &om Summit Avenue, it
abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are lazge buildings to the south and west that
aze close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter
House at 415 Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage
house concept is a reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the following reasons: a) the
site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street pazking for residents of the Winter House;
b) the pazcel has historically been a reaz yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appeazs as a reaz
yazd due to its relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historicaily a two-story carriage
house on the site; and d) it provides a design solurion for a building that is very close to the
Winter House in proxitttity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The
Winter House was built on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent
subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to
surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
�
�
e� -�av
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 3
•
3. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color,
material, building elements, site design, and chazacter of surrounding structures and the
azea."
6. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and chazacter would be related to, but do
not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a
balanced and complete design.
c, Though the side elevation wouid not be pazallel to that of the Winter House, the street-
facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this
block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the rear yazd nature of the site,
the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic carriage
house on the site was located up to the north Qroperty line, and the fact that the only
other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Westem and
Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure(the existing
structure is a lazge, 4-story, brick apartment building with two, two-story front porches
located 18" from the sidewalk while the main building wall is 12' from the front
sidewalk).
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building.
� f. Parking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping. Single garage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of double
doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of
anomalies in design and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district
and its chazacter.
4. Tn addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the
Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design
and materials aze related to and compatibie with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
Winter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than
mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and the development would not have an
adverse impaet on the character-defming features of the site and the area. The building's design
is similaz to the reaz addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate
for a new secondary sttucture. A new building of untelated design and materials wouid detract
from the historic integrity of the site.
5. The following project details shouid be noted:
a. The landscape plans shown on the 36' and 38' building schemes differ; the landscape
plan shown for the 38' building is the correct one and should be shown on both sets of
plans.
� b. The hedge along the driveway and at the front of the building will be alpine currant,
spaced 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5'.
�
HI'C Resolution: File #3654, p. 4
c. The plans call for a basement window wel] at the front of the building that was not
proposed in the 1997 scheme. Current plans show both a 3' x 8' well with a ladder and a
4' x 8' well with a step/terrace. The 3' x 8' option is preferable for the 38' building
with 16' front setback scheme; and
WFIEREAS, though there aze, or may be, zoning issues, legal issues, and other issues pertaining to the
proposed devetopment, they aze not within the jurisdiction of the Heritage Preservation Commission; the
commission must grant or deny appro��al of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code and the district design review guidelines;
NOW, TfIEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that based on the above fmdings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a building permit for either of the two proposed schemes for a new singie
family dwelling located at 420 Portland Avenue, subject to the condition that the front window well shall
be 3' x 8' for the 38' building.
� MOVED BX Benton
SECONDED SY Murphy
IN FAVOR
AG.AII\'ST
ABSTAIN
Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are final, subject to appeal to the City Council within 14
' days by anyone affecied by The decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting appticable
" building and zoning code requiremeats, and does not constitute approval for tax crediu.
•
�
LJ
�
�
�+ - �
Saint Paul Aeritase Preservation Commission
� Case Summary
Re: 420 Portland Avenue, Ronald Severson, Construct new single family dwelling, HPC Fi1e #3b54
24 June 1999
Rubenstein showed photographs and slides of the site and surrounding azea, reviewed the cover memo,
and noted the following details: landscaping would include an alpine current hedge along the driveway
and at the front, planted 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5; new to these plans is a front
window we11 for a basement bedroom (of rockfaced block, 3' x 8' with a ladder or 4' x 8' with a step/
terrace); the materials and details are t(�e same as those specified for the previously-apptoved plan.
Errigo: why is the HPC looking at this again? Rubenstein responded.
Younkin recused himself from participating in the case.
Ron Severson: bought the land in 199b. Previous City Council approval for a building on the lot did not
include a variance. Asking for HPC approval of both plans; the 38' building is preferable—it is more
centered on the lot. Both proposals provide two parking spaces for (each ofl the other three units in
415 Summit and have four singie gazage doors. Am willing to modify the designs if necessary.
Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland: live in first floor unit overlooking the site; have always assumed
something would be built here. Supported the 1997 proposal and support the current proposal. I
� suggested the west elevation bay and like it—it adds visual interest. Severson has been very cooperative
with regard to the landscaping—has agreed to let neighbors help with its design and maintenance. I prefer
the building to be as close to the street as possible—to maximize moming sunlight to my unit. On(y two
houses on Portland meet the required 25' front setback, which is therefore inappropriate. The rhythm of
the street and neighborhood is such that a 16' front setback is preferable to a 25' setback, but I support
both plans.
Mark Vaught: representing Gteg and Carol Cluk, Patricia Leonard, and Laurel Frost. I am not able to
speak cogently about the project and will therefore ask for a layover. BZA did not approve the variances
for the project that the HPC approved and, on appeal, the City Council upheld the deniaL My ciients
have a]ong standing interest in this property; they have not had fair opportunity to address this issue as
they did not know about this meeting until this past Tuesday afrer 6:00 p.m. I know of no affirmative
obligation to notify (neighbors or affected parties). I haven't even had a chance to look at the
information. In the interest of faimess, and with BZA review on July 12� there need be no rush to
approve or vote on the matter.
Murphy asked about the 60-day time limit and Heide asked about due process.
Vaught: believe the 60-day limit can be automatically extended by writing a letter to the applicant.
Errigo: urge everyone to focus on the design review issues and not on other, legal issues.
There was no other public testimony and the public hearing was closed.
�
�
HPC Case Summary re: 420 Portland Avenue, File #3654
Page Two
BeI[us: moved one-month layover (two weeks if necessary); Murphy seconded.
Larson: concemed that 30 minutes already spent and nothing anycne could say affects the design review
guideIines.
Heide: strongly disagee with a tayover; the changes from the plans approved in 1497 aze slight.
The layover motion failed on a 3- 7 vote.
Heide moved approval of both proposed designs; Hargens seconded.
Bel�us asked for separate votes on each scheme, which request was refused.
Tbe motion to grant approval of a buiiding permit for either scheme passed 9- 1(Bellus).
summary prepared by Aaron Rubenstein
�
� �
U
n
U
�
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECl'[ONS FutiD
ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION
RobertKessle�, Drrecfor
�
CITY OF SAR�iT PAUL
l.'orm Coleman, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Commission
FROM: Aazon Rubenstein ��.
RE: 420 Portland / File #3654
DATE: 21 June 1999
Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a new "carriage" house at
420 Portland Avenue, immediately west of Nathan Hale Pazk. Mr. Severson is seeking HPC approval
of two schemes. One involves a 36' long building with a 25' front setback; this project requires no
vaziances. The second plan, preferred by Mr. Severson, is a 38' long building with a 16' front setback,
for which a front yard setback vaziance would be needed. The Boazd of Zoning Appeals will review
Mr. Severson's variance request on July 12, 1999.
LOWRYPROFESSIOh'AL BUILD/,VG
Suite 300
350 S[ Peter Sveet
Saint Paul, Misu�esota 55102-I S!0
� �ac�
Telephone: 6J7-266-9090
F¢csimile: 651-766-9099
�
�
�
The rivo proposed plans are very similar to one another and to plans for a 40' long building with a
19.5' front setback that the HPC approved on Mazch 27, 1997. That 1997 approval was the resuit of
� � five meetings with the HPC: a concept review in July 1995, an informal concept review in November
1996, an HPC heazing in February 1997, a Design Review Committee meeting in Mazch 1997, and
approval at the March 1997 HPC meeting. The HPC approval was appealed to the Ciry Council by
some residents of the adjacent building at 415 Summit Avenue. The appeal was denied, and the HPC
decision affirmed, by a 6- 0 Council vote on February 25, 1998.
The previously approved pian and the two proposed ptans are compazed in the table at the end of this
memo.
�
The proposed building site is a flat, dirt lot used for off-street parking for the residents of 415 Summit
(the E. W. Winter House). A two-stall gazage was built on the lot several years ago. The
420 Portland lot was formerly the reaz yazd of 415 Summit; it was split off from the 415 Summit lot
in 1990. Owners of the four condominiums at 415 Summit have an easement on 420 Portland which
requires that rivo pazking spaces be provided at 420 Portland for each condominium unit.
Mr. Severson proposes the 36' long building because it requires no variances. He prefers the 38' long
building, however, for the following reasons: a) it provides more living space; b) it provides 9' wide,
rather than 8.5' wide, gazage spaces; c) it is sited 6' further from the Winter House, which provides
more sunlight to the residents of the building to the west at 436 Portland, and d) it has 9 rather than 8
pazking spaces.
A revised landscape plan is shown on the site plan for the 38' building. The landscaping for a 36'
building would be similaz to that shown on the plan for the 38' building and not as shown on the site
plan for the 36' building.
��
HPC, 6.21.99, re: 420 Portland Av., p. 2
�
The previously approved plan had a 19.5' front setback and rivo pazking spaces in the front yard, one
of which was duectly in front of the building. The proposed 38' building has a 16' front setback and
puu the ninth pazking space behind the building rather than in front of it. To the west of the subject
site is a lazge, four story, brick apartment building at 436-38 Portland. The front wall of the building
is set back approximately 12' from the sidewalk and the rivo, two-story porches aze setback 18" from
the sidewalk. This is the only building on the south side of Portland between Summit/Westem and
Arundel.
Please see the attached HPC resolution approving the 40' long building (File #2884) for relevant
portions of the Historic Hill district guidelines pertaining to new construction.
420 PORTLAND AVENUE
COMPARISON OF Tf� THREE SCHEMES
ISSCTE
front setback
- distance from 415
Summit
roofline (all
schemes have
sante approximate
height)
east elevation
west elevation
north and south
elevations—same
all schemes
# parking spaces
front yazd pazking
APPROVED 40'
SCHEME
19.5'
10'
PROPOSED 36'
SCHEME
25'
10'
8/12 hip 20/12 tnmcated hip
(flat deck at
center)
4 windows, paired
4 windows, no bay
3 single windows
7 windows, bay
�
2 spaces
8
none
PROPOSED 38'
SCHEME
16'
16'
I O/12 truncated hip
(flat deck at
center}
4 single windows
7 windows, bay
�
none
.
n
U
/I
�
GENERAL BUiLDiNG PERMIT
DEPARTMENT C{TY OF SAINT PAIiL
t
CITY OF SAINT PAUL r•I 5-`�� �
OFFICE OF LICE\SE, INSPEC[70`:S AA'D � -
E�ViRONME\TALPROTECTiOti �
BCILDhY'G LVSPEC770.V AND DES/G.V �
3�0 St Peter Street - S«ite 300 � PHmjt NO,
��SaearPaul.Mirmesoea5510?-l5I0 6i1-?66-9090 �
oo- ���
�� �� �r, a �. .�° PLAN NO.
� -` DESCRt ION OF PRO ECT �- ^�
OATE 7'�`� g�f OWNER �t'Y�l?Jc� J. ��?�X✓�OrJ
OWNERSADDRESS `T/S c�`G!?�/l'�T #� � G� I {�3"� � �
❑ OlD I TYPE OF /
C�'�1EW TYPE CONST. r%ceC OCCUPAtdCY 5r (r ��f
GRADING STUCCO OR
C�YBUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE
ALTER U REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK
STREET SIDE Cf70555TREETS
�
9
�L�=
WAR
�
LOT
STRUC-
TURE
���ti�
LOT BLOCK
W�OTH I
7L ��
��
WIDTH
.�7�
TED VA�VE
�j,�����
OETAllS & REMnRi
INCI.UDE BASEMENT
l
' _ wv. ,.� ��_ `
s�� )l� � z � 1 � �'��1x�,�-�
��li �c» �`/9- li�� _ �''ih� - el-��' - �3 -�4-�Z4a
ARCHITEC
CONTRACTOq
MASON
FERMIT FEE
OIAN CHECK
STATE
SUFCHARGE
STATE
YALUAT40N
L'
G- �
• '�OTAL FEE
APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL IN�
FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT
Ai,l PERTINENT STATE REGUlAT10NS CASH�ER USE ONLv
ANO C�TY ORDINANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN VA�IDATEO TMIS IS YOUR PERMIT
P�IED WITH IN PERfORMlNG THE WORK
FO� WHICH THI�PERMIT �S ISSUED.
ADORESS J�, ��I _I.A,,, ,SSJO,�
T�ON
IEPTH $IDE l0T CLEARANCE BVILDING L�NE
S'��� ,[/ �✓Jaj/ FROS` AE�
s� �� r� a �
LENGTH HEIGMT STpR1E5
3G � 2�� q �� �
BASEMENT TOTALFLOOfl APEA
�VES ❑ NO SQ. FT. �/�Sb
1 L�
�
June 16,1999
Memo To:
From:
Re:
Aaron Rubenst�, Her tage Preservation Commission
Ron Severson , � �
420 Portland Avenue Carriage House
I am enciosing two copies of the elevations and site plans for the 38 foot
carriage house with the request that this plan be considered for approval at
the June 24�'' meeting of the commission.
I believe you now have copies of the elevations and site plans for the 40
foot carriage house which was previously approved, the revised 36 foot
house which needs no variance and the enclosed 38 foot house which will
be considered for a variance at the July 12�' meeting of the zoning board.
�
It is my hope that both of the plans under consideration can be approved at
the June commission meeting so that I would be in a position to proceed
with construction whether or not the zoning board approves the requested
variance.
Please call me if you need additional information.
��
N
�
�
•
r: �
` _ _ . _ ' -r ' . . . _. .. _ _ .._. ' _ __. _
. _c'—� . _""" " ' � . .
..�.� __ _ _ _ . - . . . . . _. _ . ' . .
� _�
' , r�_ . ' �`""_'"___�_ _ "'__^__
� A ' -t�--- _� •-; -- - -- -----: --- - - -- . - ---- _____.._` __..- ---_
- ��_ �_—=-
-- --r.----=e�= —
='— s _ _�-- ; �-= __"_ -_`O_ - � , ---'N - Ab! ----N2i31S3M-.---. _��-,--�_-- -
�g
� — ' � -�i?: ,� . - - • �e - - - � �--�
� �Lj t •� � i
- . z�= R � -- . ' o
- __�_ —�.Z_� c— � `�' - -- � --- �- � —'_ - - _ — -- ' -- _� _ —
p' �_ g : �
�__ _ _ __. '_ , i, '�: o� `` __' _ � } —'. _'__ _�_ ._ _ _
� . � L �_ ♦ . . �•.�i � ' _ � r� � � �
��..��_ 4 _..`_ —� i'p �= .:`.
r . • lY b ♦ _ . __ _— \ � �.crc —_—�__
i � ♦ ` o _ _ .' .
_.'--. _ �-+ _— - ,� �--- � � r° `�`�' -� � . - - � .. _
.
� - � .-�— .. --•— v . '- ---- - —�— -
------- • . .. ... - • - . - -
- - - -- - - ° ' . v . , . � .
. r � . . . - -`-- �`----
�- . ♦ ; � C'. ____'__-_. . ___ ___ .�__ _'
_ i ♦ � . _ __
_ r : . � �, � - . �
� ; � �,. �` � ' .R
_ ' _ __' "-
�' 1 ... "_ _' _" _" "' Q.- "_ " '__ . -. .
, , _ ' '�. ' _ _ _ _' ' _ -.. . _ _' _ _' ' "" _ _ '
�1> . _
� ' �� ' - �- - ----�--- - - i � ._... _
- � � ' i �� ♦ Q � `,�. ' .. _
� ! � yJ
_ _—�1— �� � ,_V�
---
� � 1 --�� -- — -- - - e - �-- -
' �,,
7 �. _ v ; ' o £� �� � , - - �e -�-- - - --
L�
i p o P �`� ,\ - _J__'.�.___'_
_' —' _'__ ' _ -'____'
. i 'S}7_� _ __ . __... _ '____— ' _ ___'_ _ _ "______—"` __
� . � . +> •� . o �"_— ____
: � ; ' y i � h �'
�
'��_-�—_ -- -� - - -- -- - �---'�_= �� �
.._ ---_- = -=- --- —'
� � � �.
-. . �
-- -� -- � a
�-- ,- �- - - - a --� -- �� - - - -- � �
�' -- - ° ' -_—�
- -- - _ .?-- . -_--- - �
� -- -- -- -� - -- a . _ __�_-_
� -- - - � i
� �— -- — .o. %�';---- -------� -- ---- �-----U
- — � { ' � °' -' - _ _-- `�s _ .g,�Z� 2
� • , 2 } • � —. � -- -
�= � � • �
� � ' �
� � •'' = r `'a � .�, N � �
_ I ---� a -- - °' � o� ,� � .� � - '�
/o
� ° �
�` � � ��
_ f __ _.'� , �� P d>' � �� .
a % � � s �
—ID-_� __ � \y' 2 ,`` • ``� �
�
" _�
O � _ � � � � �`; � _ . _� �
. l ^' � f . ��� ' � �
_ _ __
. �i / � . � . - � Y � . -' � � f = - � __ _ _ __ �
' . ' ` * N / � V �
.. � — — .
O r �
� . . ` re <_��-� _ � -'.N_.O _ _.. ' .� . \� �
Q � T � �- : : - _q ' .r.�,.....� . __.
�o� _ ..r -;.;..._ a
- . 'T' -- � -- .� * i � � � � , a
� d , 's>o.?.,T- �, ` ,. . � , � �
� \ `
. 1 0 � ' �,-_J ' �__
_ _ 1 - ar � _% - -- � --- t. "
�� . l . ae , .. . -
_ � � z .� ; )�
�_ � --• � --
�- �--- ------=� � - _. .- _ ' �
- -- - �. �-�----- ��E1�dC�tl-r__°------- _ _ _
_ � � - �--- _ __�_ _. _ � _.
� �
. i � _ � ,Z � ,.. . � �� i •
� s� � -��
— � ��-- - ��` ( .
"_'_.- '.'�'—__ -' ` " � N (](
� F __" t �S `�� ` _'__ __ ' ' .' "" ____tr ._ ._� H:
�--� V
� � ; ` � �l"�'( _ ,� ':�-., � � S �
Co•.:;.ci1 File
oRI��NA�
Preseated By
Referred To
G:e_z Sh=et
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
•L
2 WHEREAS, Ronald Severson made application to the Heritage Preservation
3 Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73 for a building
4 permit to construct a carria�e-house-Iike structure at 420 PortIand Avenue within the Historic
5 Hili Herita�e Preservation District; and
6
�VHEREAS, on February 27, 1997, the commission conducted a public heazing on the
9
10
lI
I2
I3
14
IS
16
I7
18
29
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
34
40
proposat. After discussion, the matter was laid over and the project was aeain reviewed on
Ma:ch I3, 1997, and finally approved on Mazch 27, 1997. However, the commission,
inadvertently, did not formaIly pass a resolution approving the project until January 8, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on April S, 1997, Gregory Clark, Cazol Clazk and Patricia Leonazd
appealed the Mazch 27, I997, commission decision but elected to enter into negotiations wZth the
applicant in the hope that the applicant and the appelIants might resolve thzir differences; and
WI3EEREAS, the ne�otiations between the parties failed to reach asi acceptabie
compromise and the appeliants requested that tfieir appeal be heazd by the Saint Paul City
CounciI; and
�`T3EREAS, the commission in its Resolution No. 2884 granted approval of the building
permit based upon revised plans incIudin� onIy the east elevation mazked 3C-1, and subject to .
the condition that an appropriate crown moldin� be added above the transom «indows in lisht of
the Historic HiII Heritage Preservation guidelines. In particuIar, based upon the evidence �
presented at the Mazch 27, 1997, pubiic fiearin�, the commission made the followin� findings of
fact:
The proposed buiiding site is a pivotaI and difficult site. It is visible from
Sumcnit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are
Iazge buildines to the south and west that aze close to the property lines.
This Iot can be construed as both the rear yard of the R'inter House at 415
Summit Avenue and as a Iot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed
carriage house concept (and "front yazd" pazking adjacent to Portland) is a
reasonable approach to developin� the pazcel for the follo«in� reasons: a)
the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off=street pazkina for
residents of the �Vinter House; b) the pazcel has historicail}' been a reaz
yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appears as a rear yard due to its
retationship to the Winter House; c) there was historicall}' a two-story
catria�e house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a
buildin� that is very close to the Winter House in proximiry and that is
related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The R'inter House
� - 3.57
� l�Q�s � �
�
U
C�
Cy
2
• 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
� '
6
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4-�
4�
46
7
48
49
0 R! G I N�uilt on a through-lot �vith Summit and Portland frontages; the recent
subdicision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the
�h'inter House to surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height,
rhythm, setback, color, material, building elements, site design,
and chazacter of susounding structures and the azea."
b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and chazacter
would be related to, but do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House.
Individual design elements are integrated for a balanced and
complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be pazallel to that of the
Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular
to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz
yazd nature of the site, and the carriage house nature of the
proposed building, the fact that the historic carria�e house on the
site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the
only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland
between Westem and Arundel) is located closer to the street than
would be the proposed structure.
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house
nature of the building.
f. Pazkin� spaces w�ould be adequately screened from the street and
sidewalk by landscaping. Sin�le gazage doors would avoid the
horizontal orientation of doubie doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the razity
of a through-lot. These sorts o£ anomalies in design and
development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic
district and its chazacter.
In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the
federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an
historic site. The proposed building's design and materiais aze related to
and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
R'inter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is
historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the tw•o; and
the development �vould not have an adverse impact on the chazacter-
definin� features of the site and the azea. The building's desiQn is similar
to the reaz addition of the Winter House w•ith simplified detailing, w�hich is
ap"propriate for a new secondary structurz. A new buildin� of unrelated
desisn and materials would detract from the historic inteerit;� of the site;
and V
� ��
�'—��
1� ...
(b
���✓✓ �
v
2
3
4
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORIGINAL
WFIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Tricia
Leonazd, Greg Clazk, and Carol Clark duly filed with the Council an appeal from the
determination made by the commission and requested that a hearing be held before the City
Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and
`TlHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was set on for 7anuary 28,
1998, but, at the request of appellants' attomey, the matter was postponed to February 25, 1998;
and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 1998, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City
Council, where all interested parties were given an opportuniry to be heazd; and
WHEREAS, having heazd the statements made and having considered the application,
the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the commission, the Council does
hereby;
RESOLVE, to deny the appeal of Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clazk and Carol CIazk on
the basis that their has been no showin� that the commission made any error in fact findin� or
procedure in this matter; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Ciry Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution .
to Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clark and Cazol Clark, the Zoning Administrator and the Heritage
Preservation Commission.
Reques[ed by Department of:
Adcpted by Council: Date I�3����
Adoo:ion Certified by Cow^.cil Se tar
By: �
Apnroved by Mayor: te
By:
Byc
Form Approved by City A[tor.iey
B ��.�' L//1:.�� Y- � �'� 9�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
r �
L
��
oo-� �c�
�
APPLICATIdN FOR APPEAL
Deparlment of Planning axd Economic DevelopmenJ
Zoning Section
II00 Cit}� Ha11 Anner
IS Wes1 Founh Street
Saint Paul, M1Y 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
Address �/s Summ. �ti *E �
City ���_ �� y St.� Zip SJ10 Daytime phon Gi� 37i
PROPERTY Zoning File
LOCATION
�
T.YPE OF APPEAL Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
= Board of Zoning Appeals C�Gity Council
e�nder the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph _
appeai a decision made by the �ii�t�l d'f �,J,
on l��7�/. � , 19�. File
(date of de cis�o�)
Zarting affise us¢ onEy
F���. `l�-IJ7u ?C
Fse ! SA �
Tsntative #teari date:
�� �t3 +c� C� C'euKe`,1
of the Zoning Code, to
� , �- // 3
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
s. G�L- -� 1-h �. �
(l��3 t
A ^ '�
�, � � �J ` / ' � Z_
C �
Attach addifiona/ sheet
ApplicanYs signatu
Date 1/ City agent
�3
�
Appeal of the Board
Reasons for the appeaf:
of Zoning AppeaYs
dated
Navember 8, 1999
on
420 Portfand Ave.
resolution #99-163
The resolution by fhe Board of Zoning Appeals found that my application met the
requirements for a variance on points number five and six but did not meet the
requiremer�ts on points number one through four.
It is my contention that the Board of Zoning Appeals is in error in there findings.
On the findings of facts on points one through four. The Zoning Board
staff concluded,through their evaluation of my request,that I did meet the
requirements of each of the first four provisions as well as the last two. I
believe that the staff concfusions are correet as they are written.
2. Based on the history of action on this lot in which the board in 1990 and
again in 4992 found that this same lot did meet all six requirements for a
variance and did grant the requested variances.
�� X��
�
�-� � 5 ��u�rm� � Ce�. �
•
(�
•• _�
CITY OF SAI\TT PAUL
BOARD OF ZO�'ING APPEALS RESOLUTIO\'
ZO\TI\ FILE I\'UMSER: r 99-163
� DATE 11/08199
��'HEREAS, RONALD SEVERSO\? has applied for a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code pertainin� to the construction of a nen
residential structure that would have a 4-car gara�e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on the
szcond floor ovzr the �arage, in the RT-2 zonin� district at 420 PORTLAiv'D AVENUE; and
�VHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals conducted a public hearin� on October 25, and
I�Tovember 8, 1999, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section b4.205 of
the Legislative Code; and
�VHERPAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals based upon evidence presented at the pubiic
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
1. 77ie property in question can be put to a reasonabte use under the strict provisiau of the code.
A sliehtly smaller building wi!h four parkin, spaces on the first floor and a dwelling unit on the second
floor can be built on the property. A sitz plan for this building �vas approved by thz City Council in March
" 1999.
•` 2. The p1igT:t of the land otivner is not due to circevnstances unique to this property, mid these circumstances
ticere not created by the land otivner.
The size and irregular shape of the lot and the private agreement that requires the property o��ner to providz
parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit are unique to the property and were not created by the present
- property o��ner. However, the present o«ner �vas aware of these circumstances ��hen he bou;ht the
p: opzm�.
3. The proposed variance is ttot in keeping xith the spirit and intent of the code, and is cousistent with IT:e
healdt, safety, con jort, morals and x�elfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St. Paul.
The reduced front yard setback that «ould be allowed by the variance would not provide a reasonable
amount of green space and therefore is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance will in:pair a�: adegt�ate supply of IigJ:t and air to adjacent properry, and will
unreasor:ably diminish estabfished properry values }vithin the surrocuzding area.
The orientation of the building with the side facing Portland Avenue �vould unreasonably diminish property
values within the surrounding area.
5. TJ:e variance, ifgranted, would not perntit mry use that is not permitted under the prorisions of the code for
the properry ii: the district where the afjzcted land is located, nor wozrld it alter or changz the zoning
district classifieation oftlaepropern•.
, 6. Tl:e request for ro•ariance is not based primarily ai a desire to increase the valr�z or incan:e potential of th2
parcel ofla�rd.
Page 1 of 2
2�!
File r 99-163
1Zesolution
I�'O«', THEREFORE, $E IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals that the request •
to waive the provisions of Section 61.101 to aliow a front yard setback of 16 feet, in ordzr to construct a
ne��� residential structure that would fiave a 4-car gara�e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on
the secoad floor over the gara�e, on property located at 420 PORTLAIVD AVE\TUE; and legally
described as Except the Southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, auditor's subdivision #38; in accordance with the
application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zonin� Administrator, is HEREBY DENIED.
MOVED BY: nzorton
SECOl\TDED BY: w;isoa
I1�T FAVOR: s
AGAINST: o
ABSTAIN: z
nI.aILED: November 09, 1999
TI�IE LI�IIT: l�o order of the Board of Zonine Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a
' buildina or off-street parkins facility shalt be valid for a period longer than one
year, unless a bailding permit for such erection or alteration is obtained tivithin such.
period and such erection or alteration is proceedina pursuant to the terms of such
permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the Citc Council ma}� grant an eCtension
not to esceed one year. In granting such exteasion, the Board of Zoning Appeals
may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zontng Appeals are f:nal subject to appeai to the City
Council ticithin 15 da}�s by anyone affected by the decision. Buildina permits shall
not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits hace been issued before an
appea! has been filed, theu the permits are suspended and constructioa shatl cease
until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal.
CERTTFICATI01: I, the nndersigned Secretary tn the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint
Paul, blinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with
the oripinal record in my oFfice; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of
said orivina] and of the sti�hole fhereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint
Paul Board of Zonin; Appeais meeting held on October 25, aad november 8,1999,
and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Encironmental Protection,
350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, hlinnesota.
SAI\T P�UL BOARD OF ZO\I\G APPEALS
_E��,=�.� ��K��
1`'oet Diedrich
Secretan• to tfie Board
Page 2 oF 2
CJ
s�- �
� ���
.,
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
• CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 25, 1999
PRESENT: Mmes. Liston and Ivforton; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Kramer, Scherman and Wilson of
the Board of Zonin; Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorne}•; Mr. Hardwick,
Mr. Beach, and b1s. Diedrich of Che Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental
Protection.
ABSENT: Mmes. Bogen, Maddox *
* Both Excused
The meetin� was chaired by Brian Alton, Vice Chair.
RONALD SEVERSON (k99-1631 420 PORTLAi�� AVENUE: The appticanc is proposing to
construct a ne�.v, residential strucmre that w�ould have a 4-car garage on the first floor, and a single-
family home on the second floor over the garage. The building has been designed to took like an
historic carriage house. In addition to the 4 spaces in the new building, there would afso bz 3 surface
spzces, and 2 spaces in an existin� garaQe, for a total of 9 parking spaces on the site. One of these
parkin� spaces would be for the carria�e house unit, and the other 8 would be for an existin� 4-unit
condominium immediately to che south (415 Summit). A variance for minimum front yard setback. A
#., front yard setback of 16 feet is proposed for the carriage house, a se[back of 25 feet is required, for a
variance of 9 feet.
Mr. Beach showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommenda[ion for approval.
The applicant, Ronald Severson, 415 Summit Avenue #t2, was present. He said he also owns a unit in
the condominium to the south of it. His unit is the one unit that overlooks the parkin; area. His wife
and he bou�ht che property in 1996, with the intent of build'sng a single family house that they were
going to live in and use as the retirement house. They realized, at the time, that there was easemenc for
parkin� on the properry. Each of the plans that they considered has taken that into consideration.
There has always been parking for two off-street parking spaces for each of the other three owners in
the condominium in which he lives.
b1r. Severson continued that there was a question that Tom Beach talked a little bit about, whether or
not it was a legal lot split back in 1990, 6 years before he bought it. That set him back a long way,
bzcause that had to be resolved. And, it's been resolved, so it is a legal buiidable lot. He can build a
carriage house on it. He has developed plans for a 36 foot carriage house. He didn't have a copy of
the packet, but he had aimost all the information from Tom so if he is missing something you'll have to
excuse him. He thinks they have the 36 foot site plan as part of the packet. T'hat's a buiidable plan bu�
it's not the best that can be built on that loc So he's here asking for that variance because he thinks
that wha[ he's proposing will be a better development for that lot, and for the nei;hborhood, and for
the peopte that live in chat condominium.
� He said thac what he's requestine, and he thinks they have the site plan in front of them, - to emphasize
Page 1 of 13
2 2-
- he has Heritage Preservacion Commission approval for this. This building that he's proposing meets •
the requirements for that area. It will be a real asset to that pazticular lot because of the lar;e, 4-srory
brick buildin� thal's next to it. He thinks it will improve the visual - the view actually from the park
laokin; tocvard the lot, because this is a turn-of-the-century, carria�e house. It's archi[ecturally
desi;ned and, as Heritage Preservation Commission has pointed oat, it meets the requirements for that
area and of that type of a carriage house back in the 1900's. Incidentally, there cvas a carria�e house
aimost on that spot at the turn of the century - 2-story high, 32x32. It disappeared sometime, probably
atound the 1920's. So, in a way, they're replacing the carriage house that was there for a good, long
period of time.
He's askin� for a 16-foot front yard: a nine foot variance. For several reasons. First of all, he would
like to increase the size of the carriage house to 38 feet. 36 foot is adequate, as far as meecing the
requirements of the ordinance. But 38 feet would allow the 4 cars that are goin; to park in there to
have approximately a 9-foot space, and would make it easier to maneuver throu;h the parking lot and
into that space.
Part of his easement requirement is that he provides 2, off-street parking spaces. This carriage house
will provide 1 parking spot for each of the 2 people that live in the same condominium that he does,
and the other people alreadp have an existing garage, so chat gives each of them lparkin; space and
then wouId allow another parking space for him when he and his wife move into this carria�e house.
38 feet is not a lot of extra space in terms of tivin� space - about 40 square feet It's still onIy abou[
179 of the total buiidable area, so it's way under the square footage allowed for chat area. I[ aiso
allows - he thinks the maneuverability would be improved because of being able to make a little easier
Nrn into a wider space. �
He's cen�ered the 38-foot bailding on the toc. That aliows for 16 feet between the two buildin;s. And
16 feet between the sidewalk and the front of the building. He thinks the 16 feet benveen che 2
„ buildines is important because of the concerns about space not being so close - not lookin; like iPs
, attached. A 38-foot building also is - both buildings are acceptable by Herita�e Preservation
Commission - but he thinks this is a little better looking building if you were standing in the park
looking coward the parking Ioc It's a symmetrical building with a setback next to the hall�vay being the
same on both sides. It does look better. It's better for the neighborhood.
He also would like to - by moving it to 16-foot front yard setback, he can put a nice parkin� space on
[he south side of that buiiding. The importance of that is for - it's emphasized on Friday and Sarurday
nights when the Universiry C[ub starts parking cars for those patrons on Portland Avenue. Big buiiding
next to it - he believes it's someihing like 14 totat units but only 13 parkin� - off-street, parking spaces.
They depend a lot on Portland Avenue. Maybe one parking space won't make a lot of difference but
he thinks it will. He thinks it's important.
He aIso wanted to point out, if you took at the whole block, the buildin� next to this - to the west of
this - is almost ri�ht on che sidewalk. His bein� 16-feec back, obviousty he's not goin; to block any
view of the park. If you count 8 units on thai block total, wirh 36 Portlaad bein; 2 entrances and
therefore 2 units, only 2 of those buildin�s meet the requirement of 25 feet. 2 of them are less than 16
feet to the front sidewalk, so his building is not going to be on the street. In fact, he thinks it will be
more out of piace if you move it 25 feet back and increase that lawn area.
He has a landscaped plan ihat was developed by 2 of his neighbors. He's worked �c•i�h them on it but �
Page 2 of 13
� �
c�-�a�
• ��hat he's going to do with landscaping, - he's a�reed, before he pnlled a buildin� permit, that he wil]
put 55,000.00 into escrow, under the control of his nearest nei2hbor, k�ho is fr�e fi:st floor directly
across from him and suppor[s this buildin„ to ensure when ali the building is dor.e, there v,•ill be funds
availab]e for landscaping.
They can live with a 36-foot, if thzy have [o. But it's not the best plan. His wife and he have tried
very hard to develop, what they think will be, a really good plaa for this neighborhood. 'Il�at u ili look
the best. They'll have ihe best parking, and the best way of maneuvering on this ]ot. Incidentally,
he'll be providing - each of those spots wili be provided without charge or cost to the other people in
the neighborhood. Because he's obli�ated through easement to provide these. Hz could leave it as an
outside parkin� spot - he'd rather each of them have a stall inside of a garage, for obvious reasons,
because we're coming in[o our winter now. He's offered to do that. Tt's a tequirement anyway. He
offered it way back before they even started on this. Those are his reasons for askin� for the variance.
He thanked the Board and stated he would be happy to answer any questions.
Dfr. Alton referred to a statement about other residences in che area, and he asked if Mr. Severson was
[alkin, about across the s[reet on Portland Avenue, the avera�e setback. Mr. Severson said every
secback - that full btock across the street - on his side, there is oniy one buitding. There's six buildin�s
across the street. Thuse are the ones that he mentioned - only 2 of thzm meet the requirements.
his. Liston had a question she said was relative to the yellow sheet and the staff rzcommendation. On
� the yellow sheet description it says the front yard setback is proposed for the carriagz house. A setback
for 2� feet is required for a variance of 10 feet. In the staff recommendation it reads 16 feet. Mr.
� Severson said 16 feet is being applied for. It was a rypo.
,% Mr. Scherman asked, that those people that come out of the garage that he has there, how do they get
over to 415 Summit. Mr. Severson said part of - there'll be a sidewalk, which isn't put in yet. Mr.
- Scherman asked if they can come out of the back? Mr. Severson said, yes, there's a door so that
they'1] bz able to walk along the front of the gara;e, come out of the back, ar.d a':zn go ri�ht up the
steps. That's the back door to al! of the units, where those steps are. And that wi11 be a concrete walk.
blr. Scherman also asked what a`day lily' was. Mr. Severson said he should ha�e the fandscaper in
the neighborhood, who drew up the landscaping and recommended the plantings and so forth. Mr.
Severson said he didn't know. He was looking forward to seeing it.
Lou Sudheimer came forward and said he lived abou[ 100 feet across the stree[, kicey corner, at 439
Portland. Sort of in front of the 4-story condominium building. He just wanted to refresh the people
that have been on the Board for quite some time, and update some of the people that are new on the
Board. This has been going on for a lon; time, and he's been involved throu;h Historic Hill Homes
�vich the previous owner, as well as trying to supporc Mr. Severson in his endeavors to get what he has
consideced to be an excellent set of designs of carria�e houses, to replace the one that went missing
many, many decades ago. And solve some of the parking problems for the owners of these
condominiums that have evolved over time. The original group of people that kere involved in the
buildin„ for the most part, were 100`� in favor of this. t3nfortunately, there's been some new people
that have come in who began to be aoainst it for reasons that they will have to explain to the Board
shortly. But he just wanted to refresh the group that, when these issues first camz up, there were a
significant number of neighbors who came down and took time out of their day�s co appear in favor of
• this. They, of course, have lost interest and tenacity over time, but the majority' of his neighbors are in
favor of this. There are, as in many nei,hborhood situations, therz is a splic but he ticou]d gau;e that
Page 3 of 13
L4
the preponderance of people are in favor. And just wanted to add his opinion tha[ this plan is better �
than [he plan that Mr. Severson was forced to adopt with a slightly smaller carria�e house, and with
one fewer off-street parking stall, in order to come up with a plan that would require r.o variances.
This plan does require a small variance, but it does provide a significantly, more funccional garage
simation, and it provides an extra stall, which is very critical, even for some of the people that are
objecting to it. It's very unfortunate that a small, well-financed clique of neighbors has been able to
delay this approval, multiple times.
There were no others to speak in favor; Chair then invited those opposed to address the Board.
Mark Vaught, an attorney, Suite 700, 6 R'est Fifth Street, came forward, and stated he represented
Greg and Carot Ciark, owners of one of the condominium units at 415 Summic Avenue, Pa[ricia
Leonard, owner of the unit, and Laurel Frost, who lives in the other building, immediately to the other
side of this particular lot, that they saw in the photos. He apologized in advance if ic happens. He was
carrying a cell phone in his pocket and he has to leave it turned on because he tried a case to a jury in
Hennepin County last week and the jury is out deliberating, as he speaks. And Jud;e Connelly has
required him to carry it. So if ic goes off, he apologizes in a@vance. He's goin; to have �o take a short
delay and answer it and, perhaps, some of the neighbors who are present and other people might, at
that point, make their comtnents, if he hasn't finished his. He hates that when that happens, and he
really hates it when people talk on cell phones in restaurants, and it wouldn't be on if he wasn't
:.. required to have it on. But he knows Mr. Alton and Mc Warner, as attorneys, appreciatz the fact that
' sometimes you simply have to be on call.
bir. Vau�ht said without impugnin� anyone's motives, and he's not doing that, there's been so much �
revisionis[ history thaYs transpired here, both in the StafPReport and what Mr. Severson, and
parcicularly what Mr. Sudheimer said, which is almost all so far off the mark as to be unbelievable. He
said he hardly knows where to start, The one thing that he would like to ask, he doesn'[ l:now whether
he's seen a copy of the staff report, the staff repoR he has does not have the neicher rhe s�aff report ar
the resolution from when this matter was before the Board of Zoning Appeals in 1995, nor does it have
the S[aff Report and/or the Resolution - he apotogized, 1997 he meant - no, 1995, - nor does it have
[he Staff Report or the Resolution that was passed that was before them when this matter was back
before them in April of 1998. And he's presumiag that the Board doesn't have that information either.
Mr. Alton replied that they do have the 1998 Resolution and they do have - on pa�e 21 - and 22.
Mr. Vaught said he thought it was helpful because he thinks, if they look at that Staff Report and that
Resolution, it will help rhem gaide them through this decision because ii is not at all a simpte decision
and it is not at all as simpie as Mr. Severson would have it seem. He feels kind of like Yo�i Berra,
where he shoutd say he feels like deja vu atl over again, over again, over again, over a;ain, over
a�ain. By his count, these two proposals, and there really are two, not that are on your table, but two
that were presented to the Heritage Preservation Commission, and two before the Ciry Council. One
[hat requires a variance, the so-called 36 foo[ proposal, and that doesn't require a variance the 36 foot
proposal, and [hat which does, the so-called 38 foot proposal, and by his rough count, and he could
stand to be corrected on this, but by his rough count, since Mr. Severson has purchased this property,
and ac least 1996, tbose are between the 5 and the 8`" difFerent proposals that he's advanced for this
properry, depending on how you count and how you do the variations, and that reall} is the source of
his taking great exception to what b1r. Sudheimer said. For which you might impi}� if you believed �
wha[ F�1r. Sudheimer said that, somehow, this is back here because chis weli-financed cIique of
Page 4 of 13
Z�
�► r ��il
• nei�hbots keeps bringing it back here. It's back here because Mr. Severson keeps changing his mind
and advancing new proposats to them, thac's why it's back here. Not because of anything that the
� neiohborhood or the neighbors have done. Whether they feel personally offend�d by being
characterized as a well-financed clique, he'!1 leave that to them. But he wants to set the record straight,
in that respect.
. , .
r
But they're not here today because of anything the neighbors did. They're here because Mr. Severson
re-tooled the proposals two more times, afrer the last time he was in front of the Ci[y Council, in
March of this year. So he wanu to go through just a little bit of the history and he particularly wants to
bring the focus to bear on the history of this Body's consideration of that. Because the last two times,
before this, that this plan has been before - a plan has been before his Body for requesting variances,
this Body has denied those variances. And he would submit to them, particularly if they look at the
plan in the 1998, April 1998 time that it was before them, that there's really no material difference
between this particular plan advanced, this particular time, and the plan that they turned down then,
and which turned down, by the way, was upheld by the City Council, not overrurned by them. And
the plan in addition that was before them - in - he's going to say in 1995 - which this Body also turned
down the variance request - that that also did not material]y differ from this parcicular proposal. Now
he doesn't see frankly anythin� that's particularly changed other than Ciry Council accion on Herita;e
Preservation Commission issues, which are not the same as the issues that face [he Board. And Mr.
Severson is simply throwing up another proposal against the wall, after running up against one road
block or another. Now the procedural history, and he says this all the time, and probab]y the reason
he's sayin� it is because he }ust got done saying this to a}ury IS times about how you ought to rely
upon g�our own recollection if it's different than his. But his recollection of this as it's been before you
the last few times, is Mr. Severson put to,ether a proposal that he took to the Hericase Preservation
Commission, and this happened in 1997. That matter was not before the Board because it did not
require any variances. And he wants to pause at that point, because they're goino to hear him say this
a couple times more in his presentation, that proposal did not require any varianczs. If he was
prepared to proceed ��ith the proposal, and advance one that did not require zn} variance, how pray
tell, can staff recommend to you, and how can you adopt a resolucion that says in effect the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the stricc provisions of the Code. Because, quite
frankly, as far as what they do is concerned, he's already put at least 3 or 4 plans fonvard, including
one that's current]y on the Ciry Council agenda waiting a decision on an appeal that comp]ies with the
strict pro�•isions of the Code.
The question really is, reasonable use. It's not whether you want to do it that wap, it's not whether it's
convenient to do it that way, it's does the Code strictly prohibit - iYs a scrict adherence to the Code -
prohibit you from a reasonable use and he would argue that it doesn't. And he w•ould argue that there';
plenry of history to buttress that, and he'd argue that Mr. Severson's own comments today put tfte lie ta
the fact that somehow there's some unreasonable restriction. He himself said to }ou he can live with
the 36 foot proposal. Well, if he can live with the 36 foot proposai, then there's no unreasonable
limitation.
He excused himself because his ce11 phone was ringing, but he came back momentarily and continued.
When the matter was before them in 1995, it didn't materially differ from chis proposal - it was the
same oriencation; it was a big cork in a small bottle. And it's still a big cork in a small bottie. You
turned it down then, and the decision wasn't overturned. In between times, t�fr. Se�erson took a
• complyin; plan, that didn't require your ac[ion throu�h the Heritage Preserva[ion Commission to the
Ciry Councii and the Ciry Councii approved it. But he didn't build it. Instead, he chese to come back
Page 5 of 13
L�
before the Board, in 1997, with another plan which did require variances and uhich they considered at •
that particular point. And he remembers qui[e a bit of [he discussion, as he's sure those of the Board
that were there remember that discussion. And there was a lot of discussion about the fact that the 97
plan didn't materially differ from the 1995 plan and they, in fact, at that point denied it, and you can
see the resolution for themselves. Not the - the 98. He keeps saying 97 and he means 98. 'Ihe 1998
plan that was before them in April 1998 that they turned down, there was quite a bit of discussion about
how chat didn't material[y differ from the p(an earlier and there was no reason to approve. And he
cornmended thern to language that's in that particalar resotution. He knocvs a number of [hem sat here
at that particular point and he guesses he has to say to them that he sees nothing differenc about this
particular plan except iPs one more variation of the same basic plan that doesn't change a whit, as a
matter of fact, from what you turned down in Aprii of 1998. And isn't affected. And so what
happened to tha[ April 1998 decision? It was appealed to the City Council. And che Ciry Council
upheld your decision. Mr. Severson was not allowed to build that April 1998 proposal.
And what happened after that? �`'eli, Mr. Severson then submitted another p[an in May, or later as he
recalls it in 1998, with a smaller carria;e house that didn't require the variances. So that matter
however was turned down - that si�e plan was not approved by tha Zoning Adminiscracor - ic weat to
[he Ciry Council and the Ciry Council ulcimately approved i[. But lets understand two things. They
didn't act to overmrn a decision of yours, because you never reviewed that pian. And the second thing
; that they did is, i[ was a plan that conformed to the Code and didn't require variances �vhatsoever.
" Ei[her one of two things. Either b1r. Severson was being genuine, or he's bein; disin�enuous about
that particu[ar proposal, but it would not have required any variances whatsoever. But did he build
` afrer che Ciry Councit acred? He did not. What did he do instead? He threw up two more pians. The
" one before you, and the 38 foot plan, and the 36 foot plan, which he took to rhe Hericage Preservation
Commission ac the same time. Now, curiously, they approved them both, and they certainly have that
abiliry. He can't tell them that they cadt. It would seem to him more logical that [hey would have said
to him, at that point, you know you've been back here, pal, 15, - 5, 6, 7 times. Pick �chich one of
`these you want, and decide which one you want to buiid, and we'll act on it. But they actually acted on
t'both of them. That decision was appealed by his clients to the Ciry Council and it still si�s chere
'° awaiting the outcome of this decision, because what the City Council said in effect to Mr. Severson was
exactly that - we're not going to buy a pig in a poke here, which one of these tu�o pians do yo¢ want.
Let's gec them all here so we can discuss them all. So he didn'i build that either. Evea the Heritage
Preservation Commission approved it. And it conforms.
So now we're back with the other half of that particular proposal, and he might add, by the way, he
doesn't know what necessarily effect it has, or how it relates, but he might add, if you look on the Staff
Report, in tfiis particuIar case, you k�ill see tha[ this proposal, that's before you today, was submitted in
June of this year. And chac it was prepared ro come to you much earlier than that. �t�'hy didn't it come
to you? Because Mr. Severson cancele@ the hearing. He decided not to have it come fonvard to them
at that particular point. Which he would say, logically, he thinks is an admission that he was perfectly
willing at that point to accept the 36 foot plan that was going through the Heritage Preservadon
Commission and, hence, to the City Council, and it was only back here before them now because the
Ciry Council wouldn't act on the Herita�e Preservation Commission appeal until you had acted on this.
He was not so sure, alchough he might be able to answer that question, where if the Ciry� Council had
gone ahead and acted at that pazdcutar point on the 36 foot proposat tha[ was approved by-[he Heritage
Preservation Commission, [hat he �eouldn'[ have already puiled a baildin� permit for that. He doesn't
know. And nobody knows. And it's terribly confusing to him and he's been involved in rhis issue for •
almost 3 years. He knows iPs confusing to his clients. And if it's not confusin; [o any of them, they're
Page 6 Of 13
27
�� .
much bz[[er a[ this than he is. There's so many of these different proposals tha[ gec thro�tn up. So
. they're back thete now,
` Let's look at the staff recommendacion. There are certain [ests. They aren't immucahle in the sense that
you can'c use your own judgment in deciding whether they've been met or whecher chey azedc. But
they are cer�ain that he thinks, on any rational reading of the facts with respec[ [o his 38 fooc proposal,
h4r. Severson has simply not met the test. In al1 due respect to bir. Beach, and he's knou•n him for a
number of years, he thinks he's simply wrong in the conciusions that he urges upon them. And the
musc egre�ious of which is die first. And that is that the property in question canno� be put to a
reasonable use under the strict provisions o; the Code. ft then goes on to urge you to conc{ude that
he's met this finding, but really talks about preferences, not reasonability. He mi;hc like to do a lot of
things rhat he can't do with his own residence because the Code doesn't let him. But because he wancs
` to do them, in this case, because Mr. Severson wants to add 2 feet to his carriage house, that dcesn't
mean that the Code is unreasonable when the Code says that he can't. And even when he says that he
v.�ants to do that, you have to judge that against the fact that he has submitted another proposal 36 feet,
which does meet.the provisions of the Code, and which he's told you he could live with, Again, thaYs
a ma[ter of preferences. And preferences don't necessarily add up to unreasonableness. Where is the
unreasonably strict provisions of the code that allow him [o do something that would o[henvise would
be reasonable. He's already told you he'll build the 36 foot one, if he has to. So he would argue that,
utterly and completely on the basis on the facts, that tes[ hasn't been made. If he'd come in here and
said, `I can only do 38 feei, this doesn't work with anything than 38 feet, I can't do all the parking
`. spaces that I have [o do, I can't do every[hing else that I want to do unless I make it 38 feeY and if the
Board concludes, then, that the Code requires him to be allowed to build 38 feet racher ehan somethin;
' that complies with the Code, then he might have met that test. But that's no[ the fac[s, and al1 of us
, know ic. He said he'll live with 36 feet and, therefore, he would submit to the Board, cha� that falls,
-, and this request for variance ou;ht ro fall, on that very firsi test.
And � hile they're passing over the issue, he just wanted to make a couple of comments about Mr.
' Beach's other rationale for concludin; that the strict provisions of the Code bar a rzasonable use, and
that is this business about how you can make the parking spaces a little wider. �Veii, you know folks,
there are so many square feei on this lot. And quite honestly, his ciients' objection �o this, from the
very beginning, has been that puttin; any building that even remote]y is like this, isjus[ too big on this
particular lot. Given that Mr. Severson also has the legal requirement to provide all these parking
spaces, which are, in effect, how he must do it, he doesn't have any choice: he's got ro have 9 parking
spaces on this particular lot on the building and on the lot. Well, if you make the carriase house a little
bit bigger so you can make those parking spaces a little bit bigger, iherefore, you make the other
parking spaces a little bit smaller. And so there isn't any more room. This isn't a case where you can
push somethin� and it shoves out somewhere else. The size of the other parking spaces has to be
materially affected in a negative way by increasing the size of ihe parkin; spaces in the carriage house.
By increasing it from 36 feet to 38 feet.
And you also heard that bir. Beach said, and he thinks Mr. Severson repeated ic, that these parking
spaces with the 36 feet carriage house comply with the law. They do comply with the ]a�r, It makes
maneuverin; a little difficult. Well, again, difficult is one thing. Unreasonably strict is ano�her. And
if they comply with the law, either the law with respect to how big a parkin� space is right, in which
case the 36 feec proposal meets that, and there's no reason to vary it, and certainly no reason to
conclude that applying it is an unreasonable limitation. Or the parking requirements «ith respect to
• �vidth are not correct in which case somebody somewhere ou�ht to investigate what the code says and
Page 7 0: 13
Z�
��hether it ou�ht to be changed. But he argues tha[ he ought not to do that on a piece meal basis you
ou�ht to do ii on the basis of followin, the law where you can. He just doesn't think that the parking •
ar�ument with respect to the minimal increase of size in the parking spaces in the gara�e. Good
heavens, there are 4 of [hem in there, If you increase it 2 feet at most, and [hat's assumin� that every
inch of those 2 feet is going to be assi�ned to those 4 parking spaces and he don'c know chac they can
necessari]y conclude thaT, that means tha[ you're going to increase each parking space by the grand
sum total of 6 inches. And he would argue that thaYs not enough to allow them to conclude that there's
some strict interpretation of the Code that requires i[ to be done.
The other item with which he thinks, and some of the other parties and some of the residents will talk
aboac ic, but he thinks the other thin, that caught his eye as he looked through it is the statement that
the variance if granted wouid not permic any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the Code
for the properry in the disuict - so on and so forth- thaYs #5 by the way. And Mr. Beach urges you
upon the conclusion thai the zoning code permits single family house with parking. Well it certainly
does. But the Zoning Code doesn't permit single family houses with parking in the front yard or the
side yard for that matter. Because of the way that this house is orienced, and believe him that was Mr.
Severson's choice, nobody's e[se's, with respect with how he wishes to orient it - you have in effect the
only place on chose 2 blocks on Pordand Avenue where you have parking that is in the fron[ yard. He
would certainly say it's the front yard but at inost it's the side yard and it woald be righc ap againsr che
set back from the streec. Much has been made of the fact that the rest of these buildinas panicularly on
that side are sec up close. But all of the parking for the buildings on tha[ side of the screet is behind the
buildin�. There isn't any of it in front of the buildin�. And there isn't any of it right up on the street,
which is what would be the case here. And he would argue to the Board that the code prohibits without
additiona2 variances, prohibits sideyard parking and it also prohibits front yard parkina. And he �
assumes the Board - he knows they haye - dealt with that issue before. And so he �couid ar;ue that thac
test is also not met on its face. That, blatantly and brutally on its face, there is not a snfficient faccual
basis for you to conclude that because it is not as simple as a one family home with parkin,. It's as
complicated as a one family home with parking in the sideyard and/or the fronryard which is not of the
same character as any other buildine on that particular street.
So - and [hen he just simply wan[s to echo - and he knows that they have and he assumes that they've
read it - because he commends it to them althongh he must say that may be the frst time in the 4 years
that he ever sat on the planning commission or since that he said anything about District 8 and anything
that they said that he thought was laudatory and logical but he does think that in this parcicular case that
they do present some arguments with respect to their recommendation that you deny this. That do in
fact have some logic. And he knows that Mark Voerding wili echo some of those. This is not a
materialIy different matter than the Z other times this was before the Board. It is the essentially the
same proposat. You turned it down the other 2 times. And he argues [hat they ouohc not to be fooled
by somebody saying that the Ciry Council's approved because the Ciry Council has never approved a
p]an for this site that required variances. Not in 1995, not in 1998. They have approved a building for
this, but every one of them has conformed to the strict provisions of the code. So to say that you ought
to do this just because the Ciry Council acted in approving a site plan over the zonine administrators'
objection earlier this year doesn't really compare apples with apples. Because that si[e plan did not
have variances, and Mr. Severson did not buitd that. This requires variances. This is already a
building with the strict provisions of the code that absolutely stretches this lo[. And ro pu[ - to at[ow
these variances as a matter of personal choice, when Mr. Severson has admitted chat he can do it w�irhin
the scrict provisions of the Code, he doesn't think was what the variances was mec to be. hSr. Vau;h[ .
then thanked [he board for their time.
Page 8 of 13
� 1
m-��
• Next, Mark Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, came forward. He said he feels like this is like a piece of
fly paper that keeps sticking. No matcer how you try to ge[ rid of it. I[ doesn't get rzsolved. He said
" he was not part of the well-financed clique. He was there on his own time and at his o�cn expznse to
represent to the Board the position of the Ramsey Hill Association. He's a board member and Chair of
the Land Use Committee.
Before he starts with that, there was one comment that he wanted to make. He said he was actually
qui[e disappoin[ed. He didn'[ know why staff can persist in misrepresencing the fac[s in a part of [his
case. There was no legai lot split in 1990. There was no legal lo[ split in `91, there �c•as no legal lot
split in 1992, there was no legal lot split in his view that has occurred. The Ciry Council approved -
took an action regarding the lot split last yeac That issue is not before the Ciry Council. That issue is
not appealed to the city councii. It was an action that he would argue is arbitrary and capricious and
inappropriate for the City Council to make. That part - his opinion aside - it is a fact that no lot split
occurred in 1990. No lega( lot split. What is a fact is that a) ciry staff person took a rubber stamp and
put a red mark of approval on the plans, signed his name to it, he had no authoriry to do that , he
possibly committed a crime in doing so, certainly his power. A lot split in that instance only under the
code within the power of this body. This body has never taken an action regardin, this lot split. So he
�,�ishes such misrepresentations on this matter would cease.
h4r. Alton, Actin� Chair, stopped Mr. Voerding at that point. He said, 2 thin�s - please confine his
comments to the application to the zoning variance and secondly Mr. Beach did no[ misrepresent any
facc to this Board. The fact of the matter is that a lot split did occur in 1990. You're speakin; of
le�ally approved - that's correct he suspects. And perhaps they can have Mr. �Varnzr eive them an
� opinion on that. But, he advised, please do not characterize Mr. Beach's statement in this, regarding
the history of the case as a misrepresentation. Because that's not true. With respec� to whether you
,' � can accuse someone - a clerk of a crime in 1990 - I don't think that that's relevant.
Mr. Voerding continued his comments. He said that the Ramsey Hill Association con[inues to oppose
this project. First of ail the desi�n contains none of the fe2tures thai are required for a primary
residential structure. Secondly the lot should never have been split from 415 Summit creating this
siruation. And also putting 415 Summi[ out of compiiance with the zoning code. Thirdly based on ]ast
week's community issues meeting, the proposal does not meet any of che requirements necessary to
grant [he variance. And fourthly, the proposal requires sideyard parking for which a variance would
be required and is not being sought at this time. They also remain concerned about the number of
variances requested to maximize or over-maximize the use of property that occur within their district
and they are working toward a review of the Zoning Code to ascertain what amendments if any may be
necessary to allow full use without variances. They continue to work in that direction. And so it
would be - the position of the Ramsey Hill Association, that the Board continue in its denial of the
variances for this project.
Greg and Carol Clark came forward and said they're residents of 415 Summit. b1r. Clark said they
have a 2 car garage that is on the existin� land now. They've been goin� on their fourth year there.
They have not been able to use their garage because of the condition of that back lo[. "Che condition
tha[ i['s in. They haven't been able to use their garage for 4 years. He's hearing about the sidewalk in
benveen the existing 415 and 420 and now a car parked in there. He questions about how they're
going to be able to get into their house in the winter time it's a bloody mess. Any w-ay�s where this
• parking - or the sidewalk and the vehicle tha[ would be parked there - how they would be able to get
into their home now.
Page 9 of 13
3�
Carol Clark said she thinks that when they refer to this sidewalk - that is oa associacion properry and •
hfc Severson's uni[ wouid not be a patt of their association. That sidewa(k does not exist nor have
they tafked about puiting anyrhin, like that in there. So to clear that up. #2 under the Findin;s, the
properry cannot be put to reasonable use. They have offered to bay che properry from Mr. Severson,
they being the association to use if just for the purpose of parking and trying to fieure out something
that would be conducive not only to their building but to the neighborhood and stii! to preserve green
space which has always been a big issue. To have a structure abutting a park, which is some of the
only green space in the neighborhood, they are against tha[. The plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the properry - Mr. Severson knew en[irely what was happznin� with that lot.
He's been the one that's lived in that progerty 415 Summit the lon�est. When Dennis Grozy, the
originat owner and the one who did get the other proposais approved by the Ciry Council, owned it,
Mr. Severson was a�ainst buildin; anythin; there. And he knew what the probfems and what the
issues were with building on that to�. in refrence to having people say that they wouid rather have a
building there and it would make a better view than what 420 Porttand or 430 or whacever the bailding
is next door - have fo the park than what they have. She dcesn't agree with that. One of ihe neighbors
also - and she'll submit this to the Board - has writien a letter. She just faxed it today.
She has concerns about the ligh[ and the value of her property. One day she came home and b4r.
Severson had hired a surveyor to mark off the back lot of his property, In speakin; to the surveyor,
even the surveyor was concerned about the size of the building on the size of the lot. He said he
Y�, couldn't figure out - and again it was his personal opinion - how a building could fit on a lot that size.
.-His concern aIso was in regard to parkin; for the rest of the peopie. He said where are you going to
puc ati che cars and how are they goin, to tum around. Which leads again to their plight with their
garage. They haven't beea able to use it. Now as you see, there's another parkin; spot at the end of it. �
She doesn't know how even if they could use ii - they could back out -[here wo¢id be a car there - or
the 4 car garage that he's proposin;, how they're going to back oui wiih a car at the end of the
, properry. And the other point, the desire to increase his value - the request for variance is not based on
the desire to increase the vatue or income - again, they have offered to buy this from him and do the
' right thin� for what they think is good for the neighborhood. He said that he would sell but he
,` wouldn't sell to them Which she guesses, kind of fits in with this. That why wouldn't he sell to them.
I� would be the most logical thing ro do.
If you look at the drawings that have been submitted she thinks the drawings look like there's a lot
more space back thete than there is - actuatly is. And again, on the drawing it tooks like they could
just back right out of their gara;e, kind of make a u tum and go out the driveway. With a car there,
there's no way - at the end of the other parking space that he's proposing. She doesn't see how they
cou]d do that. And especially if another car was coming out of the garages that he proposes to build.
In his letter, he refers to the site plan with the restricted 9 feet front yard variance improves the
building and the lot and they're therefore asking for the variance. Again she doesn't see how this
improves anything back there. It just adds to what she would say is further coneestion. And then the
parking space that he has at the foot of their garage, her understanding is that it is s[ill considered
sideyard parking in this issue. And then he also refers to the 32x32 2 story carriase house. They've
been at this a long time. And no where has she seen any plans showing that this �eas a carriage house.
She's seen things that have referred to it as an outbuilding. And again 32x32 foot that is a lot smaller
than a 956 sq feet home that he is proposing to put back there.
The last ching she woutd tike to say is again in regards to the improvemen[. If he «•anted to improve •
somethin� back there, she doesn'[ see why it hasn't been done thus far. There's piles of rocks,
Page 30 of 13
�i
�?,�
• nei�hbors complain about how it looks, improving it doesn't have to be buildino some[h:ng back there.
I� could make it ]ook decent to the neighborhood with green space, trees, whatever. He talks about the
S5,000.00. She question the 55,000.00. As far as will it really happen. When the}• boueht, they had a
site plan that was approved by the Ciry Council by Zoning, it showed their garaQe, it shou�ed parking
spaces. It showed paving. That's never happened either. And that's somethin� that the ciry approved.
So when she hears these improvements she really has some ques[ions and concerns. And she guesses
thz last thin� that she would like to say is tha[ the tenants in their - that current]y exist the previous
owners, Linda Meyer and 7im Haugland, they were both against building anythinQ bacic there. And
they were there at least 2 years before Greg and she came which was 96. The previous owner was
Dennis Rosie. Yes he was for it but he was also the developer of ihe structure in the back. And to
finish, she �vould like the Board to come and look if they would at the properry and wha[ he is
proposing, just to see.
Iv1r. Alton, commented that he thought all of the Board has been there.
n1r. Clark added, lasdy, that they are not well-financed. It is a sacrifice on their part.
Chris Yerkes, secretary for the Summit University Planning Council, spoke next. He's 6een involved
wich the planning council since 1992. He doesn't want to look at personalities in this. He doesn't want
to look at whether it's a legal or illegai lot split. That's a differenc issue. He wancs to look at the issue
that's in front of them. He's a little concerned that there's a sideyard parking that is not in front of them
when the plan does call for that. That is not taken up at the same time. He doesn't like to take thin�s
� piecemeal. He's a volunteer with the Summit Universiry Piannin� Council. That's wh}• he's here.
. He's taking time off from work to be before the Board.
Just wanted to outline the letter that they've had. He's assumed tha[ they've looked at [he City code for
guidance for when they authorize and don't authorize variances. Everybody involved - the builder
when he first split, the builder, the current petitioner when he bou�ht it - knew what [he codes were,
= knew what he would have to do and whete he would have to go to have a variance granred. Unless
he's wrong, the section outlined there he has to qualify under all 6 of those, not just 1,2,and 3, but
even if one of those is not taken then he would not qualify for a variance.
At the community issues meeting last Tuesday he presented 2 plans. One that he presen�ed perfectly,
happily. He said I don't need any variances for this. I can build it today. I can start construction
[omorrow. And then he presented a plan with the variance that he's asking for. That makes it fall out
right under number one. Under number Z the plight of the landowner isn't due to his circumstances.
He bought it with the full understanding of what the easement requirements were, and what the lot
looked Iike. #3, keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. He ihinks the code is there and looking
ac #5 and 6 and back at 1, he dcesn't think it is in keeping with the spirit and intent. #4 they took a
neutral point ac the community issues meeting. And he's not speakin� for himseif - he's speaking for
the community. As has been given to him over the past many years, sitting in on communiry issues
meetings on this - you could if you talk about air and li�ht he believes a lot of this looks [owards
buildin� and air shafrs and current downtown buildings and things like that. But if you �i•ant to look at
this particular one, with it further back, it affects the air and the light of 415 Summit. R'ith it further
fonvard it affects 436 Pordand. So they just rook a neutral point on [ha[. {/5 - ic wouldn'[ pernut any
use under the provision of the code. It would certainly affect it. If this variance is granczd it would
� allow parking in the front yard. If there was a 25 feet setback parkin� a car 16 fee� from the front is
requires a variance. #f6 it's not primarily based on a desire to increase the value or income. Whether
Page 11 of 13
�L
it's value but he asked the petitioner himself, why would you like to have tltis variance. He said he
would like to have an extra parking place and he'd like to have extra room in ihe gara�e. You can •
interpret that how you wan[. He thinks thai increases vatue but he did not say that direcfly.
Since thece was no one else [o speak in opposition, Chair invited the applicant to return and answer any
questions.
John b4iller, attorney with Pe[erson, Fram & Bergman, St. Paul, cvho represented Ron Severson in this
mat[er, and has for a number of years on this particalar properry. Mr. Vaught and he have probably
agreed many times on chis, sometimes in hearing rooms sometimes via correspondence, sometimes in
person. Finally there are a couple of thin�s that Mr. Vau�ht said today that he agrees with. First of all,
he agrees that this is deja vu all over. They've been down this road many times before, not only before
this board, but through various subcommittees, and up to the Ciiy Council a number of times on it.
However he does disagree with his characterization ihat each of these visiu to the various ciry boards is
occasioaed by chaages in Mr. Severson's plans. He does a�ree with him also in his comment that chere
appears to be a lot of revisionist his[ory that's going on with the project that's been goin; on for a
number of years - twists and tums. There is going to be some revisionism. You're goin� to look back
and take a look at the same events and reach different conclusions. He could point ouc a number of
areas in which he disagrees with Mr. Vaughts statement of the history of the matter. Buc he thinks that
chac would - is probably not somethin; that this Board's interes[ed in. If they are he'd be happy to do
ic. Alon, with the revisionist history approach, also a number of other irrelevant commenu have been
made today. And a�ain he's not goin� to point those out.
Thz one that he was going to mention, he be]ieves the chair also already has commented on and he S
would concur with his comments with respect to the validity for effect for the lot splic back in 1940.
He's no[ goin, to - it's not his position to give the Board any tegal advice with respecc to that. If there's
further clarifcation he's sure that Mr. Warner would be happy to do thaL He would like to just
commeni in passin� he beiieves that the important thing for the board to do - or he wouId submit that
the imporcant [hing for them to do wou(d be to focus in on the applicacion as it exists today. Try to put
aside the whole long gnarIed and tangied history of this. And took at the staff report and analyze the
staff report on its own merits. He's not goin; to go through point by point 6 criteria �hich have to be
met. Suffice it to say that they agree with the staff s position with respect to each of those points.
He would like to just comment briefly though on the - what is referred to as reasonablz use or the
unreasonableness of it. The phrase reasonable use as used in the ordinance is not a phrase that's
capable of precise definidon. There's probabiy no more single troubling phrase to nail down than
reasonable use. And boards for their varioas municipaliiies develog their own definition and
application of how that phrase is going to be used on a case by case basis. They essentially create their
own precedenE. And it's important he believes - with tha[ in mind tha[ this request the Board Iook back
at some of i[s previous decisions with respect to what constitutes unreasonable use under the
circumstances or if the property can't be put to a reasonable use. To use that precedent. Just by way
of examp(e, he only uses these examples because these are the ones that he's most familiar � ich, he
would submit that the 2 previous requests for variances are not terms of reasonable use that much
differen[ from the request that Mr. Severson is makin; today.
bfr. Severson came forward and said if there were questions he wanted to answer them. I['s really
hard to sit back and have inaccurate information goin� forth. •
Page 12 of 13
3�
6�Y��
Mr. Alton noted that the Board is not going to judge this case based on personali[ies or s�atemznts
• regarding personalities made by either party.
b1r. Severson added that it's probably not real retevant, buc there's been 4 proposals not 8 to 12. He
could list them all for them. They've been changed because of problems that they've had wi�h them.
Like one that had the front yard parkin;. They moved it to the back and had to come back. He only
wanted to - Iohn Miller and himself - if there were questions, he wanted the board to know that he was
available.
There were no questions by the Board, therefore, Mr. Alton closed the public portion of the meeting.
hfs. Morton moved to deny the variance, based on finding !/ 1, the properry can be put to a reasonable
use under the strict provisions of the Code.
Mr. Wilson seconded the motion for denial.
hfr. Donohue stated that he thought i[ was unreasonable to deny this variance based on �he facc that this
building, if it is moved 25 feet back, it diminishes the functional uti]iry of the buildin; co the point - he
thinks that it doesn'[ make sense noc to grant the variance because tong-term it's going ro affect che
value of the condos that are using these units because the gara�e units are goin; to be smaller, less
functional, and the turn around areas. He doesn't agree with denying the variance.
Mr. Wi]son asked, when they speak about the garage area, they're increasin� [he garage by 2 feet.
They're goin� from - they've got 4 spaces in that gara�e. And ]et's say tha[ the walls are 8 inches a
i._ piece. They're increasing that maneuvering that's so minimal. But what you are doin; by inereasing
the 2 feet, as he sees it, you're increasing the size of the units upstairs. He thought that's part of this
argument to get this additional footage. Is to increase the top section of rhis home. No[ the garage.
As far as the maneuvering area in the yard itself, to me that looks like it's going to be pretty tight to
c begin with. So he thinks that as far as maneuvering in the yard is going to be tou;h. But he doesn't see
that argument for increasing the maneuverabiliry in the garage - he doesn't buy it. He thinks it's the
upstairs that's going to add value to the building.
Mr. Donohue responded that he's got a garage right now that if it was 6 inches wider he could pull his
vehicle into it.
Mr. Scherman stated he agreed with what Mr. Donohue said.
h1r. Alcon then asked for a roll call, and the motion to deny the variances passed on a vote of 4 to 2
(Sherman, Donohue).
by:
�
John Hardwick
Approved by:
Gloria Bog�n, Secretary
Paqe 13 of 13
J �
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
1. APPIICANT: RONALD SEVERSON
2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance
3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
DATE OF HEARING:
FILE # 99-163
� 0/25l99
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: P!N # 012823240240 (See file for complete legal descriptionj
5. PLANtJING DISTRICT:
6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZONtNG CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
7. STAFP (tVVESTtGATiO1V AND t2EPOf2T: DATE: 7/6/99 BY: Tom Beach
8. QEADLtNE FQR ACTtON: 12/1 V98 DATE RECEfVED: 6/8/99
A. PURPOSE: The applicant is proposing to construct a new residentiat structure that wouid have a 4
car garage on the first ftoor and a singie-family home on the second floor over the garage. The building
has been designed to look like an historic carriage house. There would be a total of 9 parking spaces
on the property (4 spaces in the new building, there wouid also be 3 surface spaces, and 2 spaces in an
existing garage). One of these parking spaces wouid be for the carriage house unit and the other 8
would be for an existing 4-unit condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit).
B. ACTION REQUESTED: A variance for minimum front yard setback. A front yard setback of 16 feet is
proposed for the carriage house; a setback of 25 feet is required for a variance of 9 feet
C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is an irregular shaped parcei with an area of 5,428 square
=� feet. It is currently used for parking by the 4-unit condominium at 415 Summit (the property immediately
south of 420 Portiand). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on gravei/dirt. The site is located in the Historic Hill Preservation District.
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Single-family and duplex (RT-2)
East: Nathan Hale Park (RT-2)
South: Four-uniY condominium (RT-2)
West: Mulii-family condominium (RM-2)
D. HlSTORY: Since 1990 there have been a number zoning cases for this property:
—!n '! 990 the City approved a!ot splii that split this parcei from north end of the parcel at 415 Summit.
— Later in 199Q the Board of Zoning Appeais approved variances to construct a new carriage house
urtit with a 5 car garage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This was appealed to the City
Courtcil by the Parks DepartmenL The Council upheld the variance but modified the conditions.
' The project was never built
— In 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeafs granted variances fo construct a fwo-unit carriage house with
a 14-car underground garage.
— In 1993 the Board of Zoning Appea( granted a one year extension of the 1992 variances but the
project was never built.
— in 1994 there was a proposal to buiid a two-unit carriage house with a totai of 9 garage stafis under
I'1
\J
�
n
LJ
3s
ar7 a�
the carriage house and in detached garages. Variances were applied for but appiication was
• _ withdrawn before the Board of Zoning Appeals took any action.
in 1995 the Board of Zoning Appeais denied a variance tor a carriage house unit with 3 parking
spaces beneath the unit and 6 other surfiace parking spaces.
— In 1996 Ron Severson, the applicant in this case, purchased the property.
— In '1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a pian similar to the current proposal. The
City Councii upheld this approva! on appeal in February 1998.
— In April 1998 the Board cf Zoning Appeals denied variances for a carriage house with 4 parking
spaces beneath the carriage house and 5 other parking spaces. This decision was appealed fo fhe
City Councii. The City Council upheld the decision to deny the variances. The City Councii also
instructed the City Attomey's o�ce to 400k into the fegai status of the originaf 19901ot split because
that the lot split was approved by staff without a pubiic hearing even though the lot spiit required a
variance. (See attached site plan and BZA resolution.)
— in May 1998 Ron Severson submitted a revised site plan with a slightly smaller carriage house and
one less parking space. This site pian did not require any variances. However, the Zoning
Administrator denied the site pian based on advice from the City Attorney's office that the 1990 lot
split was not valid because the lot sptit needed a variance and a public hearing shouid have been
heid on the variance. Mr. Severson appeaied that decision to the Planning Commission and in
November 1998 the Planning Commission upheid the decision to deny the site plan. Mr. Severson
then appealed this decision to the City Council and in March 1999 the City Council reversed the
decision of the Planning Commission and approved the site plan. The Council said that the fact that
the lot split in 1990 did not follow the required procedures should not prevent approval of the site
plan. The City Council also concluded that, under its authority, it would approve any setback
variance that was required for the lot split. (See attached site plan and Ciry Council resolution)
E. CURRENT PROPOSAI: in June 1999 Ron Severson submitted the current site plan to City staff. it
� cails for a carriage house and 9 parking sQaces {4 in the carriage house, 2 in an existing gar8ge and 3
�, more surface spaces). This site pian is slightly different than the one approved by the Ciry Council
earlier in the year:
A. The carriage house is 38 feet long (instead of 36 feet). This allows a larger dweiling unit over the
carriage house and wider parking spaces in the carriage house.
_ B. A surface parking space has been added behind the carriage house for a total of 9 spaces. This
provides each unit in 415 Summit 2 spaces plus 1 space for the carriage house.
To accommodate these changes the front yard setback has been reduced trom 25 feet to 16 feet. The
reduced setback requires a variance.
The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the current site pian and buiiding plans on June 24.
This decision was appealed to the City Council. The Council decided to defer action on the Heritage
Preservation appeai untii the Board of Zoning Appeals has acted on the variance so ail appeals can be
heard at the same time.
F. FINDINGS: The Board of Zoning Appeals may grant a variance if it meets the foliowing findings:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonab/e use under the strict provrsrons of the code.
The variance meets this finding. The variance will allow the carriage house to be 2 feet longer and
so fhe parking spaces on the first floor of the carriage house can be wider. Maneuvering to get into
these spaces is tight beCause the site is small and the extra width wili make it easier to get in and
out of tfiese parking spaces. The extra width wiii aVso permit the carriage house dwelling unit to be
siightly larger.
• 2. The plight of the land owne� is due to circumsfances unique to this properfy, and these
circumsfances were nof c�eafed by the land owner.
� �
The variance meets this finding. �he piignt of tne iand owner is due to fhe size and irregutar shape •
of the lot and to the private agreement that requires the property owner to provide parking spaces
for the units at 415 Summit. These circumstance are unique and were not created by the land
owner.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent wrth the
heatth, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Sk Paul.
The variartce meets this finding. The intent of the code in requiring minimum fronf yard setbacks is
to ensure that there is some consistency in seYbacks and to provide green space. The proposed
front yard setback is consistent with (and actualiy siightly larger than) the front yard setback for the
large condominium building to the westwhich is the only other buiiding on the biock face. The front
yard woul8 be landscaped and wouid provide adequate green space in fhe fronf yard of the
property. Additional green space is provided for ihe biock by adjacent NaYhan Hale Park.
4. The proposed variance wi!! not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor
wil! it or unreasonably diminish established property values wifhin the surrounding area.
The variance meets this finding. The variance to move the carriage house cioser to the street wiil
improve light and air to 415 Summit Avenue by moving the buiidings farther apart. It will not
enreasonably diminish established proPerty values within the surrounding area since the re(ative(y
small carriage house will be set back further from the front properiy line than ihe large condominium
building next door which is the only other building on the 61ock face.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of fhe
code for the property in the disfricf whe�e the affected land is located, no� would it alter or change �
the zoning district classification of the property.
The variance meets this finding. The zoning code permits a single-famiiy house with parking.
6. The request for variance is not based primari/y on a desire to increase the value or income potential
of the parcel ofland.
The variance meets this finding. The request for variance is based primarily on the need to provide
parking for the dwelling units at 415 Summit as weil as the proposed carriage house unit.
G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: DisYrict 8 Community Council had not sent its
recommendation to staff at the time the staff report was being wriBen. However, in the pasY, Districi 8
had opposed variances for this project.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATlON: Sased on findings 1 through 6, statf recommends approval of the
variance to reduce the front yard setback for the proposed building to 16 feet.
A'fTACHMENTS:
Applicafion
Site plans and elevations for current proposai that requires one variance
Site plan for a proposai that did not need varia�ces and March 1999 City Councii resolution approving it
Site p(an for a proposa( that required 3 variances and Aprii 1998 BZA resolution denying it
Location maps
G \IISERSIBEACH i OhT99153W91638Z5
•
37
�� ��
�
�
APPLICATiON FOR ZONING VARIANCE
OFFlCE OF LlCERSE, L\SPECTIO.\'S, A.\D
Er`�7RO.�:tfEh'TAL PROTECTIO.�' � 8 3� I 4
3�0 St. Peter S[reet, Suite 3I10
Saixt Pauf, hl.�' S5102-1310
26b-9plIS
AP P LICANT
Zoning office use onty
Fi;a r,ur-b=r �� - � � �
FA�: s Z S
Ter,�a5ve *earing date: 7 Z
5=���,;5;. b I• � o�
City agert �
Name �('?1,'� lc-1 lYt}-Y6"^c1^ Cempa�y
Address �/,� o, 1 /'17YY�• { � �-
Ciry.. -�jt._-��,t� Stat=�ZipSS '��Qayt;mePho.^.�Gl�� ����/ 7]
Property int2rest of applicant (owner, coMrect purcfiaszr, etc )_f'1 �11 A„ P��—
Name of owner (if
PI�V a118 z3 2y o�9z
PROPERTY
w� i
Legai descrip0on
(attach addrf�onal she=t itnecessary)
r � �L
Lot size �� NDn S�f • tY • Pr=sant Zoning P; es=nt U;2 �/=�; �i � �
�� � � _
Proposed Use
2
1." Varance(s)r=questad:
/5 � ���vc�.— S �' si�l� �ccµ..l� C�r�����,c, �-<;<<r-z
��i
C2�` r���c �r� � �
2. 4Vha! physical characteristi s of the property przv_nt its being us=_d f�r any of Ch=_ pe�m�t_d uses in you; zon_?
(topography, size and shape of lot, soil conCi�ons, etc )
� ��L� �/
3 Ezplain how the stnct application af the provisons of the Zoning Ordinance w�ulC c=sult in p=_culsar cr ezc=phonal
pracocal diffculUes or exceptional undue harCships
CASY„?R5 USc ON! Y
A Explam how the grantirg of a variance wiil not be a subs;ar�tai d=_tnm>nt
to tne public good or a subs±antial impairmert o` thz intent and purpcs�
of the Zoning Ordmance
. ��_____.-:_:_�-__- =_=____:
: .
addrtional sheets if needed
_ I/
. „�..,.
. _ „c � Li
APPLICATION FOR A ZOIVING VARIANCE �
420 Portland Avenue
Ronald and Mary Severson
Please consider my request for a front yard variance of nine feet for my Iot
at 420 Portiand Ave.
420 Portiand Avenue is a 5,428 square foot Iot, currently surfaced with
gravel and used as parking for the condominium ownars at 415 Summit.
The lot was split off from 415 Summit Ave. and is a separate buildable lot
with Portiand Ave. as the front yard. By easement, the development of this
building site must inciude two off-street parking spaces for each of the
owners of the condominium owners at 415 Summit.
The lot has an irregular shape with a 50 foot front lot line on Portland Ave.,
a back lot line of 90 feet, a �c�est lot line of 88 feet and an east lot line of
55.7 feet. There is no alley access to this lot.
In 1990, the developer who then owned the lot submitted a request to the �
BZA to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carria�e house requirin�
seven variances including a two foot front yard set-back This request was
approved by the Board. In 1992, a second request was submitted for an
expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requirin� additional
variances. This request was also approved. Neither of these proposals �vas
built because of the developer's financial problems.
My wife and I purchased this lot in 1996 with the intent of building a
single-family house for our personal residence. Our plan also includes the
required off-street parking for the condominium residents. During our
efforts to develop an appropriate construction plan, the le�aiity of the lot
split was called into question. On February 3, 1999, the St. Paul City
Council affirmed the legatity of this lot split by passing a motion making
�ZQ P�J:?�S.R Aye. a separate buildable tot. Atthou�h, we can now buitd a
36 foot carriage house on this site with no variances needed, �ve believe that
this site plan with the requested nine foot front-yard variance improves the
buitding and the tot and we are, therefore, asking the BZA for approval of
this variance. •
3�
oo-7do
� A front-yard variance of nine feet will provide a 16 foot front yard. The
carriage house �vould be 38 foot in lenjth with four tuck-under gara�es.
The carriage house would be centered on the lot, allowinj a separation of
16 feet from the main house and providing room for an additional parking
space. This house will cover 956 square feet with 1,620 square feet
allowed. This site plan provides a totaI of nine off-street parkin� spaces
which meets the condominium Declaration requirement of two spaces per
unit and the city requirement of seven total spaces for this lot.
The only other building on this side of the block is a larje three story
condominium with a one foot front yard set-back. Of the seven houses on
the North side of the block, only two meet the 25 foot set-back requirement
and two of the set-backs are shorter than the requested 16 feet. Therefore, a
sixteen foot set-back would not be visually obstructing and would be more
harmonious with the placement of the other houses than a 2� foot set-back.
Since this building is an architectually designed turn of the century carria�e
house which has HPC approval, the view from Nathan Hale Park is an
improvement over the existin� view.
�
`" This architectually designed carriage house conforms �vith the requirements
� for the heritage preservation area and provides the most appropriate plan
that has been proposed far this lot . At the turn of the century, there was a
32' X 32' two-story carriage house located on this property. In effect, our
carriage house replaces this ori�inal building.
�
��
�esol��:=� �,y�� r�g a�rb �ar
3 YRYiANGQS
CITY OF SAINT PAUL �
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONIti'G FILE NUIYIBER 93-026
Dc'1TE" : Apri16, 1993
WHEF2EAS, Ronald Sevecson has applied fo; a variance from che stricc applicacion of ine provisions of
Sections 61.101 of the Saint Paul Le,islative Code penainin� to the construction of a new carriage
house rcith one Qwetlin� unit and addicionat parkin; spaces in the RT-2 zonin� discrict a: 420 Po¢iand
Avenue; and
NHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conductzd a pubiic hearin; on hfarch 23, 1998,
pursuant [o said appeal in accordance wi�h chz requiremenu of Section 6�.205 oi the Le;islacive Code;
ar.d
R`HEREAS, the Saini Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals bas:d apon evideace pres�nt�d zt a':e pnblic
i�earing, as subscantially reflzcted in the minaces, made the following findin�s of fact:
I. The property in qz�esttan can 62 put to a reasonable uce und2r [he strict provision; of thz code.
The irre�ular shape of the lot and the covenant requiring 8 parkin� spaces for thz propecty at 415
Summit Avecue make it difficult to dzvelop the property. Howecer, the orvner hz; no[ explored ali •
options such as constructin� a smaller house or repositioning the hou>e. In 199� variances for a
simitar project were denied but the house currently proposed is slightly larg:, thsn th� house
proposed in 1995 aad has not been si�ifcantly repo;itioned.
Z. T'F.e pli�ht of the land oiyner is nat due to circumstances uniqz�e to t'r.is property wh.ic'r, tirer2 not
crza!ed by the land otivner.
The size and irre�ular shape of the lot and to the covenant that requirzs the property o��r,er to
provide parking spaces for the units at 41� Summit were not created by the present ouner. Hoti�e�er,
the prasent owner was aware of these circumstances �vhen he 6ouehi the proQerry.
3. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent ojthe code, and is not consistent
with the hea[th, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitanrs of thz Ciry of St. Paul.
The proposed development would not provide a reasonable amount of grezn space and therefore the
cariances are not in keepina ��'ith the spirit intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance tiaill inrpair ars adzquate supply of light and air to adjacent property and
unreasonably diminish established property valc�es within the surrounding arza.
Tne location and size of the proposed carria�e house �vould impair an adzquatz supp(}• of li`ttt and
aic to adjacent propeRy. The orientation of the building �vith the side facir.� Por[_nd Acer.ue wou?d
unreasonably diminish propem� values ti� ithin the surrounding area. •
"1'
�
.ri _.�!
•
��. Thz variance, ifgranted, uould not permir ar., u.re that is not perm.itted :�nd_r ti:= pro:isior.s of [h?
code for the properry in the disnict tirhzre the affected land is loca: e� r.or :: o:�!d r: e./ter or chang2
thz aoning district classifica: ion of tn2 property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase li:z value or ir.�am.z potenrial
of the parcel of land.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals thas ine
a?plication to grant variances from provisions oF 5ections 61.101 to aliow a 12-foo� fron� yzrd sz[back
for 4'�e carriage house, a 20-foo[ fronc }•ard secback for [he surface par!:ing, and a 1.2-fooc side yard
setback for the carria�e house on properry loca[ed a[ 4?0 Portland Avenee and lzgally described as (See
At[achment); in accordance with the applica[ion for variance and the sice plan on file wih the Zoning
Administracor is hereby denied.
MOVED BY:
SECONDED BY:
IN FAVOR:
AGAINST:
, `LAII,ED:
APPE9L: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the
City Council �sithin 13 days by anyone affected by the decision. $uilding
permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits hace
been issued bet'ore an appeal has 6een filed, then the permits are stispended
and construction shall cease untIl the City Council has made a t'inal
determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATIO\: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City oF
Saint Paul, blinnesota, do hereby certify that I fiave compared the foregoing
copy �rith ihe or aoinal record in my office; and find the same to be a true
and correct copp of said ori; nal and of the �vhole thereoP, as bued on
approved minutes of the Saint Paul &oard of Zoaing AppeaLs meeting held
on biarch 23, 1993, and on tecord in the Office of License Inspection and
Enr�ironmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, �Sinnesota.
S.�T P�LZ B0.-1RD OF ZO`"L\G APPE�,LS
•
Sue Synstegaard
Secretarr• to the Board
A:�94C_SdZA.D�Y � 7�
SITE AtAN REVIEW STAPF REPORT
1. APPLlCANT: RONALD 3EVERSON
2. CLASSIFICA710N: Site Plan Review
FILE # 99-t 17070
DATE OF HEARING: 1/5/00
3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTtON: PiN # 012823240240 (See fi(e for comptete legaf description)
5. PLANNttVG DISTRiCT:
6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZONfNG CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
7. STAFF (NVESTIGATfON AND REPORT: DATE: 12/15l99 BY: Tom Beach
8. DEADLfNE FOR ACTiON: ?J1l00 DATE RECEIVED: 12/3/99
A. ACT(ON REQUESTED: Site plan review. (The current site pian and eariier versions are included in
'; at the end of the Council's packet.)
The current site plan cails for a carciage house and 9 parking spaces (4 in the carriage house, 2 in an
existing garage and 3 more surface spaces). This site plan is slightly different than the one approved by
the Ciry Council in the spring of 1999:
— The carriage house in the current site pian is 38 feet long (instead of 36 feet). This allows a larger
dweliing unit ove� the carriage house and wider parking spaces in the carriage house.
— One surface parking space has been added behind the carciage house for a totai of 9 spaces. This
provides each unit in 415 Summit 2 spaces plus 1 space for the carriage house.
To accommodate these changes the front yard set6ack has been reduced from 25 feet to 16 feet. The
reduced setback requires a variance. The Board oP Zoning Appeals denied this variance in November
1999, This decision was appealed to the City Councii.
The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the current site plan and building plans in June 1999.
This decision was appealed to the City Council.
B. SITE AND AREA CONpIT10NS: The site is an irregular shaped parcei with an area of 5,428 square
feet It is currently used for parking by the 4-u�it condominium at 475 Summit (the property immediately
south of 420 Portland). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on grevel/diR The site is located in the Historic Hill Preservation DistricY.
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Single-family and duplex (RT-2)
East Nathan Hale Park {RT-2)
South: Four-unit condominium (RT-2)
West Muiti-family condominium (RM-2
•
�
C. FINDINGS: In order to approve ihe site plan, the Ci2y shali consider and find that the site pian is
consisfent with: �
'�3
�r . �
•
i
(1)
(2?
(3)
The city's adopfed comprehensive pfan and devefopment orproject plans for su6-areas of the city
The site plan is consistent with the recen8y adopted Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
which encourages construction of housing units suitab{e for "empty nesters° (page 14) and
supports "designs that use the smaAer development sites creative4y" (page 16).
,
�
Applicable ordinances of the Gity of Saint Paul.
The plan is consistent with applicable ordinances except for the required front yard setback.
front yard setback of 16 feet if proposed compared to the required setback of 25 feet. The
property owner applied for a variance but the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance.
property owner has appeaied this decision to the City Council.
�
The
P2servation of unique geo%gic, geographic or historically sign�cant characteristics of the city
and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site pla� is consistent with this finding. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the
plans for the project as being compatible with the historic character of the area. Neighboring
property owners have appealed this decision to the City Council.
(4) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable p�ovision for such ma8ers
as surtace wate� drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, �ight and air, and fhose
aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this �rnding. The site pian is simifar to the one that was approved
by the City Council in March 1999.
"(5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to assure
abutting property andlor rts occupants will not be unraasonabiy affected.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The piacement of the buiiding on the site would slide
the new building approximately 9 feet further away from 415 Summit Avenue.
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation and e/evatron
of structures.
The site pian is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traKc both within the sife and in re/afion
to access sfreefs, including fra�c circu�ation features, the locations and design of ent�ances and
exits and parking areas within the sife.
{8}
�
The s+te pian is consistent with this finding. The current site plan would permit each parking
space in the garage to be 6 inches wider than what was calied for in the earlier approved pian.
This wif{ make them easier to drive in and out of.
The satisfactory availabilify and capacity of storm and sanifary sewers, including solutions to any
drainage pro6lems in the area of the development.
The site pfan is consistent with this finding. Simifar to the previousiy approved plan, drainage wiil
be handied by grading tfie site so that storm water is directed out the driveway to the street.
Su�cienf landscaping, fences, wat�s and pa�king necessary fo meet the above objectives.
� �
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The property owner has an agreement with an
adjacent property owner to spend up to $5,000 on )andscaping along the west properly line. •
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
including parking spacas, passenger/oading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consisfent with this finding.
( 71) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specfied in the Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Control Handbook"
The site plan is consistent with this findirtg.
D. DISTRlCT COUNCiI RECOMMENDATION: District 8 Community Councii recommends that the
project be denied.
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The decision on the site plan depends on whaf decisions the City
Council make on the varfance and Neritage Preservation decision:
— tf the City Councit denies the variance and historic preservation decision, the site pian must be
denied.
— If the City Councii approves the variance and hisforic preservation decision, staff recommends
that the site plan be approved.
G 1USERSIBEACH70M199163sev193} f 107Qspr.�
�
�
T �
ri ir
1. SLT\RAY-BATTZECREEK-HIGHti�'OOD
2. HAZEL PARK HAD: \•DROS°ERITY H1T�LCRcST
3. WEST SIDE
4. DAYION'S BLUFF
5. PAYIv`E-PHALEN
�J
6. NOR"I�-I EA1D
� THO�SAS-DALE
SU�i�iTT-U\�IVERSITY
�VEST SEVE�TH
10.
11.
12.
13.
SY.
1�.
1 b.
17.
CO`�f0
HAMLIV'E-;�fIDSVAY
ST'. A.h'THONY PARK
h.��.RRL��i PARK•LEXLtiGTO\ H.=.'{SLIti�-S:��r r r�;G H n,�
2�L4CALESTER GRO�L4_�'D
HIGHLA.�+�
SU�i`:IT � T
DO�V:r70«:�
`�9-1�3
ZONING F1LF ��
J./ ,
CITIZE` PARTICIPATIO` PLeti1'I:�G DISTP,iCTS
• � • • • • •
: ■ ..0 � �
� � � � �- �
. • g '
� C � 0 O� 0 �
�a�-�-`I ��1.
:�
Po2Yt�rvb �4V. � S
` ° � -�- _ � �
0 0 0
z
O J
O � �¢ O Q
`'[� '
¢Z o �'�lLt (.A�1tJ
�
0
APPLIC'ANT �`"�' `�'� 7� ���D"�
PURPOSE C��V y' Ic.UL� C�'����i�'� OJ�G
FiLE ft J �� DATE_LS�
PLNG. DtST�_ MAP # � �
SCA�E 1' = Z00'
LEGEND
��■ hpc district boundary
////////% . - s . . �- .
0 one tamily
¢ two famify
j,�¢Q muitiple family
n�C oRh�
• . � comme�
� �. � industrial
V vacant
.
`� 7 �t��
���
�. ' -�=-- --; -' � /
� � ,� � �� � � ��' ; � 0 � "� �,
iucs cHV,z=.. I y�� I ' I I y , �" > '� `\
X?4�_ �_ I f 1 _ ` _ Q \ rl r
i i " . ' '_ , _ �'._. _ .. , , � �� " (; v ��
g e . . � . O , �\� .
�� �i °° 50 �Q io 47 a�
� � I ( , ; o � .-
✓ E. � ^�,�\\ /
� � ¢ � Y� � l ? / �
�I I ( I 6 O 0 7 ; �� � �\
� : �.� ��\� � .>
� o lo_0000 � o 0 0 0¢-� o `�� �
IE. r �ry �° -- �+1 � ° �
o °
� o o ¢ -� � � �,� : �= E: � €,_ ., `� � R � �NE �
, ° ° o �� '" �- \ o
� �
Z � �� � � � l
. � ,
�� o
� � ,
� o� c� o a o ,�: �� � � 1 � C) ,L
. ''F l°, C.,� V � ��i�� � �� I i8 �J � C
__�
��t� 1..- — .. : -_.�-.----� —
i z� t � ' � � � G���
� ¢ � , _ S �t -� 2 v v v'v v — —
. � z � 6 � � ��,y �� \ z � � `j /
Q 0 � .4 _ � �/ �.J � �p� � � /
I 57A: £ OFF/�r5 � �� �
� ' o ¢ ��c /
. , . R �, _
!` i i a � .I _ •�\`� '� ,- �
` GlTY- P'LANN(�tG
F.�?�IC,�.n;�r/�
?v�?p�
F i�
Pi.NG. DIST�
�
9 9-/4S
D.4TE _
r.�,^.� ;,.
Sr` � • L"cG_�.�
. .��. ZOniny C�S;ri.;; k• �
�_ _/i % sc�i�= P��?=�i
/ O C�^P_ tz-,:ly
� ¢ r,��� �a�,.;ir
s }
'�"+�Q f�',U�;'�r7�'-��,'"'��
L__ �,�
• ♦ � CJ -?':��
� ,.. �. ic�.:s;� __
�/ � �' a':
.._.._. " ` f
�._��.v��.�.�.�.�4�— _ "._�re'aMi=wwa��as��...�.�—� _ __'
Tr� aVli� . .. . .�r
�-
� LL �Q
O a � �
a _ �Q< z� � �"s - 4 - -
: ��y�i� p� � o � w " -
o > N K U v �`n �: � : w « � 3f1NNtl @dVll'JOd �
_ � —
� � aarrt °
§
_ sW
a°�3a°_x Hrvn3a�s
.� .B .6 .SZ .�
�
I
��
�up f ��
/ �_
wg
� o>
�� 1
o,
Q a a
zm 1
��
�m �
a � ;
o �
m
P s a �
��� 1S/3.00OS -
$ wxo
�2 V� `
Q ��� �
�� .
a � p �t3a<3p rt •
\_�
� =W
;� �
¢a
gffi
�� j ��
��
< `
.S'6Z \
� \
� o f �
@� /
�
i I � I � �
C � � 1 � ��'
' 6U
1 � � ---�� ---� �£
Q , w�
— � �� oc
=
wu
� \ HSYtfl /
�
� � \
\ �i
��
��/
p` � Q �
\
�
�\
7 \ � d 3
° o�
____
�
�
_�
____
I a
, o o�
___ ; oo¢�
� a ��
O
�o
__,
a .�Z
I
I
_ — _ (
m f \
�a� oao�
a `
y o�'l`'
� / �y1
a-,i . ,
C
a
�
i
� i
�.
.
\� \
. y ,
'� \
. �
♦
� i
� ��.
,
,-'����,
/ .O6
� �
/
�i � i
° . . ./ ��_—
> o
� om
� ��
° �i
!
n
/ �
3
C
U
�
�
c
r
O
�
O
J �
a
w
N
�
�
II.
�
CD
C
�3
0
w
C
Q
c
O
�
c
�
._
�
�
�
m
�
U
N
O
C
O
a.
L
G�
N
C
Ar
�
�
4
o �
L �
� �
�-0 v
. n
C c�s'
.� O v
� '� 7
U
av U
�, 1
�N.., `
c 0.1 U �
o v �
•y ci V
. o G
� � �E
U `� � �
> �
.,0.'-� Y 't�
"� � U
- � a
U �
o "! �
� � �
a >
� � o
� .� n.
O c� Q
C3 'i7 �
U ¢ �'
N
y r1y `.�. [/Z�
�
� • •
II� . •
W � N �
> N p
� �a Z COC �� E a
. OC OW � -� � �T
'.� o m -� �^3Z `v s�^ � Yu Q � v'iia
p2 Z� \� WVN \� �U� � 2 � G X �V
�..� Q� 2�� Z� O= O O '-'O C o "
UV1 20 NO YSh Q2� Y9m �Om u]m N�- p t(J -C
�` 1� _� �� � � ���
m
N
m
N
� ,s
3 3
o° o
� � �
. a _
-x
m !� =
N �
P NO <
�
��.
0
NI \
L
O
•
�
�
m
N
�
N
�
N
�
N
IH`li?N
'j�jj"I!f;;,1:;!!i`;!;'iif
` ,;
i� Ii�;F i ;p�iii I :i'i!lie�
I��
„g��,ll i ;
; !
� pOC
� Z 7�
m wc�
: pi-N
U
r fl�a
I � Qi�
�
N
�
N
m
N
m
O
U
V
z I
� 1 ❑ C� C� ~ � _
❑��� �
w � O
I
W I�
_ ( II
w � `^��
Qi�
a r
� "
IH��aH �N'11+:1 { ��
t—. t .,</£ s:—.L �Z � i f
-- ii. \:/
2� DI 4.
NI N� i/�j �
`'�' —$— ! .�
� :
j I � �
0 Y
� � � ��C � �� E m
W O Z ZOIi � � E ��a
w Cn mv o . a - in3Z �,n ��n � m dIV c �e �i'c
�
�
Z
O
�
C
>
w
�
w
�
N
�
3
�
y , 3��
r� . �
�
!
z;
o�
_�
C;
>;
":�_
�I
�-- n
N.
�
Oj.-
� I
�
�
i i ��
C�
( � a
NI
�
NI '
�
�
N
,.�
��
i 4 "
{j;
kp
I�
N1
tl 1
li��+�i���i
�• l ,'�'�
I
I !'
I�;f{'i!j;"�
I�III�
I =
❑
Y
N
m
N
�
N
0
��
��
�
�Z
-w
0<
�o
� I
� A I II
�il:
l,l';
�
ZI
�i
r=- f
�I
�
.l.J �
T `
r-- � �I
� �"
� �
in �
�
�� �3
s� .
�
�
�
��
�; i
��
��
�:
� ;:
�
z
4
�
,
O
O
v
�J
J� ��
/ j r�ex'
� TREE
ARROWS �NQICAiE ��
DRAINAGE SLOPE ���`
c��
�\
S�'
m
G�
� .�
�� p �
�� � �
P
Q � OQ �� �� � Q �
� \ Q
/ ,�4'0 ��� i � f
G� Qe' / �
0 4'� Q P�`�� � \ �
/
"'� / CONC. OR --�
ASPHAIT
�+ �PAVEMEN7
.
/ N
��D
�
/ /
EGftESS
wi�vDOw
� /
/ .�
�
�
I /
� � �
�
-- /
` � I
C �� ST \ ` / ,
9,p �y�, � ��o
� � ������
� O`�Q /
PROPERTY UNE
� , fENCEg
w�
?!
J
r
ol
�'
I
�n � o�
oo
� n
�,
� SfTE PLAN
� �„E� - , �-o
PATIO
;� /
PR��OSED
G9RAGE 8�
, LOF7
� \ ; / ��.
/
.� i
. ,,
Q '.
HEDGE — - — -
90.00' � • '
N52°52'25"E
ensEMeNr
STAIftS
PORCH
415 SUMMlT AVE.
z vz sroRY
w00D FRAME 8UILDING
��d5,�v 3�' $�t���r��
—tttrs 4 �o�t,owt�t� 9
���r�5 �
A
�'�T�
9
9p 9 �i F^JG �
\ �'O
a
' � cxisrin�c
� rRe�
�
, � r I ,. S�Q ,
� � � �`�q .
7 I �T
CONC. WALK
' � & 6iEPS w/
IRaN RAIL�NG
� & C�iE
Q cX��6TiNG
� _:_�.CS
i
� �' ;�
�Jlt
�� ��H
� �l h I
— � I � �
— �c– - c�a � �
LL oA �
� O
9� .- ��j _
L"" U
UD ', G'
� � � O
�., o a�i U
J ~ � y
r c° o, �
� � c�' � T
o ( � � � �
a 3 '� � o�i
� � ' �. U � �
� °��° ��°
�.
� � ��
� � � �
.r
o �o N L
�( p. � �
M f �
� � � � 3
� O a. �
� o � ��
�. �
>
°" a o ,�
o � .xZc�:
�
�
�
� o � �
�� m w ra . . .
cxr�ac�
�
� w z Z ��� �Z � m
� O O z 0�` Z C 3 ¢ W
� o� me -o vi"i3z ",n �(n vc < e v '¢
�U � �X Xp W(JN _ 0 O� hQ ..Q V x �
pZ Zr t0< el0 OZO. �¢ V< �' 22 C �U
UN C(� ti CN 76 Q2� Nm Vp Np �� p N-�
I �
� W� �
X
O
W 0X pJ
a a�n o_
�
��
O
=L'
0
�
b
�
N
¢
4
Z
N
b
N
0
N
IN
�S .
m0�
ON�
Z�
Q
1/i� N
�
oz
ai�
W
m
N
0
W
N
m
N
0
N
m
N
m
m
�
�
a
❑o 0
00 0
� � �.�-
r
1H013H �Nr1i3J � 1HOi3H �Nrn3J
„il-.8 .bf�. t-.l ..9/f l�-,L �
�i
O�
4�
N�
-�'`
O I
�
�
>
:�
`f �;
��
w
0
„
�
'� A
J
�
�
w
J N � (tl y�
W Z Z 09� 22 � f0
�O Z C `�
J �S• 9p O O N�i2 �V1 t� � m YU a �D C4
<Z i"'{al O JC JCO �V� NQ O� - O � (JG � J
p_ Z� W« 9 OZd> \ VQ \Q C�� d
UN 6U ^ dN u QSF� ulm bm v�m 4 �� p�( UK
m
�
Z
O
u� m a u
o x o
m �a m
a a u a
�L'
0
�
O
�
N
�
a
N
m
N
N
N
N
N
_
�
�
K
6
❑ 0 C���I
❑oou
o❑a�
❑oo❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
D❑❑I❑
�❑a❑❑�
'❑❑�C�
❑❑�����
nnnn
u u utu
❑ �.� �'�--,
���'u
�����'
u❑❑C�
❑❑Cl�
'�❑I�t❑
z�
0
Q
W
J
�
�
L
>�
0
I
��
�
�
�
�
�7
�
r� �.�
n
u
�
•
z
0
�
<
>
�::
J
W
Y
1--'
N
0
z
✓ ,
�
�
O
ca .
N�
m
N
b ��i�
�
i1114„I�.Il�lillllllu
GL)1).i'�����y �'�
� i: x i t: k N Y
iiu��!��i�l�i ��11�
� P p P
i i � �
� �i i� �• i i �
, 6 n r
. I� .. 1� I� ��
pill'iIL� !�Ip
Hlllll,�:rclil�llllll
4
V�� � U � Y A �I J
�i41.'Il�lli
° uM�ipl
4'��--�e�
N
�1 � � )���a �w
�I �I� �o
!!! !! < II!!i Ui
9! I � il!N ��
�� ������ o
� ��
ui'"''i
�� �`� i:
0
c
�;
,�,.. �j �I
�: . , ,. , �
p;��:;,��;��. O I
�
,:yl�ti�r,� �,� �,,�� ��
��, ,
���,;. ,.,..�,.�,..,�,
0
«
a
�
.
�/ �
�
i! � ��
�
V
�
z
�
�
�
0
0
�
i
�J
�
� �
Z
�
z
�
�
�
J
l:.!
�
Lt.l
J
N
> W
>
�
J
•
�d �
�
'�� ► •
�
� �✓ r .:
�7' � O
< ..
n
a a
�
�
�
� wo a
' > w ^'
p a
y h
0 QQ
I � �
z �—
rv � V 3 (�
m Q `�' �
I � �Z .,Z-.Z
� '
I — — — 8.9XO.Z � � ..
w
i� '
N p
��
� fl � �°�
o s, xo.z & � i
�
8.9X8.Z
S— -
N �
W � �
' io <
0
N
a f
i
I � j
za
0
• I UN
�
>Z8t sZ8�
'° 9
' °
0
� ,
s ��
o�
� o
� Xi
N , o :
a:i
W i
U�
q ————-_�—
� — — — — —
Q
U
o:-—
0
� �,i
i
x,
` �
o.�
x!I
I O .
m 'i
I
5800� Ol :dOIS - ONIdd01 9NOJ 'NIW �� � � '
z im srN�na �vo� c;s;;ais;az ..s s; �Q ,
n „ Fa
a
I i ' so ;
o! or
�:i o n i,
ti�
G� x Z
� � O NQ
� �,� - — _
W
V
Q _ � _—�
v ----- �
?�
, ° o'
x
I � i
°i
� xi
� o�
I �
�
i i rae� yz3z oz8t ,; � —
� 7i3M ,NOONIM SS32393 � I
� I � I
,
� �
C
O
2
0
0
� �
Z
Q
�
�
0 �
QI
�I
~-�
N�
�
�..L.
�
0
1f
�
h
� �
�
, /� .
�. .
! !
� �
� �
�,� �
--�
i
i �
i�
I�
-�-�
�
N
O
<
0
�
Z
Q
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
z�
i�� S �
�Cy s�U
� u' ' `>y `
Z. 2>.-
N,?� pO� �
,�. -F_.i1X J
��
<_ F
J:^ «
V=w n_�;.(J S
I j
�\ \t /
V
Z
Z
0
tl
�' \
_`
2
r
Q
m
�
�
�
�
w
m
�
° c ��
" Z C�
�� T �- �K U
��- U 2 ��� ~ �.-
��_>
�� � � ? 4=1�4�0 �SZm r l
���.G 3 -�,..insa ��
. p= � �n�in�?��> ' G','V f
...v z q�GV`���v <.ijU
- 2` � Oi_ci'u��Of. ZOZ�'.� V
n�@�n C V��N3�5� �a�v�i io
r -
w
C�
Q
�
Q
U
N
W
V
Q
�
Q
U
' � � a
�- U
� � ni °�a v^(IC� h/I ! .l
-Z/t t�-.8 ..ZJL £-.6
0
-i
0
�-�ao
z � =y
UO
Z
-� Oc^
Z` O� -�J
�- ?� �'�<
�i_r s 2ZZ
V=� K
-, T_ h Jf
J _,= =� <��
I
/ i
�
I
rrw �
B �
N
�
�
�
�
0
us
O�
S
v
W
�
Q I I I �
N f i
Z'
O{
�;
V
e
��-
io
Z
'.B � � I D
! m'�
mC l
�
�h � �
4 i� i ,
o� �i�
o�P
�' �7
�
r
� , A =':.
�\.�. o�;�
r,o, �: 1 .,. / �
aReostis ir�p�c�rE �,
pRAl;1AGE SLOPE � [�O p
��
4,� � EXISTIM1iC / j
�� OQ UtACS k
O� Q �}2 ` � _--� !' \
��' 3
� � � 9 � `t
S,� /�
,�C
�
h
�—_.
�/ /
� S• �
. �
/ \ �!
( C�, � /
� CF D
o � :
N
r
�F{�+�Cl�{TM ��l�i�
��\—
' �O
w�
z
J I
Y
F- 1
c
u
G
0
c
4
�
�
W �
�M
O�
O O ( ��
M
N �
� � SlTE PLAN
( i/16" = 1'-0"
f
h•ii-G}�
__.—�-
ASPHALT —�
r PAVchIcNi
_._-� j :� \ .
/
/
-�T
�.� ��ti
L
e� fG �� , � F ���
� �'�O �
0
�' - �ExISTn«;
� TREc"
S`}eN
' <,�
\ 420 �PORTIAND A E. � � �"
�
K� �
/ ��
>
� /
\�i
I��C�I��
TRcE
PA7(0
r+�act-� �
so.eo• a
NEW ARBOP,-
v;TAE iREES
BASEtitc'NT--�
S�hfRS
415 SUMh11T AVE.
2 1/2 STORY
U100D FRr,ME BUIL�WG
� � IP.
� ��� � .� �
��/ �
�
� � p ".I •
� � / O�`" 4r � �
> �O��V` � .' v
/
QVP�� �
?�, �
�•
o , -
/ �� i
� '
Y._ � _ _ _ �� T
=FS W/
R.4ILING
n ,�✓ `
/ �� T ti
�
- � �t � I .�
❑ � ��.J-�,t-q� �,r� � . � � � ° a�
N �
t.J �,J � � 9� � > �
/ l _ �n o
SITE PLAN
i° = t0
,C , � r, � _
>
PORCH
�1 .�'
.Y . � r. ��l
� �. G
f o, a c o
1 i A� " .°
� U �
u !': ^ �
3 T.
� o�^ —° � Q
} f � � ' � � �
� co o .- = i
w r ° �
�r
o `' '3 " �
c o � " (
a y U 3 1
1 c �' '�
! � U �
A � U
o � ?+
° � U
� v° =� a
�
e �
'� V V
O � U
� G �p C
O c. c7
� -�L L
C T _j q �
V n > � 'O
� � O e�
� O "
, 1 C
.p L F ^ .
G 0. � a � G�
p �.�. .. .4 c�s (1� � '
n y N
'�
O � r
N
7 :r f/� . .
i
�n � i
�1i � 1
r 1
U
�
�
�
�
i i
�
(
z
0
r-
4
>
L'J
J
w
F--
( /�
G
w
�
,�a
��
C�
•
�
z
a
�
�
��
J �
L:� _
� II
� �
(+J
� �'
t
��
t' V %
�� . ��I
n
U
�
�
�
�
�
c�
z
O
�
<
>
�
��
_
,--
�
O
Z
(, �
r� �
n
U
�
� �
�
�
z
O
�-
<
>
u
J
L:.:
s
E-
�
O
�
�
:�
�
�
f�Y _ �
•
�
�� �
� ) o
�
� N
� O
��-}\� O
V/
�
Z
< a
� i
� -
� �:
O =
O"
N I .��
u
'? J
��' �K
�
�
�� �
L'
O
' Z
L �
N
I � �
3 0
�
z
<
�
�
0
0
�
a
z
0
U
�::
�
•
��
� �
r� . �
�
C�
.
�:
�..
<
�
�
N
N
O
Z
O
�
4
>
u
h-
N
� b
S .'
F. o
L� '
o�
_�
j ....
���
�
G
J
�
�
, Q
=✓ �
'. �
V
�
�
�
�
�
�
� ��
�� ��
� G
ti
G� �
�� � C 7
" r,
�_.�. C `-- '�.
• � �� y
.p.r� C!7
- -� .
^�f'i L ^
_ � L 7 .:=\
- •" _ N
�=_ �� j
�
�
{j .
�._. ' :.
�
=� _
� � ��
.`
1_ .n ?� r_
�� �_ _
�' `!`: _
V � ( C ' � -- : r
U� rt =.'��.
_� � -
� I '
� ° ! ,.
CI' � '
.n
W
�
� �
J �
•
�
�3 13
E
�
�
. �� �
�
�
d
; ..., ..
i � _ — __ i � d � �
x-�oa = - i` :� ,�
Y� -- - - =
_ � - :
: �,�► -
d� .,�
�
�`
�
z
0
H
�
W
a
�
.� f
�
�
.� ! ! I �
� �
� �
�
�. `" �
. :.: ; .
� r � o � �
,,, � ;.: .
��
�.�. (d �
`� �° �
�
d �
-,—"�...� ci � N
,�,
� � N
wr� �;., � ¢�
� � aa a
Z �+- G
�
I
� �.o �
_� � � � a.
�,�� � �w �
� � �,f � � � q a`
�!:N y � � � �
��
�=.��
N �+•-•
N A� �
� '�� � � �
a � �
G P
•�. � �c' li "f.
Z n. •' � .i �II �
7. �� ; � y� _ t 1�i
� , , � n ,�.� 1--
'f'- ''; ;r;' 1, :.� i
" - �' _ � .
�' I .}~`�
a ib�' i r
b
.t I
� �
1 I
a; r;
''
i
T !
� ;
4`
"
I ;
�
y . .
0' I
1 �
1 ;
I 1
�
S
�: '
1 i
..��-��
Q�
��
�� � T n
W
�
�
��
v �
Y I
�
Q�
�
�-, .
�O
��
�
�z
�
>;
�
�`z
q
�C
��
U
z
Oz
0
�
G
a
W�
� N
r �
� Q
z
� �
�
F--� �
0
�.
u�
^ N
��
VI �
�� �°
� ��
l'
. � . `,4`�J
•F�5rftUN•
'NOTSCE OF POSldC HEARING
ltte Saint Pavl CltyCounctl veill conducy
. a public Wednesday. Jannary 5,
- 20�, at 5:30 p:m. in the City Counc3l
ChamUers; Third �loor, Gity Hall-Courf
House, on-January 6, 2000, to consider
the following cases concerning a new
carria�+e house proposed to be built at 420
Portland Avenue: appeal of Greg and
Cazof Glark, Pataicia Leonazd, and Laurel
FrosC to a' decision of the Heritage
Prese3vation Commission to approve the
design; -appeal of Ron Severspn to a
decis3on of thaBoazd of 7aningAppeals,to
, deny a variance to reduce the required
, , firont yazd setback; and appllcatlon of 12on
Sevexson to revtew the site plati.
- � Dated: Decembec 16, 1999 �
NANCYANDERSON� .� .
- Assistant City Covn� SecFefazp
(Dec. 18) � � '
- . ---81:PADLIEGAT.L�GER=--"
From: Peter Wamer
To: Blakey, Jerry; Mcinemey, Gerry
Date: 4/12/00 10:OSAM
Subject: Agenda Item 43: Severson Appeal, 420 Portland Ave
CM Jerry Blakey and Gerry Mclnemey:
This is a follow up to my conversation with Gerry Mc regarding tonight's Agenda item 43, Ron Severson's
appeal conceming 420 Portland Ave.
1 would advise that you lay this matter over to May 24, 2000 subject to an earlier date if necessary. The
reason for the lay over is as follows: the planning commission will not take up the matter of the neighbors'
appeal of the administrative site plan approval until this coming Friday, April 14. The planning
commission's zoning committee met last week and moved to grant the neighbors' appeal. The zoning
committee's recommendation to grant the appeal will be reviewed on April 14 by the full planning
commission. A party must then appeal the planning commission's decision in order for the Councii to hear
the matter. I am assured by the lawyers for Severson and the neighbors that there will be an appeal to the
Council. An appeal of the site pian approva!/denial wiil allow the Council to consider in one package the
neighbor's appeal of the HPC's approval and Severson's appeals of the BZA and planning commission's
decisions.
Finally, it is possible that the matter could be set for a date earlier than May 24 if one of the parties should
file an appea! soon after the planning commission's decision.
Ifyou have quesfions, pfease call me. PWW
CC: Anderson, Nancy; Beach, Tom; Byrne, Phil
ro
�
� n�.� •
00
�ro�
• o Q„
^. C�
f � �
R �,
�
! � e�o
, C o
A �
m
�
�
O
�
�
.S �nrq��
'��' R�� ��,.
.y l5�fl;,�
i ��i { N�
r
{'�49v
i �
i °}�
� �.. %� ..1r�
i � i� " '
, ! � ��
l � `�'
i
� � � p � i f`,ii
� a{ � ��1���a
e I � "
' . .�� . I.y _—
� 16R
�';Y �i �. ,� y ��... � .
7
i i � . . � : :_ . .
� ��I, �
.Z>•
K � 4�� � , .. c � .
.n.n
.. A4b J �j�I . .. ,
Q'
k.'�'�di`Fi�rfi ia��! .. ���
0
����•��.�� � r �'� e � . ,,,._— � ��
��� �:_
a— � ��.�'�l. /� v f �/�,I�� aaa. t ���
S � i � �M�
��y'ry�� �� � i )� 1 I L I�_ ��� ��"''
Lt� �p II � I
� � � � � �s�` I� U � � � �
� Y
R. '�P�� V ` �' _I�,.�„�,.. -- � -
� . . � �
��e�.�� � � �� F 9 � ;,:
- ; ` '�-
�-' ; � 1 1 �� �T�� ������;
i
� � `` � �� ��1Ws
�� � • �� I � �� � L �������
ppp � ��_ � �
6 � i
� � 4�
, '
��
,
�' �f �',7�`�� � �� � �� � � ! ��I I�� � �,.
1� � , .� 1,. i'�� -{�Ir ilw; �i�n� ,� � ��:
,+� 'V i.V "." i�'�l� 1
� �
�� . t i , , � i � . .. :d�_
:'�
k_
�
�-�;��
�
� / ,``�•\ ' -��,�
� l� �° � � `'ti;� ' /
� r ,.
/ ,- � �
� ' �,�
. ���� �� „
D �I �
�,��� �r���� �,, �- '� � 1 (►�J
��;o�,+�,i "'� �y� �''`� ' �\'S, e � �/�����
� ���s �� . ,
, ' �! � "��,' �'/'/ �
� � '' � i
�'�� �. � ��� ,
�� � � � � ��
I� �� �����'�� �
�,
�� � �. � � �� � . � ,
� � y i � I � � ���� .
,,� ;� � " ���;';I�II��I� ��Ii� 1�����'° ' ��
'<�t
. , , ,� ; �.• � � . � .`� I �
��
,s
,.,
w
����: � �
� P
' .r � ;
�u,. 3 ,��
, ,; F ..
�
��
i
�� I�
1 ��
I �a•�
,� _ �
� �
� j� �� M
ii
♦ � » q�?
. "" ��1►o14rZ�... ' - '! ,�„
/r
�::
�� •
� � -�� „�.,,_.
T '�
_. `4 _/. ,
�+ ���� .
� # v
��i�.. . : ... .. . �.
... � . _. , . _:!
� ��
<E t
EI . ? ,
�ti
i �,; � .:
- �*
,� '� : �
�
�
l. �.N.'�.Y'� .. . .��.
�; `. . .
W .r
' 4�.a,, �
._ . .. ._ _�"� �_ _
d
�� �� � �����
.\
<<
!�' , � � � r,
� ' ��� ��
:.� � '`�., \
�!'
.:
• � ,_
F� � � r���
� pE '
� �
� �
.�
•,;-, �
<� � r
.a � C, � �
` � � P. "/
� L
. �t�i p
/)� l
a. G
: ,���;
, �
�.�. =��
a
�:
�`°� �
� r
,
...: '► �it�� _ °'.
�'/ tA111. ��� .�
�� , �� 'r �� �.` r�.��
� � �_ ��
v� T��� 11il� �. s,�, ��r r �� F9 �i�t 5 i��
�� ������ �P �ii G
� ���,�' '��`
� ^ i ( W� �i��iu
�+w.�. r
�
� �� ��i �. �� � }" �` .a1�� � �,
� �� �
i�.�>+ �� `
�? ,
�>'ai��k,�f��.�l.',�t A�' � � ���,1�'� c i
k
T
��.�i� "'�� •e,t � "' /��� � �� �cflv�i � � 7;
�a°�Y'�Y'��' ��� , � � �
� �.��.�h�����;o
�
� �� r �
'"��`��i� ' � '
��
_ �
.
��' �'l ,/1'� �
R:. �
.. .. _._., . �LL-• � .
���1 t � �
_LI�I�I � ,
i
1
A; , .
� . _ - . ..<z�` ..
_� _ -�_
� °r ` , l
y'. ���
� �
: A ° . '� „��> `
a
,,
,
� �r
� �� � 1 �
� (�,�i;gs� .;�
t�� �,�» �
. �`
�„
i
�;
w\�„ ,�
�r�
u �
o �
�. r
n_ �`
� � '�
� I � a�'
� �
ay:
� �
w.'%
�
� � �
�'., _..� �
wr .
r At:
��f1 ��/ .. _
�i�.,�l�b i, �.l `' r;�:. :
,,c�;
.�,�
,� � � ,
<a fi , ., ,°m�::
� �«'�� ",
-._ , aiC_
:u���+'��'���:;a
.R � _.
::3�` >.r.w� °!: �cx ... .. �
r �� �:.��c�'t�- �
' �` � -',j`- ^ \
,Z'�i• : �` � �".� � � / :
,. ;� / :
� t�
n� v1� � ,1.. .. - ._ i a�"°
�;�. ��`,� r
�- m � r
0.�� • �
�� �A.�1. �i �
j.. �+.-
�� � i�.a_,�:,�. , ,'
��''' �� � -- -" � �
M
�� ..', i ; . .
� \
T . ` ♦ I/ � � i��_ 1
- i ��z ! k� �,. �.ti
�! r � � 1 r� Y. ..
M
� � ��� �� b ��� � � � �'�_
y %' e . . �, �`, � 4�, '
' f �.'7 � . .
; ,. y .
�, � ,� � � � ��;
1, p � i
iI� � `/ ' ���;�' `t ,r'
4 �
��
,,
. F �,�_�:
, �� i �
l
�■
�
�
a� a
?, .
�� I i°"" . a K;. .
�, � � ! �� �- '�' ,
� �t.;��,.j��� �
_
� �: , � ,
r.:��''
i
�
i' fi ���
�� �� e
t- ,�
�� : _ ,
i f A� �
� ,A
' 4
I� �
I � i� J� j� i � t z .
�' ;
i ;.
i( �� � ,
� a�
� � � � �
— �
�
� `�
� �.
��n ,,:� � a �� � - � �
� r;, � :� ,
r � �
!�� �
c< � � : � ,
i :;
� k � �
, 3
,
.
�_m r 1 i��, �� .
�o,.��r,��i r i � �
�
� 1 � � 1
S� s
� `' # �"
4 1
r �C1 1
ry ,`��
., _..
��
' �:
�
i
my
�
�'
fi,
E.
�
'p r
—,�'�I ,�_�.�i�
_ �
� ..! ,'
+�
�,v.2y. .. ._..�.. r. _ .
�4 '
���
! �S
�,�Z�'r
Y � �.� ��' �. � .
s�< Q �� �� \ / .
' � � �'�II'ifr� l � ".
I� i ' �
�. � � � �
� ' i
ii
=- a• - r
1
'/�
�� �
z
�
dw .' ±
! �
�, �,�
4
i
f . +t'. .
a �� ��_.+.— i..�... --
i► .C/ "' __. ,
♦ � - yr,, � ,
���. �,.t�ilt''l�`.�! �w�r".�
��1 ..
Y
/,`. F �p,�.A,�'��� ,:
, �.�i, � �r
",a�,C�f����,�
u
1
�':
_
w
, ` �� ' r .�y..�. . . ...
I
'
,
.$ �� 3t11 ,. ��� .,�
1 FJ �� - ������ ' ���� i � j � \
� j 17��2�'s a9 ��� '
� �� f p � �.�1. �.
� 3 � �3��1 � 9 }� �� �
'..���3-.��{A�F'4'I1 lle�9� � 1�'l�l�i�i �'
� � �. R �°��n,� �,' � 4 �
tr,v�� 1iAw
�,° �.. � �" \\ �'� 11 • N �°� � _ 1i � �
YM15� . � A '+.. ' � .. � � �? .�
! � � .,n,`y"t j �
f�': � . . , ` , .
� , I�'� .
� 'yr , y � ,r, �
Y� � �1�:Li�FIf vj . ,� � � .
l.. � Y T�Y \� �^�_ ...1'.. 7 •.�` .' �..
4 � ��W �� ���1 � ` �.
� ,� � � �I �.�
� ��_ �
�` � ,,M s .� �. � � � �'
� °
,��--" ,/"" or � r � .
�'! V�eltr�•
k �'��� 1 �' %��i �n""e�►�.�Y\ 'r,7li � � � j . �•��
/ � n� , ����
► _.,��ag�'„'� .�> ;;; , ,, �.
,� � ,v, �r ; y .�.
� ,v�
������ . �. . � � � � , v
���iv.z , � A� �
�!-,.�J�.Ii , . � • .
<��
� '� w` ��
I �, �
� � r��
�� �,,. .,
� �:� i a�l. t4 r
�� � N �� �'=�� •
�«�� ����� ���
:o F Gt 9� 1"�.'� � nnd3NEl� _
�� � ��� n,=� ��.
II
� I
I�
P i� , �
�
`� ,� ' g �
��� I �C� �, <;I��,� i��i �.
� �� �, ' h�i � . � � .
� "�-�. � .I ).... � � ' ' f t � !
�� ���• :'� � � �_-9f—'� ..
� �� '�II�� �
� �
�.��n�e��� ,�. �9,'ll��l � "'`�'�� � � ��
.� ;� �. r �r ` � �-s'�
�,,�.�.. .;. �+,; v :; �� �
" ` �� i v��� v
SS« ��% � �� , ,r �
� f '� y ,
. . � , ' .� � <
.'.. .-- i � � �
i i �'
S "'�.
t _ , 1 .
� � � � �
x � � �
, ..f
,
, , �,
� ,
� �a3
P
E ' �
� ' � ry wM
I
�{ 4 � I �
�� ' i a
, ntci c
� �.� Y � e�
;} 5 + �
4 '
fi � $ f A I� _.a,:..,: -
1.� �'��� .:u.^is�i`- ,n.r��` � '
L�' 1 I.pJ1 .... -. ... T
�� � �, > p�.
e�� s. •.<�
� �
'� �.
" . „
— ,�:
,.---- _ _..
—� • �_�.__ _
� ; �=��, :
_ Y �
�._ --= _
� �'f.
✓ I i)
���
� j �l
�t` ��t�l
1 ��I��
I11�)��
�
* -��Nv��
� �r R
, , �,
' � .
J
r ,".5:. �,��,.
� ���,dn�,
� �
, ��
� �
� � ..
j e
��� � + � y �
��
"t..yM �:���'�1
i�
h
a
~ ��� q
y ^
^ �
g
i
�l
���� • .� i ..
�r; " ,�j , ,
�> F t -�
�f;-�_,. ;'4
; a�, , ' . -...«. .. _ :-x�i+.: �, _.
,I� �
\'
: 1 .
� � �'
S � �,
�
� I �:.Ili ��e � !" !f �'�. ����". � .
( �. � . . � � �-w... �•� .
, �' r ,,�. :
f
�Ji� I��_
y � �u
d r� ��'t�
'+���1.1� l � �� 1. _��:.=..
. W y. �A •Y.til 1h it:;�a�
1� �' i AS ' r F L: Mb1A y� ��.j�.� r � ...
.�F..�:;�
/ � � �
�/�,\��
t ` �
�' �
� ., � d e���.
:� ,1�
A .�
��.
; s �' .
�
�
j
� ��,� � �
�`
.,{ � +%
' . � .�
C
t ,� '. � .;;�/! !�J
1 � .
� :�,
� I F I �
� �,\ 1��'; � � .
� � 4 r� ---
�R�� ° �__
�i Tlt c � � � —� � � . .
n
a
0
/
..
} � �' —A �� � � .,...
�
.�_ _
��;
�� �
_�_ _ ,., � '. 'i" --__
�,�.� �
� n,
, ��
., Ji: ,
,�.-� �' ,
' ��
� .-�..L.y ...sk� R�..Q�F� y.,:
l�
� f:
k-"�' �' , F�e' �. �.,? i M,'ti
.., � + " �
. �� "
,�, , .�� ��� �
, ,
' e ,�,r;„ { � -tf �i ��'�
k � �� ��
� � '�i.�,:: v�
, � �. , �, ��;
�i `�� �
_� a ..;s;�
J -_ � �'
;;i al
1�. 4
� t?,�: � �
d
� `,
� i�, ,��
�' �
�
�. � � �''
` �� ,..� � � ,�, i.,,- � -
� ��.r ,:�,�
�
�
t
� t,g
'
� , - i �=-•_.. — n.
_ f � �' '-
,- � _ � �� , .
„
� _�_ ;
- ,�����
� � ���� , � , . �.�,� a. � � �
, --y ,i �.
�.,
i� iS : �.1� :.
� , I `
� � ` � r 1
� � \ If� � .. F� ' �.r
� � `' � i _ "
�Y� at� 1
rta' � ` � + , ii;� , _
a� "���Y k;�-`, Ia_• ;�v
44 'z' r I I �� p� � \ �
�� �� I� `� �
�� � - • ,�,. � �.°"� �
�` . ,�,�_ `.`� ����3
,.
.' ' � -
d; � �y �, \ � � �_ ���' ��
�%� — ' —
_ Tm
_ S�':°� .(,�-1f+
� �
�
�
, = ,• ��
4£ '
✓p-
� ta . . � '.' � ?N � � � a �t ;-.a.� Z
L � rl�... . � .��
F �'" � p" �
,�n �... ir., ;.
i ::�r�'. ' �
;�/:.�
� �°�'/��,—"�'��' i �
�'' �` ' �
� ��. � � �
r
�# Q
�. ,: ; �, :
,
s
;+ ; �� ;
� �. �
t< �;
� GF'
��, � . ( � �M..�i21 � � �*' � . ' '
' 1
�
� / :� �� _
� �✓ � �Illllii .
�
�� �
� � �� .... .
l.., � s,.��;_��.,
, _: T � 1nf�e_F . , .� , �
� � �� �� 18��
,���' � � --�'M,.
I ��
�s ,
:..�rr+�
e.��r R'd
A (
�, � f;,. �
, ��_
_ ,� ,
�� �
u � p2li'�3
�iL11i � , ����i _ .. .
a ',�
� ,
r �
�" '�P�EM:�. ' 7
�
�� — ==
r `
r
, F
e
,
..,
���
�'';
�-,
_ _�,.,�.
-
�,
u ' . -, ��,� �., .
� �^ ` ^�
�� ' � �� �
� � �. - �� 'f ' � . �,' �'�
$� .. � ; ; � �. -.` e�
�K_, Y �
il � �� � ..:�
r , h � ;�
+ r �.
)r �-�. _ -_ �.,, � gt �'� �e � ,
��:� - ""( � � _ ,� {; Y r
�� W � „ a ��
` �! �. � �, .
1
w � M
� � �i. 6
�! �I
I
R� 1`!+
� ;,!
dC� - 7�-�
. . � .. � . . , -..� ---�-�=,�m�e..r—r.
_ ' ' ..��... — - .. . . :,' . .
.,,.. _..., .. . . . . .,. _ _ ,.__ - _ — _
+. 'wyi—� -.�'-.�"�.t��-�_.�..�,�..'_...`..� ' ` ..., � �_.�'.._..�..�...;.
, . '. i�"`.� . � '.�-.,.' N'/�1I� --- N�131-S3'I1A�'� ` ;, .
,., i �j... - _
�1� . . . ,: - ... .. ,.
-- �"+Rp"�, ..,�..,_. .. .._�_ _ � ' . ' .. i�. ���. � ...
- . � �_�,. '� '�,..
-- - ;�::' ' �., -:� - __�:�:• _ _` - : � ._._..
. � N �- -- ._-_ -- ' � � � ,. .,.._._
� �;#°---
' ... � +--- . _�
. . . � ._ � .
. . ,'a�`� . . �`...
� � ,. . .� , . , �..
• �_.__.:_ ._ . �. — ,_� __.•__ i �.� �` . ;' '
r�' • �.�
'..
_ �-.� � ' . .. , . �. L• v "t"" t' — - , - -._ � �,.� -
'_' ti-- ... � . .. , .
.. . ,._... _
.� , '
.. ... .._...r. .
' ` � ___..._. _.__... ..._ ..-,,.��� .-...."'
. �.�T� ` ! � .,\ ,.� i � .,
,d �.. � ,�
.. _ +. � - ~ �� : •
_... -�• -�- ' ....... ...... ... . � ,
:;_
. . w � . _.. .. . . ...
:, ..._. . . .. _._ _. ......-- - - - -..
�. _: �. � ',� . . . � . a__ ... .,.. 'r•. , ...
' ; � , , �-- � _ , • .._ - ------ --.� . _..� .
���, ... �..i � �. -
..,• --
i � i ' . �' � , . . _ . .r_ _. _ _.._.. -.
, .._....,.:' - � • "-'*�` �` ' •
' � � � P _ _ _ . _ .. . �. ; - ,
� -.._. .' . . . .. . "
. . i�---�—•-....._... _. _...�,: .•�.'_"_�.:� - ---e-_• �-_ 'L �.
� - •�-i— -•---• -.� ` ' '� • '��' . .
. ,. •
. .
I ' • -- - �:_-. - — - -.:_ .
9 � • � �,._...,. �...,.__,_,_�
-J'' .- '
� ___:
,.� _. . �.,.� - -_- _. .. . .�. . .._ ._ ' � s �-- ' . �� _ ' :
, . . .. o � � .
; .__, . " .�_.._....... .._... . . : -_.�.. -- - � �... ,..,,,� _
• ci1 .,._:_ _. -- - _.., . _ .. -
1 • . ._ .... -- ^,�,:1� '
: . ` --.. - •
�� --.. .... r:— �---.. ,. .—,--=�-----. ___�___...� !
� . . - , ;_,_ _ �
� • y� % �, �
'-.—. • i � --�- �, fi � �,�,,, - �
, � . �� a' , ,
•'. � � � �• � � ,
� ' \ ti' `C � � .j • . .
� � �
°--�-- • - � �!
� ----.. _
. � , . � N _ , a` ,, �I� ! , • � �
� 'o ♦ � ,
� • �" . : /- ' . � �'' ,�,. �` . •
......... � s '• ;
—..... ..., . __.. �.� � � �� •
� � .
, _. .._.�,i _ ._.. '— ��
_ .� •°•----• ------ .__.-----
.0.. z - . --... " " ;�
-:: .. . ... - -
. ...
._.
...:.tt"3._ . . .. . '" - �----- �..._ _ . _. --
.
:.. _ _�_ _ __� � . • �. . -- . ..
, I . ., .��._" ""_' ' p ,. M ' •. . / �7 . . .
.! �. _— ' •;: � 'o. ._... ,. � . .. . . .
(�j �,�ie�l}�-",:•�,..'._��:':O : " 1
. 1' .` ' .:''.:_....,.... aeF>s«e.y ' • .
� .. , . . y�' . _ �. .� ...:-h3'�. ' �y.� r . .a. .sJP•ti-�. .
}'� . p:;. � � .
. . . 1 � ' ' aL , A�:':'' :. , .�-, ' � � _
1 ••�, _
•T ' � .
1 p _ 1 . �^ .
.. _� , i� . . ar ,°a L__� -- •- .—_ �; .. --
� 1 � , a �� ' � '
. ' • 1 . '
, : _ : � ��...�...........�..JCd�t:��1F � -. .. ..`,�'�_ . - • -
. _ 1� _ ���'..�^ .��....�
.-� ` �..__.'_•
i � .,., r „
,.�. .. , .
�. ' is ..
.. . . T • n... ' _., .
'i �^-.��� ��.�.�'� _ � , . ... ... . . • �
. ;� -- . { _ -.-m .� �%,. , . . ---.- -- - ;� �-Y s 63
1 i A ' � a_ „ � aY__._ N.'-- �-.. A
� 8:
TOTRL P.002
s __ _
% \ : �a� 4 �-�
� rz 'f�
r rb � � � " u Y{ �`+ \ \
��' �u i � �,:
�� �d� � ,�� �\ ��' �� "/i� �.
r l uo � \�� �� 11 �" y+u�
> > � � � ��
�.'s i�� I �r ay;
✓ ; '� ��� ts` ` �
i %�, f � � �ti�A, � .' '� � �
P i a �„ .� .
% y �I
�� �
���� ¢�����u� �. � .�.:.
�''N.� � �� �..,
��� \
y Nli,_ ,�'r' �*
fC i
.�
` � 1.
,� ;
,
a
i
� - � � , ,,: � '
R � �,�I,,j�� i
F
t � ; � `�(, d' t.
? �� i
1 .:�1: ��� ..
'l .:
-
� / � ,. dl�
i _�� � .��. /��.
�I ....� e,7i
i , I
I I �i 7 �j ��
�, �
+� �^ �" �
{ � �
d
I . � r ij� �.:, ��( � � �t ��
� I ��� '� ��� � ' .
i �: �
�
, . . � ����� i� �,
i/ S
.5�� , ;k. , . � ..
Np � { �� i ` �`.'
� M � •,'
t
� ,� .�
,.,
a�
�:.
=, _
_, � . ____ �,
,
e
1
�
nx � «,
�'�r
��%��
< ,
="� w A��y�,pV .� k. 44.�.;.. �' '
�
3 �rs I � ;
,.
�;��; : ,
;r ,
. ;�
�,
�� 1} �� � �,,.� ;
1 �, �, ,
/ A , ,,_ `�`��� f' �►�,I��l� ,; % ' i
�rr 'f tiu��� �� ;
� � �� �, � �
. � ��� - �-- - � � � ' ��,
/ l � I v
i I— .� I
� �s � I�I I �� �--� �
�, ..;�-� c.al
' i ,
I `3 1�
: �, r\\ f' _
� � 9� , -
� ��
� I I �'��
-� .�"' ` ' ,
\ �:,. m
;.,. �� _. -�' ° _.
�F;:'�.`% -. ,.�,,��..--�,�F`
S�,�r�-,�{ _
Presented By
Referred To
Council File # �O ^' 1 e1.�
GreenSheet# ��3�'[q`�
�a
Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson is the owner of properiy commonly known as 420
2 Portland Avenue, legally described as contained in the public files maintained by the zoning and
3 planning administrators and bearing PIN No. 01282324�240; and
4
5 VJHEREAS, the said properry is in the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District and
6 approval by several agencies is necessary in order to obtain building permits in such districts.
7 First, all building permit applications within historic districts require the approval of the Heritage
8 Preservation Commission (HPC). Second, in the event the new construction requires variances
9 from the provasions of the zoning code, authority to do so must be obtained from the Boazd of
10 Zoning Appeals (BZA). Finally, site plans for new construction projects must be reviewed by
11 the zoning administrator. The zoning administrator's decisions may be appealed to the Planning
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
Commission (PC); and
WHEREAS, on or about May 15, 1999, in preparation of constructing a new building at
420 Portland Avenue, Ronald J. Severson made application to the HPC (HPC file No. 3654) for
building permits to construct either a thirty-six_(36) or thirty-eight (38) foot, two (2)-story
structure consisting of a four (4) stall pazking garage on the first floor and a single family
dwelling unit on the second floor; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 1999, Ronald J. Severson also made application to the BZA
(BZA file No. 99-164) far a front yud setback variance of nine (9) feet from the minimum
required twenty-five (25) feet to sixteen (16) feet in order to construct a thirty-eight (38) foot
building [the thirty-six (36) foot building does not require variances]; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 1999, the HPC conducted a public hearing on the building
pernut applications and at the close of the hearing, moved to grant the application as for the
reasons stated in HPC Resolution No. 3654, adopted July 22, 1999 a copy of which as attached
hereto and incorporated as e�ibit 1; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Laurel Frost , Patricia
Leonard and Greg and Cazol Clark (the Neighbors), duly filed on August 4, 1999 an appeal from
the decision in HPC Resolution No. 3654 and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City
Council for tl�e purpose of considering the actions taken by the HPC; and
1�,�, .1, a o0 0
� RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Page 1 of 3
��o°
S
i WHEREAS, the Neighbors appeal from the HPC decision was duly set before the Saint d O- � ° �'�
2 Paul City Council for public hearing on September 22, 1999. On that date, being advised that
3 additional applications and approvals were required before construction could proceed, the City
4 Council, in Council File No. 99-1092, resolved for the purposes of council economy, to lay the
5 matter over unril such time as the need for all variances and site plan approvals for the subject
6 building were determined and either approved or denied so that all appeals relating to 420
7 Portland could be considered in one public hearing. A copy of Council File No. 99-1092 is
8 attached hereto and incorporated as eachibit 2; and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
26
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
WHEREAS, after a series of layovers requested by the parties, the BZA, on October 24,
1999, after first having provided notice to affected property owners was finally able to conduct a
public hearing on Ronald J. Severson's front yazd variance application for the thirty-eight (38)
foot building. At the close of the public hearing, the BZA moved to deny the front yazd variance
application for the reasons stated in its resolution No. 99-163, dated November 8, 1999, a copy of
which is attached hereto and incorporated as exhibit 3; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 1999 and acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 64.206(a),
Ronald 3. Severson filed an appeal from the BZA determination and requested a hearing before
the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; and
WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson also made application for administrative site plan
approval of the thirty-eight (38) foot, two-story building with nine (4) parking spaces [four in the
building, two in an already existing gazage and three surface spaces] although it is not cleaz, fiom
the records of the department of license, inspections and environmental protection the exact date
of such application; and
WHEREAS, in December 1999, the zoning administrator approved the proposed site pian
for a thirty-eight (38) foot building on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 2000 and pursuant to Legislative Code § 64300(j), the
Neighbors duly filed an appeal of the decision of the zoning administrator and requested a
hearing before the PC; and
34 WHEREAS, on April 6, 2000, after a series of scheduling conflicts between the
35 appellants, a public hearing was conducted by the PC's Zoning Committee after having provided
36 notice to affected parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Zomng Committee moved to
37 recommend granting appeal. On April 14, 2000, an PC resolution No. 04-28, the PC granted the
38 Neighbors' appeal for the reasons stated therein. A copy of PC resolution No. 00-28 is attached
39 hereto and incorporated as e�ibit 4; and
40
41 WHEREAS, on May 8, 2000 Ronald J. Severson filed an appeal of the PC decision
42 pursuant to SPLC 64.300(k) and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of
43 considering the actions taken by the said commission; and
44
45 WHEREAS, consistent with City Council Resolution No. 99-1042, the Neighbor's
46 appeal from the decision in HPC resolution No. 3654 and the appeals of Ronald J. Severson from
47 the decisions of the BZA in its resolution No. 99-163 and tl�e Planning Commission in its
48 resolution No. 00-28, were consolidated and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§
49 64.206-64.208 and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
p Page 2 of 3
A
`S' �S
Saint Paul City Council on May 24, 2000 where all interested parties were given an opportunity
to be heard; and
4 WHEREAS, having heazd the statements made and having considered the applications,
5 the reports of staff, the records, minutes and resolutions of the HPC (building permits for either
6 36 or 38-foot building), the BZA (variances for a 38-foot building) and the PC (site plan for 38-
7 foot building), the Council does HEREBY;
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
RESOLVE, to:
1. Deny the appeal of Greg and Carol Clark, Patricia Leonard and Laurel Frost
from the decision in FiPC resolution No. 3654 having found no enor in any fact,
finding or procedure of the HPC approval of building permits for either 36 or 38
foot buildings.
2. Deny the appeals of Ronald J. Severson from the decision of the BZA to deny
a variance for a 38-foot building in its resolution No. 99-163 and from the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny site plan approval for a 38-foot
building in its resolution No. 00-28, finding no error in any fact, finding or
procedure in the decisions of either the BZA or the PC; AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, having found no errors in the fact, findings or
procedures of the HPC, the BZA or the PC, the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts
as its own and incorporates herein by reference, the findings and conclusions of the HPC, the
BZA and the PC as contained in their respective resolutions noted above; AND
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
all the appellants, the zoning administrator, the planning administrator, the HPC, the BZA, and
the PC.
O6 —7e'�0
Requested by Department of:
By:
Fozm App by City Attorney
sy: . f"�!-��LS�� 7( I� JC9
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By'
Apps
By:
\` y �� +
Adopted by Council: Date �op �
l
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
�l
OO„" !�
City Attomey's
OAiE Wff111iED
August 1, 2000
GREEN SHEET
N
266-8710
20�� - CAIISCIIt
TOTAL �E OF SIGNATURE PAGES
��
❑ qif 4ii0pEY ❑ OIYtlSAI[ _
❑ wuwcwts�uc�aow. ❑ wuwry�aEaw�ccra
❑ wYORIw��xasr�Mq ❑
(CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council on May 24, 2000, denying the appeal of
Frost, Leonard, and Clark, to the decisions of the Historic Preservation Commission and the appeals of
Severson to the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Planning Commission, all viz 420
Portland Avenue.
PLANNING CAMMISSION
CIB CAMMITTEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
OF TRANSACTION f
SOURCE
ItSONALSERVICE CONiMCfS MUSTANSWERTHE FOLLOWIN6 QUE57ION5:
Has ihis pe�wNfiim ever wrorketl uMer e coM(act tor Nie deparhn8nt7
YES NO
Hes ihis pereon/firm e�er heen a dty anpbyee?
YES NO
Ooes tAis peieoNfirtn po65e66 a Sidll not nom�allypossesseA Dy arry curte'R city employee?
VES NO
Ic Nis petsoMfrm a �erpe[etl vendoYt
VES NO
fA3TlREVENUE BUD(iETED (CIRCLE ON�
ACiMTY NUMBER
YES NO
(��M
ao -'1yo
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Nancy,
August 7, 2000
Nancy Anderson, Council Secretary
Peter Warner. CAO
Council Session August 9, 2000.
Consent Agenda Item 12. Substitute Resolution
la,�. °l
C�,..�.:a �•-•�-�
��� � 2-.
With respect to Consent Agenda Item No. 12, "Resolution memorializing the CounciPs May 24°
decision denying the appeals concerning 420 Portland Avenue," please substitute the attached
Resolution in place of the draft distributed in the packet. The draft dishibuted in the packet
contained errors with respect to the HPC resolut3on numbers, the notice that HPC staff distributed
and, upon further examination, a couple of grammaticai lapses.
CM Blakey had signed the resolution for submission. Would he do the same for the substitute?
Thanks. If there are questions, please direct them to me. PWW
Council File # Op — � e1.�
ORIGINAL
Presented B}
Refesed To
RESOLUTION
Green Sheet #_( � 3 Q��
1 WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson is the owner of property commonly own as 420
2 Portland Avenue, legally described as contained in the public files maintai d by the zoning and
3 planning administrators and bearing PIN No. 012823240240; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the said property is in the Historic Hill Preserv ion District and approval by
6 several agencies is necessary in order to obtain building permits i such districts. First, all new
7 building construction permit applications within historic distric require the approval of the
8 Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Second, in the ev t the new construction requires
9 variances from the provisions of the zoning code, authority o do so must be obtained from the
10 Boazd of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Finally, site plans for w construction projects must be
11 reviewed by the zoning administrator. The zoning adm� istrator's decisions may be appealed to
12 the Planning Commission (PC); and
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
WHEREAS, on or about May 15, 1999, i preparation of constructing a new building at
420 Portland Avenue, Ronald J. Severson mad application to the HPC (HPC file No. 3654� for
building permits to conshuct either a thiriy-s� (36) or thirty-eight (38) foot, two (2)-story
structure consisting of a four (4) stall pazki garage on the first floor and a single family
dwelling unit on the second floor; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 1999, onald J. Severson atso made applicarion to the BZA
(BZA file No. 99-164) for a front y d setback variance of nine (9) feet from the minimum
required twenty-five (25) feet to s� teen (16) feet in order to conshuct a thirty-eight (38) foot
building [the thirty-six (36) foot uilding does not require variancesj; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1999, the HPC conducted a public hearing on the building
permit applications after h�ng provided notice to affected property owners and at the close of
the hearing, moved to gr t the application as for the reasons stated in HPC Resolution No. 3654,
adopted July 22, 1999 copy ofwhich is attached hereto and incorporated as exhibit 1; and
WHEREA , acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Laurel Frost , Patricia
Leonard and Gre and Caroi Clark (the Neighbor's), duly filed on August 4, 1999 an appeal from
the decision i C Resolution No. 3654 and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City
Council for t purpose of considering the actions taken by the HPC; and
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
1 WHEREAS, the Neighbor's appeal from the HPC decision was duly set before the Saint
2 Paul City Council for public hearing on September 22, 1999. On that date, being advised that
3 additional applications and approvals were required before construction could proceed, the City
4 Council, in Council File No. 99-1092, resolved for the purposes of council economy, to lay the
5 matter over until such tune as the need for all variances and site plan approvals for the subject
6 building were determined and either approved or denied so that all appeals relating to 420
7 Portland couid be considered in one public hearing. A copy of Council File No. 99-1092 is
$ attached hereto and incorporated as e�ibit 2; and
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
WfIEREAS, after a series of layovers requested by the parties, the BZA, o October 24,
1999, after first having provided norice to affected property owners was finally le to conduct a
public hearing on Ronald J. Severson's front yard variance application for th thirty-eight (38)
00 - 1 �
foot building. At the close of the public hearing, the BZA moved to deny e front yazd variance
application for the reasons stated in its resolution No. 99-163, dated No mber 8, 1999, a copy of
which is attached hereto and incoxporated as eachibit 3; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 1999 and acting pursuant Legislative Code § 64.206(a),
Ronald 3. Severson filed an appeal from the BZA determinatio and requested a hearing before
the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions t en by the BZA; and
WHEREAS, Ronald J. Severson also made appl� ation for administrative site plan
approval of the thirty-eight (38) foot, two-story buildi with nine (9) pazking spaces [four in the
building, two in an already existing garage and three urface spaces] although it is not clear, from
the records of the deparhnent of license, inspectio and environmental protection the exact date
of such application; and
WHEREAS, in December 1994, the ning administrator approved the proposed site plan
for a ttririy-eight (38) foot building on the s ject property; and
WHEREAS, on Febn.iary 8, 20 and pursuant to Legislative Code § 64300(j), the
Neighbor's duly filed an appeal of the ecision of the zoning administrator and requested a
hearing before the PC; and
34 WHEREAS, on Aprii 6, 00, after a series of scheduling conflicts between the
35 appellants, a public hearing wa conducted by the PC's Zoning Committee after having provided
36 norice to affected parties. At e conclusion of the hearing, the Zoning Committee moved to
37 recommend granting appeal On April 14, 2000, in PC resolution No. 00-28, the PC granted the
38 Neighbor's appeal for the easons stated therein. A copy of PC resolution No. 00-28 is attached
39 hereto and incorporated s exhibit 4; and
40
41 WHEREAS, n May 8, 200Q Ronald 7. Severson filed an appeal of the PC decision
42 pursuant to SPLC 300(k) and requested a hearing before the City Council far the purpose of
43 considering the a ions taken by the said commission; and
44
45 �AS, consistent with City Council Resolurion No. 99-1092, the Neighbor's
46 appeal fro the decision in HPC resolution No. 365 and the appeals of Ronaid 7. Severson from
47 the deci ons of the BZA in its resolution No. 99-163 and the Planning Commission in its
48 resolution No. 00-28, were consolidated and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§
49 64.206-64.208 and upon notice to all affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
Page 2 of 3
Saint Paul City Council on May 24, 2000 where all interested parties were given an opportunity
to be heard; and p� _7a.p
WIIEREAS, having heazd the statements made and having considered the applications,
the reports of staff, the records, minutes and resolutions of the HPC (building permits for either
36 or 38-foot building), the BZA (variances for a 38-foot building) and the PC (site plan for 38-
foot building), the Council does HEREBY;
RESOLVE, to:
1. Deny the appeal of Grreg and Carol Clazk, Patricia Leonard and aurel Frost
from the decision in HPC resolution No. 365 having found no e r in any fact,
finding or procedure of the HPC approval of building permits or either a 36 or
38.
2. Deny the appeals of Ronald J. Severson from the de sion of the BZA to deny
variances for a 38-foot building in its resolution No. -163 and from the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny site plan appr al for a 38-foot building in
its resolution No. 00-28, finding no enor in any ct, finding or procedure in the
decisions of either the BZA or the PC; AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, having fo d no errors in the fact, findings or
procedures of the HPC, the BZA or the PC, the uncil of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts
as its own and incorporates herein by referenc the findings and conclusions of the HPC, the
BZA and the PC as contained in their respec � e resolutions noted above; AND
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED,�t the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolu6on to
all the appellants, the zoning administr or, the planning administrator, the HPC, the BZA, and
the PC.
OR{G1NAL
Requested by Depastment oE:
Adopted by Council: te
Adoption Certified Council Secretary
By:
Appmved 6y Ma r: oate
By:
By:
Form Approved by City Attomey
By: ��W��� �-�/-OC
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
ClnytorsM.Robinson,Jr.,CiryAttorney QQ -� �lO
a
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Civi1 Division
400 City' Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
Saint Pau[, Minnuota 55102
Telephone: 651 26b8110
Facsimile: 65! ?98-�619
HAND DELIVEftED
July 31, 2000
Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Saint Paul City Hall
RE: Appeal of Frost, Leonard, Clark's from the decisions of the Historic Preservation
Commission and the appeals of Severson from the decisions of the Board of Zoning
Appeals and the Planning Commission, all viz 420 Portland Ave.
Council Action: Deny all three appeals.
Council Action Date: May 24, 2000.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision ofthe City council to deny each
of the appeals in the matter noted above. Please place this matter on the Council's consent agenda
at your earliest convenience. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
�� vw��
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
attachment
�O-`73o
ORlGINAL
Presented By
Refened To
RESOLUTIOh�
CITY OF SATl\'T pAUI,, M NESOTA
�,����
��
Committee: Date
2 �VFIEREAS, a public hearing was duly set for September 22, 1999, before the Council of
3 the Ciry of Saint Paul (Council) for the purposes of considerin� appeals by Gre� and Cazol Clazk,
4 Patricia Leonard and Laurel Frost from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
5 (HPC) in HPC Resolution No. 3654 approving a buildin� permit application to construct a new,
6 single-family, dwellin� within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District on property
7 commonly known as 420 PortIand Avenue; and
y WHEREAS, the Council determined that the proposed single family dwelling may need
1 Q additional regulatory determinations (includin� site p1an review and approval or other variances)
11 before construction can begin; and
12
13
14
l�
16
i7
RIHEREAS, the Council finds that it is appropriate and efricient to first finalize all snch
de?erminations necessary for the proposed sin�le family dwellin� so that in the eveni an appeal is
�aken fron any determination, the appeal(s) may be consolidated into a sin�lz public hearing
before the Council; Iv'OW, THEREFORE, BE IT
1$ ±2ESOLVED, in the interest of Covncil efficiency, 2he appeal of Gre� and Carol Clark,
19 Pat*_icia Leonazd and Laurel F;ost from the decision in HPC Resolution No. 36�4 is continued
20 and 3aid over untii such time as all re�ulatory determina±ions necessary for *.he progosed project
21 at 420 Portland Avenue shall have been acted uoon by the appropriate city depart� boazd or
22 commission; A,h'D, B� yT,
23
2� r �RiI3ER RESOLVE�, that once ai? resulatory determinations have been made and if
2� any are appealed, all appeais sha]l be consolidated with the appeal of H?C Resolution fio. 3654
26 and reset, ��ith wrinen notice to afiected paaies, before tri� Cotmci, for public hearinv; A?vD, BE
27 IT, �
?g
EXH(BIT
�
d
'n
9 ],
Council File r �� l Oq'�
GreenSheetr +p0'�a�,
n l
?
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
FIIRTHER RESOLVED, that if no appeals are taken from any remaining
determination, the public hearing on HPC Resolution No. 3654 shall be reopened w•ith ne�v
notice to the affected parties ofrecord as ofAugust 4, 1999: AND, BE IT
gg-to9�
DO - � �O
FI\'ALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be mailed to Ronald
Se�•erson, Greg and Cazol Clazk, Patricia Leonazd, Laurel Frost Mark VauQht, Esq, John '�lilier,
Esq., the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Herita�e Preservation Conunission and the Department
of License, lnspections and EnvironmentaI Protection.
ORIGINAL
Requeste3 by Depa__x=-c o°:
By:
Form Eon_ c by C`:y Atccrr.=y
s �s7s-. �✓/-✓�.�.-�-� � �� � 5 �
Ag�ro by N.zycr `_.,r n" "_a ""` c"
ay:
��
sy:
V
Adcp[e3 by Cot�=i1: Date _� \ �, \n \qc�c,
—�—�
Acco[_or. Certi:ied by Couacil Secretary
p� _1 �o
CITY OF SAINT PAUL �
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NIJMBER 3654
DATE 22 July 1999
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint
Paul Legislative Code to review building permit applications for e�terior alterations, new construction or
demoliYion on or within designated Heritage'Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling on
properiy located at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street pazking by residents of
415 Summit Avenue; there is a two-stall garage and unpaved driveway and parking areas; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the
following:
III. New Construction, A. General Principies: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hill District is to maintain the districYs scale and quaZity of design. ...New construction should be
compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color, material, building eZements, site
design, and character oJsurrounding structures and the area.
ZII. B. Massing and Height: New construction should canform to the massing, volume, height and scale
of exisfing adjacent structures. Typical residentiat structures in the Historic Hi11 District are 25 to 40
feet high. The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height of all buildings on
both block faces, measuremenu should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs.
III. D. Materials and Details: ... The materials and details of new construction should relate to the
materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roojmaterials are cedar shingles, slate and
tile; asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture of the preferred materials are
acceptable substitutes. ...Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their
appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding struciures.
III. E. Building Elements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for
a balanced and complete design. These eZements for new consiruction should compliment existing
adjacent structures as well.
III. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile oJnew construclion should relate to the predominant roof shape
of ezisting adjacent buildings.
III. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rFrythm cmd detailing of windows and doors in new
construction should be compatible with that of existing adjacent buildings. ...Facade openings of the
same general size as those in adjacertt buildings are encouraged. ...Wooden double-hung windows are
traditional in the Historic Hill District and should be the fzrst choice when selecting new windows.
III. E. 3. Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hill District have roofed front
EXHIBIT
�
a
� 2
�
00 -�20
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 2
porches.... If a porch is not built, the transition jrom private to public space should be articulated with
some other suitable design elemenl.
III. F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than S% out-of-Zine from
the setback of exisling adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be
allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at corners. This happens quite often in the
Historic Hill area and can lend deligh�l variation ta the street.
III. F. 3. Garages cmd Parking: Where alleys do not ezist, gcrrages facing the street or driveway curb
cuts may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single
garage doors shoutd be used to avoid the horizontal orientation of hvo-car gcrrage doors.
Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in
rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping; and
WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upoo the evidence presented at its
June 24, 1999 public heazing on said permit application, made the following findings oFfact (findings
#2-4 are essentially the findings in HPC Resolution #2884 granting approval of the 1997 40'-building
scheme):
1• The applicant seeks approval of two designs, one a 36'-long building which requires no variances
to construct and the other a 38'-long building which requires a front yard setback variance in
order to construct the building 16' from the front property line. The design of hoth schemes is
very similaz to the 40'-long building approved by the HPC on Mazch 27, 1997 (File #2884). The
most significant differences among the three plans concem the site plan: the previously-approved
40' building had a 19.5' front setback and tcvo pazking spaces in the front yazd; the proposed 36'
building has a 25' front setback; the proposed 38' building has a 16' front yard setback; and
neither of the rivo schemes now proposed has front yard parking.
2• The proposed building site is a pivotal and di�cuit site. It is visible from Summit Avenue, it
abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there aze lazge buildings to the south and west that
are close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter
House at 415 Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage
house concept is a reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the following reasons: a) the
site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking fot residents of the Winter House;
b) the parcel has historically been a reaz yard, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appeazs as a reaz
yard due to its relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story cazriage
house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a building that is very close to the
Winter House in proximity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The
Winter House was built on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent
subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to
surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
�
no -�ao
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 3
The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatibie with the size, scale, massing, height, rhy2hm, setback, color,
material, building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the
area."
b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and chazacter would be related to, but do
not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a
balanced and complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be pazallel to that of the Winter House, the street-
facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this
block ofPortland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz yazd nature of the site,
the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic cattiage
house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only
other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and
Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure(the existing
structure is a large, 4-story, brick apartment building with two, two-story front porches
located 18" from the sidewalk while the main building wall is 12' from the front
sidewall:).
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building.
f. Parking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping. Single garage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of double
doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of
anomalies in design and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district
and its character.
4. In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the
Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed buil@ing's design
and materials are related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e, the
Winter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than
mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and the development would not have an
adverse impact on the character-defining features of the site and the azea. The building's design
is similaz to the reaz addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate
for a new secondary structure. A new building of unrelated design and materials would detract
from the historic integrity of the site.
5. The following project details should be noted:
a• The landscape plans shown on the 36' and 38' building schemes differ; the landscape
plan shown for the 38' building is the correct one and should be shown on both sets of
plans.
b. The hedge along the driveway and at the front of the building will be aipine currant,
spaced 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5'.
!.�J
0 0 -
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 4
c. The plans call for a basement window well at the front of the building that was not
proposed in the 1997 scheme. Current plans show both a 3' x 8' well �r,•ith a ladder and a
4' x 8' weli with a step/terrace. The 3' x 8' option is preferable for the 38' building
withl6' front setback scheme; and
WHEREAS, though there are, or may be, zoning issues, ]egal issues, and other issues pertaining to the
proposed development, they aze not within the jnrisdiction of the �Ieritage Preservation Commission; the
commission must grant or deny approval of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code and the district design review guidelines;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a building permit for either of the two proposed schemes for a new singie
family dwelling located at 420 Portland Avenue, subject to the condition that the front window well shall
be 3' x 8' for the 38' building.
MOVED BY Benton
SECONDED BY Murphy
IN FAVOR
AGAIPiST
ABSTAIN
Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are final, subjeM to appeal to the City Council within 14
days by anyone affected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable
buildi�g and zoaing code requirements, and does not constitute approval for tax credits.
7
CITY OF SAI�TT PAUL o o-� �'°
BOARD OF ZO�'ING APPEALS RESOLUTIOi\'
ZONI\TG FILE NUMBER r 99-163
DATE 11/08/99
��'HEREAS, RONALD SEVERSON has applied for a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertainin� to the construction of a ne�i�
residzntial structure that would have a 4-car gara�e on the first floor and a sinele-family home on the.
szcond floor over the garage, in the RT-2 zonin� district at 420 PORTLAiv'D AVENiJE; and
�VHEREAS, the Saint Pau] Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 25, and
November 8, 1999, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of
the Legislative Code; and
�VfiEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon e�•idence przsenied at the public
hzaring, as substantially rzflected in the minutes, made the followin� findin�s of fact:
I. The properly in qi�estioi: can be p�it to a reasonable use under the strict proi•isioru of the code.
A sliohtly smalle; buildin� �vith four parkin� spaces on the first floor and a d�celling unit on the second
floor can be buiit on the property. A sitz plan for this building «�as approved by� tn� Ciry Council in March
1999.
2. The pligl:t of Ilte land otvner is noi due to circeunstances unique to this property, and thzse circumstances
ticere uot created by the land oivner.
The size and irregular shape of the lot and the private ao eement that requires the property o��ner to providz
parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit are unique to the property znd �c•ere not created by the present
prope;ty o��ner. Ho�eever, the pzesent o«�er «�as aware of these circumstances «�hen he bou�h[ the
propzm�.
3. The proposed variance is �:ot in keepin,; tirith the spirit and intent oftiie code, artd is consistznt x•ith t{t�
healtk, sajery, con fort, morals and x�eljare af the inhabitants of the Ciry ojSt. Pa�d.
The reduced front yard setback that ticould be allowed by the variance w•ouid not provide a reasonable
amount of green space and therefore is not in keeping w�ith the spirit and intent of tne code.
4. The propased variance will inrpair a�: adeguate supply ojlight and air to adjacent property, ¢nd wil!
unreasatab[y diminisTt es[ablished properry values within the surrounding area.
The orientation of the building with the side facing Portiand Avenue �t�ould unrezsonably diminish property
values within the surroundin� area.
5. The variance, ifgranted, woul�l no1 penait a�ty use lhat is not permitted under t/:e prorisions of thz code for
tlae property� i�: !he district where the afjzcted land is tocated, nor wotrld it alter or d:ange t'r.e zor.ing
district classification of the propern•.
6. Th2 request jor varimrce is not based prin:arily ai a desire to increase tl:e val«e or incmne potential of thz
pnrcel of land.
EXHIBIT
y Page I oC 2
«
a
s 3
Zv
File f 99-163
IZesalution
�iil
NOR', THEREFORE, BE II RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the request
to �vaive the provisions of Section 61.101 to allow a front yard setback of 16 fezt, in ord�r to construct a
ne«� residential structure that would have a 4-car garage on the first floor and a sin�lz-family home on
the second floor over the gazage, on property loczted at 420 PORTLf��'D AVE\'UE; and le�ally
described as Except the Southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, auditor's subdivision f3&; in accordance with the
epplication for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator, is HEREBY DE�I£D.
I170VED BY : Dlorton
SECONDED BY: witSOn
IN FAVOR: s
AGAINST: o
ABSTAIl\T: 2
bI:�ILED: November 09, 1999
TI�IE LI�IIT: I\o order of the Board of Zonina Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a
buildina or off-street parl;ing facilit}� shal! be valid for a period longer than one
year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained �rithin such
period and such erection or alteration is proceedine pursuant to the terms of such
permit. The Board of Zoaing Appeais or the City� Counci] mar� grant an exfension
not to exceed one year, In grantina such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals
may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City
Council �rithin 15 da}•s by anyone affected by the decision. Buitdine permits shall
not be issued after ao appeal has been filed. If permits hac•e been issued before an
appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease
until the Citr• Council has made a final determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATIO�: I, the andersigoed Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint
Paul, bIinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy rrith
the original record in mr• office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of
said original and of the «•hole thereof, as based on approced minutes of the Saint
Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on October 25, and november 8, 1999,
aad on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection,
350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, blinnesota.
SAI\T P,�UL BO�,RD OF ZO\I\G APPEALS
!` , 1
<.
I���=e.� �.1��
Noel Diedrich
Secretar}• to the Board
Pa�e?of 2
�,
0 0 -'��'°
city of saint paul
planning commission resoiution
file number o0-28 �
date April 14, 2004
tiVHEREAS, Pa[ricia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Greg and Carol Clark, file r 99-117070, filed an
appeal of the decision by the Zonin� Administra[or [o approve a site plan for a carria�e house and
accessory parkin� at 420 Portland, legally described on Exhibit A; and
�VHEREAS, the Zonin, Committee on 4/6/00 held a public hearin� at �vhich all persons present
�vere given an oppoRUnity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance �vith the
requirements of Section 64.300 of [he Sain[ Paul Le�islative Code; and
�VHEREAS, on 4/12/00 the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented at
the public hearing on 4/6/00 as subs[antially reflectzd in the minutes, made the followin� findin�s
of fact:
(1) The site plan is not consistent with the city's adopted comprehensive plan.
(2) The arran�emenc of buildin�s and par't:in� for [he groposed development wi11 unreasonabiy
affecc abuttin� property and its occupants.
(3) The site plan is not consistent with the safet}• and convenience of cehicular and pedestrian
traffic �vithin the site.
i�'O�V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Plannina Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Le'islative Code, the appe2l of the Zonin� Administrator's decision to
approve a site for a carria�e house and accessory parking at 420 Portland be approved.
moved by Gervais
seconded by
in favor ib
against 1 c�or�on>
EXHIBIT
�
0
a
� 4
��U
' Warren E. Pe[erson
�erome P, FiIIa
� Daniel Witt Fram
� Glenn A. Bergman
Iohn Michael Miller
Michael T Oberie
Steven H. Bruns'
Paul W. Fahning
Esiher E. iVicGinnis
Ieffrey I. Cohen
---PETERSOI� -- ---
FPAM BERGMAN
- _ , _3—��,� ,-��,--1 '� = [-�
Jerry Blakey
Councilmember
310-A City Hall
15 West Kei!ogg Boulevarc�
St. Pau(, MN 55102
Patrick Harris
Counci(member
310-C Ciry Hall
15 West Ke(logg Boulevard
St. Paui, MN 55102
Jim Reiter
Councilmember
320-A City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
Kathy Lantry
Councilmember
320-C City Hali
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
RE: 420 Portland Avenue
City Council Agenda - May 24, 2000
PF&B File No. 11127.950001
Dear Council Members:
���i�� s�;te3oo
R p�n SO East Fifth Street
�'lJ SCPauI,MNiilOi-if97
16i1)291-895i
��y 2 3 20�0 16511??8-1753facsimile
���R� a�K�
Direct Dial #{651) 290-6909
Chris Coleman
Councilmember
310-B City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
Jay Benanav
Councilmember
3I0-D City Hall
15 West Keifogg Boufevard
St. Paui, MN 55102
Daniel Bostrom
Councilmember
320-B City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55102
I am writing this letter on behalf of Ronald Severson regarding the matters on the May 24,
2000, City Council Agenda for consideration relative to 420 Portland Avenue (the "Property").
These matters involve two similar proposals for the development of the Property. They are as
follows:
1. Appeal from HPC approval of Proposaf # 1(described below);
0 0 -"t �o
May 22, 2000
'ALSOADMITTEDIN WISCONSIN
00 -�ao
May 22, 2000
Page 2
2. Appeai from BZA denial of variance request of Proposal # 2(described below);
and,
3. Appeal from Planning Commission's denial of the plan approva( for Proposal #
2.
The history of the proposed development of the Property is long and occasionally contentious.
Because of the long history and numerous collateral issues which have been irvolved
throughout the years, we wouid suggest that all concerned wou(d be served by focusing fihe
inquiry and discussions to specific issues which will be before the Council on May 24, 2000.
The purpose of this letter is to identify these issues and clarify them with respect to each of
the Proposals.
In this regard, first a brief summary of events in the past year and a half would be heipful.
They are as follows:
Historv ot Proposal #1. In February 1999, the City Council considered a site plan for
the development of the Property. This site plan did not require any variances. (This is
referred to as "Proposal #i, and is referenced in the Staff Report as the "36-foot
plan".) Because of an irregularity during the creation of the Property in 1991, the City
Council was put into the position of having to first pass on the effect of a 1991 lot split
as it related to the validity of the creation of the Property. At that City Counci! hearing,
the Council confirmed the validity of the lot split, the existence of the Iot, and approved
Proposal #1.
The basic exterior design of Proposal # 1 had been previously approved by the Heritage
Preservation Commission {"HPC"), so Mr. Severson assumed that he could obtain a
building permit immediately and commence construction. in oiherwords, at that point,
it appeared that all required City approvals had been obtained. However, the HPC Staff
took the position that because there were a few modification to the exterior of the
structure, the matter should go back to the HPC for another review. Although Mr.
Severson did not agree with this initial conclusion of the Staff, he chose to not
challenge it. The HPC approved Proposal #1 in July, 1999. Some of the neighbors
appealed that HPC approval, and it is that appeal which is on the agenda for the May
24, 2000 meeting.
Historv of Pronosal #2. Given the history of the attempts to develop the Property, Mr.
Severson realized that having to bring Proposal #1 back through the HPC would most
likely be a very protracted process. After much consideration, he also decided to
"-'�
,,,
00 7zo
May 22, 2000
Page 3
submit an alternate proposal to the HPC for review. ("Proposal #2", which may also
be referenced in the Staff Report asthe "38-foot Plan") Proposal #2 was essentialiythe
same as Proposal #1 except that it moved the structure nine (9) feet towards Portland
Avenue which resulted in a need for a nine (9) foot front yard variance. The structure
in Proposal #2 is also 2 feet longer and was moved six (6) feet farther from the
condominium at 415 Summit it also and created one additional parking space. The
HPC approved both Proposals. Mr. Severson strongly believed and continues to believe
that Proposal #2 is a better proposal from all perspectives - the only problem is that
it does require a variance. This is also the firm belief of some of the adjacent
neighbors.
Proposal # 2 was then first submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals to pass on the
variance request and also to the Planning Commission for site plan review. Both the
BZA and the Planning Commission denied the requests for the variance and approval
of the site plan. These denials with respect to Proposal #2 were both appealed by Mr.
Severson. These appeals are on the Agenda for May 24, 2000.
***�*****
We would like to make the following points of clarification:
Proposal # 1. The site plan for Proposal # 1 is identical to the one which was approved by
the City Council in March, 1999. The modifications to the exterior are minimal and have been
approved by the HPC. In short, the site plan for Proposal # 1 as it relates to the foot print of
the structure and similar matters has already been reviewed, considered and approved by the
City Council and is not now before the City Counci( for further review. Nothing has changed
in the last year which would compef or even justify overruling the HPC's approval.
Proposal # 2. Opponents of this Proposal have characterized it as an attempt by Mr. Severson
to get a"second bite of the apple" or "just another" in a long line of earlier proposals. This is
not the case. Instead, it is more in the nature of a compromise from a proposal for a 40-foot
structure which was previousiy considered and denied. In fact, if Mr. Severson had been
issued the building permit after the City Council's action in March 1999, he would have
commenced construction, and Proposal #2 would not have been advanced. As noted above,
Proposal #2 was set forth onlv when he was required to start a protracted review process all
llt should be noted that the parking areas of the Property will aiso be forthe occupants
of the condominium at 415 Summit.
,.•..
ao-1ao
May 22, 2000
Page 4
over again (i.e„ the HPC's approval of the first modifications for the exterior). Given that time
frame, he deemed it appropriate to present Proposal #2 as an alternative and better proposal
for the development of the Property. This is not a situation where Mr. Severson obtained
approval, then decided he wanted something completely different and suggested another
proposal.
Our comments in support of Mr. Severson's appeal of the BZA's and Planning Commission's
action will be forthcoming in a subsequent letter or addressed at the City Council meeting.
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation.
/,�`�
�hael Miller
��I�I�AI7
cc: Ronald Severson
Tom Beach
Aaron Rubenstein
F:\usersVOH Nlseverson.counci I.Itc 2.wpd.wpd
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Narm Coleman, Mayor
December 14, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City CouncIl Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
OFFICE OF LICENSE, .NSPECTIONS AND OO � I aC
ENVIRON�IENTAL PROTECTION
Roberl Kessler, Direaor �
3
BUIIDZNGINSPEC170NAND Telephone:6I2-2669L�01
DESIGN Facsimile: 612-266-9099
350 St Peter Street
Suite 370
SaintPau[, Minnesata 55702-I510
Re: Public hearing for a new carriage house proposed for 420 Por[land Avenue
Dear Ms. Anderson:
We would like to conf'um that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, Januazy 5,
2000 for the following cases concerning a new carriage house proposed to be built at 420 Portland Avenue:
� Appeal of decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission
Purpose: Appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to approve the design.
Appellant: Greg and Carol Clazk, Patricia Leonard, Laurel Frost
FIle Number: HPC FIle 3654
� Appeal of decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals
�� Purpose: Appeal of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a variance to reduce the
required front yazd setback.
Appellant: Ron Severson
File Number: Zoning File 99-163
� Site plan review
Purpose:
Applicant:
Review the site plan.
Ron Severson
We have confirmed this date with the office of Councilmember Blakey. Our understanding is that this public
heazing request will appeu on the agenda of the City CouncIl at your euliest convenience and that you will
publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul I.egal Ledger.
Please call Tom Beach at 651-266-9086 or Aazon Rubenstein at 651-266-9�78 if you have any quesuons.
Sincerely,
Tom r'rZ.
Zoning Section
f �� y �
���
Aazon Rubenstein
Heritage Preservation
G\USERS�BEACHTOM\991Q3uv�poaa20x
SA(HT
PAUL
�
AAAA
CITY OF 5AINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
May 16, 2000
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hail
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RobertKusler, Direc[or � � ����
ZAA'RY PROfESS70NAL Tetephone: 6I2-2669090
BUIIDZNG Farsimile: 612-266-9099
S�ze 3W 672-266-9I24
350 SY. Pner Strea
Smiu Paul, Minnesota 55102-ISIO
RE: 420 Portland Avenue
Public hearing at City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 24, 2000
Zoning File 99-117070
Dear Ms. Anderson:
The City Council is schednled to consider three appeals concerning the proposed construction of a
� carriage house and parking at 420 Por[land Avenue:
— The Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to approve the project
— The Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a variance
— The Planning Commission's decision to deny the site plan.
� J
PR03ECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal calls for a two-story structure designed to resemble a carriage house. It would have one
apartment unit that would occupy the second floor and part of the basement. The fust floor would
provide gazage pazking spaces for four cazs. A total of nine pazking spaces would provided on the site.
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED B'f' THE CTI'Y COUNCIL
1. Appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to approve the design of the
carriage house.
Greg and Carol Clazk, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel Frost have appealed the decision of the Heritage
Preservation Commission to grant approval of Ronald Severson's building permit application to
construct a new single-family dwelling at 420 Portland Avenue, in the Historic Hill Heritage
Preservation Dish-ict. The City Council fust considered this appeal on September 22, 1999, and laid
over the matter so that HPC, BZA, and the site plan issues could be reviewed together at one time by
the Council. The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the subject permit
application on June 24, 1999, at which time the properry owner, Mr. $everson, and the appellants'
attorney, Mark Vaught, addressed the Commission. The Commission a) voted 9-1 to approve the
permit application following the close of the public hearing and b) voted 7-0 at the following
month's HPC meeting to pass a resolution granting approval of the requested building permit. The
Commission's findings aze stated in its resolution, which is attached. The HPC approved two
building schemes - one for a 36'- long building, which requires no variances to construc� and the
other for a 38' - long building, which would require a front yard sethack variance to construct.
The grounds for this appeal, stated in Mr. VaughYs August 4, 19991etter of appeal, aze that the HPC �
approval "is not in concert with the provisions of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legis2arive Code
[which creates and govems the HPC], is premature, violates my clients' due process rights, and
approves an illegal use of the properry."
The 420 Portland site has been the subject of development interest for at least, 11 yeazs. Jn 1989, the
HPC and BZA approved plans for construction of a carriane house on the site, which project
included one dwelling unit and five garage stalls, in a sort of L-shaped building, and three, off-street
pazking spaces. In 1992, the HPC and BZA approved mod�cations to that plan, which included two
dwelling units in an L-shaped, carriage-house like, structure and 14, under�ound parking spaces.
The two HPC- approved bui2ding schemes which are the subject ofthis appeai aze variations on a
plan approved by the HPC in 1997, and approved, on appeal, by a 6-0 City Council vote in 1998.
The 199� HPC approval was the result of Fve meetings, over a period of 20 months, between Mr.
Severson and HPC members, to develop a desia for the building that conforms to the Hill District
desi� b idelines. The 1998 appeal by Patricia Leonard, Gregory Clark, and Carol Clark, was
denied "on the basis that there has been no showing that the Commission made any error in fact
finding or procedure in this matter." (CF #98-357)
2. Appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a front yard setback variance.
The current plan for a 38-foot long building requires a zoning variance for front qud setback because
the carriage house would be16 feet from the front proper[y Iine on Portland Avenue, compazed to a
required minimum setback of 25 feet. Ron Severson, the properry owner, applied for the variance
but it was denied by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals in November 1999. The variance was denied on �
the grounds that a smaIler building could be built without a variance and that the variance would not
provide adequate �een space and would uareasonably diminish neazby property values. (See
attached copy of BZA resolution.)
The City Council approved a site plan with a slightty smaller siruct�a�e and one less pazking space in
March 1999. This site plan did not require a variance. The City Council had previously denied a
variance for a site plan with a slightly larger structure in 1998. There were other eazlier proposals for
the properry and zoning variances were approved for these in the eazty 1990's. A comptete zoning
history for the properiy can be found in the staff report for the Board of Zoning Appeals which is
included in this packet.
3. lteview of the siYe plan.
A site plan for the project must be approved before building permits can be issued. Staff
administratively approved the site plan in February 2000. An appeal was filed by Greg and Cazol
Clazk, Pairicia Leonard and Lauret Frost. A public hearing was held on the appeal and on April 14,
2000 the Planning Commission upheld the appeal. They found that staff should have denied the site
plan on the grounds that it was not consistent with the comprehensive plan, that the arrangement of
the buildina and pazking would unreasonably affect abutting property, and that the gazage and
pazking were not consistent with the vehicular and pedestrian tra�c withia the siYe.
A PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 24.
Please noiify us if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides presented at the pubtic hearing.
Sincerely, �;
�a�,e�, l�:.E�.���,, -���„�,�
Aazon Rubenstein Tom Beach
�
00 -� ao
C �
ATTACHNIENTS
Heritage Preservation Commission
page 1........ City Council Resolurion layin� over HPC appeal
Pa= --•-•--•
page4........
page8........
page 10...._..
pagel2.......
page 14 _......
Appealletter
HPC resolurion �anting approvai
Case summary of 6/24/99 HPC meeting
Case memo from staff to HPC
HPC application information
Sanbom insurance map
page 15 ....... 1998 City Council resolution upholding HPC approval on appeal
Board of Zoning Appeals
page 18 ....... Appeal of BZA decision to City Council
page 20 ....... BZA resolution denying variance
page 22 ....... BZA minutes staff report and application for variance
page 41 ....... BZA resolution from April 1998 denying vaziances for eazlier desia
Site Plan Review
page 43 ...._.. Appeal of Planning Commission's decision to City Council
paae 44 Planning Commission April 2000 resolution and minutes
page 48 . . . . . . . Staff report
Plans and maps
page49.......
page50.......
page55.......
page65.......
� page 73 .......
page 77.......
Location maps
Plans for current 38-foot building proposal
Plans for 36-foot bui]ding
Plans for 40-foot building
Plans approved by HPC in 1989
Plans approved by HPC in 1992 (revisions to 19$9 plans)
�
QRIGINAL
Presented By
RESOLUTION
� � i ' � • �
��L/ �I!..i �/,!�/
Council File k g � �Qq'�
Green Sheet N ( oo �t a 3
« �
Referred To
Committee: Date
2 WF�REAS, a public hearing was duly set for September 22, 1999, before The Council of
3 the City of Saint Paul (Council) for the purposes of considering appeals by Crreg and Cazol Clazk,
4 Patricia Leonard and LaureI Frost from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
5 (HPC) in HPC ResoluTion No. 3654 approviag a building germit application to construct a new,
6 single-family, dwelling within tbe Historic Hill Heritage Preservarion District on property
� commonly Iaiown as 420 Portland Avenue; and
9
ia
12
12
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Wi�REAS, the Council determined that the proposed single family dwelling may need
addirional regulatory determinations (including site plan review and approval or other variances)
before construction can begin; and
�3'FiE12.EAS, the Council finds that it is appropriate and ef&cient to first fmalize all such �
determinafions necessary for the proposed sin�Ie famiIy dwelIing so that in the event an appeaI is
taken from any determittation, the appeal(s) may be consoli3ated into a sin�le public hearing
before the Councii; NOW, TFIEREFORE, BE IT
a2�'..SOLVEB, in the interest of Council efficiency, zhe appeal of Greg and Carol Clatk,
Patricia Leonazd and Laurel Frost from the decision in HPC Resolution No. 36�4 is continued
and Iaid over untii such time as all regulatorp determinations necessary for the proposed project
aT 420 Portland Avenne shall have been acted upon by the apprepriate city departrnent, boazd or
commission; A.1�TD, BE iT,
r vRi I'�E�2 I2�SO�.V��, that once all regutatory determinations have been made and if
any are appealed, alI appeals shatl be consolidated wlth the appeal of HPC Resolution No. 3654
and reset, ��ith cvritten noiice to affected parties, before th� Councii for public heariag; ANI3, BE
IT,
�
i
2
3
4
.6
7
8
9
`l`t-1o93.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that if no appeals aze taken from any remaining
deterniination, the public hearing on HPC Resolution No. 3654 shall be reopened with new
notice to the affected parties of record as of August 4, 1999: AND, BE TT DO -���
F'INALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be mailed to Ronald
Severson, Crreg and Cazol Clark, Pahicia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Mark Vaught, Esq, John Miller,
Esq., the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Department
of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection.
��R�G��A�
Requested by Department of:
Hy:
zo�n Appr � d by City Atto='ney
s �".�l✓d✓�„�.�. ��f/7fg�
Apnroved ay Mayo= for Sebmission to Council
By: — 1 \
�proved by Mayor:
a <
Date
By:
�
Adopted by Council: Date 1\`. lc� \q_�`y�
���.
Ado�cion Certified 6y Council Secratary
S. MA,RK VAUGHT
Attornev At Law
Suite 700
Six Wesc Fifth Saeet
Sainx Paul, Minnesora 55102-1412
(651)297-64D0
FAX (651) 224-8328
e-mail: markvaught@wor2dnesatt.net
August 4, 1999
Aaron Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Planner
City of Saint Paul, L.I.E.P.
Suite 300, Lowry Proiessional Building
350 Saint Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Heritage Preservation File No. 3654
Dear Mr. Rubenstein:
�
�?
}
�
�;.
L`t
N
On behalf of my clients, Crreg and Cazol Clark, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel
Frost, please consider this letter as an appeal to the City Council pursuant to the
provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code of the above-referenced resolution and the
approval embodied therein, which was passed by the Heritage Preservation Coxnmission
on July 22, 1499. The grounds are that said approvai is not in concert with the provisions
of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, is premature, violates my clients' due
process rights, and approves an illegal use of the property.
Very huly yours,
,�" � �--.
S. Mark Vaught
Attorney at La��
�,;%;
.
�
�
�
�
0 0-7�
�
�
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
HERTTAGE PRESERVATION COA�IlVIISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NUMBER
DATE
3654
22 July 1999
R'HEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservafion Commission is anthorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint
Paul Legislative Code to review building permit applications for e�cterior alterations, new cons�truction or
demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling on
property located at 420 Portland Avenue within the FTistoric Hili Heritage Preservation District; aud
WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street parking by residents of
415 Summit Avenue; there is a twastall gazage and unpaved driveway and puking azeas; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Presezvation District guidelines for design review include the
following:
Ill. New Construction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hit1 District is to maintain the district's scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be
compatible with the size, scale, massing, height rhythm, sefback, color, maferial, building elements, site
design, and chm�acter of surrounding structures and the area.
III. B. Massing artd Height: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height mzd scale
of existing adjacent structures. Typical residentiad structures in the Histvric Hill District are 25 to 40
feet higk The height of new construction should be no Zower than the average height of all buildings on
both block faces,- meas�ements should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs.
III. D. Materials arzd Details: ...The materials and details ofnew construction should relate to the
materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferredroof materials are cedar shingles, slate and
tile,- asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture of the preferred materials are
acceptable substirutes. ...Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their
appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrotazding structures.
7II. E. Building Elements: Individuat elements of a buitding shouZd be integrated into its composition for
a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construction shoudd compliment existing
adjacent struchves as we17.
ZII. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile of new construction should relate to the predominant roofshape
of existing adjacent buildings.
III. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and doors in new
conshzrction shouZd be compatible with that of existing adjacenf buildings. ...F'acade openings of the
same general size as those in adjacent buildings are encouraged. ... Y�ooden double-hung windows are
iraditional in the Historic Hil1 District and should be the first choice when seZecting new windows.
III. E. 3. Porches and Decks: In generad, houses in the Historic Hi11 District have roofed front
�
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 2
•
porches.... If a porch is not built, the tremsition from private to public space should be mliculafed wilh
some other suitable design element.
III. F. Site, 1. Setbac,k• New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than 5% out-of-Zine from
the setback of exisiing adjacent buiZdings. Sefbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be
allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at comers. This happens quite often in the
Historic HFZI area cmd can lend delightful variation to the street.
III. F. 3. Garages and Pw��king: Where alleys do not e.rist, gcmages facing the street or driveway curb
cuts may be acceptrrble. Garage doors shouZd not face the street. If this is found necessary, single
gc�age doors should be used to avofd the horizontal orientation of two-car garage doors.
Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be loca7ed in
rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street cmd sidewalk by
landscaping, and
W$EREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
June 24, 1999 public hearing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact (findings
#2-4 aze essentiatly the fmdings in HPC Resotutiou #2884 granting approvai of the I99� 40'-building
scheme):
I. The applicant seeks approval of two designs, one a 36'-long building which requires no variances �
Yo construct and the other a 38'-long building which requires a front yard setback variance in
order to construct the building 16' from the front properiy line. The design of both schemes is
very similaz to the 40'-long building appmved by the HPC on March 27, 1997 (File #2884). The
most significant differences among the three pIans concem the site p1an: the previously-approved
40' building had a 19.5' front setback and two parking spaces in the front yazd; the proposed 36'
building has a 25' front setback; the proposed 38' building has a 16' front yazd setback; and
neither of the two schemes now proposed has ftont yard pazking.
2. The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visibie from Summit Avenue, it
abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are luge buIldings to the south and west that
are close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the rear yard of the Winter
House at 415 Sumuiit Aveaue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage
house concept is a reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the following reasons: a) tUe
site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street pazking for residents of the Winter House;
b) fhe parceI fias historicatly been a rear yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appears as a rear
yazd due to iTs relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story cairiage
house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a building that is very close to the
Winter House in pro�mity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc_ The
Winter Hovse was buiIt on a fhrougfi-lot witfi Summit and PortIand frontages; the recent
subdivision of the site chaages neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to
surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
�
�
0 0 -�ao
�
HPC Resolurion: File #3654, p. 3
3. The proposed structure conforms to the dishict guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the s3ze, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color,
material, bnilding elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the
azea."
b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character would be related to, but do
not mimic, the adjacent VJinter House. Individual design elements aze integrated for a
balanced and complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be parallel to that of the Winter House, the street-
facing elevation would be perpendiculaz to the sireet like those of other struchues on this
block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz yazd nature of the site,
the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the ]ustoric carriage
house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only
other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and
Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure(the e�usting
structure is a lazge, 4story, brick apartment building with two, two-story front porches
located 18" from the sidewallc while the main building wall is 12' from the front
sidewalk).
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building.
� f. Pazking spaces wouid be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by '
landscaping. Single gazage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of double
doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. Tfiese sorts of
anomalies in desian and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district
and its character.
4. In addition, the proposed su�cture and sSte development conform to the federal Secretary of the
Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design
and materials aze related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
Winter House; the design distinguishes beriveen what is new and what is historic rather than
mimics the historic shucture and confuses the two; and the development would not have an
adverse i[npact on the chazacter-defining features of the site and the azea. The building's design
is similaz to the rear addirion of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appmpriate
for a new secondary structure. A new building of unrelated design and materials would detract
from the historic integrity of the site.
5. The following project details should be noted:
a. The landscape plans shown on the 36' and 38' building schemes differ; the landscape
plan shown for the 38' building is the correct one and should be shown on both sets of
plans.
� b. The hedge along the driveway and at the front of the building will be alpine currant,
spaced 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5'.
�
HPC Resolurion: File #3654, p. 4
c. The plans call for a basement window well at the front of the buiiding that was not
proposed in the 199� scheme. Curtent plans show both a 3' x 8' well with a ladder and a
4' x 8' well wit6 a step/terrace. The 3' x 8' option is preferable for the 38' building
withl6' front setback scheme; and
WHEREAS, though there aze, or may be, zoaing issues, legal issues, aad other issues pertaining to the
proposed development, they aze not within the jurisdiction of the Heritage Preservarion Commission; the
commission must grant or deny approval of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code and the district design review guidetines;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a building permit for either of the two proposed schemes for a new single
family dwelling located at 420 Portland Avenue, sabject to the condition that the front window well sha11
be 3' x 8' for the 38' building.
MOVED BY Benton
SECONDED BX Murphy
�
IN FAVOR 7
AGAINST 0 �
ABSTAIN 0
Decisions of the $eritage Preservation Commission are final, snbject to appeal to the City Council within 14
days by anyone affected by the decuion. This resoIution does not o6viate ffie need for meeting applicable
building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitnte approval for t� credits.
u
7
oo-'�ap
Saint Paal Heritage Preservafion Commission
. Case Snmmary
Re: 420 Portland Avenne, Ronald Severson, Construct new single family dwelling, HPC File #3654
24 Jnne 1999
Rubenstein showed photographs and slides of the site and surrounding azea, reviewed the cover memo,
and noted the following details: landscaping would include an alpine current hedge along the driveway
and at the front, planted 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5; new to these plans is a front
window well for a basement bedroom (of rockfaced block, 3' x 8' with a ladder or 4' x 8' with a step/
terrace); the materials and details aze the same as those spec�ed for the previously-approved plan.
Errigo: why is the HPC looking at this again? Rubenstein responded.
Younkin recused himself ftom participating in the case.
Ron Severson: bought the land in 1996. Previous City Council approval for a building on the lot did not
include a variance. Asking for HPC appmval of both plans; the 38' building is preferable—it is more
centered on the lot. Both proposals provide two parking spaces for (each o fl the other three units in
415 Summit and have four single garage doors. Am willing to modify the designs if necessary.
Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland: live in fust floor unit overlooking the site; have always assumed
something would be built here. Supported the 1997 proposal and suppart the current proposal. I
� suggested the west elevation bay and like it—it adds visual interest. Severson has been very cooperarive
with regazd to the landscaping—has agreed to let neighbors help with its design and maintenance. I prefer
the building to be as close to the sh�eet as possible-#o maximize moming sunlight to my unit. Only two
houses on Portland meet the required 25' front setback, which is therefore inappropriate. The rhyttun of
the street and neighborhood is such that a 16' front setback is preferable to a 25' setback, but I support
both plans.
Mazk Vaught: representing Greg and Cazol Clatk, Patricia Leonard, and Laurel Frost. I am not able to
speak cogently about the project and will therefore ask for a layover. BZA did not approve the variances
for the project that the HPC approved and, on appeal, the City Council upheld the denial. My clients
have a long standing interest in this properry; they haue not had fair oppor[unity to address this issue as
they did not know about tlus meeting until this past Tuesday after 6:00 p.m. I know of no affirmative
obligation to notify (neighbors or affected parties). I haven't even had a chance to look at the
information. In the interest of fairness, and with BZA review on July 12`", there need be no rush to
approve or vote on the matter.
Murphy asked about the 64-day time limit and Heide asked about due process.
Vaught: believe the 60-day limit can be automatically extended by writing a letter to the applicant
Errigo: urge everyone to focus on the design review issues and not on other, legal issues.
There was no other public testimony and the public hearing was closed.
•
� I
HPC Case Summary re: 420 Portland Avenue, File #3654
Page Two
Bellus: moved one-month layover (two weeks if necessary); Murphy seconded.
Lazson: concemed that 3Q minutes atready spent and notfiing anyone coutd say affects the design review
guidelines.
Heide: strongly disagree with a layover, the changes from the plans approved in 1997 are slight
The Iayover motion failed on a 3- 7 vote.
$eide moved approval of both proposed designs; Hargens seconded.
$ellus asked for separate votes on each scheme, which request was refused.
The motion to gtant approval of a building permit for either scheme passed 9-1(Bellus).
summary prepared by Aazon Rubenstein
�
�
�
�
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIItONMENIALPRO7ECTION
RobenKessler, Directo�
� J
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Commission
FROM: Aazon Rubenstein ft�
ItE: 420 Portiand / File #3654
DATE: 21 June 1999
LOY�RYPROFFSSIONAL BUILDA'G
Suite 300
350 St Peter Street
S�tPaub M'�esota 55702-ISIO
oo-�a�
Tel ephone: 651 d 669090
Facsunite: 651-266-9D99
�
�
�
Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a new "carriage" house at
420 Portland Avenue, immediately west of Nathaa Hale Pazk. Mr. Severson is seeking HPC approval
of two schemes. One involves a 36' long building with a 25' front setback; this project requires no
variances. The second plan, preferred by Mr. Severson, is a 38' long building with a 16' front setback,
for which a front yazd setback variance would be needed. The Boazd of Zoning Appeals will review
Mr. Severson's vaziance request on July 12, 1999.
The two proposed plans aze very similaz to one another and to plans for a 40' long building with a
19.5' front setback that the HPC approved on March 27, 1997. That 1997 approva] was the result of
� five meetings with the HPC: a concept review in 7uly 1995, an informal concept review in November
1996, an HPC hearing in February 1997, a Design Review Committee meeting in Mazch 1997, and
approval at the March 1997 HPC meeting. The HPC approval was appealed to the City Council by
some residents of the adjacent building at 415 Summit Avenue. The appeal was denied, and the HPC
decision affirnied, by a 6- 0 Council vote on February 25, 1998.
The previously approved pian and the rivo proposed plans are compazed in the table at the end of this
memo.
�
The proposed building site is a flat, dirt lot used for off-street pazking for the residents of 415 Summit
(the E. W. Winter House). A rivastall garage was built on the lot several yeazs ago. The
420 Portland lot was formerly the rear yazd of 415 Summit; it was split off from the 415 Summit lot
in 1990. Owners of the four condominiums at 415 Summit have an easement on 420 Portland which
requires that two pazking spaces be provided at 420 Portland for each condominium unit.
Mr. Severson proposes the 36' long building because it requires no variances. He prefers the 38' long
building, however, for the following reasons: a) it provides more living space; b) it provides 9' wide,
rather than 8.5' wide, garage spaces; c) it is sited 6' further from the Winter House, which provides
more sunlight to the residents of the building to the west at 436 Portland, and d) it has 9 rather than 8
pazking spaces.
A revised landscape plan is shown on the site plan for the 38' building. The landscaping for a 36'
building would be similaz to that shown on the plan for the 38' building and not as shown on the site
plan for the 36' building.
/ �
HPC, 6,21.99, re: 420 Portland Av., p. 2
�
The previously approved plaa had a 19.5' froat setback and two parking spaces in the front yazd, one
of which was directiy in front of the building. The proposed 38' building has a 16' front setback and
puts the ninth pazking space behind the building rather than in front of it To the west of the subject
site is a large, four story, brick apartment building at 436-38 Portland. The front wall of the building
is set back appmximately 12' from the sidewalk and the two, two-story porches are setback 18" &om
the sidewalk. Tfiis is tfie only building on the south side of Portland between Summit/Western and
Arundel.
Please see the attached HPC resolution approving the 40' long building (File #2884) for relevant
portions of the Historic Hill district guidelines pertaining to new constructioa.
420 PORTLAND AVENCJE
COMPARISON OF TI� THREE SCHEMES
ISSUE
front setback
distance from 4t5
Summit
roofline (all
schemes have
same appro�mate
height)
east elevation
west elevarion
north and south
elevations—same
alt schemes
# pazking spaces
front yazd pazking
APPROVED 40'
SCHEME
19.5'
10'
PROPOSED 36'
SCHEME
25'
10'
g�lz 1llp 10/12 truncated hip
(flat deck at
center)
4 windows, paired
3 single windows
4 windows, no bay
E
2 spaces
7 windows, bay
8
none
PROPOSED 38'
SCHEME
16'
16'
10/12 truncated hip
(flat deck at
center)
4 single windows
7 windows, bay
0
none
�
�
l(
��
a
�
GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT
DE°ARTMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL
I
CITY OF SAINT PAUL r-1� (��
OFFICE OF LICFn�ISE, INSPECITONS APID � --
ENVIl20NMEiVTALPRO'CECZTON I
SUlLDING INSPECTIONAND DESIGN �
350 St Peter Street - Suite 300 �-"� P�jt pjp
��SaiuP¢u{Mwusota5S70?-ISIO 6i1-266-9090 �
00—'120
�;c:ult �n', Ie � y>^�7� � , .Sc PLAN NO_
DESCRI ION OF PRO ECL � -
DATE� �'�' ��l OWNER�rc� � Cit�K�clr�
OWNERSADORESS_ `1'js c��%l1�7 #a �_G�I Y�"� ,S-'� 16a
❑ OlD f TYPE OF
Cr�'�IEW TYPE CONST. �%cc C OCCUPANCY Siµ �E ,.�
GRADING STUCCOOR
�UILD ❑ AND EXC ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE
ALTER LJREPAIR
NUMBER
�Lcr
WARD
1
LOT
STRUC-
TURE
ESTI
��
iTAILS d�
�r��,ci �3�+
OT. BLOCK
; — 1
WIDTH DEPTH
7L�cf ,5�
W�DTH
.���
VAWE
l.11/ `
0
[.] WRECK
CROSSSTREETS
. 11... _
�/
LENGTH
3G�
BA
YES ❑ NO
:ARPNCE BV�LO4NG L�NE
���� FRONT AEAf
�5 j � �
HEIGHT STORIES
2 �i � �i �
TOTAL f�00R ApEA
sn. Fr. �j�csb
INCLUDEBASEMENT
- �r K � _ c.(i/ Y � �/� G
�)� l� `�- z 4u � � GI�e521h:-n
� TL(�� J� /� 1l J�' A/1�.� -nJ_ 7S?-�� v 7t��?�
ARCHITECT
PERM�TFEE
PLAN CHECK
STATE
SURCHARGE
STATE
VAIUATION
T NO.
� J O'
� TOTAL FEE
APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL �N-
FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT
All PERTINENT STATE REGUlA7tON5 CASH�ER USE oNIY
AND CITY ORDINANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN VALIDATED TH�S IS YOUR PERMIT
PLIED WITH IN PERFORMING THE WORK
FOR WHICH TH�$PERMIT IS ISSUED.
I�jp;_� I ADDRESS ,/n_ {/�/� f p
nF .�nR �fi{Zl /' ti �/ �at?� � `�� °�'
1 �
�
June 16,1999
Memo To: Aaron Rubenst�, He age Preservation Commission
From: Ron Severson , Oz�- �'"'
Re: 420 Portland Avenue Carriage House
I am enclosing two copies of tne elevations and site plans for the 38 foot
carriage house with the request that this plan be considered for approval at
the June 24`� meeting of the commission.
I believe you now ha�e copies of the elevations and site pIans for the 40
foot carriage house which was previously approved, the revised 36 foot
house which needs no variance and the encIosed 38 foot house which will
be considered for a variance at the 7uly 12`� meeting of the zoning board.
It is my hope that both of the plans under consideration can be approved at
the June commission meeting so that I would be in a position to proceed
with construction whether or not the zoning board approves the requested
variance.
Please call me if you need additional information.
.�
�
U
�
�
-;�
�
�r
_ --
.�-� �� ____..�.._ _
h _lw\ta.�.^„�++-�-.� _....._. .e - _ _ � ._ _
° � r...'�.'��.... �__` '..:.. �
. . . , ♦ 6_�ee.
� ������ ' - . . . . � . _ _� - ., ��
�'_ ' �'.'..:i':.�.i'..i:...-I_::.�i(��.::1�:
. .. __ _ _ ' . � . .. .
_____ . ti.�..
' �
. . ... .. �.: " -
I / .__ .3 . ' ♦ � ' • . . ' . .: . . ' .._ _
..� ..'.:': ' : . - . '. . . . �
�-' ... .. . ' . _ ' . � � .
� � .
� ..�
� � �.�" �
- - --- - . _ . b O 12-0
� . _ . _ - ---._. - - -----=-
�---?� = --:.� � . - -- ------ ---- -- -- ' .,.-1--� . . - . .
��°== ""== - N�3=LS3M, -�� _—";_�_ ��
.. — -=
,. �—� ----
�-d�., i� �- ie - T --`&,
, .� � � �� _ _ - i � �
-- . ' - `,-_� � _. .. -. - _ � ... .
�- ------- - - - - - - - �-.:. --
-c — - --- — � - - �:;_ ,.
- - �_ �`. _ ', ,- - - _
- — . ,.:
� --�� � � �� _. _ �� — � — -�.-- --
: . ..� a` t - ' .��"E • -- �t--' •> �5�__
J. �_ ♦ r ` �'�`
e - ._'�_' _ _ '_ __ _ � � P � "' -.- _�__
; . .�� '�, ` . �� _
' _—_ �, _— . ' ` '_— � `` `� o\ "_ '_. - '� � ' '
�. ` ` :ro Z• ��' ,�
v ' ' . "
_ _ _ ' _' � .. �� � .�v'.•-�� �.= -. - '_ —�-- �' _
"
__-__� _ . ♦__..' : . .. :- -___.C'_ _.._'_____--�'- ' '
- - a •' m - . ----- --- --------
. ' _' t , � � ' -
- � . �, . . � . ;� ..
,�- 'd i •' . r.. \` , � ' - .Iy . .
_ _ _ "' "- '
�. J'S � '--".- -'--'.-" _-� --.._....�Q._....-:-- -__ . .---- ---- '--- -"-----� -'---�'-'_" -- - ---"-
. � � ' � � °� - - �-� T - �'_.`_- -� --�.. . --
_ -'- �.-� �� �,.. . @ � -
. . O' � � _ _ . �. .
_ " �„� , t�3! _
— . -- �` � --- -----<— — — ,_ -- --
G�. O�
� ----'� v 1 , o � ; 2a�� ' , - --- -_¢ .... --�-- —
-- � � - --�� --: - ' =° `� ° �i- .
1 ' � � . �-- ---- . ..
� � _" _." P? `� ,0 '_- 1 '
. - . .. ___._.__ ____ _ _ .
' _'__ "
,.�--� — ---- - ----��------- - - ---..
� - - -- = -- �
z ; : �.--,� � .a
_ ,
� -�_-�-_ -- --- - -.: _- _- - o-_ -- -- - � -��- -_�- --
� � . a, � ------- � �
��-�---' �-- - ---- .._-. . .__ 0--- ----a-=�'�
�
--� -- �----- --- ._.._ -----_� a�=- 0 ` = _---- ---._J _.
' � - --- -' . " . .. i ' 0 _` � � . . .
� S - -_ 4 � ' -- — .o ----- --' - �60 . ' - � — V
� - �,, : °` , d . v
-__- � � �s'-�:- -__�---�->_ - - �'�-- Z
- t . �. �='' ' ♦ � , - �
< + `� ♦ � �
_ 2 � �� .
. � � * � 2 �Y �'~ d � �" � ` N , ^�
_ . ___I^ �s� __'_ _ ' ^ ` o\ ; � O '__, i �I' . .__ = _N _____'. �
� ° � i 0 4°� �
�
"C� P d>_ 0 0 , r
� t4 '_"� � , „ �0 . � �_
' - __ _ _� to ` t ' .
--__ . ..k � H� 2 , � . '— �0 LY
—1�— ._
- - .� ----� ---'- ---- - - - ------�� ----- O
— O L -- �� _ pp
_. 47 - ' -
- -- � - ��. '- -- -� _ . __ . _. .. - : - - - - Z
—.�:. � _ x _ . .t�=• � - ------- --- ------- - -- Q
� - " . : v' ' i�� - -V�
_ -- -- - —�--- -- -- -x -- - - - " � � -
o.
t� . . - �ro t _ v� : — -:,�,.+t�o _ a C�
Q � — � ' �^�-''��: ` >�"_:: - -_ ' _ . _,_. ..r.--,�:._ O
+{- .�= = _� i �. t �
• � . " �� .d�,,at:�'��' , .= � . ' .�.
� '� _ �J e -
- . ! _ °; ' ' - av - - 1 � `�
' ' �ti ". �' . d£ OZ i _"_i _'_ __ ' _ .`_'3 � '_
- , . v Z .� ; i �
— ,.
�-_ L �--°�--------------= =� �3E}-N�f122#t€�e ---_------- -_ . � -- �
-- i- �v-- �aa. _ =vs=_.
�
.- ;� � ...`�� - 6, �
- . ,_ ,r 6z 2 , �� ..
` ' ��H
.. . �. . . '. . . . n . . . . _- •. - � " ^
_�.+_. . . . ��
�_._. ,. . -. ," _ _ . _ ' —__ __ '. _. .. _.. . _ ___ .�
N
.. . . 1 � � c , � . � . _ �' � .�
. � 1 i H� " i� .----� . 'S d Q'
Co�zcil Fi2e
o�i��Na�
Presented By
Referred To
Green Sheet
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAWT PAUL, MWNESOTA
�
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson made application to the Heritage Preservation
Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73 for a building
permit to construct a carriage-house-like stnictare at 420 PortIand Avenue within the Historic
Hi11 Heritage Preservation District; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1997, the commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposal. After discussion, the matter was laid over and the project was a�ain reviewed on
March 13, 1997, and fmally approved on Mazch 27, 1997. However, the commission,
inadvertently, did not formatly pass a resolution approvin� the project until January 8, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on Aprii 8, 1997, Gregory Clark, Carol Ciazk and Patricia Leonazd
appealed the March 27, 1997, commission decision but elected to enter into negotiations with the
applicant in fhe fiope that the applicant and the appellants might resoive their differences; and
WHEREAS, the ne�otiations between fhe parfies failed to reach an acceptable
compromise and the appellants requested that their appeal be heard by the Saint Paul City
Council; and
WfiEREAS, the commission in its ResoIution No. 2884 granted approvaI of the building
permit based upon revised plans includin� only the east elevation marked 3C-1, and subject to .
the condition that an appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows in light of
the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation guidelines. In particular, based upon the evidence
presented at the Mazch 27, 1997, public hearing, the commission made the following findings of
fact:
The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visible from
Summit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are
Iazge buildings to the south and west that are close to the property lines.
This lot can be construed as both the rear yard of the Winter House at 415
Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed
carria�e house concept (and "front yard° pazkinQ adjacent to PortIand) is a
reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the follo�zn� reasons: a)
the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking for
residents of the Winter House; b) the pazcel has historically been a reaz
yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appeazs as a reaz yazd due to its
relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story
carria�e house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a
buildin� that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is
related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The Winter House
� -3s7
� l�O�s �! �
�
�
��
z
4
� 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
7
48
49
0 R 1 G 1 N�uilt on a through-lot with Summit and Portland fronta�es; the recent
subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the
Winter House to surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height,
rhythm, setback, color, material, building elements, site design,
and chazacter of surtounding structures and the azea."
b. The building elements, materials, scaIe, height, and character
would be related to, but do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House.
Individual design elements aze integrated for a balanced and
complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be parallel to that of the
Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular
to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz
yazd nature of the site, and the carriage house nature of the
proposed building, the fact that the historic cazriage house on the
site was located up to the north properiy line, and the fact that the
only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland
between Western and Arundel) is located closer to the street than
would be the proposed structure.
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house
nature of the building.
f. Pazkin� spaces would be adequately screened from the street and
sidewalk by landscaping. Sin�le gazage doars would avoid the
horizontal orientation of double doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity
of a through-lot. These sorts of anomalies in design and
development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic
district and its character.
3. In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the
federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an
historic site. The proposed building's design and materials are related to
and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
R'inter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is
historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and
the development would not have an adverse impact on the chazacter-
definin� features of the site and the azea. The buildin�'s desian is similaz
to fhe reaz addition af the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is
appropriate for a new secondary structure. A new building of unrelated
desi�n and materials would detract from the historic inte�rity of the site;
and
G� �.5�
/ � J --�
0 0 1�0
(�b
��.` J✓ �
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
OR(GINAL
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06{h), Tricia
Leonazd, Greg Clark, and Cazol Clark duly filed with ihe Council an appeal from the
determination made by the commission and requested that a hearing be held before the City
Council for the purpose of considering the acrions taken by the said commission; and
VVHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was set on for January 28,
1998, but, at the request of appetiants' attomey, the matter was postponed to February 25, 1998;
and
WHEREAS, on February Z5, 1998, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City
Council, where all interested parties were given an opportuniiy to be heazd; and
WHEREAS, having heard the statements made and having considered the application,
the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the commission, the Council does
hereby;
RESOLVE, to deny the appeal of Patricia Leonard, Gregory Clazk and Carol Clazk on
the basis that their has been no showin� that the commission made any error in fact finding or
procedure in tIus matter; and
BE IT �URTHER RESOLVED, that Yhe City Clerk shall mail a copy of Yhis resolution
to Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clark and Cazo1 Clazk, the Zoning Administrator and ihe Heritage
Preservation Commission.
�
�
Requested by Department of:
Adopted by CounciZ: Date _�3��s�
Adontion Certified by Council Se tary
BY: 1
Approved by Mayor: te
By:
By:
Form Appzoved by City Attor..ey
B �.� �/�1 .��, Y- 2 �'' 9�
Approved 6y Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
�
t �
�
SRIw'T
TpVi
�
�OIIA
APPUCATfON FOR APPEAL
Depanment of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
II00 City Hall Anner
25 West Founh Sbeet
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
Address �/5 Stt��n. �{ �� '� �
City �`�f. �:,� � St.� Zip S.5/o]._ Daytime phon�i/� 37F U>7j
�
PROPERTY Zoning File
LOCATION ... ..
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeai to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals [�City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph _
appeai a decision made by the ��t,�l o'f �,�1i
on _ d/cn�/: � , 19�. File
(date of decision)
of the Zoning Code, to
� , �i- %� 3
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Pianning Commission.
� -� ►-� �, �L
ll-� 3- r �
��_ �/�!�•`�"'
�
Attach additiona/ sheet
Applicant's
Date 11 City agent
1
� �
.
�
Appeal of the Board of Zoning AppeaYs resolution #99-163
dated
November 8, 1999
on
420 Portla�d Ave.
Reasons for the appeal:
The resolution by the Board of Zoning Appeals found that my application met the
requirements for a variance on points number five and six but did not meet the
requirements on points number one through four.
It is my contention that the Board of Zoning Appeals is in error in there findings.
1. On the findings of facts on points one through four. The Zoning Board
sfaff concluded,through their evaluation of my request,that I did meet the �
requirements of each of the first four provisions as well as the last two. I
believe that the staff conclusions are correct as they are written.
2. Based on the history of action on this lot in which the board in 1990 and
again in 1992 found that this same lot did meet aN six requirements for a
variance and did grant the requested variances.
�� ���
�.) i 5 ��.�nrn� � C� � � �--
�
�4
CITY OF SAIi�TT PAUL po _�,,o
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMBER: TM 99-I63
� DATE 11/08/99 -
WHEREAS, RONALD SEVERSON has applied for a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code pertainin� to the construction of a ne�v
residential structure that �vould have a 4-caz gaza?e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on the
second floor over the garage, in the RT-2 zonin� district at 420 PORTLAND AVENIJE,; and
�VHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 25, and
November 8, 1999, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of
the Le�islative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public
hearin�, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followin� findin�s of fact:
1. The property in qzrestio�: can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
A slightly smaller buildina with four parkin� spaces on the first floor and a dwellin� unit on the second
floor can be built on the properry. A sitz plan for this building was approved by the City Council in March
1999.
� 2. The pZight of the land owner is not due to circumstances uniqe�e to this properry, and these circumstances
were not created by the land owner.
The size and irregular shape of the lot and the private agreement that requires the property owner to provide
parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit are unique to the property and were not created by the present
property owner. However, the present o�rner was aware of these circumstances when he bought the
property.
3. The proposed variance is not in keepin� �e�ith the spirit and intent of the code, and is co�uistent wizh t3:e
heaZth, safety, con:fort, morals and w•elfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
The reduced front yard setback that would be aliowed by the variance would not provide a reasonable
amount of green space and therefore is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance will impair an adeqtcate suppZy of light and air to adjacent property, and will
ztnreasonably diminish established property valeres within the st�rraz�nding area.
The orientation of the building with the side facing Portland Avenue would unreasonably diminish property
values within the surrounding area.
5. The variance, if granted, woc�ld not perntit any use that is not permitted zrnder the provisions of the code for
the property in t3ze district where the afjected land is tocated, nor woutd it atter or change the zoning
district classification of [he properry•.
� 6. Tl:e request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the vali�e or income potential of the
parcel of fartd.
Page 1 of 2
C�
File r 99-163
1Zesolution
N06V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals that the request �
to �vaive the provisions of Section 61.101 to allow a front yard setback of 16 feet, in order to construct a
new residential structure that would have a 4-caz gara�e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on
the second floor over the gara�e, on property located at 420 PORTLAND AVENiJE; and le�ally
described as Except the Southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, auditor's subdivision #38; in accordance with the
application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator, is HEREBY DE1V'IED.
MOVED BY: Morton
SECONDED BY: w�lson
IN FAVOR: s
AGAINST: o
ABSTAIN: 2
NIAILED: November 09, 1999
TI�IE LI�IIT: No order of the Board of Zonina Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a
building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period lonaer than one
year, uniess a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained Fvithin such �
period and such erecfion or alferation is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such
permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an estension
not to esceed one pear. In grantina such ectension, the Board of Zoning Appeals
may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPE.4L: Decisions of the Board of Zonina Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City
Council within 15 dacs by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall
not be issued after an appeal has been filed. IF permits have been issued before an
appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease
until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATION: I, the �tndersigned Secretary to tfie Board oFZonina Appeals for the City ofSaint
Pau1,lVlinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoina copy with
Yhe original tecord in mr office; and find the same to be a true and correcf copy of
said oriainal and of the rvhole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint
Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meetina held on October 25, and 1� ovember 8,1999,
and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection,
350 St, Peter Street, Saint Paul, biinnesota.
SAI\T PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
�� � ��
d�i�� �:��
Noel Diedrich
Secretary to the Board
Pa�e 2 of 2
�
� ,�
ao-�ap
��
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 25, 1999
PRESENT: Mmes. Liston and Morton; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Kramer, Scherman and WIlson of
the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Aardwick,
Mr. Beach, and Ms. Diedrich of the O�ce of License, Inspection, and Environmental
Protection.
ABSENT: Mmes. Bogen, Maddox *
* Both Excused
The meeting was chaired by Brian Alton, Vice Chair.
RONALD SEVER50N (#99-1631 420 PORTLAND AVENUE: The applican[ is proposing to
construct a new, residendal structure that would have a 4-car gara�e on the First floor, and a single-
family home on the second floor over the garage. The building has been designed to look like an
historic carriage house. In addition to the 4 spaces in the new building, there would also be 3 surface
spaces, and 2 spaces in an existin; gara;e, for a totai of 9 parking spaces on the site. One of these
parkin� spaces would be for the carriage house unit, and the other 8 would be for an existing 4-unit
� condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit). A variance for minimum front yard setback. A
front yard setback of 16 feet is proposed for the carriage house, a setback of 25 feet is required, for a
variance of 9 feet.
Mr. Beach showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval.
The applicant, Ronald Severson, 415 Summit Avenue {f2, was present. Ae said he also owns a unit in
the condominium to the south of it. His unit is the one unit that overlooks the parking area. His wife
and he bought the property in 1996, with the intent of building a sin�le family house that they were
going to live in and use as the retirement house. They realized, at the time, that there was easement for
parking on the property. Each of the plans that they considered has taken that into consideration.
There has always been pazking foi two off-street parking spaces for each of the offier three owners in
the condominium in which he lives.
Mr. Severson continued that there was a question that Tom Beach taiked a littie bit about, whether or
not it was a legal lot split back in 1990, 6 years before he bou�ht it. That set him back a long way,
because that had to be resolved. And, iYs been resolved, so it is a legal buildable lot. He can build a
carriage house on it. He has developed pians for a 36 foot carriage house. He didn't have a copy of
the packet, but he had almost all the information from Tom so if he is missing somethin� you'll have to
excuse him. He thinks they have the 36 foot site plan as part of the packet. ThaYs a buildable plan but
it's not the best that can be built on that lot. So he's here asking for ihat variance because he thinks
that what he's proposing will be a better development for that lot, and for the nei;hborhood, and for
the people that live in that condominium.
� He said that what he's requesting, and he thinks they have the site plan in front of them, - to emphasize
Page 1 of 13
2 ��-
- he has Heritage Preservation Commission approval for this, This building that he's proposing meets �
the requirements for that area. I[ wi11 be a real asset to that particular lot because of the lar;e, 4-story
brick buildin� that's next to it. He thinks i[ will improve the visual - the view actually from the park
lookin� toward the lot, because this is a tum-of-the-century, carriage house. It's architecturaily
desi;ned and, as Heritage Preservatioa Cocnmission has pointed out, it meets the reqairements for chat
area and of ihat rype of a carria;e house back in the 1900's. Incidentally, there was a carria;e house
aimost on that spot at the rurn of the century - 2-story high, 321c32. It disappeared sometime, probably
around the 1920's. So, in a way, they're repiacing the carriage house that was there for a good, long
period of time.
He's askin� for a 16-foot front yard: a nine foot variance. For several reasons. First of all, he would
like to increase the size of the carriage house to 38 feet. 36 foot is adequate, as far as mee[ing the
requirements of the ordinance. But 38 feet would allow the 4 cars that are goin� to park in there to
have approximately a 9-foot space, and would make it easier to maneuver throu�h the parking lot and
into that space.
Part of his easement requiremen[ is that he provides 2, off-street parking spaces. This carriage house
will provide 1 parking spot for each of the 2 people that live in the same condominium that he dces,
and the other people already have an existing garage, so that gives each of them lparking space and
then would aIlow anothet parking space for him when he and his wife move into this carriage house.
38 feet is not a lot of extra space in terms of living space - about 40 square feet IYs still only a6out
17 `/o of the totai buildable area, so it's way under the square foota�e allowed for that area. Ic also
allows - he thinks the maneuverability would be improved because of being able to make a litde easier
tum into a wider space. •
He's centered the 38-foot building on ihe lot. That allows for 16 feet between the two buildings. And
16 feet between the sidewalk and the front of the building. He thinks the 16 feet between the 2
buildings is important because of the concerns about space not bein� so close - not lookin� like it's
attached. A 38-foot buiiding aIso is - both buildings are acceptable by Heritage Preservation
Commission - but he thinks this is a little better looking building if you were standing in the park
lookin� toward the pazking lot. IYs a symmetrical building with a setback next to the haliway being the
same on both sides. It does Iook better. It's better for the neighborhood.
Ae also would like to - by moving it to 16-foot front yard setback, he can put a nice parking space on
the south side of that building. The importance of that is for - it's emphasized on Friday and Saturday
nighcs when the Universiry Club starts parking cars for those patrons on Pordand Avenue. Big buitdin�
next to it - he believes it's somethin; like 14 total uniu but only 13 parkin� - off-street, parking spaces.
They depend a lot on Portland Avenue. Maybe one parkina space won't make a lot of difference but
he thinks it will. Ae thinks it's importan[.
He also wanted to point out, if you took at the whole bIock, the building next to this - to the west of
this - is almost right on the sidewalk. His bein; 16-feet back, obviously he's not goina to block any
view of rhe park. If you count 8 uniu on that block total, with 36 Portland bein� 2 entrances and
therefore 2 units, only 2 of those buildin;s meet the requirement of 25 feet. 2 of them are less than 16
feet to the front sidewalk, so his building is not going to be on the street. In fact, he thinks it will be
more out of place if you move i[ 25 feet back and increase that lawn area,
He has a landscaped plan that was deveioped by 2 of his neighbors. He's worked �vith them on it but �
Page 2 of 13
� �
w .�
00 -� a�
� what he's goin� to do with landscaping, - he's agreed, before he pulled a buildins permit, iha[ he will
put �5,000.00 into escrow, under the control of his nearest neighbor, who is the first floor direcfly
across from him and supports this buildin„ to ensure when all the buildin� is done, there will be funds
availabie forlandscaping.
They can live with a 36-foot, if they have to. But it's not the best plan. His wife and he have tried
very hazd to develop, what they think will be, a really good plan for this neighborhood. That will look
the best. They'll have the best pazkin„ and the best way of maneuvering on this lot. Incidentally,
he'll be providin� - each of those spots will be provided without charge or cost to the other people in
the nei�hborhood. Because he's obli�ated throu�h easement to provide these. Hz could leave it as an
outside parking spot - he'd rather each of them have a stall inside of a garage, for obvious reasons,
because we're comin� into our winter now. He's offered to do that. It's a requirement anyway. He
offered it way back before they even started on this. Those are his reasons for asking for the variance.
He thanked the Board and stated he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Alton referred to a statement about other residences in the area, and he asked if Mr. Severson was
talking about across the street on Portland Avenue, the average setback. Mr. Severson said every
setback - that fuil block across the street - on his side, there is only one building. There's six buildings
across the street. Those are the ones that he mentioned - oniy 2 of them meet the requirements.
Ms. Liston had a question she said was relative to the yellow sheet and the staff recommendation. On
che yellow sheet description it says the front yard setback is proposed for the carriage house. A setback
for 2� feet is required for a variance of 10 feet. In the staff recommendation it reads 16 feet. Mr.
� Severson said 16 feet is being applied for. It was a typo.
Mr. Scherman asked, that those people that come out of the garage that he has there, how do they get
over to 415 Summit. Mr. Severson said part of - there'll be a sidewalk, which isn't put in yet. Mr.
Scherman asked if they can come out of the back? Mr. Severson said, yes, there's a door so that
they'll be able to walk along the front of the garage, come out of the back, and then go ri�ht up the
steps. That's the back door to all of the units, where those steps are. And that will be a concrete walk.
Mr. Scherman also asked what a`day lily' was. Mr. Severson said he should hace the landscaper in
the neighborhood, who drew up the landscaping and recommended the plantings and so forth. Mr.
Severson said he didn't know. He was looking forcvard to seeing it.
Lou Sudheimer came forward and said he lived about 100 feet across the street, kitty corner, at 439
Portland. Sort of in front of the 4-story condominium building. He just wanted to refresh the people
that have been on the Board for quite some time, and update some of the peopie that are new on the
Board. This has been going on for a long time, and he's been involved throu�h Historic Hiil Homes
with the previous owner, as weli as tryin; ro support Mr. Severson in his endeavors to get what he has
considered to be an excellent set of desi�ns of carria�e houses, to replace the one that went missing
many, many decades ago. And solve some of the parking problems for the owners of these
condominiums that have evolved over time. The original group of people that �•ere involved in ihe
building, for the most part, were lOQ 7 in favot of this. Unfoctunately, there's been some new people
that have come in who began to be a�ainst it for reasons that they will have to explain to the Board
shortiy. But he just wanted to refresh the group that, when these issues first camz up, there were a
si�nificant number of nei�hbors who came down and took time out of their days to appear in favor of
� this. They, of course, have lost interest and tenaciry over time, but the majority of his neighbors are in
favor of this. There are, as in many nei;hborhood siruations, there is a split but he would gauge that
Page 3 of 13
f �
the preponderance of people are in favor. And just wanted to add his opinion that this plan is better �
than the plan that Mr. Severson was forced to adop[ with a slightly smaller carriage house, and with
one fewer off-street parking stall, in order to come up with a plan that would require no variances.
This plan does require a small variance, but it does provide a significantly, more funccional garage
situation, and it provides an extra stall, which is very critical, even for some of the people that are
objecting to it. It's very unfortunate that a small, well-fmanced clique of neighbors has been able to
delay this approval, multiple times.
There were no others to speak in favor; Chair then invited those opposed to address the Board.
Mark Vaught, an attorney, Suite 700, 6 West FiBh Street, came forward, and stated he represented
Greg and Carol Clark, owners of one of the condominium units at 41� Summit Avenue, Patricia
Leonazd, owner of the unit, and Laurei Frost, who lives in the other building, immediately to the other
side of this particular lot, that they saw in the photos. He apologized in advance if it happens. He was
carrying a cell phone in his pocket and he has to leave it tumed on because he tried a case to a jury in
Hennepin Counry last week and the jury is out deliberating, as he speaks. And Judge Connelly has
required him to carry it. So if it gces off, he apologizes in advance. He's goin� to have to take a short
delay and answer it and, perhaps; some of the neighbors who are present and other people might, at
ihat point, make their commenu, if he hasn't finished his. He hates thai when that happens, and he
really hates it when people talk on cell phones in restauranu, and it wouldn't be on if he wasn't
required to have it on. But he lmows Mr. Alton and Mr. Warner, as attomeys, appreciate the fact that
sometimes you simply have to be on call.
Mr. Vau�ht said without impugning anyone's morives, and he's not doing that, there's been so much �
revisionist history that's uanspired here, borh in the Sraff Report and what Mr. Severson, and
particularly what Mr. Sudheimer said, which is almost all so far off the mark as to be unbelievable. He
said he hardly knows where to start. The one thing that he would like to ask, he doesn'c know whether
he's seen a copy of the staff report, the staff report he has does not have the neither the staff report or
the resolution from when this matter was before the Board of Zoning Appeals in 199�, nor does it have
the Staff Report and/or ihe Resolution - he apologized, 1997 he meant - no, 1995, - nor dces it have
the Staff Report or the Resotution that was passed tha[ was before them when this matter was back
before them in April of 1998. And he's presumi�g that the Board doesn't have that information either.
Mr. Alton replied that they do have the 1998 Resolution and they do have - on page 21 - and 22.
Mr. Vaught said he thought it was helpful because he thinks, if they look at that Staff Report and that
ResoIution, it will help tfiem guide them through this decision because it is not at aIt a simple decision
and it is not at all as simple as Mr. Severson would have it seem. He feels kind of like Yo�i Berra,
where he should say he feels like deja w all over again, over again, over again, over a�ain, over
again. By his count, these two proposals, and there realiy are two, not that aze on your table, but two
that were presented to the Heritage Preservation Commission, and two before the City Council. One
that requires a variance, the so-called 36 foot proposal, and that doesn't require a variance the 36 foot
proposai, and tha[ which does, ihe so-called 38 foot proposal, and by his rough count, and he couid
stand to be corrected on this, but by his rou;h count, since Mr. Severson has purchased this properry,
and at least 1996, those are between the 5`" and the 8 different proposals that he's advanced for this
property, depending on how you count and how you do the variations, and tha[ really is the source of
his taking great exception to what Mr. Sudheimer said. For which you mi�ht impl}� if you believed �
what Mr. Sudheimer said that, somehow, this is back here because this weli-financed clique of
Page 4 of 13
L�
ao -�aQ
� neighbors keeps bringing it back here. It's back here because Mr. Severson keeps changing his mind
and advancing new proposals to them, thaYs why it's back here. Not because of anything that ihe
neighborhood or the neighbors have done. Whether they feel personally offended by being
characterized as a weli-financed clique, he'll leave that to them. But he wants to set the record straight,
in that respect.
But they're not here today because of anything the neighbors did. They're here because Mr. Severson
re-tooled the proposais two more 6mes, afrer the last time he was in front of the Ciry Council, in
March of this year. So he wants to go through just a little bit of the history and he panicularly wants to
bring the focus to bear on the history of this Body's consideration of that. Because the last two times,
before this, that this plan has been before - a plan has been before his Body for requesting variances,
this Body has denied those variances. And he would submit to them, particularly if they look at the
plan in the 1998, Aprii 1998 time that it was before them, that there's really no material difference
between this particular plan advanced, this particular time, and the plan that they turned down then,
and which turned down, by the way, was upheid by the Ciry Council, not overturned by them. And
the plan in addition that was before them - in - he's going to say in 1995 - which this Body also tumed
down the variance request - that that also did not materially differ from this particular proposai. Now
he doesn't see frankly anything that's particularly changed other than City Council action on Heritage
Preservation Commission issues, which are not the same as the issues that face the Board. And Mr.
Severson is simply throwing up another proposal against the wall, afrer runnin; up a�ainst one road
block or another. Now the procedural history, and he says this all the time, and probably the reason
he's sayin� it is because he just got done saying this to a jury 15 dmes about hocv you ought to rely
upon your own recollection if it's different than his. But his recollection of this as it's been before you
� the last few times, is Mr. Severson put together a proposal that he took to the Herita;e Preservation
Commission, and this happened in 1997. That matter was not before the Board bzcause it did not
require any variances. And he wants to pause at that point, because they're goin; to hear him say this
a couple times more in his presentation, that proposal did not require any variances. If he was
prepared to proceed with the proposal, and advance one that did not require anp ��ariance, how pray
tell, can staff recommend to you, and how can you adopt a resolution that says in effect the properry in
question cannot be put to a reasonabie use under the strict provisions of the Code. Because, quite
frank(y, as far as what they do is concerned, he's aiready put at least 3 or 4 plans forward, including
one that's currently on the City Council agenda waiting a decision on an appeal that complies with the
strict provisions of the Code.
The question really is, reasonable use. It's not whether you want to do it that way, it's not whether it's
convenient to do it that way, it's does the Code strictly prohibit - it's a strict adherence to the Code -
prohibit you from a reasonable use and he would argue that it doesn't. And he would argue that there's
plenry of history to buttress that, and he'd argue that Mr. Severson's own comments today put the lie to
the fact that somehow there's some unreasonable restriction. He himself said to you he can live with
the 36 foot proposal. Well, if he can live with the 36 foot proposal, then there's no unreasonable
limitation.
He excused himself because his cell phone was ringin�, but he came back momencarily and continued.
When the matter was before them in 1995, it didn't materiaily differ from this proposal - it was the
same orientation; it.was a bi� cork in a small bottle. And it's still a big cork in a small bottle. You
turned it down then, and the decision wasn't overturned. In between times, Mr. Secerson took a
� compiying plan, that didn't require your action throu�h the Heritage Preservation Commission to the
Ciry Council and the City Councii approved it. But he didn't build it. Instead, he chose to come back
Page 5 of 13
L�
before the Board, in 1997, with another plan which did require variances and which they considered at �
that particular point. And he remembers quite a bit of the discussion, as he's sure those of the Board
that were there remember that discussion. And there was a lot of discussion about the fact that the 97
ptan didn't materially differ from the 1995 plan and they, in fact, at that point denied it, and you can
see the resolution for themselves. Not the - the 98. He keeps saying 97 and he means 98. The 1998
plan that was before them in April 1998 that they turned down, there was quite a bit of discussion about
how that didn't materially differ from the plan earlier and there was no reason to approve. And he
commended them to language that's in that particular resolution. He knows a number of them sat here
at that particular point and he guesses he has to say to them that he sees nothin� different about ihis
particular plan except it's one more variation of the same basic plan that doesn't chan�e a whit, as a
matter of fact, from what you turned down in April of 1998. And isn't affected. And so what
happened to that April 1998 decision? I[ was appealed to the Ciry Council. And the City Council
upheld your decision. Mr. Severson was not ailowed to build that April 1998 propasal.
And what happened aRer that? Well, Mr. Severson then submitted another plan in May, or later as he
recalls it in 1998, with a smaller carriage house that didn't require the variances. So that matter
however was iurned down - tha[ site plan was not approved by the Zoning Administrator - it went to
the Ciry Council and the City CounciI ultimately approved it. But lets understand two things. They
didn't act to overtum a decision of yours, because you never reviewed that plan. And the second thing
that they did is, it was a plan that conformed to the Code and didn't require variances whatsoever.
Ei[her one of two things. Either Mr. Severson was being genuine, or he's being disingenuous about
that particular proposal, but it would not have required any variances whatsoever. But did he build
afrer the City Council acted? He did not. What did he do instead? He threw up two more plans. The
one before you, and the 38 foot plan, and the 36 foot plan, which he took to the Heritase Preservarion �
Commission a[ the same time. Now, curiously, they approved them both, and they certainly have that
abiliry. He can't telt them that they can't. It would seem to him more logical that they would have said
to han, at that point, you know you've been back here, pal, 15, - 5, 6, 7 times. Pick which one of
these you want, and decide which one you want to build, and we'll act on it. But they acNally acted on
both of them. That decision was appealed by his clients to the City Council and it still sics there
awaiting the outcome of this decision, because what the City Council said in effect to Mr. Severson was
exactly that - we're not going to buy a pig in a poke here, which one of these two plans do you want.
Let's get them all here so we can discuss them all. So he didn't build that either. Even the Heritage
Preservation Commission approved it. And it conforms.
So now we're back with the other half of that particular proposal, and he might add, by the way, fie
doesn't know what necessarily effect it has, or how it relates, but he might add, if you look on the Staff
Report, in this particular case, you will see that this proposal, thaYs before you today, was submitted in
June of this year. And that it was prepared to come to you much eariier than that. Why didn't it come
to you? Because Mr. Severson canceled the hearing. He decided not to have it come fonvard to them
at that parucular point. Which he wouId say, logically, he thinks is an admission that he was perfecfly
willin� at that point to accept the 36 foot plan that was going through the Herita�e Preservation
Commission and, hence, to the City Council, and it was only back here before them now because the
City Council wouldn't act on the Ilerita;e Preservation Commission appeal until you had acted on this.
He was not so sure, although he mieht be able to answer that question, where if the Ciry Council had
gone ahead and acted at that particular point on the 36 foot proposal that was approved by the Heritage
Preservation Commission, that he �vouldn't have already pulled a buildin� permit for that. He doesn't
know. And nobody knows. And it's terribly confusing to him and he's been involved in this issue for �
almost 3 years. He knows it's confusing to his cIients. And if it's not confusing to any of them, they're
Page 6 of 13
� �
00 —7Ja
much better at this than he is. There's so many of these different proposals that get chrown up. So
� they're back there now.
L.ePs look at the staff recommendation. There are certain tesu. They aren't immutable in the sense that
you can't use your own judgment in deciding whether they've been met or whether they aren't. But
they are certain that he thinks, on any rational reading of the facts with respect to his 38 foot proposal,
Mr. Severson has simply not met the tes[. In all due respect to Mr. Beach, and he's know�n him for a
number of years, he thinks he's simply wrong in the conclusions that he urges upon them. And the
musc e�regious of which is the first. And that is that the properry in question cannot be put to a
reasonabie use under the strict provisions of the Code. It then goes on to urge you to conclude that
he's met this finding, but really talks about preferences, not reasonability. FIe mi�ht like to do a lot of
things that he can't do with his own residence because the Code doesn't let him. But because he wanu
to do them, in this case, because Mr. Severson wanu to add 2 feet to his carriage house, that doesn't
mean that the Code is unreasonabie when the Code says that he can't. And even when he says that he
wants to do that, you have to judge that a;ainst the fact that he has submitted another proposa136 feet,
which does meet the provisions of the Code, and which he's told you he could live with. A;ain, thaYs
a matter of preferences. And preferences don't necessarily add up to unreasonableness. Where is the
unreasonably strict provisions of the code that allow him to do something that would otherwise would
be reasonable. He's already told you he'll build the 36 foot one, if he has to. So he would argue that,
utterly and completely on the basis on the facts, that test hasn't been made. If he'd come in here and
said, `I can only do 38 feet, this doesn't work with anythin� than 38 feet, I can't do ail the parking
spaces that I have to do, I can't do everythin� else that I want to do unless I make it 38 feet' and if the
Board concludes, then, that the Code requires him to be allowed to build 38 feet rather than something
� that compiies with the Code, then he might have met that test. But thaYs not the facts, and all of us
know it. He said he'll live with 36 feet and, therefore, he �vould submit to the Board, ihat that falls,
and this request for variance ought to fall, on that very first test.
And while they're passing over the issue, he just wanted to make a couple of comments about Mr.
Beach's other rationale for concludin; that the suict provisions of the Code bar a reasonable use, and
that is this business about how you can make the parking spaces a little wider. Well, you know folks,
there are so many square feet on this lot. And quite honestly, his clients' objection to this, from the
very beginning, has been that putting any building that even remotely is like this, is just too big on this
particular lot. Given that Mr. Severson also has the legai requirement to provide all these parking
spaces, which are, in effect, how he must do it, he doesn't have any choice: he's got to have 9 parking
spaces on this particular lot on the buiiding and on the lot. Well, if you make the carria�e house a litfle
bit bi�ger so you can make those parking spaces a little bit bigger, therefore, you make the other
parkin� spaces a little bit smaller. And so there isn't any more room. This isn't a case where you can
push something and it shoves out somewhere else. The size of the other parking spaces has to be
materiaily affected in a negative way by increasing the size of the parking spaces in the carriage house.
By increasing it from 36 feet to 38 feet.
And you also heard that Mr. Beach said, and he thinks Mr. Severson repeated it, that these parking
spaces with the 36 feet carria;e house comply with the law. They do comply with the law. It makes
maneuvering a little difficult. Well, again, difficult is one thin�. Unreasonably strict is another. And
if they comply with the law, either the law with respect to how big a parkin� space is ri;ht, in which
case the 36 feet proposal meets that, and there's no reason to vary it, and certainly no reason to
� conclude that applying it is an unreasonable limitation. Or the parking requirements w�ith respect to
width are not correct in which case somebody somewhere ought to investigate what the code says and
Page 7 of 13
/ P
whether it ought to be changed. But he argues that he ought not to do that on a piece meal basis you �
ought to do it on the basis of following the law where you can. He jusc doesn't think that the parking
argument with respect to the minimal increase of size in the parking spaces in the garage. Good
heavens, there are 4 of them in there, If you increase it 2 feet at most, and that's assumin; that every
inch of ihose 2 feet is going to be assi�ned to those 4 parking spaces and he don't know that they can
necessarily conclude that, that means that you're going to increase each parking space by the grand
sum total of 6 inches. And he would argue that that's not enough to ailow them to conclude that ihere's
some strict interpretation of the Code that requires it to be done.
The other item with which he thinks, and some of the other parties and some of the residenu wili talk
about it, but he thinks the other thin, that caught his eye as he looked through it is the statement that
the variance if granted would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the Code
for the property in the district - so on and so forth- that's #5 by the way. And Mr. Beach urges you
upon the conclusion that the zoning code permits single family house with parking. Well it certainly
does. But the Zoning Code dcesn't permit single family houses with parking in the front yard or the
side yard for that matter. Because of the way tfiat this house is oriented, and believe him that was Mr.
Severson's choice, nobody's else's, with respect with how he wishes to orient it - you have in effect the
only piace on those 2 biocks on Pordand Avenue where you have parking that is in the front yard. He
would certainly say it's the front yard but at most it's the side yazd and it would be ri�ht up against the
set back from the street. Much has been made of the fact that the rest of these buildings particularly on
that side are set up close. But ail of the pazking for the buildings on that side of the street is behind the
building. There isn't any of it in front of the building. And there isn't any of it right up on the street,
which is whac would be the case here. And he would argue to the Board that the code prohibiu without
additional variances, prohibits sideyard parking and it also prohibiu front yard parkina. And he �
assumes the Board - he knows they have - dealt with that issue before. And so he �vould ar�ue that that
test is also not met on its face. That, blarandy and brutatly on its face, there is not a su�cient factual
basis for you to conclude that because it is not as simple as a one family home with parking. It's as
complicated as a one family home with parking in the sideyard and/or the frontyard which is not of the
same character as any other building on that particular street.
So - and then he just simply wants to echo - and he knows that they have and he assumes that they've
read it - because he commends it to them although he must say that may be the first rime in the 9 years
that he ever sat on the pIanning commission or since tfiat he said anything about District 8 and anything
that they said that he thought was laudatory and logical but he does think that in this particular case that
they do present some arguments with respect to their recommendation that you deny this. That do in
fact have some logic. And he knows that Mark Voerding will echo some of those. This is not a
materially different matter than the 2 other times this was before the Board. It is the essentially the
same proposal. You tumed it down the other 2 6mes. And he argues thac they ought not to be fooled
by somebody saying that the City Council's approved because the Ciry Council has never approved a
plan for this site that required vaziances. Not in 1995, not in 1998. They have approved a building for
this, but every one of them has conformed to the strict provisions of the code. So to say that you ought
to do this just because the City Council acted in approving a site plan over the zonine administrators'
objection earlier this year doesn't reaily compare apples with appies. Because that site plan did not
have variances, and Mr. Severson did not build that. This requires variances. This is already a
building with the strict provisions of the code that absolutely stretches this lot. And co put - to ailow
these variances as a matter of personal choice, when Mr. Severson has admitted that he can do it within
the strict provisions of the Code, he doesn't think was what the variances was met to be. Mr_ Vaught �
then thanked the board for their time.
Page 8 of 13
i t
D O -'l�o
� Next, Mark Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, came forward. He said he feels like this is like a piece of
fly paper that keeps sticking_ No matter how you try to get rid of it. It doesn't get resolved. He said
he was not part of the well-fmanced clique. He was there on his own time and at his own expense to
represent to the Board the position of the Ramsey Hill Associa[ion. He's a board member and Chair of
the I.and Use Committee.
Before he starrs with that, there was one comment that he wanted to make. He said he was acruaily
quite disappointed. He didn't know why staff can persist in misrepresentin� the facu in a part of this
case. There was no legal lot split in 1990. There was no legal lot split in `91, there was no legal lot
split in 1992, there was no legai lot split in his view that has occurred. The City Council approved -
took an action regarding the lot split last year. That issue is not before the City Council. That issue is
not appealed to the ciry council. It was an action that he would argue is arbitrary and capricious and
inappropriate for the City Council to make. That part - his opinion aside - it is a fact that no lot split
occurred in 1990. No legal lot split. What is a fact is that a) city staff person took a rubber stamp and
put a red mark of approval on the plans, signed his name to it, he had no authority to do that , he
possibiy committed a crime in doing so, certainly his power. A lot split in that instance oniy under the
code within the power of this body. This body has never taken an ac[ion regarding this lot split. So he
wishes such misrepresentations on this matter would cease.
Mr. Alton, Acting Chair, stopped Mr. Voerding at that point. He said, 2 thin�s - please confine his
comments to the application to the zoning variance and secondly Mr. Beach did not misrepresent any
fact to this Board. The fact of the matter is that a lot split did occur in 1990. You're speakin; of
legally approved - thaYs correct he suspecu. And perhaps they can have Mr. Warner give them an
� opinion on that. But, he advised, ptease do not characterize Mr. Beach's statement in this, regazding
the history of the case as a misrepresentation. Because thaYs not true. With respect to whether you
can accuse someone - a clerk of a crime in 1990 - I don't think that thaYs relevant.
Mr. Voerding continued his comments. He said that the Ramsey Hiii Association continues to oppose
this project. First of ali the design contains none of the feamres that are required for a primary
residential structure. Secondly the lot should never have been spiit from 415 Summit creating this
siruation. And also putting 415 Summit out of compliance with the zoning code. Thirdly based on last
week's communiry issues meeting, the proposal does not meet any of the requirements necessary to
grant the variance. And fourthly, the proposal requires sideyard parking for which a variance would
be required and is not being sought at this time. They also remain concerned about the number of
variances requested to maximize or over-maximize the use of property that occur within their district
and they are working toward a review of the Zoning Code to ascertain what amendments if any may be
necessary to ailow full use without variances. They continue to work in that direction. And so it
would be - the position of ihe Ramsey Hill Association, that the Board continue in iu denial of the
variances for this projec[.
Gre� and Carol Clark came forward and said they're residenzs of 415 Summit. Mr. Clark said they
have a 2 car garage that is on the existing land now. They've been goin� on their fourth year there.
They have not been able to use their gara�e because of the condition of that back lot. The condition
that it's in. They haven't been able to use their garaQe for 4 years. He's hearing about the sidewalk in
between the existing 415 and 420 and now a car parked in there. He questions about how they're
goin� to be able to get into their house in the winter time it's a bloody mess. Any ways where this
� parking - or [he sidewalk and the vehicle that would be parked there - how they would be able to get
into their home now.
Page 9 of 13
��
Carol Clark said she thinks that when they refer to tktis sidewalk - that is on association property and �
Mr. Severson's unit would not be a part of their association. That sidewaik does not exist nor have
they talked about putting anything like that in there. So to clear that up. #2 under the Findings, the
property cannot be put to zeasonable use. They have offered to buy the ptoperty from Mr. Severson,
they being the association to use if just for the purpose of parking and trying to figure out something
that would be conducive not only to their building but to the neighborhood and sdll to preserve green
space which has always been a big issue. To have a structure abutting a park, which is some of the
only green space in the neighborhood, ihey are against that. The plighT of the Iandowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property - Mr. Severson knew entirely what �vas happening with that lot.
He's been the one that's lived in that properry 415 Summit the lon�est. When Dennis Grozy, the
ori�inai owner and the one who did get the other proposals approved by the Ciry Council, owned it,
Mr. Severson was against building anything there. And he knew what the problems and what the
issues were with building on that lot. In reference to fiaving people say that they wouId rather have a
building there and it would make a better view than wha[ 420 Portland or 430 or whatever the building
is next door - have to the park than what they have. She doesn't agree with that. One of the neighbors
also - and she'll submit this to the Board - has written a letter. She just faxed it today.
She has concerns about the light and the value of her properry. One day she came home and Mr.
Severson had hired a surveyor to mark off the back lot of his property. In speakin� to the surveyor,
even the surveyor was concerned about the size of the building on the size of the lot. He said he
couldn't figure out - and again it was his personal opinion - how a building could fi[ on a lot that size.
His concern aiso was in re�ard to parking for the rest of the peopie. He said where are you going to
put all the cars and how are they goin� to tum around. Which leads again to their plight with their
garage. They haven't been able to use it. Now as you see, there's another pazking spot at the end of it. �
She doesn't know how even if they could use it - they could back out - there would be a car there - or
the 4 car garage that he's proposing, how they're going to back out with a car at the end of the
properry. And the other point, the desire to increase his value - the request for variance is not based on
the desire to increase the value or income - a�ain, they have offered to buy this from him and do the
ri�ht thing for what they think is good for the neighborhood. He said that he would sell but he
wouldn't seli to them. Which she guesses, kind of fiu in with this. That why wouldn't he sell to them.
It would be the most logical thin� to do.
If you look at the drawings that have been submitted she thinks the drawings look like there's a lot
more space back there than there is - actually is. And again, on the drawing it looks like they couid
just back riaht out of their gara;e, kind of make a u tum and go out the driveway. With a car there,
there's no way - at the end of ihe other parking space that he's proposing. She doesn't see how [heq
could do that. And especially if another car was comin� out of the garages that he proposes to build.
In his letter, he refers to the site plan with the restricted 9 feet front yard variance improves the
building and the lot and they're therefore asking for the variance. Again she doesn't see how this
improves anythin� back there. It just adds to what she would say is further congestion. And then the
parking space tha[ he has at the foot of their gara�e, her understanding is that it is still considered
sideyard parking in this issue. And then he also refers to the 32x32 2 story carria�e house. They've
been at this a long time. And no where has she seen any plans showing that this �cas a carriage house.
She's seen things that have referred to it as an outbuildin�. And a�ain 32x32 foot that is a lot smaller
than a 956 sq feet home that he is proposing to put back there.
The last thing she would like to say is a;ain in regards to the improvement. If he wanted to improve �
something back there, she doesn't see why it hasn't been done thus far. There's pites of rocks,
Page 10 of 13
�I
00 -�ao
� nei�hbors complain about how it looks, improving it doesn't have to be building something back there.
It could make it look decent to the neighborhood with giee� space, trees, whatever. Hz talks about the
55,000.00. She question the �5,000.00. As far as will it really happen. When they bou,;ht, they had a
site plan that was approved by the Ciry Council by Zoning, it showed their garage, it showed parking
spaces. It showed pavin�. That's never happened either. And that's something that the city approved.
So when she hears these improvements she really has some questions and concerns. And she guesses
the last thin� that she would like to say is that the tenants in their - that currently exist the previous
owners, Linda Meyer and Jim Hau�land, they were both a�ainst buildin� anything back there. And
they were there at least 2 years before Greg and she came which was 96. The previous owner was
Dennis Rosie. Yes he was for it but he was aiso the developer of the structure in the back. And to
finish, she would like the Board to come and look if they would at the property and what he is
proposin„ just to see.
Mr. Alton, commented that he thought all of the Board has been there.
Mr. Clark added, lasfly, that they are not weil-financed. It is a sacrifice on their part.
Chris Yerkes, secretary for the Summit Universiry Planning Council, spoke next. He's been invoived
with the planning council since 1992. He doesn't want to look at personalities in this. He doesn't want
to look at whether it's a legal or illegai lot split. ThaYs a different issue. He wants to look at the issue
thaYs in front of them. He's a little concerned that there's a sideyard parking that is not in front of them
when the plan dces call for that. That is not taken up at the same time. He doesn'i like to take things
piecemeal. He's a volunteer with the Summit University Plannin� Council. That's why he's here.
� He's takin� time off from work to be before the Board.
Just wanted to outline the letter that they've had. He's assumed that they've looked at the City code for
guidance for when they authorize and don't authorize variances. Everybody involved - the builder
when he first split, the builder, the current petitioner when he bought it - knew what the codes were,
kne�v what he would have to do and where he would have to go to have a variance granted. Unless
he's wrong, the section ouflined there he has to qualify under all 6 of those, not just 1,2,and 3, but
even if one of those is not taken then he would not qualify for a variance.
At the community issues meeting last Tuesday he presented 2 plans. One that he presented perfectly,
happily. He said I don't need any variances for this. I can build it today. I can start construction
tomorrow. And then he presented a plan with the variance that he's asking for. That makes it fall out
right under number one. Under number 2 the plight of the landowner isn't due to his circumstances.
He bought it with the full understanding of what the easement requirements were, and what the lot
looked like. #3, keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. fIe thinks the code is there and looking
at #l5 and 6 and back at i, he doesn't think it is in keeping with the spirit and intent. N4 they took a
neucral point at the community issues meeting. And he's not speaking for himself - he's speaking for
the community. As has been given to him over the past many years, sitting in on communiry issues
meetings on this - you could if you talk about air and light he believes a lot of this looks towards
buildin� and air shafrs and current downtown buildin�s and thin�s like that. But if you want to look at
this particular one, with it further back, it affects the air and the light of 415 Summit. With it further
forward it affects 436 Portland. So they just took a neutral point on that. f{5 - i� wouldn't pernut any
use under the provision of the code. It would certainly affect it. If this variance is granted it would
� allow parking in the front yard. If there was a 25 feet setback parking a car 16 feet from the front is
requires a variance. #6 iYs not primarily based on a desire to increase the value or income. Whether
Page 11 of 13
32
it's value but he asked the petitioner himself, why would you like [o have this variance. He said he
would like to have an extra parkin� place and he'd like to have extra room in the garaQe. You can �
interpret that how you want. He thinks that increases value but he did not say that direcfly.
Since there was no one else to speak in opposition, Chair invited the applicant to remrn and answer any
questions.
John Miller, attorney wiih Peterson, Fram & Bergman, St. Paul, who represented Ron Severson in this
matter, and has for a number of years on this particular properry. Mr. Vaughc and he have probably
a�reed many times on this, sometimes in hearing rooms sometimes via correspondence, sometimes in
person. Finally there are a couple of thin;s that Mr. Vaught said today that he asrees with. First of all,
he agrees that this is deja w ail over. They've been down this road many times before, not only before
this board, but through various subcommittees, and up to the City Council a number of times on it.
However he does disagree with his characterization that each of these visits to the various city boazds is
occasioned by changes in Mr. Severson's ptans. He does agree with him also in his comment that there
appears to be a lot of revisionist history that's going on with the project that's been goin� on for a
number of years - twisu and turns. There is going to be some revisionism. You're goin� to look back
and take a look at the same evenu and reach different conclusions. He could point out a number of
areas in which he disagrees with Mr. Vaughu statement of the history of the matter. But he thinks that
that would - is probably not somethin� tfiat this Board's interested in. If they are he'd be happy to do
it. Along with the revisionist history approach, also a number of other irrelevant comments have been
made today. And again he's not goin� to point those out.
The one that he was going to mention, he believes the chair also already has commented on and he �
would concur with his comments with respect to the validiry for effect for the lot split back in 1990.
He's not going to - it's not his position to give the Board any legal advice with respect to that. If there's
further clarification he's sure that Mr. Warner would be happy to do that. He would like to just
comment in passing he believes that the important thin� for the boar@ to do - or he would submit that
the important thing for them to do would be to focus in on the appIication as it exisu today. Try to put
aside the whole long gnarled and tangled history of this. And look at the staff report and analyze the
staff report on its own merits. He's not going to go through point by point 6 criteria which have to be
met. Su�ce it to say that they agree with the stafYs position with respect to each of those poinu.
He would like to just comment briefly though on the - what is referred to as reasonable use or the
unreasonableness of it. The phrase reasonable use as used in the ordinance is not a phrase thaYs
capable of precise definition. There's probably no more single troubling phrase to nail down than
reasonable use. And boards for their various municipalides develop their own definition and
appiication of how that phrase is going to be used on a case by case basis. They essentiaily create their
own precedent. And iYs important he believes - with that in mind that this request the Board look back
at some of iu previous decisions with respect to what constitutes unreasonable use under the
circumstances or if the properry can't be put to a reasonable use. To use that prece@ent. Just by way
of example, he only uses these examples because these are the ones that he's most familiar with, he
would submit that the 2 previous requests for variances are not terms of reasonable use that much
different from the request that Mr. Severson is making today.
Mr. Severson came forward and said if there were questions he wanted to answer ihem. It's really
hard to sit back and have inaccurate information goin� forth. �
Page 12 of 13
3 .3
Do-'1ao
Mr. Alton noted that the Board is not going to judge this case based on personalities or statements
� regarding personali[ies made by either party.
Mr. Severson added that iYs probably not real relevant, but there's been 4 proposals not 8 to 12. He
could list them aIl for them. They've been changed because of problems that they've had with them.
Like one that had the front yard parking. They moved it to the back and had to come back. He oniy
wanted to - John Miller and himself - if there were quesTions, he wanted the board to lmow that he was
availabie.
There were no questions by the Board, therefore, Mr. Alton closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Morton moved to deny the variance, based on finding # 1, the property can be put to a reasonable
use under the strict provisions of the Code.
Mr. Wilson seconded the motion for denial.
Mr. Donohue stated that he thought it was unreasonable to deny this variance based on the fact that this
building, if it is moved 25 feet back, it diminishes the functional utility of the building to the point - he
thinks that it doesn't make sense not to grant the variance because Iong-term it's going to affect ffie
value of the condos that are using these units because the garage units are going to be smaIler, less
functional, and the rurn around areas. He doesn't agree with denying the variance.
Mr. Wilson asked, when they speak about the garage area, they're increasing the garage by 2 feet.
� They're goin� from - they've got 4 spaces in that garage. And leYs say that the walls are 8 inches a
piece. They're increasing that maneuvering that's so minimal. But what you are doing by increasing
the 2 feet, as he sees it, you're increasing the size of the units upstairs. He thought that's part of this
argument to get this additional footage. Is to increase the top section of this home. Not the garage.
As far as the maneuvering area in the yard itself, to me that looks like it's going to be pretty tight to
begin with. So he thinks that as far as maneuvering in the yard is going to be tou�h. But he dcesn't see
that argument for increasing the maneuverability in the garage - he doesn't buy it. He thinks it's the
upstairs that's going to add value io the building.
Mr. Donohue responded that he's got a garage right now that if it was 6 inches wider he could pull his
vehicle into it.
Mr. Scherman stated he agreed with what Mr. Donohue said.
Mr. Alton then asked for a roll call, and the motion to deny the variances passed on a vote of 4 to 2
(Sherman, Donohue).
by:
�
John Hardwick
Approved by:
Gloria Bo;�n, Secretary
Page 13 of 13
3 `f
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
1. APPLICANT: RONALD SEVERSON
2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance
3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
DATE OF NEARING:
FILE # 99-163
10/25/99
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN # 012823240240 (See file for compiete legal description)
5. PLANNING DISTRICT:
6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 20NING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
7. STAFF INVEST(GATION AND REPORT: DATE: 7/6l99 BY: Tom Beach
8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12/11/99 DATE RECENED: 6/8/99
A. PURPOSE: The applicant is proposing to construct a new residential structure that wouid have a 4
car garage on the first floor and a single-family home on fhe second floor over the garege. The building
has been designed to look like an historic carriage house. There would be a total of 9 parking spaces
on ;he property (4 spaces in the new building, there would also be 3 surface spaces, and 2 spaces in an
existing garage). One of these parking spaces would be for the carriage house unit and the other 8
would be for an existing 4unit condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit).
B. ACTION REQUESTED: A variance for minimum front yard setback. A front yard setback ot 16 feet is
proposed for the carriage house; a setback of 25 feet is required for a variance of 9 feet
C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is an irregular shaped parcel with an area of 5,428 square
feet It is currently used for parking by the 4unit condominium at 415 Summit (fhe property immediately
south of 420 Portland). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on gravel/dirt. The site is located in the Historic Hill Preservation Disfrict.
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Single-family and duplex (RT-2)
Easf: Nathan Hale Park (RT-2)
South: Four-unit condominium (RT-2)
West Multi-family condominium (RM-2)
D. HlSTORY: Since 9990 there have been a number zoning cases for this property:
— In 1990 fhe City approved a lot spiit that split this parcel from north end of the parcel at 415 Summit.
— Later in 1990 the Board of Zoning Appeals approved variances to construct a new carriage house
unit with a 5 car garage beneath tfie unit subject to conditions. This was appealed to the City
Council by the Parks Department. The Council upheid the variance but modified the conditions.
The project was never built.
— in 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeais granted variances to construct a two-unit carriage house with
a 14-car underground garage.
— In 1993 the Board of Zoning Appeal granted a one year extension of the 1992 variances 6ut the
project was never buiit.
— In 1994 there was a proposal to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 garage stalls under
�
�
�
35
p ,p _� ao
the carriage house and in detached garages. Variances were appiied for but appiication was
� — withdrawn before the Board of Zoning Appeals took any action.
In 1995 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a carriage house unit with 3 parking
spaces beneath the unit and 6 other surface parking spaces.
— In 1996 Ron Severson, the appiicant in this case, purchased the property.
— in 1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a pian similar to the current proposal. The
City Councii upheld this approval on appeal in February 1998.
— in Aprii 1998 the Board of Zoning Appeais denied variances for a carriage house with 4 parking
spaces beneath the carziage house and 5 o�her parlting spaces. This decision was appealed to the
City Council. The City Councii upheld the decision to deny the variances. The City Counci{ aiso
instructed the City Attomey's office to look into the legal status of the original 1990 lot split because
that the lot split was approved by staff without a public hearing even though the lot split required a
variance. (See attached site pian and BZA resolution.)
— In May 1998 Ron Severson submitted a revised site plan with a slightly smailer carriage house and
one less parking space. This site plan did not require any variances. fiowever, the Zoning
Administrator denied the site plan based on advice from the City Attorney's office that the 1990 lot
spiit was not valid because the lot split needed a variance and a pubiic hearing shouid have been
held on the variance. Mr. Severson appealed that decision to the Planning Commission and in
November 1998 the Planning Commission upheid the decision to deny the site plan. Mr. Severson
then appealed this decision to the City Council and in March 1999 the City Councii reversed the
decision of the Pfanning Commission and approved the site pian. The Councii said that the fact that
the lot split in '1990 did not follow the required procedures shouid not prevent approvai of the site
pian. The City Council aiso concluded that, under its authority, it would approve any setback
variance that was required for the lot split. (See attached site plan and City Council resolution)
E. CURRENT PROPOSAL: in June 1999 Ron Severson submitted the current site pian to City staff. It
� cails for a carriage house and 9 parking spaces (4 in the carriage house, 2 in an existing garage and 3
more surFace spaces). This site plan is slightly different than the one approved by the City Council
eariier in the year.
A. The carriage house is 38 feet long (instead of 36 feet). This allows a larger dwelling unit over the
carriage house and wider parking spaces in the carriage house.
B. A surface parking space has been added behind the carriage house for a totaf of 9 spaces. This
provides each unit in 415 Summit 2 spaces plus 1 space for the carriage house.
To accommodate these changes the front yard setback has been reduced from 25 feet to 16 feet. The
reduced setback requires a variance.
7he Heritage Preservation Commission approved the cuRent site p{an and building p{ans on June 24.
This decision was appealed to the City Councii. The Council decided to defer action on the Heritage
Preservation appeal untii the Board of Zoning Appeais has acted on the variance so all appeals can be
heard at the same time.
F. FINDINGS: The Board of Zoning Appeais may grant a variance if it meets the foilowing findings:
1. The property in quesfion cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The variance meets this finding. The variance will allow the carriage house to be 2 feet longer and
so the parking spaces on the first floor of the carriage house can be wider. Maneuvering to get into
these spaces is 5ght because the site is small and the extra width will make it easier to get in and
out of these parking spaces. The extra width will aiso permit the carriage house dweiling unit to be
siightly larger.
� 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
�1 u
The variance meets this finding. The plight of the land owner is due to the size and irreguiar shape �
of the lot and to the private agreement that requires the property owner to provide parking spaces
for the units at 415 Summit. These circumsfance are unique and were not created by the land
owner.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and infent of the code, and is consistenf with the
health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabifants of the City of St. Paui.
The variance meets this finding. The intent of the code in requiring minimum front yard setbacks is
to ensure that there is some consistency in setbacks and to provide green space. The proposed
front yard setback is consistent with (and actuaily slightly larger than) the fron2 yard setback for the
large condominium buiiding to the west which is the oniy other building on the block face. The front
yard wouid be landscaped and would provide adequate green space i� the front yard of the
properiy. Addifional green space is provided for the block by adjacenY Nathart Hate Park.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and ai� to adjacent properfy, nor
will it or unreasonably diminish established property values wifhin the surroanding area.
The variance meets this finding. The variartce to move the cartiage house closer to the street will
improve tight and air to 415 Summit Avenue by moving fhe buitdings farther apart. It will not
unreasonabiy diminish established property values within the surrounding area since the relatively
small carriage house will be set back further from the front property line than the large condominium
buifding next door which is the oniy other buiiding on the biock face.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use fhat 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 classifrcaSon of fhe property.
The variance meets this finding. The zoning code permits a single-famiiy house with parking.
6. 7he request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase fhs vaiue orincome potenSal
ofthe parce! ofland.
The variance meefs this finding. The request for variance is based primarily on the need to provide
parking for the dwelling units at 415 Summit as well as the proposed carriage house unit
G. DISTRIC7 GOUNCIL RECQMMENDATION: District 8 Communiiy Council had not sent ifs
recommendation to staff at the time the staff report was being written. However, in the past, District 8
had opposed variances for this project
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approvai of the
variance to reduce the front yard setback for the proposed buiiding Fo 16 feet.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appiication
Sife plans and elevations for current proposal that requires one variance
Site plan for a proposai that did not need variances and March 1999 City Councii resolution approving it
Site plan for a proposal that required 3 variances and April 7998 BZA resolution denying it
Location maps
G:IUSERSBEACHTOM199163�99t63625 �
� �
�
�
APP�ICATION �OR ZONING VARiANCE
OFFICE OF LICEA'SE, I.-�SPECTIO.�5, A:�D
EiWIRO��;�fEATAL PROTECTID.�' � S 3 I I�
3.i0 St. Peter Street, Suite 300
Saint Paul, Mr�'S�102-I510
266-90U8
APPLICANT
Zorting office use onty ���
r�tz num�e�: � i� - ( (0 3
Fe°: 5 �
Tertatve hearing da:e: 7 Z
Sectian(s}: (� y • � (} j
Cify agert �"��
Name �r'1t.'� l� �F�t �4'Cd� Compzny
Address,� / � o P�� � �-
Ciry��'. � u t State� Zip �� Daytime Phon EL���J 37�-0 i �7
Property interest of applicant (owner, contrect purchaser, etc.) t t 1,t}P �'
Name of owner (if
p�N 6128 23 Z'� O�g2 W�! i
PROPERTY Address/Location C� af .2n-
Legal description
(attach additional sheet if necessary)
Lotsize .�l/DO �(�" - Present Zoning Pres=ntUse -/a;�i.�1 � �
Proposed Use
1. Variance(s) requested� ("� (�
) �^ / sek.�t��� '�'E" 51�� d�c�•.�� Ga/�iGa�.e, �ceFe..
� 'TY"°1(-T �cr�
C2�` r���-i ir� � �
2. What physical characteristi s of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone�
(topography, size and shape oi tot, soil condi5ons, etc.}
� � �L/� Q/
3. Explain how ihe strict apptica6on of the provisons of the Zoning Ordinance would result in p=cv{iar or exceptional
practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardships.
CASHIERS US'c ONLY
C�
additional
4 Expiain how the granting o` a variance will not 6e a substantial detriment
to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpese
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Aoniicant's sianature �� ,C� Z ��
__ -_ . _`�=''-- - - --=i�i .
-__. . =_ .. -- �- - "
- -� t - - -
q �- ��
Date G �7 /
APPLICATION FOR A ZOI�TING VARIANCE �
420 Portland Avenue
Ronaid and Mary Severson
Please consider my request for a front yard vaziance of nine feet for my lot
at 420 Portland Ave.
420 Portland Avenue is a 5,428 square foot lot, currently surfaced with
gravel and used as parking for the condominium owners at 415 Summit.
The lot was split off from 415 Summit Ave. and is a separate buiidable lot
with Portland Ave. as the front yard. By easement, the development of this
building site must include two off=street parking spaces for each of the
owners of the condominium owners at 415 Summit.
The lot has an irregular shape with a 50 foot front lot line on Portland Ave.,
a back lot line of 90 feet, a west lot line of 88 feet and an east lot line of
55.7 feet. There is no alley access to this lot.
In 1990, the developer who then owned the lot submitted a request to the �
BZA to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carriage house reqniring
seven variances including a two foot front yard set-back. This request was
approved by the Board. In I992, a second request was submitted for an
expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requiring additional
variances. This request was also approved. Neither of these proposals was
built because of the developer's financial problems.
My wife and I purchased this lot in 1996 with the intent of building a
single-family house for our personal residence. Our plan also includes the
required off-street parking for the condominium residents. During our
efforts to deveiop an appropriate construction plan, the legality of the lot
split was called into question. On February 3, 1999, the St. Paul City
Council affirmed the legality of this lot split by passing a motion making
420 Portland Ave. a separate buildable lot. Although, we can now build a
36 foot carriage house on this site with no variances needed, we believe that
this site plan with the requested nine foot front-yard variance improves the
building and the lot and we are, therefore, asking the BZA for approval of
this variance.
�
39
0 0 -��°
� A front-yard variance of nine feet will provide a 16 foot front yard. The
carriage house would be 38 foot in length with four tuck-under garages.
The carriage house would be centered on the lot, allowing a separation of
15 feet from the main house and providing room for an additional parking
space. This house will cover 956 square feet with 1,620 square feet
allowed. T'his site p�an provides a total of nine off-street parking spaces
which meets the condominium Declaration requirement of two spaces per
unit and the city requirement of seven total spaces for this lot.
The only other buiiding on this side of the block is a large three story
condominium with a one foot front yard set-back. Of the seven houses on
the North side of the block, only two meet the 25 foot set-back requirement
and two of the set-backs are shorter than the requested 16 feet. Therefore, a
sixteen foot set-back would not be visually obstructing and would be more
harmonious with the piacement of the other houses than a 25 foot set-back.
Since this building is an architectualiy designed turn of the century carriage
house which has HPC approval, the view from Nathan Hale Park is an
improvement over the existing view.
� This architectually designed carriage house conforms with the requirements
for the heritage preservation area and provides the most appropriate plan
that has been proposed for this lot . At the turn of the century, there was a
32' X 32' two-story carriage house located on this property. In effect, our
carriage house replaces this original building.
C�
�.,.
�esolK��� �.►�Y�� �'�qa�J� �r
3 var;aktQs
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
BOARD OF ZO1vING APPEALS RESOLUTION �
ZONING FILE NUMBER 93-026
DATE April 6, 1998
�VHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a variance from the suict application of the provisions of
Sections 61.10 i of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertainin� to the construccion of a new carriage
house with one dwellin� unit and additional pazkin,; spaces in the RT-2 zonino district at 420 Portiand
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearin� on March 2S, 1998,
pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requiremenrs of Section 64.205 of rhe Legislative Code;
and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals based upon evidence presented at tfie public
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followin� findings of fact
1. The property in qttestion can be put to a rearonable use under the strict provisions of the code.
The irre�ular shape of the loi and the covenant requiring 8 parkin� spaces for the property at 415
Summit Aver.ue make it difficult to dzvelop tfie property. However, the o�r�ner has not explored all �
options such as constructin� a smaller house or repositionin� the house. In 199� variances for a
simifar project �vere denied but the house currently proposed is sti�ht[y Iu�er than the house
proposed in 1995 and has not been si�eficantly repositioned.
2. Th.e plight of the Zand owner is not due to circu»utances unique to this property which were not
created by the Iand otimer.
The sue and irregular shape of the lot and to the covenant that requires the property owner to
provide pazkin� spaces for the units at 41 � Summit were not created by the present owner. However,
the present owner was aware of these circumstances �r�hen he boueht the property.
3. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is not consrstent
with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
The proposed development wouid not provide a reasonabie amount of geen space and therefore the
variances are not in keeping tti�ith the spirit intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance wi11 in:pair an adequate supply of light and air to adjaeent property and
unreasonably diminish establishedproperty vakres within the surrounding area.
The location and size of the proposed carriage house would impair an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent propetty. The orientation of the buildin� with the side facinv PoRland Avenue would
unreasonably diminish property values within the surrounding azea, � �
�f �
t
�
8 0 -?2��
� �. The variance, ifgranted, x�ould not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the
cade for the property in the district tia•herz the affected Zand is located, nor x•ould it alter or change
the zaning district clarsification of the properry.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value ar income potential
of the parcel of land.
NO�V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonut� Appeals that the
application to grant variances from provisions of Sections 61.101 to allow a 12-foot front yard setback
for the carriage house, a 20-foot front yard setback for the surface parkin�, and a 1.2-foot side yard
setback for the carria�e house on property located at 420 Portland Avenue and legally described as (See
Attachment); in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning
Administrator is hereby denied.
MOVED BY:
SECONDED BY:
IN FAVOR:
.
AGAINST:
biAII,ED:
APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning AppeaLs are final subject to appeal to the
City Council ��ithin 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buildina
permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have
been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended
and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final
determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the Cify of
Saint Paul, hiinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing
copy �;ith the or a�inal record in my office; and fmd the same to be a true
and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on
appro�ed minutes of the Saint Paul $oard of Zoning AppeaLs meeting held
on March 23, 1993, and on record in the Office of License Inspection and
Environmental Protection, 350 SL. PeYer StreeY, Saint Paul, blinnesota.
S.�T PAUL BOARD OF ZO�'L\G APPEALS
�
Sue Syvstegaard
Secretary to the Board
A:1930'_6dZR.DtiY
°# �°
t
_ 4"�
' ' "__ '_'x rr,lil
APPLICA�
Department
Z�niag Sec1
II00 Ciry• H
15 Tf'est Fnt�
Saint Paul, ,
266-6589
APPELtANT
A r p..�' , •.
Y(�' �, ��.._ Rr-�: �...�
s �6 PJ<<,., �
Z,Jo�4 rZ..^I aa.�<r
PROPERTY
,,, � s �- LOCATION
S��'
C:tY C� S PRU� Li_? -�
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiica!ion is he�eby made for an app=al to the:
�let+..:h¢ 4�n.
�—, a,._.� ., s_ .
y �-�- ❑ CitV Council
S22a832H P.�92
und=� th= provisions of Ch2p;er 64, 5=dion� , paragraph�b� &(Jbf tne Zoning Code, to
a�peai a d=cision made by the �� P3m_ni�sat�/pL>*min3 �.�-,
(da(= c•` d=cision)
�9_ Fife number.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you fe_I th=re has be=n ar, error ir. aay r_quirement,
�°'^��.. ce�ision or re£usal made by an administra`.ive officiaf. or an e�ror in fact, procedure or
Fn;�ing mad= by the Board cf Zoning Appeais or the Pianr,i�g Commission.
��n3 �istratrg/Pl�rirrl �� ea� i*� �rirz� t2= site glar: f� tt�
[aoj�-t h�4x1 at tl� ficst tYat ti� site fs tl� Faoja esdsts as a x�u1t of an
;���t �t ��it, tt� �a c� 7.arirr� p��s ry�i �,�y t� c�n tre �n�;c�nt�s
�� f@' �� to �rt tk� proja:t, the �te z`�s �.�zt vicdati�s
� t� �irr, �, i•rLr?i-r3 frtnt/sir� pa , _ - c , ' , � ,y,.,.. �t 1�,';
C��It'dl P�K.'tS tD .� vmTitrlim ��7� �'g'�u^ ai13 �^'�n<
th; c�e at415 Sumdt Acsn� zn3 g36 R-�-r�A��. �t aa�ri }x tt� ��� l,.,r� �
�';a� ad�itiona! shset ifr
/+�n�.cant's
Llat_ 2 /8/� City ag=_nt
S. P�;c Uaix�t, Attc�� for P�
�
ti
t
�
� �
_ �
� C
�
` 3
1: �
T
3 t
� �
i
� �
v �
M �
.
r�
LJ
TO'RL F.�?02
�� J 3
po-��o
! city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
fite number o0-28
date April 14, 2000
�VHEREAS, Patricia Leonard, I,aurel Frost, Gre� and Carol Clark, file � 99-117070, filed an
appeal of the decision by the Zonin� Administrator to approve a site plan for a carria�e house and
accessory parkin� at 420 Portland, le�ally described on Exhibit A; and
�VHEREAS the Zonin� Committee on 4/6/00, held a public hearin� at which all persons present
�vere given an opportunity to be heard pursuan[ to said application in accordance with the
requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code; and
�VHEREAS, on 4/12/00 the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented at
the pubiic hearina on 4/6/00 as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�vin� findings
of facr.
(1) The site plan is not consistent �vith the city's adopted comprehensive plan.
� (?) The arran�ement of buildin�s and parkin� for the proposed development will unreasonably
affect abuttin� property and its occupants.
(3) The site plan is no[ consistent with the safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian
traffic within the site.
1�'O�V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appeal of the Zonin� Administrator's decision to
approve a siCe for a carria�e house and accessory parkin� at 420 Portland be approved.
moved by Gervais
seconded by
in favor 16
against_ � (Gordon)
�
��v
MINUTES OF THE ZONIIYG COMMITTEE
Thursday, Apri! 6, 2000 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3` Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Keitogg Boulevard
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Engh, Faricy, Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Mardell and Morton
Peter Warner
Carol Martineau, A(lan Torstenson, Joel Spoonheim of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Fieid.
Patricia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Greg & Carol Clark - 99-117-070 - Appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's approvai of a site plan for a carriage house and 9 parking spaces focated at 420
Portland Avenue, behind 415 Summit, befween Western and Arundel.
Tom Beach showed siides and presented the staff report. Mr. Beach stated the staff recommends
approval of ffie site ptan subject to a sef back variance approved by the City Council.
Upon the inquiry of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Beach stated there was a public hearing for the site
plan. The lot split was not mentioned at the hearing.
Mr. Mark Vaught, Attorney for the appiicant, appeared and submitted a photograph depicting the
38 foot carriage house and a written document dated April 6, 2000, listing the procedural grounds
for the appeai which outlined severai points: 1) The building is too large for the lot. There was no
opportunity for neighborhood input on the site plan review; 2). There was two prior deniais of
variances for this plan; 3). The ptan keeps changing and being resubmitted and ; 4) the 38 foot
proposal was submitted bythe developer after approval of a 36-foot proposal, requiring new rounds
of hearings and appeals. The Substantive Grounds for the Appeal listed are: 1) According to the
Zoning Code the massing of the proposed building on the lot is inappropriate. In1999 when the lot
was spiit off it did not have a Public Hearing wfiich makes the lot sp(it illegai; 2} The orientation
of the buiiding on the lot is incorrect and it cannot be oriented to the front because there is a
restrictive covenant that requires the owner of this lot to furnish parking for 8 cars. 3) There is a
prohibition on the Zoning Code regarding side yard parking in the City without a variance, znd there
are severat parking spaces that wi(f require side yard parking. 4} The ingress and egress is (acking
for maneuverability in front of the garage; 5) The proposed building is Yo close to 415 Summit
Avenue which causes parking problems. 6) The tenants have a blanket easement for pedestrian
purposes over the entire property at 420 Portland Avenue. 7) If tha carriage house is bu:lt and all
the parking spaces are used it would create probiems emptying the dumpster.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Vaught stated the orientation of the carriege house
is a problem.
Mr. Mark Voerding, Chair of the Ramsey Hiil Association Land Use Committee, appeared and
stated the Ramsey Hill Association is opposed to 1he project and presented 5 poinYS: 1.) Under the
terms of the easement agreement with the Condo Association at 415 Summit Avenue, 3 parking
�
�
C�
��
Zoning Committee Minutes
Aprii 7, 2000
� File #: 99-117-070
Page 2
bo-�o
spaces must be provided; 2) The site plan indicates compact parking spaces which the Zoning
Code does not recognize for residential parking. This would eliminate one parking space.
3) Because of the size of the structure and its location on the lot, there is insufficient maneuvering
lanes and tuming radiuses provided for vehicles. 4) One of the parking spaces located on the
side yard is prohibited by the Zoning Code except with a variance. 5) There is insufficient green
space provided for a residential unit.
Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Clark appeared and made 3 points 1) The carriage house wouid be abutting
the park which wouid be the front yard. 2) There is not enough green space for this parcel.
3) The property should be landscaped and used for parking in lieu of a buiiding because of parking
problems.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Clark stated she was more concerned with the
building being too ciose to 415 Summit Avenue.
Mr. Ronald Severson, the applicant made 2 points 1) The 36 foot carriage house doesn't require
setbacks and has been approved by the HBC. 2) The carriage house is in compliance with the
code except for a 9 foot variance allowing a 16 foot front yard. Mr. Severson also presented a
photograph of a 38 foot carriage house with 997 square feet. Mr. Severson explained he worked
with the neighborhood, the architects from the Heritage Preservation Committee and the City staff
in creating the carriage house and it is less than half the size of the 2 carriage houses that were
� approved for the lot. The 38 foot carriage house is set in the middle of the lot and it provides i 6
feet between the main house and the proposed building and ai 6 foot front yard setback. The size
does conform with City Codes in relationship to parking. Mr. Severson also stated he is setting up
an escrow account of $5,000.00 for landscaping.
Mr. John Miller, Attorney for John Severson, appeared and stated the lot split is legal, it was
challenged in 1990 and addressed by the City Cou�cil in 1999 and they specifically stated the lot
split was legal. When the 36 foot proposai was before the board in October in1988 ii was rejecfed
because the Pianning Commission believed the lot split was invalid. They adopted a resolution to
that effect and the City Council approved the 36 foot plan. The 38 foot plan requires one 9 foot
front yard variance. The blanket easement that exists pursuant to the private declaration placed
on the property is not necessarily relevant. The parking spaces were determined based on the
City Code.
Mr. Mervin Hough appeared and stated he bought the property located at 436 Portland in 1971.
Mr. Hough also explained he served on the Board of Ramsey Hill and the Old Town restorations
did a number of projects in the Ramsey Hiil Association. They were an important organization in
renovating Ramsey Hill. They moved and built houses and 5 structures are closer to the street
than 25 feet. He also showed photos of various project and new garages in the area that are close
to the street. They knew a parking facility would eventually be built on thaf space. A 16 foot
setback is appropriate in the Ramsey Hill area.
Mr. Hough also showed an old plat map showing a carriage house on the northeast corner of the
� subject lot with no setback from the east lot line and touching Portland. The setback of this carriage
house is keeping with the appropriate neighborhood guidelines.
Ms. Bragette Bachmeier, 459 Portland Avenue appeared in opposition and stated the appiicant
�
Zoning Committee Minutes
Apri17, 2000
File #: 99-117-070
Page 3
worked with the neighborhood in designing this building and it the design does incorporate the
neighborhood esthetics.
Mr. Mark Vaught appeared and stated the issue is the nine parking spaces that are required on the
lot. The lot split that took place in 1990 left the building at 415 Summit Avenue less than 8 feet
from the property line which would not be conforming. The garage on t�e land limits putting the
carriage house on the other side of the lot.
The public hearing was closed.
At the question of Commissioner Engh, Mr. Beach stated the Zoning Code does not require the
building to be square with the property line. There are setback requirements but the angle of the
buiiding is not addressed by the code. The probiem is Summft and Portland Avenue come
together at an angle which means the building would be askew to Portland Avenue or toward the
house that is on Summit Avenue.
Upon further question of Commissioner Engh, Mr. Beach expiained to buiid the building, Mr.
Severson needs approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals,
and Site Pian Review. All three processes are being heard so the City Councii can consider them
all at one time.
Commissioner Morton moved to approve the appeat on the basis of findings E-1, E-5 and E-7
related to the comprehensive plan, arrangement of the building and traffic. Commissioner Kramer
seconded it.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-3.
Adopted Yeas - 5
Drafted by:
,
�
��` ('t :�.� ���ic���,cr2nn �,t�
Carol Martineau
Recording Secretary
Nays - 3 (Engh, Gordon, Mardell)
Submitted by:
l (ii � ) �.� �I.C�"li
Tom Beach �t,
Zoning Section
�
�
�
- j �
� o -'1 aa
C J
20NING COMMtTi'EE STAFF REPORT
1. APPLiCANT: Patricia Leonard, Laurel Frost, Greg and Carol Clark
FILE # 99-117070
2. CLASSIFICATION: Appeai of an Administrative Approvai of a Site Pian DATE OF HEARING: 4!6/00
3. LOCASION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PIN # 012823240240 (See file for complete legal description)
5. PLANNING D{STRICT: 8
6. PRESENTZONING: RT-2
7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT:
8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 6/6/00
ZONINCa CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
DATE: 2l24100 BY: Tom Beach
DATE RECEIVED: 2/8/00
A.. ACTION REQUESTED: The applicants are appealing stafPs decision to approve a site plan with
conditions. The site ptan calls for a carriage house apartment and 9 parking spaces. The parking
spaces would be for the carriage house and the adjacent residences. The grounds for appeal are listed
in Section F below.
� This project has already been before the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Heritage Preservation
Commission.
- The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance in November 1999 to reduce the front yard setback
from 25 feet to 16 feet. This decisio� has been appealed by the property owner to the City Councii.
- The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the site pian and building pians in June 1999.
This decision has been appealed by the neighbors to the City Council.
The City Council has instructed staff that it wants to hear aii the appeals on this project at one pubiic
hearing, including any appeai of the site pian review. Staff approved the site plan subject to the
condition that the City Council must approve the setback variance.
B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is an irregular shaped parcel with an area of 5,428 square
feet. It is currentiy used for parking by the 4-unit condominium at 415 Summit (the property immediately
south of 420 Portland). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on gravelldiR The site is located in the Historic Hilf Presecvation District
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Singie-Yamily and dupiex (R7-2)
East: Nathan Hale Park (RT-2)
South: Four-unit condominium (RT-Z)
West Muiti-family condominium (RM-2)
C. HISTORY OF PREVIOUS PROPOSALS: There have been a number of eariier proposals and zoning
actions for this property since 1990:
- In 't980 the City approved a lot spiit that split this parcel from north end of the parcei at 415 Summit.
� - Later in 1990 the Board of Zoning Appeais approved variances to construct a new carriage house
unit with a 5 car garage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This was appealed to fhe City
� E'
Councii by the Parks Department The Councif uphe(d ffie variance but modified the conditions.
- In 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeals granted variances to construct a hvo-unit carriage house with �
a 14-car underground garage.
- In 1994 there was a proposal to build a two-unit carriage house with a total of 9 garage stalls under
the carriage house and in detached garages. Variances were applied for but appiication was
withdrawn before the Board of Zoning P,ppeais took any action.
- In 1995 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a carriage house unit with 3 parking
spaces beneath the unit and 6 surface parking spaces.
- In 1996 the current property owner purchased the property.
- In 1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a plan similar to the current proposai. The
City Council upheld this approval on appeal in February 1998.
- tn 1998 the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance for a 10 foot front yard setback for a building
fhat was 40 feet long with a parking space in the front yard. The City Council uphetd the denial.
(See attached site plan.)
- In March 1999 the City Councii approved a site plan for a slighUy smaller (36 feet long) buiiding with
8 parking places. This ptan did not require any variances. Af the same time, the City Council
affirmed that the lot spliY that created fhe !ot in 1990 was valid. (See attached site plan.)
D. CURRENT PROPOSAL: The current site plan calls for a carriage house with one dwelling unit and 9
parking spaces (4 in the carriage house, 2 in an existing garage and 3 more surface spaces). Eight of
these parking spaces are to 6e used by 415 Summit Avenue under a private agreement that went with
the sale of the property.
This current site pian represents a middle ground between a pian that was denied in 1998 and a plan
approved by the City Council in March 1999. (Site plans for these projects are attached.)
- The current site plan calls for a carriage house that is 38 feet long (compared to 40 feet for the 1998
pian and 36 feet for the 19 for the 1999 plan. �
- A total of 9 parking spaces are propased (compared to 9 spaces feet for the 199& plan and 8
spaces for the 1999 plan).
- A front yard setback of 16 feet from the front property line is proposed (compared to a setback of 10
feet feet for the 1998 ptan and 25 feet for the 1999 plan}.
E. STAFF APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN: Staff approved the current site plan in December 1999,
subject to a variance for front yard setback being granted by the Ciry Council. Staff determined that the
site plan was consistent with al1 of the required cortditions rf it obtained the variance:
_(1) The cify's adopted comprehensive plan and development or project plans for sub-areas of the city
The site plan is consistent with the recently adopted Nousing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
which encourages construction of housing units suitabie for "empty nesters" (page 14) and supports
"designs that use the smaller development sites creatively" (page 16).
(2) Applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul.
The plan is consistent with applicable ordinances except for the required front yard setback. A front
yard setback of 16 feet if proposed compared to the required setback of 25 feet The property
owner apptied for a variance but the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance. The property
owner has appealed this decision to the City Council.
(3) PreseivaSon of unique geologic, geographic or historica!!y significant characferis6cs of the city and
environmentally sensitive areas.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the �
plans for the project as being compatible with the historic character of the area. Neighborfng
�
D D - 'l i-t7
property owners have appeaied this decision to the City Council.
• (4) Protec8on ofadjacent and neigh6oring properties through reasonable provision for such maffers as
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, fighf and air, and fhose
aspects of design which may have substan6ai effecfs on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The site p4an is similas to the one that was approved by
the City Council in March 1999. The main difference is that the carriage house structure has been
moved 9 feet closer to the front property line.
�{5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order fo assure
abutting properFy and/or ifs occupants will not be unreasonably atfected.
The site pian is consistent with tfiis finding. The arcangement of the carriage house buifding would
be 9 4eet further away from the adjacent residence at 415 Summit Avenue.
(6) Creafion of energy-conserving design through fandscaping and location, orientation and elevatio� of
structures.
The sfte plan is consiste�t with this finding.
—(7j Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffc both within the site and in relation to
access streets, inciuding tra�c circuiation features, the locations and design of entrances and exits
and parking areas within the site.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The current site plan would permit each parking space
� in the garage to be 6 inches wider than what was cailed for in the earlier approved plan. This wiif
make them easier to drive in and out of.
(8) The satisfactory availability and capacify of storm and sanitary sewers, including solutions to any
drainage problems in the area of the development.
The site pian is consistent with this finding. Similar to the previously approved plan, drainage will be
handied by grading the site so that storm water is directed out the driveway to the street.
(9) Su�cient landscaping, fences, walls and parking necessary to meet the above objectives.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The property owner has an agreement with an adjacent
property owner to spend up to $5,000 on landscaping along the west property line.
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Acf (ADA),
including parking spaces, passenger loading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
(11) Provision for erosion and sediment control as spec�ed in the Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Control Nandbook. "
The site plan is consistent with this finding.
F. GROUNQS FOR APPEAL: The appeal contends that the Zoning Administrator erred in approving the
� site pian for the reasons listed beiow. Staffs response to each of these is aiso given:
1. °The site for fhe projecf exrsts as a resu/t of an il/ega! /ot splif. °
The lot split was approved by City stafF in 1990 wiYhout requiring a public hearing. After that, a
�� �
number of zoning actions conceming proposals on this propeRy went before the City Counci! over
the next years and the issue ot fhe )oY split was not raised. When the issue of the bt sptiY was �
reised in 1998, the Cily Counci! )ooked inio the issue. !n March 1999 the City Council dectared that
the lot split was lega! at the same meeting where they approved an earlier version of the site ptan.
No new facts conceming the lot spiit have been presented since then.
2. °The Board of Zoning Appeals had previously turned down the applicanYs request for variances to
construct the pmject."
The 8oard of Zonirtg Appeal's decision on the variance is under appeai and wiii be heard by the
City Council. StafPs approval of the site plan is subject to a variance being granted.
3. "The site represents several violafions of the zoning code, including front/side yard parking,
setback requiremenfs.'
The site meets all zoning code requirements except for front yard sefback. The property owner
has applied for a variance to permit a 16 foof front yard sefback and the City Councii will consider
this. The proposed carriage house and ail parking spaces meet the side yard setback requirement
of 4 feet and atl other zoning requirements.
4. °Serious detrimenfal effects fo fhe surrounding properly, including that owned by the appellants in
this case 415 Summif and 436 Portland. °
The plan is simi(ar fo the one approved by the City Council in March 1999. In approving that plan
fhe City Council found that it would not have a detrimentai affect on the surrounding property. The
main difference is that current plan wouid move the carriage house 9 feet further 415 Summit,
which would lessen any impact.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings, staff recommends that the appeal of the
decision to approve the site plan be denied. �
ATTACHMENTS
Page 1 qppeal
Page 3 Site plan and elevations for the current proposal
Page 9 Site plans for earlier proposals (for comparison)
Page 11 Location maps
G.LCOMMOMSi[e Plan�99163ceverwnl991t7WOspr.zc
�
� �� G
�1.
�a-��O
�
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
�
10.
11.
12.
13.
1 Y.
15.
16.
17.
S L7NRAY-BATTZECREEK-HIGHW OOD
HAZEL PARK H.4DE\-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE
DAYfON'S BLUFF
PAYIv�E-PHALEN
T�ORTH END
THO�fAS•DALE
SUMMZI'-iJ��VERSITY
WEST SEVE�+TH
COMO
HAMLI\�E-;�IID4�iAY
ST. AtvTHOYY PARK
hiERRL�'�i PARK-LEXL��GTO�' H."..VLLI\�-S?VELLItiG H.A�iiL��
hLACA? ESTER GRO�L4.*�'D
HIGHLA.�'D
SUtii1 HIL.T.
DOWi�
��
,
`F9� /63 r
�ON1NG �lLE ' '
�_-
CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO` PLA.`7ti'I?vG DISTRICTS
• • • • • • •
: a ,:.� � �
CHURCH
ME
_ • g '
�) C O O Q�5 o O
��� �y•
(Q ¢ O O� O O¢ �
�
1j O O O O O O
Qb2�c�va /��• � S
' O ¢ -¢- _ � J
� � O p
Z
O �
O � � O a
. . '
��ip �����
0
APPLICANT �"�' `�� �����"�
PURPOSE CL)N ST�UG� CIETzR(/4�Y� _ I'�QJ��
FtLE # ���� DATE
PLNG. DIST—� MAP # � �
SCALE 1' = 200'
tEGEND
�� hpc district boundary
� subject ProPerty —`.;`„�'—
0 one family • • ^ comr���
� twofamity ♦ �� industria(
A.�� muttipte famity V vacant
:J� � _ �'7'°f .�°.%i�
/t.
�
:ULS CHURCH
JE
�jc
/E
T
��o�
s
�
-�
,
i
�
:���`�
5 �
��
��
�f�
�
T
G�TY:=P'LANtdiN.G `.
A°?LICkN�� � ��� " !
�U��l�s~ ■ ��
99-/s3
Y D�TE_
PLNG. DtST� h1A° +°-
�
�.J � � LEGEND
.�.�.� zoning dis;rict Lt�unda•y
�. �_ � subi'� P�oP'"'r
/ O O�? fdr,lily
� ¢ }'N� fdf�lllj�
� �
__�. ��-4 I'tUliipl? yZ^il�
r�C,or,n�-
� � n �
� r... I�ivUSl:id�
V v2:3':
._._� � - --- � . .. �'-
r.�.�_ ' _ L! !'^. C _ . _ S�'L
I O Qr
a QU J �
oC ga es
e = wC� �5 " °..
• w W Q O6 5 = O
0 o U1d'U vv� � >
3 a =
". i-
�`n IN r.
�
I�
= � ��
�i�r �N
1 �_
, °
�� 1
W
� � I
a g g
zm f��
�m
a p
�
� o . z :
Q N u�i p O
o � �
3
J
� 3f4�BAV ONtll1NOd z
a'
�� awnn(ae °
o N �
��o
S3: '� rrv.�aacs
._
.6 1
� � =o .
^ Vm
�^ryl
1�
= n �
� 3i �
go
g~= � \
�6�
�7 �
.sbz
4 �
� ;� ,
i � i �
� --- ---�
Z�
WlJ
�m(�
a
w�
�� �
00
� .5
\ HSYtlI /
^
\ � �
\ ��� �
p /
' � e
`
� �
♦
�`
7 \ � ' d
O�
l
.SZ I •9 I
15'�3 .0�'OS
� `\
I �y '.•
� ;
�6
n��n �.� �
� MOONVA
S53tl'J3
_ _ _
�
,
�
,Q
, o o�
_ i � �t,,,�
� � �Q
i �- �v
0
�e
_ _�
�
1
_ _ _ I
aoaoc��o
i
a 9o � ry5 E
o h
/ �y1
Q �-i s /
O
6
�'�.
� . .
.�
.
.
. �,
� ` \
\
\ \
�
� \
:
� ��
,
a- � �
� � .O6
' / `
I
. , � ..
n
� �
� ��
�
s
3
Q
J
d
W
N
U
3
N
>
�
a
R
�
c
O
V
�
y
O
G
a
�
.
�
0
3
O
h
L'
a
:�
�
�
w
00
d
0
0
�
0
w
N
�
R
•
A
L
�
d �
.c y
m
C �
� o ��
� �N �
R� �
T
o�U.
N �
N c�'J �
� L �
U � .
� Y i
U
V .D �
O y
R' o �
b � 1
N �
1
ro
o c� �
C
� a .�'
U Q �
� ��
� • • •
_ —
> ' (A ✓� � v
O
� �< Z U o r� � m
0
L
�� mX �� wZ� ¢ W C �2 r WV
QU' WW �X XN IYUN =.� �O O CJQ U� tY1Qi
p? Z� �� < ClZ \C V2 �2' Z� d X DY
W�
UN d(J NO N�'I <2� N0 ipID IDID 1/�� �� V �
n �n _c
� ��lt� 1 � � � i t � < <
�
N
O
N
�
��
Z Z
3 3
D �
Wy K
m� V
X
N �� �
v NO <
�L
0
N
N
�
b
�
N
m
�
^��
O
0
N
IH��H �Nfi�
..Il-.8
�
U
a
3
m
n
ro
N
�
N
0
O
■
� _
�H�I 9N(117:
t- ..t/£ LL-.L
w
z
0
¢
0
0
4
ao -7so
Z
O
Q I
�
W
W
�
Q �
u� I
O
II
h
✓� �l � !
y
> � �, o
� � V p3¢ � �p m �
� � m OC WZ� ¢ W ¢ � �2 � wU
"' o _<—� tn3z z m div d �n<
Q U' „W Y WCJ� N� O� N� Y V'Q V x CLL
wT zC �<� oza >< <'¢ �a �?� a °c
v�n ac�i n No nn ¢i� �nm iom Inm r v.� o v�i U¢
� Z
3 � 3
O pa O
cx�
V m V
_ O
� �N �
N — �
a NO c
N' �
L
0
m
N
�
i
N
0
<
N
�
N
m
O
U
W
�
a
i�
. .
. .
■
I. .
n
.
.I
. ..
. .
� —1
Nf \
L
0
N
N
w
(...
I...
. . .
. . .
�
�
z
�J
H
Q
�
�
J
W
� I^
V'
w
�
�
_�
II
�
�
�
✓E �
�
e� -7�0
�
0
� �
��
0
�
O
�
N
� �
N
��
< ¢S
N ti
N 4SU
c�a
zs
0
n N o
W
� (� �
❑ C� C�
{��
Z
0
�
Q
>
w
J
W
_
�
�
O
� � ��
n
U
0
N�
r O
N�
m
N
� m
❑ N
� m
��
��
O
.�'2
ZF
OQ
��
0
z
0
�
d
>
�
�
�
_
F
�
0
�
�
�
��
�� �
a , _ �jo
�
n .
�
z
Qo
�,
�-
� ��
o :
o �°
L�' M
�
°� ��
�NEV✓
� q ORIV
/ NEW
TREE
ARROWS INOICATE
DRAINAGE SLOPE ?�"
��
o`
J�
0
�
�� �
-L P�'�
�� � �
P �
i/
/ ./
�
��
oi
^ i .
i�, �
` , �
C L S T\ //
-��
9,p � G
������
� o�eP i
PROPERTY LINE
FENCE
w �
Z�
J
r
� �
�
w
a
0
�
a
�
�
W I
�
O n
°p
_� I
�,
i SITE PLAN
I t/t6" = 1'-0
��
. ���,
Q
Q�
. �
O �
� . 4 '��/�
G �P� Q P �
O k'� Q P�`�� � \ �
/
"� / CONC. OR �
ASPHALT
� �PAVEMENT
17\IT��
�
�
/i
�Q wiN�ow
°o
.
�
�� /
PR��OSED
G�LOF7 & �
� � y � ��.
_� � .
_ .,
a �� .
HEDGE — - — — —
90.00' � • � _
N52°52'25"E
ensErneNr
sraRs
PORCH
475 SUMMIT AVE
z i�2 sroRr
WOOD FRAME BUILDING
�pdS�D 3.6� �il,bl(��
- Tt�rs � �au,ow(u(� g
�AFr�iS o�
A
O�
9 �'O
9
e � G �F� GF �GF
\ 9 'QO
9•
5
0
i
��' � ExiSTtNG
� iREE
� � S �O
I f �ql�"
� CO C. WALK
&�iEPS w/
�R N RA�LwG
& GATE
— Ex�STiNG
� .:� �.�5
�
I o;
�,
NI C%'
NI
I
� ��
ti� � �
�
-�' -
— � m
< �
�
f-1,
9 � ° ��
bA
� �3
w o
z �
F `°
� �
w 0
a� 3
� I �
� N
OU
�
�
.�
.fl
ol
�
1
� �
M
� 'LS
¢ o
-o 0
� �
o w
a �
� o �
� v a
����ti
�
�
� �
on �
.� o
�
A �
� o
� U
� w
R I �
� � �
�
o � o,
� U �
.� � �
� � U
C> > �
� ��
U � �'
.� N �
s.� � �
� Sr C�
O
o c 3
c
�� U
o ° .3
.�z�
�
�
w
vi . . .
DO-��
w
� N �
JN � m Y
W Z Z L�O� CS � m
� 'n � o o �z � W � r w
W W fO�T O� Z� 2 q � 'aU S� NQ
�C W X X� K - 0 L'p _ � U G U C{i
�i Z� m o- nZa =< "< =< z � a< ��
c�v+ ao � aN u ¢i� u>m �m �m �� o v�i �c
u1 (D� N
O O
�X
m 0< �
I Ix 1
c av> a
m
N
�
N
IN
�Z .
m0¢
ON4
2�
�rN
wV
Z��'
62�
w
N
�
N
b
0
�
W
N
W
N
�
�
0
��
0
�
N
m
N
�
N
�
0
�
d
00 0
� � �
1N`J�H
0
a
¢
J.H913H 9Nf713J �
I-.l ••ro/£ tl-.L
� �� vi 1 ' �
� ¢I pj O
� 4{
�I �� 4
°1 �i NI �
Z
0
� /
�l _
� �
L.I.J �
J -
W�
F � II
W ��
��
�-
�
F
W
N �
� �K
�� Ww
pz ` zt
W2 Q7
CJN dp
2
O
u� m< m
o x o
m m m
I Ix 1
a a� �
��
0
�
O
J(I)
Z Z �Q�
04 � K �
tOr O O N32 �N �N �
�
° m<e ° m nzy =¢ �a =�
I X X I Z7
nN �n 42� v>m iom �nm
w a
N m Y
�
0 � m
�S
�StJ d � yU
m U Q V � CLL
� �� b x �c
< U
C I/�� O u�> �¢
N � � I I
N 1
Z ' I
O � �
� fa 0
N
�
❑
� � ❑
m
e .
N
0
� I �) �
N
N
�
N
D ^
u
❑ ��
� u
� �
. .
. .'
i . .'',
. .
�
i�i
�
u
z;
o ,
F"�
�`
/
�..��
J
W
{�
�
� 2
T
�
��
�
M
i
�
s
��
�
d o —� 1 �
�
�
z
0
�_
Q
>
�_
�
�,
_ �-
�-- ��
�_
o�
z n
�
�
�
? 1
�
0
�:� =
O
N�
�
N
�
Y� �� � I (I
�f � ��
BI�I � ��'
� �, � Il��
�� �4((
91
�N
��
0
�_
$V
a<
v�
0
�
'
zi
O�
�-
Wi_
���
z��
�lu
O I �°
�1�
�
.� i
.� `
. �
Oa-��
�
�� ..
�
Z
Q
J
�
LL..
�
�
�
�
`
�
\I �
�
z
Q
J
�
J
LL
.7 _
� O
� I
� '
L1J II
� �
...1 M
�
`�I
f
do -��-o
�
��
��, .
r — — —
I
I � N
I � �
aN N
m � o
1 Z r
N � �0 �
m �
� 0N N � ,.Z-,2
W
� I
I — — — 8.9x0.Z � I
W
NI
�
�, o I
p 8. XO.Z a,
r
s.sxsa
w °�
a o
�
� i
1 CJQ
z°
ON
� I
bZ${ >Z8Z bZBI
' _ _ _ _
' o
� �
S
� �
0
� �
X
N � o
m
L7J �
U
Q — — — — — — -
� — — — — — — —
Q I
� I o
8
I i
I o
I x
I �
I
52100Q Ol 3d0'iS - JNIdd01 "�N0.9 'NIW
..Z /M SNNYid 'JNO� a35S3NIS3ild ..S
�
�
�
C� I
�..V I
V
Q — — — — — —
� — — — — — —
Q �
U
I
I
I
�
i
+ j bZ8L bZ8Z bZ81 � I
I l'73M MOONIM SS3?!'J3 � �
° o
2
0
0
0
�
d
0
x
m
—
�
(
l
4
I
O�
i�
W
OI
aZ
0
o�
�N I
4
O �
O
z
N �
Z
Q
J
�
�
�
O
�I
��
�I �
0
�
11
�
�Y�
�
9
:i�
�
�
0
�
�
z
c
J
�
�
�
�
J
LL
�
z
�
U
IJ.1
�
�
��
�/7 �
�
=
� ��
z�
' � r
W y� cnmV
U-r �>� F
�N,��, Z�r-
h0C 3 0¢ �
¢otiwm�'< �
G �r �' F
��UN��y
U�wNCbN �
I `�
U
Z
Z
G
2
�
Q
m
o = o
m w
v: u ��o� a�
� W
�� O O u�Z O� U
> VIV N
(JF.� �- Z y���m p420 1
�V< S �t� v�mo 4
" � tA�m�p� ��a> ?
Z ¢ Or (> N U V �
' n < t`" y �3_ O U
< [C � O�iV '�' bh Z m
n-��i = c Em��`n m
�
W
�
Q
�
Q
U
� ao -?�ro
:io � oz
�o
�? Z KUS
�Z0 O O LL3V
�_ ' V O�
oa �a z�
U� K V�Z
N ' \ C\ : - rv
N_ N3 <lp(_j
I p
�W
�.Q
1
N I
�
� i
O �
� i
� i
m I
S
U
w
�
�
�.� �
_
�
'--
�
O
�
�
W
m
1Y.OI3H `JNfli37 H'Jf10J
>n �r_o
N
W
U
Q
�
Q
v
w
<
�
l .I �
a.
O
�
;
Z
O
V
w
N
Zi �
J I
m I
�
II
D
%�
��
� 6
NOTE:
AP,P,O'NS INDICATE
DRARIAGE SIOPE
��
O�
S�'
0
�
�� � {
�
���� �10
C� ` �t'/� i�
NEN! �
TREE
—� /
�/ � �" � �
� .� � �
� / ��
l��- � >
I �� l � \ / � \ /
q C „ � /
o j
� PROPERIY LWE
�
I 90 — —
w�
z
J '
r
�)
C
u
a
0
�
a
�
�
W
� M
O �
�O �
��
M
N .
SITE PLAN
1/16" = 1'-0"
h •'1,�t' `l1
PA710
\Y� �/ DPIV�Pi,•\Y
� � ��y
��
,; �o
��
�,� � EXISTiNG %
O UtACS
Q�{f� ��' i� �
� � �
� ASPHALT --'�
�PAVEMcN7
\ 420'PORTLAND q'
4/
H�DGEJ ,"
90.00' �
�� � �
NR"I ARBOR-
VITAE iREES
BASEhICNT-�
STAIRS
A
'pT
9 '�'O
e-� 9 �
G� �
� '�o
o \
� �' �ExlSilil,
7REE
S ��Ft+i, 9
� ��
Q
C
�
IR
�
I/
•
' yo,p �
ti
V �
I
o ,�
,�o �
f �
— T
�� � � � R
o �
R
1 9 0 0 ^' � �
q � o
A. �s �
,3 a �
� � �
� o Q
o � w s �
�� � � �
0
C �U -O
.� o 'c
y V �
C� y ._,
� �U
� U �
a c U
c y
� �
, � U
v ❑ c
R �
g � �
i p � R
� L1. a.
� T m � >
> 7 O � �
Q � II. C C
a 'u R � �
� a ..� �
� �
o �° �
a = N
�
° � �
v a v� . .
u +
z _
� �
r
r I
�
W
a
O
�
�
�
�
415 SUMMIT AVE.
2 7/2 STORY
NlOOD FRAME BUtLDlNG
/'1 SITE PLAN
�J r. - oo.-0..
•
, > p /� �
/�o.l rt c� t`.a�t i i� c( r r,r'��/ 1 �� �%4
E '\ \
� >
� �i
.�i �
>
� �
� � i c�`��4r
� Q� V�•
i ��F����
� QVP�' /r
��
9
PORCH
oa �'t�
�
�
�
z
0
�
a
>
w
�
LL,
}--�
�
�
LL1
�
� 'r
y`\ �
�
�
z
0
�-
�
>
�
�
�
�
N
w
�
C J
�.
,a
��
00 -'1do
•
�
�
m
N�
W O
ZN �
�-
W� p
�-�q0
�NV3�
m
N
N �I W
N
�I �O
� rx
a
� '�3 V
N Z �
�I �C
�I Nr
a
N
O I � N
1
■� �
.
1�
I�
� � J
,^
Z
O
�
E.
>I
�.,
��
�,.,
Si
�I
�
�
z
0
�
u
�
n
;� �
� �
�
�
f
z
0
F-
�
>
w
�
cL
S
F--
�
�
N
�
a
o ;
i' T �
ba-�d-o
.
�
C
O
Z
`I
z
�
J
�
L1_
Q
�
�
�
°� ^.
� �
i
� �
�
�
L
O
Z
�
�
�
�
�� �
`,
z
�
J
�
�
�
�
LL
0
z
Q
U
w
�
�
•;:
i(
� �
a� -�a�
�
�
.
w
�
a
0
z
5
`e
e
e
0
CI
a
u
a
3
7
N
N
a
Z
�
H
�
� c
2 �
F o
Q �
z =
� C C..
s
G
V
�
�
�
�
Q_
�
�
�
'�
C"
�
�
O
�� �
N
� � �
�^� �
�� `� �
U �Z
z_a � r�
F� �� �L�
ir � � �
.cs� ..�"� �
.F'" C J ��J
-xt.' �� ::�
<> _�
�` _-. CL �
�`, '
;��'•_ '
`.: �
C`� � N�
O�
�1
1
� F -.
� �� ��
t
� N �J r :
`1, _ � C .
� � � �.:
�" c _"
�_..-__�
I __
Ci '" .:
�'..- ;
o �
rn�'
W
N
L�
� ...�
���
�
�
5
�
•
ti � l. _ `' ,�<�
'� v � _�' � . - : � � rx�-7ac�
a
�
�
U
Z
�_ x
?� a
� �
�= 3
:�
W� �
�i�� Q
� ,. < r-+
�ti �
'N-� �'< �
Q z
✓,'=� C
�,
E �� ; �
z�z �
r��� f-1
_ ,�
� � � z=
° � o°
o� �_ ��
�� A �y / �j : , �
{� :,: :� L-'�� C � Z
� z< a=
= G:,^ ra��
r�= �� �a�
u;° `n� ���
� ��Z COi
�l 0�3 ��_
,.x., � .� _ o .� =
�' ��hZr° A
�� Vm� ~ V2
C �^' �C�
OH=
�.= C-"'Z' C.'+C.
��'" > ��''S= ��,
r» U = � C-� U :
F
0
a
Fi
h
�
�
�
a
� Y
o =
r' 5 �
u� - -
� i
�?
z� �:�
�Z L
z� z�
'` 5 �° �
�+� �>
r� _ �_
�� G:-
m �'+5
�^ OZ
c
< �
�z
C H
o p
C H �
_' � z
�; p r�
I"- -�.
Isz �C
I'' Y ��-+ [y
I : _ Fy �--�
�^Z ��
��= z
)O` H
Iz F'U�
�
)8� W�
0
::
11
�
�
r
W
�
w
O
� U
�n y
v '�"" '
�
. �. . �
�
�
�
r.�-�
`i.
A
a
�
O
a
C
Y
�
U
z
�n
F�
�
�-
��
u�
[:� ^�
� �;
-�N., `>"'�
Q�=
�_�
�
Hc:
6. i a
� o? �
W
a
�
�
Q
�
z
�
�
La
�
�
�i
�
�+
�
F j
�<
��
�:�
�3
��
�i =
0
�>
U�'
3
e
i�l �
F_
�J
� =_
�z3
�,�?
G=+=�
��6
���
� i?
�5i
'�`��°�;
; �.,' ��; �:�a"
..�,.�' .:z;in".
�:'`;F�' ,
z>a„.' ;_;: .w�
' ��� T � .:.f�m+�k��
..-_... tiJ`:: [>`E"s.
z °°
Z
� �
� H .
�qz
��U�
c��,s<
� /.j � !--� oZ
F '1 p.J N
� O =�
VH<?
Q���,
��z<
06
�f F-( �-'�, J
� � <;
���i
C�Uz<
�
/-e �
�
Q�
� O
�U
�
��
��
G G
� �
Z..) t
cy
a �=
� ��
��nZ
�U�z`
�
�.
� L�
�z�<
[�� �
wQ=;
�x_
�O«
�c�z3
�z��
q��>
Hz=�
�O??
�
�
.-�'. 5
�'�
z�
HZ
��
a 5
C.� �
��
�m
F�
G�-� `'
Z
3
s
>
_
z°
�v
��
F-
�_
�'+_
r--�
Os
C�" i
r :.s..:.
? �
°��'. <
` G
t7
�
C �
o �-+
� Q r�
�%iZ0 ��
�i� � W
�,-
- N - �?i p'�Q
�-U � �
E" C_ � .-�
�,zZ � -�.
°-' z �5
o;; �
.� L?;� E CQ
E� �' � ��
�--i
O�V L-ld,'
r. �'
, C "9 �
�
� , �'
( .�
�� .
�
�
�
z
0
�
H
�
w
a
w
x
,
��
lt�
F
�
� �
. : i '
�, ,�; �
� �
� o �
m .,�`�
�- � N
o '`�
�
+� N
N
�L `t d
_ � �
ti �
v�
�
ti
� �
i � � � �
:> � vl� a
�, `� a �
`.:° ���
.� --
��� ��
�
a -
�
c
�n
O �
H �?
'' V ��� ' � „
� �
Q�'7�
�'
�-�� 1=
��:_
•• • �
C�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
T'orm Coteman, Mayor
OFACE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVA20N:vSENTAL PROTECTION
Robe't Kesslei Dlreaar
Telephone: 651-266-9090
Facsimile: 651-266-9099
December 21, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
LOWRYPROF£SSIONAL BUILDIA'G
Suite 300
350 Sr. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-I510
RE: 420 Portland Avenue
Public hearing at City Council scheduled for Wednesday, January 5, 2000
Zoning File 49-117070
Dear Ms. Anderson:
•
.
_, The City Council is scheduled to consider three actions concerning the proposed canstruction of
a carriage house at 420 Portland Avenue: appeal of HPC decision, appeal of BZA decision, and
review of site plan.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal calls for a two-story structure designed to resemble a carriage house. It would have one
residential unit that would occupy the second floor and part of the basement. The first floor would
provide gazage pazking spaces for four cars. A total of nine parking spaces would be provided on the
site.
ACTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Appeal of the Heritage Preservafion Commission's decision to approve the project.
Greg and Cazol Ciuk, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel Frost have appealed the decision of the
Heritage Preservation Commission to grant approval of Ronald Severson's building permit
application to construct a new singie family dwelling at 420 Portland Avenue in the Historic Hill
Heritage Preservation District. The City Council first considered this appeal on September 22,
1999 and laid over the matter so that HPC, BZA, and site p1an issues could be reviewed together
at one time by the Council. The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the
subject permit application on June 24, 1999 at which time the propetry owner, Mr. Severson, and
the appellants' attomey, Mazk Vaught, addressed the commission. The commission a) voted 9-1
to approve the permit application following the close of the public heazing and b) voted 7-0 at the
following month's HPC meeting to pass a resolution granting approval of the requested building
permit. The commission's fmdings are stated in its resolution, which is attached. The HPC
approved two building schemes—one for a 36'-long building which requires no variances to
construct and the other for a 38'-long building which would require a front yard setback variance
to construct.
The grounds for this appeal, stated in Mr. VaughYs August 4, 1999 letter of appeal, are that the
HPC approval "is not in concert with the provisions of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code (which creates and govems the HPC], is premature, violates my clients' due process rights,
and approves an illegat use of the property."
The 420 Portland site has been the subject of development interest for at least ten years. In 1989,
the HPC and BZA approved plans for construction of a carriage house on the site, which project
included one dwelling unit and five gazage stalls in a sort of L-shaped buitding and three off-
street parking spaces. In 1992, the HPC and BZA approved modifications to that plan which
included two dwelling units in an L-shaped, carriage-house-like, shvcture and 14 underground
pazking spaces.
The two HPC-approved building schemes which aze the subject of this appeal aze vaziations on a
plan approved by the HPC in 1997 and approved, on appeal, by a 6- 0 City Council vote in 1998.
The 1997 HPC approval was the resalt of five meetings, over a period of 20 months, between
Mr. Severson and HPC members to develop a design for the building that conforms to the Hill
District design guidelines. The 1998 appeal by Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clark, and Carol Clark,
was denied "on the basis that their has been no showing that the commission made any error in
fact fmding or procedure in this matter." (CF #98-357)
2. Appeal of the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to deny a front yard setback varinance.
The plan requires a zoning variance becaase We catriage house would be set back 16 feet from
the front property line on Portland Avenue, compazed to a requ'ved minimum seYback of 25 feet.
Ronald Severson, the properry owner, applied for a variance but it was denied by the Boazd of
Zoning Appeals in November 1999. The variance was denied on the grounds that a smaller
building could be built withoaY a variance and that the variance would not provide adequate
green space and would unreasonably diminish neazby property values. (A copy of the resolution
is attached.)
The City Council approved a site plan with a slightly smaller structure and one less parking space
in March 1999. This site plan did not require a vaziance.
The City Counci] denied a variance for a site plan with a siightly larger structure in 1998.
There were other eazlier proposals for this property. A complete zoning history for the property
can be found in the staff report for the Boazd of Zoning Appeals which is inctuded in this packet.
3. Review of the site plan.
Tfie site plan for the project must be approved before building permits can be issued. However,
the siTe plan cannot be approved unless the zoning variaace is approved. (A staffreport on the
current site plan is attached. It lists the all of the findings that must be made to approve or deny a
site plan.)
A PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 5.
Please notify us if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides presented at the public
hearing.
C�
•
SincereIy,
./`� ( � -�.. _
1 ��u..11-EUi(,�,l�v
, •
,
L�
Aazon Rubenstein
Heritage Preservation
Tom Beach
Site Plan
�li �
.
C�
cc: City Councilmembers
Robert Kessler, LIEP
Peter Wamer, CAO
Ronald Severson
lohn Miller
Mark Vaught
Greg and Carol Clazk
Patricia Leonazd
Laurel Frost
ATTACFIl�4ENTS
Heritage Preservation Commission
page 1........ City Council resolution ]aying over HPC appeal
page 3 . . . . . . . . Appeal letter
page 4 . . . . . . . . HPC resolution granting approva]
page 8........ Case summary of 6/24/99 HPC meeting
page 10 ....... Case memo from staff to HPC
page 12 ...... HPC application information
pa�e 14 ....., Sanborn insurance map
page 15 ....... 1998 City Council resolution uholding HPC approval on appeal
Board of Zoning Appeals
page 18.......
page20.......
page4l .......
Site Plan Review
page 43
Plans and maps
Appeal to City Council
Resolution, minutes, staff report and application for variance
April BZA 1998 resolution denying request for three variances
Staff report
page 46 . . . . . . . Location Maps
page 49 ....... Plans for current 38-foot building proposal
page 55 ....... Plans for 36-foot building
page 65 ....... Plans for 40-foot building
page 73 ....... Plans approved by HPC in 1989
page 77 ,...... Plans approved by HPC in 1992 (revisions to 1989 plans)
�
ORIGfNAL
�soLUTionT
Presented By
Referred To
Council File r g—� Q4 a,
GreenSheet foo�a3
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MI. NESOTA
�w1 /�}��W,�1
1� �
Committee: Date
2 WHEREAS, a pubIic hearing was duly set for September 22, 1999, before the Council of
3 the City of Saint Paul (Council) for the purposes of considering appeals by Greg and Cazol Clark,
4 Patricia Leonard and Laurei Frost from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
5 (HPC) in HPC Resolution No. 3654 apptoving a building permit application to construct a new,
6 single-family, d�velling within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District on property
7 commonly kno�m as 420 Portland Avenue; and
8
9 WHEREAS, the Council determined That the proposed single family dw'el(ing may need
14 additional regulatory determinations (including site plan revie�i and approca2 or other variances)
lT
12
13
14
1�
I6
I7
18
19
20
21
??
23
24
25
2b
27
28
before consuuction can begin; and
WHEI2EAS, the Councit finds that it is appropriate and efficient to fi:st finalize aIl sucfi S
determinations necessary for the proposed singIe family dwelIing so that in the event an appeai is
�aIcen from any deternlination the appeal(s} may be consolidated into a single public hearin�
before the CounciI; NO�V, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, in the interest of Council efficiency, the appeal of Greg and Cazol Clazk,
Patricia Leonazd and Laurel F;ost from the decision in HPC Resolution No. 36�4 is continued
and laid o� er until such time as all regulatory determinations necessary For the proposed project
at 420 Portland A�enue sha11 have been acted upon by the appropriate cit�• department, board or
commission: Ai\'ll, BE IT,
FU'RTHER RESOLVED, that once all re�uiator;� determinations have been made and if
any are appealed, all apgeals sha11 be consolidated ci�ith the appeal of HPC Resolution No. 3654
and reset, u�th written notice to af2ected pazties, before the Cotmcii for pubtic heazing; AND, BE
IT,
�
1
2
3
4
• 5
6
7
8
9
qg-loq�
FURTHER RESOLVED, that if no appeals aze taken from any remaining
determination, the public hearing on HPC Resolution No. 3654 shall be reopened with new Q7
notice to the affected parties of record as of August 4, 1999: AND, BE IT
FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be maited to Ronald
Se� erson, Greg and Carol Clark, Patricia Leonazd, Laurel Frost Mark Vaught, Esq, John ':viiller,
Esq.. the Board ofZoning Appeals, the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Department
of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection.
•
ORiGINAL
Requested by Departmer.[ o::
By:
Form Appr d by City Attornep
sy: 7liCS-�G✓L Iv /7 `(�
Approw_d by Mayor for Senn:s=_±or. cc rn„-,.-= �
Hy:
�?x
sv:
N
Adopted by Couacil: Date �\,_, \n \qQU
—�--T� �
Adonccor. Certi°ied by Council Secr�tary
S. MARK vAUGHT
Anorney At La:e
Su¢e 700
S�x West fifrh Saeet
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1412
(651)297-6400
FAX (651) 224-8328
e-maiL markvaught� woddnetaa.net
August 4, 1999
� r;
'.
��
N
•
Aaron Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Planner
City of Saint Paul, L.I.E.P.
Suite 300, Lowry Praiessional Building
3�0 Saint Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Heritage Preservation File No. 3654
Dear Mr. Rubenstein:
On behalf of my clients, Greg and Cazol Clark, Patricia Leonazd, and Laurel
Frost, please consider this letter as an appeal to the City Council pursuant to the
provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code of the above-referenced resolution and the
approval embodied therein, which was passed by the Heritage Preservation Commission
on July 22, 1999. The grounds aze that said approval is not in concert with the provisions
of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paui Legislative Code, is premature, violates my clients' due
process rights, and approves an illegal use of the property.
Very truly yours,
:��-` � n/�
S. Mark Vaught
Attomey at La�•
•
•
�
. -._ �__�,.��.
i-y _
�
�
�
CITY OF SAI1��T PAUL �
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NUMBER
DATE
3654
22 July 1999
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint
Paui Legislative Code to review building permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or
demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a single family dwelling on
property located at 420 Portiand Avenue within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street pazking by residents of
415 Summit Avenue; there is a rivastall garage and unpaved driveway and pazking azeas; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the
following:
III. New Construction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hill District is to maintain the dishicYs scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be
compatible with the size, scale. massing, height, rhythm, setback, color, material, building eZements, site
design, and character of surrounding structures and the area.
III. B. Massing and Height.• New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height and scale
of existing adjacent structures. Typical residential structures in the Historic Hill District are 25 to 40
feet high. The height of new consmrction should be no lower than the average height of a11 buildings on
" both block faces; measurements should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs.
III. D. Materials and Details: ...The materials and details of new construction should relate to the
materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and
tile; asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture oJ'the preferred materials are
acceptable substitutes. ...Materials, including their colors, wi11 be reviewed to determine their
appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding structures.
III. E. Building Elements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for
a baZanced and complete design. These elements for new construction should compliment existing
adjacent structures ar we11.
III. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile ofnew construcfion should relate to the predominant roof shape
of existing adjacent buiZdings.
III. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and doors in new
construction should be compatible with that of existing adjacent buildings. ...Facade openings of the
same general size as those in adjacent buildings are encouraged. ... Wooden double-hung windows are
traditional in the Historic Hi11 District and shouZd be the first choice when seZecting new windows.
IIZ E. 3. Porches and Decks: Zn general, houses in the Historic Hi11 District have roofed front
�
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 2
porches.... If a porch is not built, the transition from private to public space should be articulated with
some other suitable design element.
III. F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than 5% ouFOf-line from
the setback of existing adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater rhan those of adjacent buildings may be
allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at carners. This happens quite often in the
Historic Hill area and can lend delightful variation to the street.
III. F. 3. Gmages and Parking: Where alleys do not exist, gcrrages facing the street or driveway curb
cuts may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single
garage doors should be used to avoid the horizontal orientation of two-car garage doors.
Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in
rear yrnds. ...All parking spaces should be adeguately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping; and
C�
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
June 24, I999 public heazing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact (findings
#2-4 are essentially the findings in HPC Resolution #2884 granting approval of the 1997 40'-building
scheme): �
1. The applicant seeks approval of rivo designs, one a 36'-long building which requires no variances
to construct and the other a 38'-long building which requires a front yazd setback vaziance in
order to construct the building 16' from the front property line. The design of both schemes is
very similaz to the 40'-long building approved by the HPC on Mazch 27, 1997 (File #2884). The
most significant differences among the three plans concem the site plan: the previously-approved
40' building had a 19.5' front setback and two pazking spaces in the front yard; the proposed 36'
building has a 25' front setback; the proposed 38' building has a 16' front yard setback; and
neither of the two schemes now proposed has front yazd pazking.
2. The proposed buiIding site is a pivotai and difficult site. It is visible &om Summit Avenue, it
abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are lazge buildings to the south and west that
aze close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter
House at 415 Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage
house concept is a reasonable approach to developing the pazcel for the following reasons: a) the
site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street pazking for residents of the Winter House;
b) the pazcel has historically been a reaz yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appeazs as a reaz
yazd due to its relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historicaily a two-story carriage
house on the site; and d) it provides a design solurion for a building that is very close to the
Winter House in proxitttity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The
Winter House was built on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent
subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to
surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
�
�
e� -�av
HPC Resolution: File #3654, p. 3
•
3. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color,
material, building elements, site design, and chazacter of surrounding structures and the
azea."
6. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and chazacter would be related to, but do
not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a
balanced and complete design.
c, Though the side elevation wouid not be pazallel to that of the Winter House, the street-
facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this
block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the rear yazd nature of the site,
the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic carriage
house on the site was located up to the north Qroperty line, and the fact that the only
other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Westem and
Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure(the existing
structure is a lazge, 4-story, brick apartment building with two, two-story front porches
located 18" from the sidewalk while the main building wall is 12' from the front
sidewalk).
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building.
� f. Parking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by
landscaping. Single garage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of double
doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of
anomalies in design and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district
and its chazacter.
4. Tn addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the
Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design
and materials aze related to and compatibie with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
Winter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than
mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and the development would not have an
adverse impaet on the character-defming features of the site and the area. The building's design
is similaz to the reaz addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate
for a new secondary sttucture. A new building of untelated design and materials wouid detract
from the historic integrity of the site.
5. The following project details shouid be noted:
a. The landscape plans shown on the 36' and 38' building schemes differ; the landscape
plan shown for the 38' building is the correct one and should be shown on both sets of
plans.
� b. The hedge along the driveway and at the front of the building will be alpine currant,
spaced 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5'.
�
HI'C Resolution: File #3654, p. 4
c. The plans call for a basement window wel] at the front of the building that was not
proposed in the 1997 scheme. Current plans show both a 3' x 8' well with a ladder and a
4' x 8' well with a step/terrace. The 3' x 8' option is preferable for the 38' building
with 16' front setback scheme; and
WFIEREAS, though there aze, or may be, zoning issues, legal issues, and other issues pertaining to the
proposed devetopment, they aze not within the jurisdiction of the Heritage Preservation Commission; the
commission must grant or deny appro��al of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code and the district design review guidelines;
NOW, TfIEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that based on the above fmdings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a building permit for either of the two proposed schemes for a new singie
family dwelling located at 420 Portland Avenue, subject to the condition that the front window well shall
be 3' x 8' for the 38' building.
� MOVED BX Benton
SECONDED SY Murphy
IN FAVOR
AG.AII\'ST
ABSTAIN
Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are final, subject to appeal to the City Council within 14
' days by anyone affecied by The decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting appticable
" building and zoning code requiremeats, and does not constitute approval for tax crediu.
•
�
LJ
�
�
�+ - �
Saint Paul Aeritase Preservation Commission
� Case Summary
Re: 420 Portland Avenue, Ronald Severson, Construct new single family dwelling, HPC Fi1e #3b54
24 June 1999
Rubenstein showed photographs and slides of the site and surrounding azea, reviewed the cover memo,
and noted the following details: landscaping would include an alpine current hedge along the driveway
and at the front, planted 4.5' to 5' on center and trimmed to a height of 5; new to these plans is a front
window we11 for a basement bedroom (of rockfaced block, 3' x 8' with a ladder or 4' x 8' with a step/
terrace); the materials and details are t(�e same as those specified for the previously-apptoved plan.
Errigo: why is the HPC looking at this again? Rubenstein responded.
Younkin recused himself from participating in the case.
Ron Severson: bought the land in 199b. Previous City Council approval for a building on the lot did not
include a variance. Asking for HPC approval of both plans; the 38' building is preferable—it is more
centered on the lot. Both proposals provide two parking spaces for (each ofl the other three units in
415 Summit and have four singie gazage doors. Am willing to modify the designs if necessary.
Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland: live in first floor unit overlooking the site; have always assumed
something would be built here. Supported the 1997 proposal and support the current proposal. I
� suggested the west elevation bay and like it—it adds visual interest. Severson has been very cooperative
with regard to the landscaping—has agreed to let neighbors help with its design and maintenance. I prefer
the building to be as close to the street as possible—to maximize moming sunlight to my unit. On(y two
houses on Portland meet the required 25' front setback, which is therefore inappropriate. The rhythm of
the street and neighborhood is such that a 16' front setback is preferable to a 25' setback, but I support
both plans.
Mark Vaught: representing Gteg and Carol Cluk, Patricia Leonard, and Laurel Frost. I am not able to
speak cogently about the project and will therefore ask for a layover. BZA did not approve the variances
for the project that the HPC approved and, on appeal, the City Council upheld the deniaL My ciients
have a]ong standing interest in this property; they have not had fair opportunity to address this issue as
they did not know about this meeting until this past Tuesday afrer 6:00 p.m. I know of no affirmative
obligation to notify (neighbors or affected parties). I haven't even had a chance to look at the
information. In the interest of faimess, and with BZA review on July 12� there need be no rush to
approve or vote on the matter.
Murphy asked about the 60-day time limit and Heide asked about due process.
Vaught: believe the 60-day limit can be automatically extended by writing a letter to the applicant.
Errigo: urge everyone to focus on the design review issues and not on other, legal issues.
There was no other public testimony and the public hearing was closed.
�
�
HPC Case Summary re: 420 Portland Avenue, File #3654
Page Two
BeI[us: moved one-month layover (two weeks if necessary); Murphy seconded.
Larson: concemed that 30 minutes already spent and nothing anycne could say affects the design review
guideIines.
Heide: strongly disagee with a tayover; the changes from the plans approved in 1497 aze slight.
The layover motion failed on a 3- 7 vote.
Heide moved approval of both proposed designs; Hargens seconded.
Bel�us asked for separate votes on each scheme, which request was refused.
Tbe motion to grant approval of a buiiding permit for either scheme passed 9- 1(Bellus).
summary prepared by Aaron Rubenstein
�
� �
U
n
U
�
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECl'[ONS FutiD
ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION
RobertKessle�, Drrecfor
�
CITY OF SAR�iT PAUL
l.'orm Coleman, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Heritage Preservation Commission
FROM: Aazon Rubenstein ��.
RE: 420 Portland / File #3654
DATE: 21 June 1999
Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a new "carriage" house at
420 Portland Avenue, immediately west of Nathan Hale Pazk. Mr. Severson is seeking HPC approval
of two schemes. One involves a 36' long building with a 25' front setback; this project requires no
vaziances. The second plan, preferred by Mr. Severson, is a 38' long building with a 16' front setback,
for which a front yard setback vaziance would be needed. The Boazd of Zoning Appeals will review
Mr. Severson's variance request on July 12, 1999.
LOWRYPROFESSIOh'AL BUILD/,VG
Suite 300
350 S[ Peter Sveet
Saint Paul, Misu�esota 55102-I S!0
� �ac�
Telephone: 6J7-266-9090
F¢csimile: 651-766-9099
�
�
�
The rivo proposed plans are very similar to one another and to plans for a 40' long building with a
19.5' front setback that the HPC approved on Mazch 27, 1997. That 1997 approval was the resuit of
� � five meetings with the HPC: a concept review in July 1995, an informal concept review in November
1996, an HPC heazing in February 1997, a Design Review Committee meeting in Mazch 1997, and
approval at the March 1997 HPC meeting. The HPC approval was appealed to the Ciry Council by
some residents of the adjacent building at 415 Summit Avenue. The appeal was denied, and the HPC
decision affirmed, by a 6- 0 Council vote on February 25, 1998.
The previously approved pian and the two proposed ptans are compazed in the table at the end of this
memo.
�
The proposed building site is a flat, dirt lot used for off-street parking for the residents of 415 Summit
(the E. W. Winter House). A two-stall gazage was built on the lot several years ago. The
420 Portland lot was formerly the reaz yazd of 415 Summit; it was split off from the 415 Summit lot
in 1990. Owners of the four condominiums at 415 Summit have an easement on 420 Portland which
requires that rivo pazking spaces be provided at 420 Portland for each condominium unit.
Mr. Severson proposes the 36' long building because it requires no variances. He prefers the 38' long
building, however, for the following reasons: a) it provides more living space; b) it provides 9' wide,
rather than 8.5' wide, gazage spaces; c) it is sited 6' further from the Winter House, which provides
more sunlight to the residents of the building to the west at 436 Portland, and d) it has 9 rather than 8
pazking spaces.
A revised landscape plan is shown on the site plan for the 38' building. The landscaping for a 36'
building would be similaz to that shown on the plan for the 38' building and not as shown on the site
plan for the 36' building.
��
HPC, 6.21.99, re: 420 Portland Av., p. 2
�
The previously approved plan had a 19.5' front setback and rivo pazking spaces in the front yard, one
of which was duectly in front of the building. The proposed 38' building has a 16' front setback and
puu the ninth pazking space behind the building rather than in front of it. To the west of the subject
site is a lazge, four story, brick apartment building at 436-38 Portland. The front wall of the building
is set back approximately 12' from the sidewalk and the rivo, two-story porches aze setback 18" from
the sidewalk. This is the only building on the south side of Portland between Summit/Westem and
Arundel.
Please see the attached HPC resolution approving the 40' long building (File #2884) for relevant
portions of the Historic Hill district guidelines pertaining to new construction.
420 PORTLAND AVENUE
COMPARISON OF Tf� THREE SCHEMES
ISSCTE
front setback
- distance from 415
Summit
roofline (all
schemes have
sante approximate
height)
east elevation
west elevation
north and south
elevations—same
all schemes
# parking spaces
front yazd pazking
APPROVED 40'
SCHEME
19.5'
10'
PROPOSED 36'
SCHEME
25'
10'
8/12 hip 20/12 tnmcated hip
(flat deck at
center)
4 windows, paired
4 windows, no bay
3 single windows
7 windows, bay
�
2 spaces
8
none
PROPOSED 38'
SCHEME
16'
16'
I O/12 truncated hip
(flat deck at
center}
4 single windows
7 windows, bay
�
none
.
n
U
/I
�
GENERAL BUiLDiNG PERMIT
DEPARTMENT C{TY OF SAINT PAIiL
t
CITY OF SAINT PAUL r•I 5-`�� �
OFFICE OF LICE\SE, INSPEC[70`:S AA'D � -
E�ViRONME\TALPROTECTiOti �
BCILDhY'G LVSPEC770.V AND DES/G.V �
3�0 St Peter Street - S«ite 300 � PHmjt NO,
��SaearPaul.Mirmesoea5510?-l5I0 6i1-?66-9090 �
oo- ���
�� �� �r, a �. .�° PLAN NO.
� -` DESCRt ION OF PRO ECT �- ^�
OATE 7'�`� g�f OWNER �t'Y�l?Jc� J. ��?�X✓�OrJ
OWNERSADDRESS `T/S c�`G!?�/l'�T #� � G� I {�3"� � �
❑ OlD I TYPE OF /
C�'�1EW TYPE CONST. r%ceC OCCUPAtdCY 5r (r ��f
GRADING STUCCO OR
C�YBUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE
ALTER U REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK
STREET SIDE Cf70555TREETS
�
9
�L�=
WAR
�
LOT
STRUC-
TURE
���ti�
LOT BLOCK
W�OTH I
7L ��
��
WIDTH
.�7�
TED VA�VE
�j,�����
OETAllS & REMnRi
INCI.UDE BASEMENT
l
' _ wv. ,.� ��_ `
s�� )l� � z � 1 � �'��1x�,�-�
��li �c» �`/9- li�� _ �''ih� - el-��' - �3 -�4-�Z4a
ARCHITEC
CONTRACTOq
MASON
FERMIT FEE
OIAN CHECK
STATE
SUFCHARGE
STATE
YALUAT40N
L'
G- �
• '�OTAL FEE
APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL IN�
FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT
Ai,l PERTINENT STATE REGUlAT10NS CASH�ER USE ONLv
ANO C�TY ORDINANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN VA�IDATEO TMIS IS YOUR PERMIT
P�IED WITH IN PERfORMlNG THE WORK
FO� WHICH THI�PERMIT �S ISSUED.
ADORESS J�, ��I _I.A,,, ,SSJO,�
T�ON
IEPTH $IDE l0T CLEARANCE BVILDING L�NE
S'��� ,[/ �✓Jaj/ FROS` AE�
s� �� r� a �
LENGTH HEIGMT STpR1E5
3G � 2�� q �� �
BASEMENT TOTALFLOOfl APEA
�VES ❑ NO SQ. FT. �/�Sb
1 L�
�
June 16,1999
Memo To:
From:
Re:
Aaron Rubenst�, Her tage Preservation Commission
Ron Severson , � �
420 Portland Avenue Carriage House
I am enciosing two copies of the elevations and site plans for the 38 foot
carriage house with the request that this plan be considered for approval at
the June 24�'' meeting of the commission.
I believe you now have copies of the elevations and site plans for the 40
foot carriage house which was previously approved, the revised 36 foot
house which needs no variance and the enclosed 38 foot house which will
be considered for a variance at the July 12�' meeting of the zoning board.
�
It is my hope that both of the plans under consideration can be approved at
the June commission meeting so that I would be in a position to proceed
with construction whether or not the zoning board approves the requested
variance.
Please call me if you need additional information.
��
N
�
�
•
r: �
` _ _ . _ ' -r ' . . . _. .. _ _ .._. ' _ __. _
. _c'—� . _""" " ' � . .
..�.� __ _ _ _ . - . . . . . _. _ . ' . .
� _�
' , r�_ . ' �`""_'"___�_ _ "'__^__
� A ' -t�--- _� •-; -- - -- -----: --- - - -- . - ---- _____.._` __..- ---_
- ��_ �_—=-
-- --r.----=e�= —
='— s _ _�-- ; �-= __"_ -_`O_ - � , ---'N - Ab! ----N2i31S3M-.---. _��-,--�_-- -
�g
� — ' � -�i?: ,� . - - • �e - - - � �--�
� �Lj t •� � i
- . z�= R � -- . ' o
- __�_ —�.Z_� c— � `�' - -- � --- �- � —'_ - - _ — -- ' -- _� _ —
p' �_ g : �
�__ _ _ __. '_ , i, '�: o� `` __' _ � } —'. _'__ _�_ ._ _ _
� . � L �_ ♦ . . �•.�i � ' _ � r� � � �
��..��_ 4 _..`_ —� i'p �= .:`.
r . • lY b ♦ _ . __ _— \ � �.crc —_—�__
i � ♦ ` o _ _ .' .
_.'--. _ �-+ _— - ,� �--- � � r° `�`�' -� � . - - � .. _
.
� - � .-�— .. --•— v . '- ---- - —�— -
------- • . .. ... - • - . - -
- - - -- - - ° ' . v . , . � .
. r � . . . - -`-- �`----
�- . ♦ ; � C'. ____'__-_. . ___ ___ .�__ _'
_ i ♦ � . _ __
_ r : . � �, � - . �
� ; � �,. �` � ' .R
_ ' _ __' "-
�' 1 ... "_ _' _" _" "' Q.- "_ " '__ . -. .
, , _ ' '�. ' _ _ _ _' ' _ -.. . _ _' _ _' ' "" _ _ '
�1> . _
� ' �� ' - �- - ----�--- - - i � ._... _
- � � ' i �� ♦ Q � `,�. ' .. _
� ! � yJ
_ _—�1— �� � ,_V�
---
� � 1 --�� -- — -- - - e - �-- -
' �,,
7 �. _ v ; ' o £� �� � , - - �e -�-- - - --
L�
i p o P �`� ,\ - _J__'.�.___'_
_' —' _'__ ' _ -'____'
. i 'S}7_� _ __ . __... _ '____— ' _ ___'_ _ _ "______—"` __
� . � . +> •� . o �"_— ____
: � ; ' y i � h �'
�
'��_-�—_ -- -� - - -- -- - �---'�_= �� �
.._ ---_- = -=- --- —'
� � � �.
-. . �
-- -� -- � a
�-- ,- �- - - - a --� -- �� - - - -- � �
�' -- - ° ' -_—�
- -- - _ .?-- . -_--- - �
� -- -- -- -� - -- a . _ __�_-_
� -- - - � i
� �— -- — .o. %�';---- -------� -- ---- �-----U
- — � { ' � °' -' - _ _-- `�s _ .g,�Z� 2
� • , 2 } • � —. � -- -
�= � � • �
� � ' �
� � •'' = r `'a � .�, N � �
_ I ---� a -- - °' � o� ,� � .� � - '�
/o
� ° �
�` � � ��
_ f __ _.'� , �� P d>' � �� .
a % � � s �
—ID-_� __ � \y' 2 ,`` • ``� �
�
" _�
O � _ � � � � �`; � _ . _� �
. l ^' � f . ��� ' � �
_ _ __
. �i / � . � . - � Y � . -' � � f = - � __ _ _ __ �
' . ' ` * N / � V �
.. � — — .
O r �
� . . ` re <_��-� _ � -'.N_.O _ _.. ' .� . \� �
Q � T � �- : : - _q ' .r.�,.....� . __.
�o� _ ..r -;.;..._ a
- . 'T' -- � -- .� * i � � � � , a
� d , 's>o.?.,T- �, ` ,. . � , � �
� \ `
. 1 0 � ' �,-_J ' �__
_ _ 1 - ar � _% - -- � --- t. "
�� . l . ae , .. . -
_ � � z .� ; )�
�_ � --• � --
�- �--- ------=� � - _. .- _ ' �
- -- - �. �-�----- ��E1�dC�tl-r__°------- _ _ _
_ � � - �--- _ __�_ _. _ � _.
� �
. i � _ � ,Z � ,.. . � �� i •
� s� � -��
— � ��-- - ��` ( .
"_'_.- '.'�'—__ -' ` " � N (](
� F __" t �S `�� ` _'__ __ ' ' .' "" ____tr ._ ._� H:
�--� V
� � ; ` � �l"�'( _ ,� ':�-., � � S �
Co•.:;.ci1 File
oRI��NA�
Preseated By
Referred To
G:e_z Sh=et
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
•L
2 WHEREAS, Ronald Severson made application to the Heritage Preservation
3 Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73 for a building
4 permit to construct a carria�e-house-Iike structure at 420 PortIand Avenue within the Historic
5 Hili Herita�e Preservation District; and
6
�VHEREAS, on February 27, 1997, the commission conducted a public heazing on the
9
10
lI
I2
I3
14
IS
16
I7
18
29
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
34
40
proposat. After discussion, the matter was laid over and the project was aeain reviewed on
Ma:ch I3, 1997, and finally approved on Mazch 27, 1997. However, the commission,
inadvertently, did not formaIly pass a resolution approving the project until January 8, 1998; and
WHEREAS, on April S, 1997, Gregory Clark, Cazol Clazk and Patricia Leonazd
appealed the Mazch 27, I997, commission decision but elected to enter into negotiations wZth the
applicant in the hope that the applicant and the appelIants might resolve thzir differences; and
WI3EEREAS, the ne�otiations between the parties failed to reach asi acceptabie
compromise and the appeliants requested that tfieir appeal be heazd by the Saint Paul City
CounciI; and
�`T3EREAS, the commission in its Resolution No. 2884 granted approval of the building
permit based upon revised plans incIudin� onIy the east elevation mazked 3C-1, and subject to .
the condition that an appropriate crown moldin� be added above the transom «indows in lisht of
the Historic HiII Heritage Preservation guidelines. In particuIar, based upon the evidence �
presented at the Mazch 27, 1997, pubiic fiearin�, the commission made the followin� findings of
fact:
The proposed buiiding site is a pivotaI and difficult site. It is visible from
Sumcnit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are
Iazge buildines to the south and west that aze close to the property lines.
This Iot can be construed as both the rear yard of the R'inter House at 415
Summit Avenue and as a Iot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed
carriage house concept (and "front yazd" pazking adjacent to Portland) is a
reasonable approach to developin� the pazcel for the follo«in� reasons: a)
the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off=street pazkina for
residents of the �Vinter House; b) the pazcel has historicail}' been a reaz
yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appears as a rear yard due to its
retationship to the Winter House; c) there was historicall}' a two-story
catria�e house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a
buildin� that is very close to the Winter House in proximiry and that is
related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The R'inter House
� - 3.57
� l�Q�s � �
�
U
C�
Cy
2
• 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
� '
6
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4-�
4�
46
7
48
49
0 R! G I N�uilt on a through-lot �vith Summit and Portland frontages; the recent
subdicision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the
�h'inter House to surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site.
2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines:
a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height,
rhythm, setback, color, material, building elements, site design,
and chazacter of susounding structures and the azea."
b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and chazacter
would be related to, but do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House.
Individual design elements are integrated for a balanced and
complete design.
c. Though the side elevation would not be pazallel to that of the
Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular
to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland.
d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the reaz
yazd nature of the site, and the carriage house nature of the
proposed building, the fact that the historic carria�e house on the
site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the
only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland
between Westem and Arundel) is located closer to the street than
would be the proposed structure.
e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house
nature of the building.
f. Pazkin� spaces w�ould be adequately screened from the street and
sidewalk by landscaping. Sin�le gazage doors would avoid the
horizontal orientation of doubie doors.
The unusual nature of the building and site results from the razity
of a through-lot. These sorts o£ anomalies in design and
development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic
district and its chazacter.
In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the
federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an
historic site. The proposed building's design and materiais aze related to
and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the
R'inter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is
historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the tw•o; and
the development �vould not have an adverse impact on the chazacter-
definin� features of the site and the azea. The building's desiQn is similar
to the reaz addition of the Winter House w•ith simplified detailing, w�hich is
ap"propriate for a new secondary structurz. A new buildin� of unrelated
desisn and materials would detract from the historic inteerit;� of the site;
and V
� ��
�'—��
1� ...
(b
���✓✓ �
v
2
3
4
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORIGINAL
WFIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Tricia
Leonazd, Greg Clazk, and Carol Clark duly filed with the Council an appeal from the
determination made by the commission and requested that a hearing be held before the City
Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and
`TlHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was set on for 7anuary 28,
1998, but, at the request of appellants' attomey, the matter was postponed to February 25, 1998;
and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 1998, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City
Council, where all interested parties were given an opportuniry to be heazd; and
WHEREAS, having heazd the statements made and having considered the application,
the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the commission, the Council does
hereby;
RESOLVE, to deny the appeal of Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clazk and Carol CIazk on
the basis that their has been no showin� that the commission made any error in fact findin� or
procedure in this matter; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Ciry Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution .
to Patricia Leonazd, Gregory Clark and Cazol Clark, the Zoning Administrator and the Heritage
Preservation Commission.
Reques[ed by Department of:
Adcpted by Council: Date I�3����
Adoo:ion Certified by Cow^.cil Se tar
By: �
Apnroved by Mayor: te
By:
Byc
Form Approved by City A[tor.iey
B ��.�' L//1:.�� Y- � �'� 9�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
r �
L
��
oo-� �c�
�
APPLICATIdN FOR APPEAL
Deparlment of Planning axd Economic DevelopmenJ
Zoning Section
II00 Cit}� Ha11 Anner
IS Wes1 Founh Street
Saint Paul, M1Y 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
Address �/s Summ. �ti *E �
City ���_ �� y St.� Zip SJ10 Daytime phon Gi� 37i
PROPERTY Zoning File
LOCATION
�
T.YPE OF APPEAL Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
= Board of Zoning Appeals C�Gity Council
e�nder the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph _
appeai a decision made by the �ii�t�l d'f �,J,
on l��7�/. � , 19�. File
(date of de cis�o�)
Zarting affise us¢ onEy
F���. `l�-IJ7u ?C
Fse ! SA �
Tsntative #teari date:
�� �t3 +c� C� C'euKe`,1
of the Zoning Code, to
� , �- // 3
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
s. G�L- -� 1-h �. �
(l��3 t
A ^ '�
�, � � �J ` / ' � Z_
C �
Attach addifiona/ sheet
ApplicanYs signatu
Date 1/ City agent
�3
�
Appeal of the Board
Reasons for the appeaf:
of Zoning AppeaYs
dated
Navember 8, 1999
on
420 Portfand Ave.
resolution #99-163
The resolution by fhe Board of Zoning Appeals found that my application met the
requirements for a variance on points number five and six but did not meet the
requiremer�ts on points number one through four.
It is my contention that the Board of Zoning Appeals is in error in there findings.
On the findings of facts on points one through four. The Zoning Board
staff concluded,through their evaluation of my request,that I did meet the
requirements of each of the first four provisions as well as the last two. I
believe that the staff concfusions are correet as they are written.
2. Based on the history of action on this lot in which the board in 1990 and
again in 4992 found that this same lot did meet all six requirements for a
variance and did grant the requested variances.
�� X��
�
�-� � 5 ��u�rm� � Ce�. �
•
(�
•• _�
CITY OF SAI\TT PAUL
BOARD OF ZO�'ING APPEALS RESOLUTIO\'
ZO\TI\ FILE I\'UMSER: r 99-163
� DATE 11/08199
��'HEREAS, RONALD SEVERSO\? has applied for a variance from the strict application of the
provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code pertainin� to the construction of a nen
residential structure that would have a 4-car gara�e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on the
szcond floor ovzr the �arage, in the RT-2 zonin� district at 420 PORTLAiv'D AVENUE; and
�VHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals conducted a public hearin� on October 25, and
I�Tovember 8, 1999, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section b4.205 of
the Legislative Code; and
�VHERPAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals based upon evidence presented at the pubiic
hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact:
1. 77ie property in question can be put to a reasonabte use under the strict provisiau of the code.
A sliehtly smaller building wi!h four parkin, spaces on the first floor and a dwelling unit on the second
floor can be built on the property. A sitz plan for this building �vas approved by thz City Council in March
" 1999.
•` 2. The p1igT:t of the land otivner is not due to circevnstances unique to this property, mid these circumstances
ticere not created by the land otivner.
The size and irregular shape of the lot and the private agreement that requires the property o��ner to providz
parking spaces for the units at 415 Summit are unique to the property and were not created by the present
- property o��ner. However, the present o«ner �vas aware of these circumstances ��hen he bou;ht the
p: opzm�.
3. The proposed variance is ttot in keeping xith the spirit and intent of the code, and is cousistent with IT:e
healdt, safety, con jort, morals and x�elfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St. Paul.
The reduced front yard setback that «ould be allowed by the variance would not provide a reasonable
amount of green space and therefore is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance will in:pair a�: adegt�ate supply of IigJ:t and air to adjacent properry, and will
unreasor:ably diminish estabfished properry values }vithin the surrocuzding area.
The orientation of the building with the side facing Portland Avenue �vould unreasonably diminish property
values within the surrounding area.
5. TJ:e variance, ifgranted, would not perntit mry use that is not permitted under the prorisions of the code for
the properry ii: the district where the afjzcted land is located, nor wozrld it alter or changz the zoning
district classifieation oftlaepropern•.
, 6. Tl:e request for ro•ariance is not based primarily ai a desire to increase the valr�z or incan:e potential of th2
parcel ofla�rd.
Page 1 of 2
2�!
File r 99-163
1Zesolution
I�'O«', THEREFORE, $E IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals that the request •
to waive the provisions of Section 61.101 to aliow a front yard setback of 16 feet, in ordzr to construct a
ne��� residential structure that would fiave a 4-car gara�e on the first floor and a sin�le-family home on
the secoad floor over the gara�e, on property located at 420 PORTLAIVD AVE\TUE; and legally
described as Except the Southeast 132.8 feet, Lot 6, auditor's subdivision #38; in accordance with the
application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zonin� Administrator, is HEREBY DENIED.
MOVED BY: nzorton
SECOl\TDED BY: w;isoa
I1�T FAVOR: s
AGAINST: o
ABSTAIN: z
nI.aILED: November 09, 1999
TI�IE LI�IIT: l�o order of the Board of Zonine Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a
' buildina or off-street parkins facility shalt be valid for a period longer than one
year, unless a bailding permit for such erection or alteration is obtained tivithin such.
period and such erection or alteration is proceedina pursuant to the terms of such
permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the Citc Council ma}� grant an eCtension
not to esceed one year. In granting such exteasion, the Board of Zoning Appeals
may decide to hold a public hearing.
APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zontng Appeals are f:nal subject to appeai to the City
Council ticithin 15 da}�s by anyone affected by the decision. Buildina permits shall
not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits hace been issued before an
appea! has been filed, theu the permits are suspended and constructioa shatl cease
until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal.
CERTTFICATI01: I, the nndersigned Secretary tn the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint
Paul, blinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with
the oripinal record in my oFfice; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of
said orivina] and of the sti�hole fhereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint
Paul Board of Zonin; Appeais meeting held on October 25, aad november 8,1999,
and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Encironmental Protection,
350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, hlinnesota.
SAI\T P�UL BOARD OF ZO\I\G APPEALS
_E��,=�.� ��K��
1`'oet Diedrich
Secretan• to tfie Board
Page 2 oF 2
CJ
s�- �
� ���
.,
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
• CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 25, 1999
PRESENT: Mmes. Liston and Ivforton; Messrs. Alton, Donohue, Kramer, Scherman and Wilson of
the Board of Zonin; Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorne}•; Mr. Hardwick,
Mr. Beach, and b1s. Diedrich of Che Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental
Protection.
ABSENT: Mmes. Bogen, Maddox *
* Both Excused
The meetin� was chaired by Brian Alton, Vice Chair.
RONALD SEVERSON (k99-1631 420 PORTLAi�� AVENUE: The appticanc is proposing to
construct a ne�.v, residential strucmre that w�ould have a 4-car garage on the first floor, and a single-
family home on the second floor over the garage. The building has been designed to took like an
historic carriage house. In addition to the 4 spaces in the new building, there would afso bz 3 surface
spzces, and 2 spaces in an existin� garaQe, for a total of 9 parking spaces on the site. One of these
parkin� spaces would be for the carria�e house unit, and the other 8 would be for an existin� 4-unit
condominium immediately to che south (415 Summit). A variance for minimum front yard setback. A
#., front yard setback of 16 feet is proposed for the carriage house, a se[back of 25 feet is required, for a
variance of 9 feet.
Mr. Beach showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommenda[ion for approval.
The applicant, Ronald Severson, 415 Summit Avenue #t2, was present. He said he also owns a unit in
the condominium to the south of it. His unit is the one unit that overlooks the parkin; area. His wife
and he bou�ht che property in 1996, with the intent of build'sng a single family house that they were
going to live in and use as the retirement house. They realized, at the time, that there was easemenc for
parkin� on the properry. Each of the plans that they considered has taken that into consideration.
There has always been parking for two off-street parking spaces for each of the other three owners in
the condominium in which he lives.
b1r. Severson continued that there was a question that Tom Beach talked a little bit about, whether or
not it was a legal lot split back in 1990, 6 years before he bought it. That set him back a long way,
bzcause that had to be resolved. And, it's been resolved, so it is a legal buiidable lot. He can build a
carriage house on it. He has developed plans for a 36 foot carriage house. He didn't have a copy of
the packet, but he had aimost all the information from Tom so if he is missing something you'll have to
excuse him. He thinks they have the 36 foot site plan as part of the packet. T'hat's a buiidable plan bu�
it's not the best that can be built on that loc So he's here asking for that variance because he thinks
that wha[ he's proposing will be a better development for that lot, and for the nei;hborhood, and for
the peopte that live in chat condominium.
� He said thac what he's requestine, and he thinks they have the site plan in front of them, - to emphasize
Page 1 of 13
2 2-
- he has Heritage Preservacion Commission approval for this. This building that he's proposing meets •
the requirements for that area. It will be a real asset to that pazticular lot because of the lar;e, 4-srory
brick buildin� thal's next to it. He thinks it will improve the visual - the view actually from the park
laokin; tocvard the lot, because this is a turn-of-the-century, carria�e house. It's archi[ecturally
desi;ned and, as Heritage Preservation Commission has pointed oat, it meets the requirements for that
area and of that type of a carriage house back in the 1900's. Incidentally, there cvas a carria�e house
aimost on that spot at the turn of the century - 2-story high, 32x32. It disappeared sometime, probably
atound the 1920's. So, in a way, they're replacing the carriage house that was there for a good, long
period of time.
He's askin� for a 16-foot front yard: a nine foot variance. For several reasons. First of all, he would
like to increase the size of the carriage house to 38 feet. 36 foot is adequate, as far as meecing the
requirements of the ordinance. But 38 feet would allow the 4 cars that are goin; to park in there to
have approximately a 9-foot space, and would make it easier to maneuver throu;h the parking lot and
into that space.
Part of his easement requirement is that he provides 2, off-street parking spaces. This carriage house
will provide 1 parking spot for each of the 2 people that live in the same condominium that he does,
and the other people alreadp have an existing garage, so chat gives each of them lparkin; space and
then wouId allow another parking space for him when he and his wife move into this carria�e house.
38 feet is not a lot of extra space in terms of tivin� space - about 40 square feet It's still onIy abou[
179 of the total buiidable area, so it's way under the square footage allowed for chat area. I[ aiso
allows - he thinks the maneuverability would be improved because of being able to make a little easier
Nrn into a wider space. �
He's cen�ered the 38-foot bailding on the toc. That aliows for 16 feet between the two buildin;s. And
16 feet between the sidewalk and the front of the building. He thinks the 16 feet benveen che 2
„ buildines is important because of the concerns about space not being so close - not lookin; like iPs
, attached. A 38-foot building also is - both buildings are acceptable by Herita�e Preservation
Commission - but he thinks this is a little better looking building if you were standing in the park
looking coward the parking Ioc It's a symmetrical building with a setback next to the hall�vay being the
same on both sides. It does look better. It's better for the neighborhood.
He also would like to - by moving it to 16-foot front yard setback, he can put a nice parkin� space on
[he south side of that buiiding. The importance of that is for - it's emphasized on Friday and Sarurday
nights when the Universiry C[ub starts parking cars for those patrons on Portland Avenue. Big buiiding
next to it - he believes it's someihing like 14 totat units but only 13 parkin� - off-street, parking spaces.
They depend a lot on Portland Avenue. Maybe one parking space won't make a lot of difference but
he thinks it will. He thinks it's important.
He aIso wanted to point out, if you took at the whole block, the buildin� next to this - to the west of
this - is almost ri�ht on che sidewalk. His bein� 16-feec back, obviousty he's not goin; to block any
view of the park. If you count 8 units on thai block total, wirh 36 Portlaad bein; 2 entrances and
therefore 2 units, only 2 of those buildin�s meet the requirement of 25 feet. 2 of them are less than 16
feet to the front sidewalk, so his building is not going to be on the street. In fact, he thinks it will be
more out of piace if you move it 25 feet back and increase that lawn area.
He has a landscaped plan ihat was developed by 2 of his neighbors. He's worked �c•i�h them on it but �
Page 2 of 13
� �
c�-�a�
• ��hat he's going to do with landscaping, - he's a�reed, before he pnlled a buildin� permit, that he wil]
put 55,000.00 into escrow, under the control of his nearest nei2hbor, k�ho is fr�e fi:st floor directly
across from him and suppor[s this buildin„ to ensure when ali the building is dor.e, there v,•ill be funds
availab]e for landscaping.
They can live with a 36-foot, if thzy have [o. But it's not the best plan. His wife and he have tried
very hard to develop, what they think will be, a really good plaa for this neighborhood. 'Il�at u ili look
the best. They'll have ihe best parking, and the best way of maneuvering on this ]ot. Incidentally,
he'll be providing - each of those spots wili be provided without charge or cost to the other people in
the neighborhood. Because he's obli�ated through easement to provide these. Hz could leave it as an
outside parkin� spot - he'd rather each of them have a stall inside of a garage, for obvious reasons,
because we're coming in[o our winter now. He's offered to do that. Tt's a tequirement anyway. He
offered it way back before they even started on this. Those are his reasons for askin� for the variance.
He thanked the Board and stated he would be happy to answer any questions.
Dfr. Alton referred to a statement about other residences in che area, and he asked if Mr. Severson was
[alkin, about across the s[reet on Portland Avenue, the avera�e setback. Mr. Severson said every
secback - that full btock across the street - on his side, there is oniy one buitding. There's six buildin�s
across the street. Thuse are the ones that he mentioned - only 2 of thzm meet the requirements.
his. Liston had a question she said was relative to the yellow sheet and the staff rzcommendation. On
� the yellow sheet description it says the front yard setback is proposed for the carriagz house. A setback
for 2� feet is required for a variance of 10 feet. In the staff recommendation it reads 16 feet. Mr.
� Severson said 16 feet is being applied for. It was a rypo.
,% Mr. Scherman asked, that those people that come out of the garage that he has there, how do they get
over to 415 Summit. Mr. Severson said part of - there'll be a sidewalk, which isn't put in yet. Mr.
- Scherman asked if they can come out of the back? Mr. Severson said, yes, there's a door so that
they'1] bz able to walk along the front of the gara;e, come out of the back, ar.d a':zn go ri�ht up the
steps. That's the back door to al! of the units, where those steps are. And that wi11 be a concrete walk.
blr. Scherman also asked what a`day lily' was. Mr. Severson said he should ha�e the fandscaper in
the neighborhood, who drew up the landscaping and recommended the plantings and so forth. Mr.
Severson said he didn't know. He was looking forward to seeing it.
Lou Sudheimer came forward and said he lived abou[ 100 feet across the stree[, kicey corner, at 439
Portland. Sort of in front of the 4-story condominium building. He just wanted to refresh the people
that have been on the Board for quite some time, and update some of the people that are new on the
Board. This has been going on for a lon; time, and he's been involved throu;h Historic Hill Homes
�vich the previous owner, as well as trying to supporc Mr. Severson in his endeavors to get what he has
consideced to be an excellent set of designs of carria�e houses, to replace the one that went missing
many, many decades ago. And solve some of the parking problems for the owners of these
condominiums that have evolved over time. The original group of people that kere involved in the
buildin„ for the most part, were 100`� in favor of this. t3nfortunately, there's been some new people
that have come in who began to be aoainst it for reasons that they will have to explain to the Board
shortly. But he just wanted to refresh the group that, when these issues first camz up, there were a
significant number of neighbors who came down and took time out of their day�s co appear in favor of
• this. They, of course, have lost interest and tenacity over time, but the majority' of his neighbors are in
favor of this. There are, as in many nei,hborhood situations, therz is a splic but he ticou]d gau;e that
Page 3 of 13
L4
the preponderance of people are in favor. And just wanted to add his opinion tha[ this plan is better �
than [he plan that Mr. Severson was forced to adopt with a slightly smaller carria�e house, and with
one fewer off-street parking stall, in order to come up with a plan that would require r.o variances.
This plan does require a small variance, but it does provide a significantly, more funccional garage
simation, and it provides an extra stall, which is very critical, even for some of the people that are
objecting to it. It's very unfortunate that a small, well-financed clique of neighbors has been able to
delay this approval, multiple times.
There were no others to speak in favor; Chair then invited those opposed to address the Board.
Mark Vaught, an attorney, Suite 700, 6 R'est Fifth Street, came forward, and stated he represented
Greg and Carot Ciark, owners of one of the condominium units at 415 Summic Avenue, Pa[ricia
Leonard, owner of the unit, and Laurel Frost, who lives in the other building, immediately to the other
side of this particular lot, that they saw in the photos. He apologized in advance if ic happens. He was
carrying a cell phone in his pocket and he has to leave it turned on because he tried a case to a jury in
Hennepin County last week and the jury is out deliberating, as he speaks. And Jud;e Connelly has
required him to carry it. So if ic goes off, he apologizes in a@vance. He's goin; to have �o take a short
delay and answer it and, perhaps, some of the neighbors who are present and other people might, at
that point, make their comtnents, if he hasn't finished his. He hates that when that happens, and he
really hates it when people talk on cell phones in restaurants, and it wouldn't be on if he wasn't
:.. required to have it on. But he knows Mr. Alton and Mc Warner, as attorneys, appreciatz the fact that
' sometimes you simply have to be on call.
bir. Vau�ht said without impugnin� anyone's motives, and he's not doing that, there's been so much �
revisionis[ history thaYs transpired here, both in the StafPReport and what Mr. Severson, and
parcicularly what Mr. Sudheimer said, which is almost all so far off the mark as to be unbelievable. He
said he hardly knows where to start, The one thing that he would like to ask, he doesn'[ l:now whether
he's seen a copy of the staff report, the staff repoR he has does not have the neicher rhe s�aff report ar
the resolution from when this matter was before the Board of Zoning Appeals in 1995, nor does it have
the S[aff Report and/or the Resolution - he apotogized, 1997 he meant - no, 1995, - nor does it have
[he Staff Report or the Resolution that was passed that was before them when this matter was back
before them in April of 1998. And he's presumiag that the Board doesn't have that information either.
Mr. Alton replied that they do have the 1998 Resolution and they do have - on pa�e 21 - and 22.
Mr. Vaught said he thought it was helpful because he thinks, if they look at that Staff Report and that
Resolution, it will help rhem gaide them through this decision because ii is not at all a simpte decision
and it is not at all as simpie as Mr. Severson would have it seem. He feels kind of like Yo�i Berra,
where he shoutd say he feels like deja vu atl over again, over again, over again, over a;ain, over
a�ain. By his count, these two proposals, and there really are two, not that are on your table, but two
that were presented to the Heritage Preservation Commission, and two before the Ciry Council. One
[hat requires a variance, the so-called 36 foo[ proposal, and that doesn't require a variance the 36 foot
proposal, and [hat which does, the so-called 38 foot proposal, and by his rough count, and he could
stand to be corrected on this, but by his rough count, since Mr. Severson has purchased this property,
and ac least 1996, tbose are between the 5 and the 8`" difFerent proposals that he's advanced for this
properry, depending on how you count and how you do the variations, and that reall} is the source of
his taking great exception to what b1r. Sudheimer said. For which you might impi}� if you believed �
wha[ F�1r. Sudheimer said that, somehow, this is back here because chis weli-financed cIique of
Page 4 of 13
Z�
�► r ��il
• nei�hbots keeps bringing it back here. It's back here because Mr. Severson keeps changing his mind
and advancing new proposats to them, thac's why it's back here. Not because of anything that the
� neiohborhood or the neighbors have done. Whether they feel personally offend�d by being
characterized as a well-financed clique, he'!1 leave that to them. But he wants to set the record straight,
in that respect.
. , .
r
But they're not here today because of anything the neighbors did. They're here because Mr. Severson
re-tooled the proposals two more times, afrer the last time he was in front of the Ci[y Council, in
March of this year. So he wanu to go through just a little bit of the history and he particularly wants to
bring the focus to bear on the history of this Body's consideration of that. Because the last two times,
before this, that this plan has been before - a plan has been before his Body for requesting variances,
this Body has denied those variances. And he would submit to them, particularly if they look at the
plan in the 1998, April 1998 time that it was before them, that there's really no material difference
between this particular plan advanced, this particular time, and the plan that they turned down then,
and which turned down, by the way, was upheld by the City Council, not overrurned by them. And
the plan in addition that was before them - in - he's going to say in 1995 - which this Body also turned
down the variance request - that that also did not material]y differ from this parcicular proposal. Now
he doesn't see frankly anythin� that's particularly changed other than Ciry Council accion on Herita;e
Preservation Commission issues, which are not the same as the issues that face [he Board. And Mr.
Severson is simply throwing up another proposal against the wall, after running up against one road
block or another. Now the procedural history, and he says this all the time, and probab]y the reason
he's sayin� it is because he }ust got done saying this to a}ury IS times about how you ought to rely
upon g�our own recollection if it's different than his. But his recollection of this as it's been before you
the last few times, is Mr. Severson put to,ether a proposal that he took to the Hericase Preservation
Commission, and this happened in 1997. That matter was not before the Board because it did not
require any variances. And he wants to pause at that point, because they're goino to hear him say this
a couple times more in his presentation, that proposal did not require any varianczs. If he was
prepared to proceed ��ith the proposal, and advance one that did not require zn} variance, how pray
tell, can staff recommend to you, and how can you adopt a resolucion that says in effect the property in
question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the stricc provisions of the Code. Because, quite
frankly, as far as what they do is concerned, he's already put at least 3 or 4 plans fonvard, including
one that's current]y on the Ciry Council agenda waiting a decision on an appeal that comp]ies with the
strict pro�•isions of the Code.
The question really is, reasonable use. It's not whether you want to do it that wap, it's not whether it's
convenient to do it that way, it's does the Code strictly prohibit - iYs a scrict adherence to the Code -
prohibit you from a reasonable use and he would argue that it doesn't. And he w•ould argue that there';
plenry of history to buttress that, and he'd argue that Mr. Severson's own comments today put tfte lie ta
the fact that somehow there's some unreasonable restriction. He himself said to }ou he can live with
the 36 foot proposal. Well, if he can live with the 36 foot proposai, then there's no unreasonable
limitation.
He excused himself because his ce11 phone was ringing, but he came back momentarily and continued.
When the matter was before them in 1995, it didn't materially differ from chis proposal - it was the
same oriencation; it was a big cork in a small bottle. And it's still a big cork in a small bottie. You
turned it down then, and the decision wasn't overturned. In between times, t�fr. Se�erson took a
• complyin; plan, that didn't require your ac[ion throu�h the Heritage Preserva[ion Commission to the
Ciry Councii and the Ciry Councii approved it. But he didn't build it. Instead, he chese to come back
Page 5 of 13
L�
before the Board, in 1997, with another plan which did require variances and uhich they considered at •
that particular point. And he remembers qui[e a bit of [he discussion, as he's sure those of the Board
that were there remember that discussion. And there was a lot of discussion about the fact that the 97
plan didn't materially differ from the 1995 plan and they, in fact, at that point denied it, and you can
see the resolution for themselves. Not the - the 98. He keeps saying 97 and he means 98. 'Ihe 1998
plan that was before them in April 1998 that they turned down, there was quite a bit of discussion about
how chat didn't material[y differ from the p(an earlier and there was no reason to approve. And he
cornmended thern to language that's in that particalar resotution. He knocvs a number of [hem sat here
at that particular point and he guesses he has to say to them that he sees nothing differenc about this
particular plan except iPs one more variation of the same basic plan that doesn't change a whit, as a
matter of fact, from what you turned down in Aprii of 1998. And isn't affected. And so what
happened to tha[ April 1998 decision? It was appealed to the City Council. And che Ciry Council
upheld your decision. Mr. Severson was not allowed to build that April 1998 proposal.
And what happened after that? �`'eli, Mr. Severson then submitted another p[an in May, or later as he
recalls it in 1998, with a smaller carria;e house that didn't require the variances. So that matter
however was turned down - that si�e plan was not approved by tha Zoning Adminiscracor - ic weat to
[he Ciry Council and the Ciry Council ulcimately approved i[. But lets understand two things. They
didn't act to overmrn a decision of yours, because you never reviewed that pian. And the second thing
; that they did is, i[ was a plan that conformed to the Code and didn't require variances �vhatsoever.
" Ei[her one of two things. Either b1r. Severson was being genuine, or he's bein; disin�enuous about
that particu[ar proposal, but it would not have required any variances whatsoever. But did he build
` afrer che Ciry Councit acred? He did not. What did he do instead? He threw up two more pians. The
" one before you, and the 38 foot plan, and the 36 foot plan, which he took to rhe Hericage Preservation
Commission ac the same time. Now, curiously, they approved them both, and they certainly have that
abiliry. He can't tell them that they cadt. It would seem to him more logical that [hey would have said
to him, at that point, you know you've been back here, pal, 15, - 5, 6, 7 times. Pick �chich one of
`these you want, and decide which one you want to buiid, and we'll act on it. But they actually acted on
t'both of them. That decision was appealed by his clients to the Ciry Council and it still si�s chere
'° awaiting the outcome of this decision, because what the City Council said in effect to Mr. Severson was
exactly that - we're not going to buy a pig in a poke here, which one of these tu�o pians do yo¢ want.
Let's gec them all here so we can discuss them all. So he didn'i build that either. Evea the Heritage
Preservation Commission approved it. And it conforms.
So now we're back with the other half of that particular proposal, and he might add, by the way, he
doesn't know what necessarily effect it has, or how it relates, but he might add, if you look on the Staff
Report, in tfiis particuIar case, you k�ill see tha[ this proposal, that's before you today, was submitted in
June of this year. And chac it was prepared ro come to you much earlier than that. �t�'hy didn't it come
to you? Because Mr. Severson cancele@ the hearing. He decided not to have it come fonvard to them
at that particular point. Which he would say, logically, he thinks is an admission that he was perfectly
willing at that point to accept the 36 foot plan that was going through the Heritage Preservadon
Commission and, hence, to the City Council, and it was only back here before them now because the
Ciry Council wouldn't act on the Herita�e Preservation Commission appeal until you had acted on this.
He was not so sure, alchough he might be able to answer that question, where if the Ciry� Council had
gone ahead and acted at that pazdcutar point on the 36 foot proposat tha[ was approved by-[he Heritage
Preservation Commission, [hat he �eouldn'[ have already puiled a baildin� permit for that. He doesn't
know. And nobody knows. And it's terribly confusing to him and he's been involved in rhis issue for •
almost 3 years. He knows iPs confusing to his clients. And if it's not confusin; [o any of them, they're
Page 6 Of 13
27
�� .
much bz[[er a[ this than he is. There's so many of these different proposals tha[ gec thro�tn up. So
. they're back thete now,
` Let's look at the staff recommendacion. There are certain [ests. They aren't immucahle in the sense that
you can'c use your own judgment in deciding whether they've been met or whecher chey azedc. But
they are cer�ain that he thinks, on any rational reading of the facts with respec[ [o his 38 fooc proposal,
h4r. Severson has simply not met the test. In al1 due respect to bir. Beach, and he's knou•n him for a
number of years, he thinks he's simply wrong in the conciusions that he urges upon them. And the
musc egre�ious of which is die first. And that is that the property in question canno� be put to a
reasonable use under the strict provisions o; the Code. ft then goes on to urge you to conc{ude that
he's met this finding, but really talks about preferences, not reasonability. He mi;hc like to do a lot of
things rhat he can't do with his own residence because the Code doesn't let him. But because he wancs
` to do them, in this case, because Mr. Severson wants to add 2 feet to his carriage house, that dcesn't
mean that the Code is unreasonable when the Code says that he can't. And even when he says that he
v.�ants to do that, you have to judge that against the fact that he has submitted another proposal 36 feet,
which does meet.the provisions of the Code, and which he's told you he could live with, Again, thaYs
a ma[ter of preferences. And preferences don't necessarily add up to unreasonableness. Where is the
unreasonably strict provisions of the code that allow him [o do something that would o[henvise would
be reasonable. He's already told you he'll build the 36 foot one, if he has to. So he would argue that,
utterly and completely on the basis on the facts, that tes[ hasn't been made. If he'd come in here and
said, `I can only do 38 feei, this doesn't work with anything than 38 feet, I can't do all the parking
`. spaces that I have [o do, I can't do every[hing else that I want to do unless I make it 38 feeY and if the
Board concludes, then, that the Code requires him to be allowed to build 38 feet racher ehan somethin;
' that complies with the Code, then he might have met that test. But that's no[ the fac[s, and al1 of us
, know ic. He said he'll live with 36 feet and, therefore, he would submit to the Board, cha� that falls,
-, and this request for variance ou;ht ro fall, on that very firsi test.
And � hile they're passing over the issue, he just wanted to make a couple of comments about Mr.
' Beach's other rationale for concludin; that the strict provisions of the Code bar a rzasonable use, and
that is this business about how you can make the parking spaces a little wider. �Veii, you know folks,
there are so many square feei on this lot. And quite honestly, his ciients' objection �o this, from the
very beginning, has been that puttin; any building that even remote]y is like this, isjus[ too big on this
particular lot. Given that Mr. Severson also has the legal requirement to provide all these parking
spaces, which are, in effect, how he must do it, he doesn't have any choice: he's got ro have 9 parking
spaces on this particular lot on the building and on the lot. Well, if you make the carriase house a little
bit bigger so you can make those parking spaces a little bit bigger, iherefore, you make the other
parking spaces a little bit smaller. And so there isn't any more room. This isn't a case where you can
push somethin� and it shoves out somewhere else. The size of the other parking spaces has to be
materially affected in a negative way by increasing the size of ihe parkin; spaces in the carriage house.
By increasing it from 36 feet to 38 feet.
And you also heard that bir. Beach said, and he thinks Mr. Severson repeated ic, that these parking
spaces with the 36 feet carriage house comply with the law. They do comply with the ]a�r, It makes
maneuverin; a little difficult. Well, again, difficult is one thing. Unreasonably strict is ano�her. And
if they comply with the law, either the law with respect to how big a parkin� space is right, in which
case the 36 feec proposal meets that, and there's no reason to vary it, and certainly no reason to
conclude that applying it is an unreasonable limitation. Or the parking requirements «ith respect to
• �vidth are not correct in which case somebody somewhere ou�ht to investigate what the code says and
Page 7 0: 13
Z�
��hether it ou�ht to be changed. But he argues tha[ he ought not to do that on a piece meal basis you
ou�ht to do ii on the basis of followin, the law where you can. He just doesn't think that the parking •
ar�ument with respect to the minimal increase of size in the parking spaces in the gara�e. Good
heavens, there are 4 of [hem in there, If you increase it 2 feet at most, and [hat's assumin� that every
inch of those 2 feet is going to be assi�ned to those 4 parking spaces and he don'c know chac they can
necessari]y conclude thaT, that means tha[ you're going to increase each parking space by the grand
sum total of 6 inches. And he would argue that thaYs not enough to allow them to conclude that there's
some strict interpretation of the Code that requires i[ to be done.
The other item with which he thinks, and some of the other parties and some of the residents will talk
aboac ic, but he thinks the other thin, that caught his eye as he looked through it is the statement that
the variance if granted wouid not permic any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the Code
for the properry in the disuict - so on and so forth- thaYs #5 by the way. And Mr. Beach urges you
upon the conclusion thai the zoning code permits single family house with parking. Well it certainly
does. But the Zoning Code doesn't permit single family houses with parking in the front yard or the
side yard for that matter. Because of the way that this house is orienced, and believe him that was Mr.
Severson's choice, nobody's e[se's, with respect with how he wishes to orient it - you have in effect the
only place on chose 2 blocks on Pordand Avenue where you have parking that is in the fron[ yard. He
would certainly say it's the front yard but at inost it's the side yard and it woald be righc ap againsr che
set back from the streec. Much has been made of the fact that the rest of these buildinas panicularly on
that side are sec up close. But all of the parking for the buildings on tha[ side of the screet is behind the
buildin�. There isn't any of it in front of the buildin�. And there isn't any of it right up on the street,
which is what would be the case here. And he would argue to the Board that the code prohibits without
additiona2 variances, prohibits sideyard parking and it also prohibits front yard parkina. And he �
assumes the Board - he knows they haye - dealt with that issue before. And so he �couid ar;ue that thac
test is also not met on its face. That, blatantly and brutally on its face, there is not a snfficient faccual
basis for you to conclude that because it is not as simple as a one family home with parkin,. It's as
complicated as a one family home with parking in the sideyard and/or the fronryard which is not of the
same character as any other buildine on that particular street.
So - and [hen he just simply wan[s to echo - and he knows that they have and he assumes that they've
read it - because he commends it to them althongh he must say that may be the frst time in the 4 years
that he ever sat on the planning commission or since that he said anything about District 8 and anything
that they said that he thought was laudatory and logical but he does think that in this parcicular case that
they do present some arguments with respect to their recommendation that you deny this. That do in
fact have some logic. And he knows that Mark Voerding wili echo some of those. This is not a
materialIy different matter than the Z other times this was before the Board. It is the essentially the
same proposat. You turned it down the other 2 times. And he argues [hat they ouohc not to be fooled
by somebody saying that the Ciry Council's approved because the Ciry Council has never approved a
p]an for this site that required variances. Not in 1995, not in 1998. They have approved a building for
this, but every one of them has conformed to the strict provisions of the code. So to say that you ought
to do this just because the Ciry Council acted in approving a site plan over the zonine administrators'
objection earlier this year doesn't really compare apples with apples. Because that si[e plan did not
have variances, and Mr. Severson did not buitd that. This requires variances. This is already a
building with the strict provisions of the code that absolutely stretches this lo[. And ro pu[ - to at[ow
these variances as a matter of personal choice, when Mr. Severson has admitted chat he can do it w�irhin
the scrict provisions of the Code, he doesn't think was what the variances was mec to be. hSr. Vau;h[ .
then thanked [he board for their time.
Page 8 of 13
� 1
m-��
• Next, Mark Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, came forward. He said he feels like this is like a piece of
fly paper that keeps sticking. No matcer how you try to ge[ rid of it. I[ doesn't get rzsolved. He said
" he was not part of the well-financed clique. He was there on his own time and at his o�cn expznse to
represent to the Board the position of the Ramsey Hill Association. He's a board member and Chair of
the Land Use Committee.
Before he starts with that, there was one comment that he wanted to make. He said he was actually
qui[e disappoin[ed. He didn'[ know why staff can persist in misrepresencing the fac[s in a part of [his
case. There was no legai lot split in 1990. There was no legal lo[ split in `91, there �c•as no legal lot
split in 1992, there was no legal lot split in his view that has occurred. The Ciry Council approved -
took an action regarding the lot split last yeac That issue is not before the Ciry Council. That issue is
not appealed to the city councii. It was an action that he would argue is arbitrary and capricious and
inappropriate for the City Council to make. That part - his opinion aside - it is a fact that no lot split
occurred in 1990. No lega( lot split. What is a fact is that a) ciry staff person took a rubber stamp and
put a red mark of approval on the plans, signed his name to it, he had no authoriry to do that , he
possibly committed a crime in doing so, certainly his power. A lot split in that instance only under the
code within the power of this body. This body has never taken an action regardin, this lot split. So he
�,�ishes such misrepresentations on this matter would cease.
h4r. Alton, Actin� Chair, stopped Mr. Voerding at that point. He said, 2 thin�s - please confine his
comments to the application to the zoning variance and secondly Mr. Beach did no[ misrepresent any
facc to this Board. The fact of the matter is that a lot split did occur in 1990. You're speakin; of
le�ally approved - that's correct he suspects. And perhaps they can have Mr. �Varnzr eive them an
� opinion on that. But, he advised, please do not characterize Mr. Beach's statement in this, regarding
the history of the case as a misrepresentation. Because that's not true. With respec� to whether you
,' � can accuse someone - a clerk of a crime in 1990 - I don't think that that's relevant.
Mr. Voerding continued his comments. He said that the Ramsey Hill Association con[inues to oppose
this project. First of ail the desi�n contains none of the fe2tures thai are required for a primary
residential structure. Secondly the lot should never have been split from 415 Summit creating this
siruation. And also putting 415 Summi[ out of compiiance with the zoning code. Thirdly based on ]ast
week's community issues meeting, the proposal does not meet any of che requirements necessary to
grant [he variance. And fourthly, the proposal requires sideyard parking for which a variance would
be required and is not being sought at this time. They also remain concerned about the number of
variances requested to maximize or over-maximize the use of property that occur within their district
and they are working toward a review of the Zoning Code to ascertain what amendments if any may be
necessary to allow full use without variances. They continue to work in that direction. And so it
would be - the position of the Ramsey Hill Association, that the Board continue in its denial of the
variances for this project.
Greg and Carol Clark came forward and said they're residents of 415 Summit. b1r. Clark said they
have a 2 car garage that is on the existin� land now. They've been goin� on their fourth year there.
They have not been able to use their garage because of the condition of that back lo[. "Che condition
tha[ i['s in. They haven't been able to use their garage for 4 years. He's hearing about the sidewalk in
benveen the existing 415 and 420 and now a car parked in there. He questions about how they're
going to be able to get into their house in the winter time it's a bloody mess. Any w-ay�s where this
• parking - or the sidewalk and the vehicle tha[ would be parked there - how they would be able to get
into their home now.
Page 9 of 13
3�
Carol Clark said she thinks that when they refer to this sidewalk - that is oa associacion properry and •
hfc Severson's uni[ wouid not be a patt of their association. That sidewa(k does not exist nor have
they tafked about puiting anyrhin, like that in there. So to clear that up. #2 under the Findin;s, the
properry cannot be put to reasonable use. They have offered to bay che properry from Mr. Severson,
they being the association to use if just for the purpose of parking and trying to fieure out something
that would be conducive not only to their building but to the neighborhood and stii! to preserve green
space which has always been a big issue. To have a structure abutting a park, which is some of the
only green space in the neighborhood, they are against tha[. The plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the properry - Mr. Severson knew en[irely what was happznin� with that lot.
He's been the one that's lived in that progerty 415 Summit the lon�est. When Dennis Grozy, the
originat owner and the one who did get the other proposais approved by the Ciry Council, owned it,
Mr. Severson was a�ainst buildin; anythin; there. And he knew what the probfems and what the
issues were with building on that to�. in refrence to having people say that they wouid rather have a
building there and it would make a better view than what 420 Porttand or 430 or whacever the bailding
is next door - have fo the park than what they have. She dcesn't agree with that. One of ihe neighbors
also - and she'll submit this to the Board - has writien a letter. She just faxed it today.
She has concerns about the ligh[ and the value of her property. One day she came home and b4r.
Severson had hired a surveyor to mark off the back lot of his property, In speakin; to the surveyor,
even the surveyor was concerned about the size of the building on the size of the lot. He said he
Y�, couldn't figure out - and again it was his personal opinion - how a building could fit on a lot that size.
.-His concern aIso was in regard to parkin; for the rest of the peopie. He said where are you going to
puc ati che cars and how are they goin, to tum around. Which leads again to their plight with their
garage. They haven't beea able to use it. Now as you see, there's another parkin; spot at the end of it. �
She doesn't know how even if they could use ii - they could back out -[here wo¢id be a car there - or
the 4 car garage that he's proposin;, how they're going to back oui wiih a car at the end of the
, properry. And the other point, the desire to increase his value - the request for variance is not based on
the desire to increase the vatue or income - again, they have offered to buy this from him and do the
' right thin� for what they think is good for the neighborhood. He said that he would sell but he
,` wouldn't sell to them Which she guesses, kind of fits in with this. That why wouldn't he sell to them.
I� would be the most logical thing ro do.
If you look at the drawings that have been submitted she thinks the drawings look like there's a lot
more space back thete than there is - actuatly is. And again, on the drawing it tooks like they could
just back right out of their gara;e, kind of make a u tum and go out the driveway. With a car there,
there's no way - at the end of the other parking space that he's proposing. She doesn't see how they
cou]d do that. And especially if another car was coming out of the garages that he proposes to build.
In his letter, he refers to the site plan with the restricted 9 feet front yard variance improves the
building and the lot and they're therefore asking for the variance. Again she doesn't see how this
improves anything back there. It just adds to what she would say is further coneestion. And then the
parking space that he has at the foot of their garage, her understanding is that it is s[ill considered
sideyard parking in this issue. And then he also refers to the 32x32 2 story carriase house. They've
been at this a long time. And no where has she seen any plans showing that this �eas a carriage house.
She's seen things that have referred to it as an outbuilding. And again 32x32 foot that is a lot smaller
than a 956 sq feet home that he is proposing to put back there.
The last ching she woutd tike to say is again in regards to the improvemen[. If he «•anted to improve •
somethin� back there, she doesn'[ see why it hasn't been done thus far. There's piles of rocks,
Page 30 of 13
�i
�?,�
• nei�hbors complain about how it looks, improving it doesn't have to be buildino some[h:ng back there.
I� could make it ]ook decent to the neighborhood with green space, trees, whatever. He talks about the
S5,000.00. She question the 55,000.00. As far as will it really happen. When the}• boueht, they had a
site plan that was approved by the Ciry Council by Zoning, it showed their garaQe, it shou�ed parking
spaces. It showed paving. That's never happened either. And that's somethin� that the ciry approved.
So when she hears these improvements she really has some ques[ions and concerns. And she guesses
thz last thin� that she would like to say is tha[ the tenants in their - that current]y exist the previous
owners, Linda Meyer and 7im Haugland, they were both against building anythinQ bacic there. And
they were there at least 2 years before Greg and she came which was 96. The previous owner was
Dennis Rosie. Yes he was for it but he was also the developer of ihe structure in the back. And to
finish, she �vould like the Board to come and look if they would at the properry and wha[ he is
proposing, just to see.
Iv1r. Alton, commented that he thought all of the Board has been there.
n1r. Clark added, lasdy, that they are not well-financed. It is a sacrifice on their part.
Chris Yerkes, secretary for the Summit University Planning Council, spoke next. He's 6een involved
wich the planning council since 1992. He doesn't want to look at personalities in this. He doesn't want
to look at whether it's a legal or illegai lot split. That's a differenc issue. He wancs to look at the issue
that's in front of them. He's a little concerned that there's a sideyard parking that is not in front of them
when the plan does call for that. That is not taken up at the same time. He doesn't like to take thin�s
� piecemeal. He's a volunteer with the Summit Universiry Piannin� Council. That's wh}• he's here.
. He's taking time off from work to be before the Board.
Just wanted to outline the letter that they've had. He's assumed tha[ they've looked at [he City code for
guidance for when they authorize and don't authorize variances. Everybody involved - the builder
when he first split, the builder, the current petitioner when he bou�ht it - knew what [he codes were,
= knew what he would have to do and whete he would have to go to have a variance granred. Unless
he's wrong, the section outlined there he has to qualify under all 6 of those, not just 1,2,and 3, but
even if one of those is not taken then he would not qualify for a variance.
At the community issues meeting last Tuesday he presented 2 plans. One that he presen�ed perfectly,
happily. He said I don't need any variances for this. I can build it today. I can start construction
[omorrow. And then he presented a plan with the variance that he's asking for. That makes it fall out
right under number one. Under number Z the plight of the landowner isn't due to his circumstances.
He bought it with the full understanding of what the easement requirements were, and what the lot
looked Iike. #3, keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. He ihinks the code is there and looking
ac #5 and 6 and back at 1, he dcesn't think it is in keeping with the spirit and intent. #4 they took a
neutral point ac the community issues meeting. And he's not speakin� for himseif - he's speaking for
the community. As has been given to him over the past many years, sitting in on communiry issues
meetings on this - you could if you talk about air and li�ht he believes a lot of this looks [owards
buildin� and air shafrs and current downtown buildings and things like that. But if you �i•ant to look at
this particular one, with it further back, it affects the air and the light of 415 Summit. R'ith it further
fonvard it affects 436 Pordand. So they just rook a neutral point on [ha[. {/5 - ic wouldn'[ pernut any
use under the provision of the code. It would certainly affect it. If this variance is granczd it would
� allow parking in the front yard. If there was a 25 feet setback parkin� a car 16 fee� from the front is
requires a variance. #f6 it's not primarily based on a desire to increase the value or income. Whether
Page 11 of 13
�L
it's value but he asked the petitioner himself, why would you like to have tltis variance. He said he
would like to have an extra parking place and he'd like to have extra room in ihe gara�e. You can •
interpret that how you wan[. He thinks thai increases vatue but he did not say that direcfly.
Since thece was no one else [o speak in opposition, Chair invited the applicant to return and answer any
questions.
John b4iller, attorney with Pe[erson, Fram & Bergman, St. Paul, cvho represented Ron Severson in this
mat[er, and has for a number of years on this particalar properry. Mr. Vaught and he have probably
agreed many times on chis, sometimes in hearing rooms sometimes via correspondence, sometimes in
person. Finally there are a couple of thin�s that Mr. Vau�ht said today that he agrees with. First of all,
he agrees that this is deja vu all over. They've been down this road many times before, not only before
this board, but through various subcommittees, and up to the Ciiy Council a number of times on it.
However he does disagree with his characterization ihat each of these visiu to the various ciry boards is
occasioaed by chaages in Mr. Severson's plans. He does a�ree with him also in his comment that chere
appears to be a lot of revisionist his[ory that's going on with the project that's been goin; on for a
number of years - twists and tums. There is going to be some revisionism. You're goin� to look back
and take a look at the same events and reach different conclusions. He could point ouc a number of
areas in which he disagrees with Mr. Vaughts statement of the history of the matter. Buc he thinks that
chac would - is probably not somethin; that this Board's interes[ed in. If they are he'd be happy to do
ic. Alon, with the revisionist history approach, also a number of other irrelevant commenu have been
made today. And a�ain he's not goin� to point those out.
Thz one that he was going to mention, he be]ieves the chair also already has commented on and he S
would concur with his comments with respect to the validity for effect for the lot splic back in 1940.
He's no[ goin, to - it's not his position to give the Board any tegal advice with respecc to that. If there's
further clarifcation he's sure that Mr. Warner would be happy to do thaL He would like to just
commeni in passin� he beiieves that the important thing for the board to do - or he wouId submit that
the imporcant [hing for them to do wou(d be to focus in on the applicacion as it exists today. Try to put
aside the whole long gnarIed and tangied history of this. And took at the staff report and analyze the
staff report on its own merits. He's not goin; to go through point by point 6 criteria �hich have to be
met. Suffice it to say that they agree with the staff s position with respect to each of those points.
He would like to just comment briefly though on the - what is referred to as reasonablz use or the
unreasonableness of it. The phrase reasonable use as used in the ordinance is not a phrase that's
capable of precise definidon. There's probabiy no more single troubling phrase to nail down than
reasonable use. And boards for their varioas municipaliiies develog their own definition and
application of how that phrase is going to be used on a case by case basis. They essentially create their
own precedenE. And it's important he believes - with tha[ in mind tha[ this request the Board Iook back
at some of i[s previous decisions with respect to what constitutes unreasonable use under the
circumstances or if the property can't be put to a reasonable use. To use that precedent. Just by way
of examp(e, he only uses these examples because these are the ones that he's most familiar � ich, he
would submit that the 2 previous requests for variances are not terms of reasonable use that much
differen[ from the request that Mr. Severson is makin; today.
bfr. Severson came forward and said if there were questions he wanted to answer them. I['s really
hard to sit back and have inaccurate information goin� forth. •
Page 12 of 13
3�
6�Y��
Mr. Alton noted that the Board is not going to judge this case based on personali[ies or s�atemznts
• regarding personalities made by either party.
b1r. Severson added that it's probably not real retevant, buc there's been 4 proposals not 8 to 12. He
could list them all for them. They've been changed because of problems that they've had wi�h them.
Like one that had the front yard parkin;. They moved it to the back and had to come back. He only
wanted to - Iohn Miller and himself - if there were questions, he wanted the board to know that he was
available.
There were no questions by the Board, therefore, Mr. Alton closed the public portion of the meeting.
hfs. Morton moved to deny the variance, based on finding !/ 1, the properry can be put to a reasonable
use under the strict provisions of the Code.
Mr. Wilson seconded the motion for denial.
hfr. Donohue stated that he thought i[ was unreasonable to deny this variance based on �he facc that this
building, if it is moved 25 feet back, it diminishes the functional uti]iry of the buildin; co the point - he
thinks that it doesn'[ make sense noc to grant the variance because tong-term it's going ro affect che
value of the condos that are using these units because the gara�e units are goin; to be smaller, less
functional, and the turn around areas. He doesn't agree with denying the variance.
Mr. Wi]son asked, when they speak about the garage area, they're increasin� [he garage by 2 feet.
They're goin� from - they've got 4 spaces in that gara�e. And ]et's say tha[ the walls are 8 inches a
i._ piece. They're increasing that maneuvering that's so minimal. But what you are doin; by inereasing
the 2 feet, as he sees it, you're increasing the size of the units upstairs. He thought that's part of this
argument to get this additional footage. Is to increase the top section of rhis home. No[ the garage.
As far as the maneuvering area in the yard itself, to me that looks like it's going to be pretty tight to
c begin with. So he thinks that as far as maneuvering in the yard is going to be tou;h. But he doesn't see
that argument for increasing the maneuverabiliry in the garage - he doesn't buy it. He thinks it's the
upstairs that's going to add value to the building.
Mr. Donohue responded that he's got a garage right now that if it was 6 inches wider he could pull his
vehicle into it.
Mr. Scherman stated he agreed with what Mr. Donohue said.
h1r. Alcon then asked for a roll call, and the motion to deny the variances passed on a vote of 4 to 2
(Sherman, Donohue).
by:
�
John Hardwick
Approved by:
Gloria Bog�n, Secretary
Paqe 13 of 13
J �
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
1. APPIICANT: RONALD SEVERSON
2. CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance
3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
DATE OF HEARING:
FILE # 99-163
� 0/25l99
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: P!N # 012823240240 (See file for complete legal descriptionj
5. PLANtJING DISTRICT:
6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZONtNG CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
7. STAFP (tVVESTtGATiO1V AND t2EPOf2T: DATE: 7/6/99 BY: Tom Beach
8. QEADLtNE FQR ACTtON: 12/1 V98 DATE RECEfVED: 6/8/99
A. PURPOSE: The applicant is proposing to construct a new residentiat structure that wouid have a 4
car garage on the first ftoor and a singie-family home on the second floor over the garage. The building
has been designed to look like an historic carriage house. There would be a total of 9 parking spaces
on the property (4 spaces in the new building, there wouid also be 3 surface spaces, and 2 spaces in an
existing garage). One of these parking spaces wouid be for the carriage house unit and the other 8
would be for an existing 4-unit condominium immediately to the south (415 Summit).
B. ACTION REQUESTED: A variance for minimum front yard setback. A front yard setback of 16 feet is
proposed for the carriage house; a setback of 25 feet is required for a variance of 9 feet
C. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: The site is an irregular shaped parcei with an area of 5,428 square
=� feet. It is currently used for parking by the 4-unit condominium at 415 Summit (the property immediately
south of 420 Portiand). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on gravei/dirt. The site is located in the Historic Hill Preservation District.
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Single-family and duplex (RT-2)
East: Nathan Hale Park (RT-2)
South: Four-uniY condominium (RT-2)
West: Mulii-family condominium (RM-2)
D. HlSTORY: Since 1990 there have been a number zoning cases for this property:
—!n '! 990 the City approved a!ot splii that split this parcei from north end of the parcel at 415 Summit.
— Later in 199Q the Board of Zoning Appeais approved variances to construct a new carriage house
urtit with a 5 car garage beneath the unit subject to conditions. This was appealed to the City
Courtcil by the Parks DepartmenL The Council upheld the variance but modified the conditions.
' The project was never built
— In 1992 the Board of Zoning Appeafs granted variances fo construct a fwo-unit carriage house with
a 14-car underground garage.
— In 1993 the Board of Zoning Appea( granted a one year extension of the 1992 variances but the
project was never built.
— in 1994 there was a proposal to buiid a two-unit carriage house with a totai of 9 garage stafis under
I'1
\J
�
n
LJ
3s
ar7 a�
the carriage house and in detached garages. Variances were applied for but appiication was
• _ withdrawn before the Board of Zoning Appeals took any action.
in 1995 the Board of Zoning Appeais denied a variance tor a carriage house unit with 3 parking
spaces beneath the unit and 6 other surfiace parking spaces.
— In 1996 Ron Severson, the applicant in this case, purchased the property.
— In '1997 the Heritage Preservation Commission approved a pian similar to the current proposal. The
City Councii upheld this approva! on appeal in February 1998.
— In April 1998 the Board cf Zoning Appeals denied variances for a carriage house with 4 parking
spaces beneath the carriage house and 5 other parking spaces. This decision was appealed fo fhe
City Councii. The City Council upheld the decision to deny the variances. The City Councii also
instructed the City Attomey's o�ce to 400k into the fegai status of the originaf 19901ot split because
that the lot split was approved by staff without a pubiic hearing even though the lot spiit required a
variance. (See attached site plan and BZA resolution.)
— in May 1998 Ron Severson submitted a revised site plan with a slightly smaller carriage house and
one less parking space. This site pian did not require any variances. However, the Zoning
Administrator denied the site pian based on advice from the City Attorney's office that the 1990 lot
split was not valid because the lot sptit needed a variance and a public hearing shouid have been
heid on the variance. Mr. Severson appeaied that decision to the Planning Commission and in
November 1998 the Planning Commission upheid the decision to deny the site plan. Mr. Severson
then appealed this decision to the City Council and in March 1999 the City Council reversed the
decision of the Planning Commission and approved the site plan. The Council said that the fact that
the lot split in 1990 did not follow the required procedures should not prevent approval of the site
plan. The City Council also concluded that, under its authority, it would approve any setback
variance that was required for the lot split. (See attached site plan and Ciry Council resolution)
E. CURRENT PROPOSAI: in June 1999 Ron Severson submitted the current site plan to City staff. it
� cails for a carriage house and 9 parking sQaces {4 in the carriage house, 2 in an existing gar8ge and 3
�, more surface spaces). This site pian is slightly different than the one approved by the Ciry Council
earlier in the year:
A. The carriage house is 38 feet long (instead of 36 feet). This allows a larger dweiling unit over the
carriage house and wider parking spaces in the carriage house.
_ B. A surface parking space has been added behind the carriage house for a total of 9 spaces. This
provides each unit in 415 Summit 2 spaces plus 1 space for the carriage house.
To accommodate these changes the front yard setback has been reduced trom 25 feet to 16 feet. The
reduced setback requires a variance.
The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the current site pian and buiiding plans on June 24.
This decision was appealed to the City Council. The Council decided to defer action on the Heritage
Preservation appeai untii the Board of Zoning Appeals has acted on the variance so ail appeals can be
heard at the same time.
F. FINDINGS: The Board of Zoning Appeals may grant a variance if it meets the foliowing findings:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonab/e use under the strict provrsrons of the code.
The variance meets this finding. The variance will allow the carriage house to be 2 feet longer and
so fhe parking spaces on the first floor of the carriage house can be wider. Maneuvering to get into
these spaces is tight beCause the site is small and the extra width wili make it easier to get in and
out of tfiese parking spaces. The extra width wiii aVso permit the carriage house dwelling unit to be
siightly larger.
• 2. The plight of the land owne� is due to circumsfances unique to this properfy, and these
circumsfances were nof c�eafed by the land owner.
� �
The variance meets this finding. �he piignt of tne iand owner is due to fhe size and irregutar shape •
of the lot and to the private agreement that requires the property owner to provide parking spaces
for the units at 415 Summit. These circumstance are unique and were not created by the land
owner.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent wrth the
heatth, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Sk Paul.
The variartce meets this finding. The intent of the code in requiring minimum fronf yard setbacks is
to ensure that there is some consistency in seYbacks and to provide green space. The proposed
front yard setback is consistent with (and actualiy siightly larger than) the front yard setback for the
large condominium building to the westwhich is the only other buiiding on the biock face. The front
yard woul8 be landscaped and wouid provide adequate green space in fhe fronf yard of the
property. Additional green space is provided for ihe biock by adjacent NaYhan Hale Park.
4. The proposed variance wi!! not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor
wil! it or unreasonably diminish established property values wifhin the surrounding area.
The variance meets this finding. The variance to move the carriage house cioser to the street wiil
improve light and air to 415 Summit Avenue by moving the buiidings farther apart. It will not
enreasonably diminish established proPerty values within the surrounding area since the re(ative(y
small carriage house will be set back further from the front properiy line than ihe large condominium
building next door which is the only other building on the 61ock face.
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of fhe
code for the property in the disfricf whe�e the affected land is located, no� would it alter or change �
the zoning district classification of the property.
The variance meets this finding. The zoning code permits a single-famiiy house with parking.
6. The request for variance is not based primari/y on a desire to increase the value or income potential
of the parcel ofland.
The variance meets this finding. The request for variance is based primarily on the need to provide
parking for the dwelling units at 415 Summit as weil as the proposed carriage house unit.
G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: DisYrict 8 Community Council had not sent its
recommendation to staff at the time the staff report was being wriBen. However, in the pasY, Districi 8
had opposed variances for this project.
H. STAFF RECOMMENDATlON: Sased on findings 1 through 6, statf recommends approval of the
variance to reduce the front yard setback for the proposed building to 16 feet.
A'fTACHMENTS:
Applicafion
Site plans and elevations for current proposai that requires one variance
Site plan for a proposai that did not need varia�ces and March 1999 City Councii resolution approving it
Site p(an for a proposa( that required 3 variances and Aprii 1998 BZA resolution denying it
Location maps
G \IISERSIBEACH i OhT99153W91638Z5
•
37
�� ��
�
�
APPLICATiON FOR ZONING VARIANCE
OFFlCE OF LlCERSE, L\SPECTIO.\'S, A.\D
Er`�7RO.�:tfEh'TAL PROTECTIO.�' � 8 3� I 4
3�0 St. Peter S[reet, Suite 3I10
Saixt Pauf, hl.�' S5102-1310
26b-9plIS
AP P LICANT
Zoning office use onty
Fi;a r,ur-b=r �� - � � �
FA�: s Z S
Ter,�a5ve *earing date: 7 Z
5=���,;5;. b I• � o�
City agert �
Name �('?1,'� lc-1 lYt}-Y6"^c1^ Cempa�y
Address �/,� o, 1 /'17YY�• { � �-
Ciry.. -�jt._-��,t� Stat=�ZipSS '��Qayt;mePho.^.�Gl�� ����/ 7]
Property int2rest of applicant (owner, coMrect purcfiaszr, etc )_f'1 �11 A„ P��—
Name of owner (if
PI�V a118 z3 2y o�9z
PROPERTY
w� i
Legai descrip0on
(attach addrf�onal she=t itnecessary)
r � �L
Lot size �� NDn S�f • tY • Pr=sant Zoning P; es=nt U;2 �/=�; �i � �
�� � � _
Proposed Use
2
1." Varance(s)r=questad:
/5 � ���vc�.— S �' si�l� �ccµ..l� C�r�����,c, �-<;<<r-z
��i
C2�` r���c �r� � �
2. 4Vha! physical characteristi s of the property przv_nt its being us=_d f�r any of Ch=_ pe�m�t_d uses in you; zon_?
(topography, size and shape of lot, soil conCi�ons, etc )
� ��L� �/
3 Ezplain how the stnct application af the provisons of the Zoning Ordinance w�ulC c=sult in p=_culsar cr ezc=phonal
pracocal diffculUes or exceptional undue harCships
CASY„?R5 USc ON! Y
A Explam how the grantirg of a variance wiil not be a subs;ar�tai d=_tnm>nt
to tne public good or a subs±antial impairmert o` thz intent and purpcs�
of the Zoning Ordmance
. ��_____.-:_:_�-__- =_=____:
: .
addrtional sheets if needed
_ I/
. „�..,.
. _ „c � Li
APPLICATION FOR A ZOIVING VARIANCE �
420 Portland Avenue
Ronald and Mary Severson
Please consider my request for a front yard variance of nine feet for my Iot
at 420 Portiand Ave.
420 Portiand Avenue is a 5,428 square foot Iot, currently surfaced with
gravel and used as parking for the condominium ownars at 415 Summit.
The lot was split off from 415 Summit Ave. and is a separate buildable lot
with Portiand Ave. as the front yard. By easement, the development of this
building site must inciude two off-street parking spaces for each of the
owners of the condominium owners at 415 Summit.
The lot has an irregular shape with a 50 foot front lot line on Portland Ave.,
a back lot line of 90 feet, a �c�est lot line of 88 feet and an east lot line of
55.7 feet. There is no alley access to this lot.
In 1990, the developer who then owned the lot submitted a request to the �
BZA to construct a 1,733 square foot single family carria�e house requirin�
seven variances including a two foot front yard set-back This request was
approved by the Board. In 1992, a second request was submitted for an
expanded 2,000 square foot two-family carriage house requirin� additional
variances. This request was also approved. Neither of these proposals �vas
built because of the developer's financial problems.
My wife and I purchased this lot in 1996 with the intent of building a
single-family house for our personal residence. Our plan also includes the
required off-street parking for the condominium residents. During our
efforts to develop an appropriate construction plan, the le�aiity of the lot
split was called into question. On February 3, 1999, the St. Paul City
Council affirmed the legatity of this lot split by passing a motion making
�ZQ P�J:?�S.R Aye. a separate buildable tot. Atthou�h, we can now buitd a
36 foot carriage house on this site with no variances needed, �ve believe that
this site plan with the requested nine foot front-yard variance improves the
buitding and the tot and we are, therefore, asking the BZA for approval of
this variance. •
3�
oo-7do
� A front-yard variance of nine feet will provide a 16 foot front yard. The
carriage house �vould be 38 foot in lenjth with four tuck-under gara�es.
The carriage house would be centered on the lot, allowinj a separation of
16 feet from the main house and providing room for an additional parking
space. This house will cover 956 square feet with 1,620 square feet
allowed. This site plan provides a totaI of nine off-street parkin� spaces
which meets the condominium Declaration requirement of two spaces per
unit and the city requirement of seven total spaces for this lot.
The only other building on this side of the block is a larje three story
condominium with a one foot front yard set-back. Of the seven houses on
the North side of the block, only two meet the 25 foot set-back requirement
and two of the set-backs are shorter than the requested 16 feet. Therefore, a
sixteen foot set-back would not be visually obstructing and would be more
harmonious with the placement of the other houses than a 2� foot set-back.
Since this building is an architectually designed turn of the century carria�e
house which has HPC approval, the view from Nathan Hale Park is an
improvement over the existin� view.
�
`" This architectually designed carriage house conforms �vith the requirements
� for the heritage preservation area and provides the most appropriate plan
that has been proposed far this lot . At the turn of the century, there was a
32' X 32' two-story carriage house located on this property. In effect, our
carriage house replaces this ori�inal building.
�
��
�esol��:=� �,y�� r�g a�rb �ar
3 YRYiANGQS
CITY OF SAINT PAUL �
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONIti'G FILE NUIYIBER 93-026
Dc'1TE" : Apri16, 1993
WHEF2EAS, Ronald Sevecson has applied fo; a variance from che stricc applicacion of ine provisions of
Sections 61.101 of the Saint Paul Le,islative Code penainin� to the construction of a new carriage
house rcith one Qwetlin� unit and addicionat parkin; spaces in the RT-2 zonin� discrict a: 420 Po¢iand
Avenue; and
NHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conductzd a pubiic hearin; on hfarch 23, 1998,
pursuant [o said appeal in accordance wi�h chz requiremenu of Section 6�.205 oi the Le;islacive Code;
ar.d
R`HEREAS, the Saini Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals bas:d apon evideace pres�nt�d zt a':e pnblic
i�earing, as subscantially reflzcted in the minaces, made the following findin�s of fact:
I. The property in qz�esttan can 62 put to a reasonable uce und2r [he strict provision; of thz code.
The irre�ular shape of the lot and the covenant requiring 8 parkin� spaces for thz propecty at 415
Summit Avecue make it difficult to dzvelop the property. Howecer, the orvner hz; no[ explored ali •
options such as constructin� a smaller house or repositioning the hou>e. In 199� variances for a
simitar project were denied but the house currently proposed is slightly larg:, thsn th� house
proposed in 1995 aad has not been si�ifcantly repo;itioned.
Z. T'F.e pli�ht of the land oiyner is nat due to circumstances uniqz�e to t'r.is property wh.ic'r, tirer2 not
crza!ed by the land otivner.
The size and irre�ular shape of the lot and to the covenant that requirzs the property o��r,er to
provide parking spaces for the units at 41� Summit were not created by the present ouner. Hoti�e�er,
the prasent owner was aware of these circumstances �vhen he 6ouehi the proQerry.
3. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent ojthe code, and is not consistent
with the hea[th, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitanrs of thz Ciry of St. Paul.
The proposed development would not provide a reasonable amount of grezn space and therefore the
cariances are not in keepina ��'ith the spirit intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance tiaill inrpair ars adzquate supply of light and air to adjacent property and
unreasonably diminish established property valc�es within the surrounding arza.
Tne location and size of the proposed carria�e house �vould impair an adzquatz supp(}• of li`ttt and
aic to adjacent propeRy. The orientation of the building �vith the side facir.� Por[_nd Acer.ue wou?d
unreasonably diminish propem� values ti� ithin the surrounding area. •
"1'
�
.ri _.�!
•
��. Thz variance, ifgranted, uould not permir ar., u.re that is not perm.itted :�nd_r ti:= pro:isior.s of [h?
code for the properry in the disnict tirhzre the affected land is loca: e� r.or :: o:�!d r: e./ter or chang2
thz aoning district classifica: ion of tn2 property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase li:z value or ir.�am.z potenrial
of the parcel of land.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals thas ine
a?plication to grant variances from provisions oF 5ections 61.101 to aliow a 12-foo� fron� yzrd sz[back
for 4'�e carriage house, a 20-foo[ fronc }•ard secback for [he surface par!:ing, and a 1.2-fooc side yard
setback for the carria�e house on properry loca[ed a[ 4?0 Portland Avenee and lzgally described as (See
At[achment); in accordance with the applica[ion for variance and the sice plan on file wih the Zoning
Administracor is hereby denied.
MOVED BY:
SECONDED BY:
IN FAVOR:
AGAINST:
, `LAII,ED:
APPE9L: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the
City Council �sithin 13 days by anyone affected by the decision. $uilding
permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits hace
been issued bet'ore an appeal has 6een filed, then the permits are stispended
and construction shall cease untIl the City Council has made a t'inal
determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATIO\: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City oF
Saint Paul, blinnesota, do hereby certify that I fiave compared the foregoing
copy �rith ihe or aoinal record in my office; and find the same to be a true
and correct copp of said ori; nal and of the �vhole thereoP, as bued on
approved minutes of the Saint Paul &oard of Zoaing AppeaLs meeting held
on biarch 23, 1993, and on tecord in the Office of License Inspection and
Enr�ironmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, �Sinnesota.
S.�T P�LZ B0.-1RD OF ZO`"L\G APPE�,LS
•
Sue Synstegaard
Secretarr• to the Board
A:�94C_SdZA.D�Y � 7�
SITE AtAN REVIEW STAPF REPORT
1. APPLlCANT: RONALD 3EVERSON
2. CLASSIFICA710N: Site Plan Review
FILE # 99-t 17070
DATE OF HEARING: 1/5/00
3. LOCATION: 420 PORTLAND AVE
4. LEGAL DESCRIPTtON: PiN # 012823240240 (See fi(e for comptete legaf description)
5. PLANNttVG DISTRiCT:
6. PRESENT ZONING: RT-2 ZONfNG CODE REFERENCE: 61.101
7. STAFF (NVESTIGATfON AND REPORT: DATE: 12/15l99 BY: Tom Beach
8. DEADLfNE FOR ACTiON: ?J1l00 DATE RECEIVED: 12/3/99
A. ACT(ON REQUESTED: Site plan review. (The current site pian and eariier versions are included in
'; at the end of the Council's packet.)
The current site plan cails for a carciage house and 9 parking spaces (4 in the carriage house, 2 in an
existing garage and 3 more surface spaces). This site plan is slightly different than the one approved by
the Ciry Council in the spring of 1999:
— The carriage house in the current site pian is 38 feet long (instead of 36 feet). This allows a larger
dweliing unit ove� the carriage house and wider parking spaces in the carriage house.
— One surface parking space has been added behind the carciage house for a totai of 9 spaces. This
provides each unit in 415 Summit 2 spaces plus 1 space for the carriage house.
To accommodate these changes the front yard set6ack has been reduced from 25 feet to 16 feet. The
reduced setback requires a variance. The Board oP Zoning Appeals denied this variance in November
1999, This decision was appealed to the City Councii.
The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the current site plan and building plans in June 1999.
This decision was appealed to the City Council.
B. SITE AND AREA CONpIT10NS: The site is an irregular shaped parcei with an area of 5,428 square
feet It is currently used for parking by the 4-u�it condominium at 475 Summit (the property immediately
south of 420 Portland). Two cars park in an existing garage at the rear of the site and approximately 6
cars park outside on grevel/diR The site is located in the Historic Hill Preservation DistricY.
Surrounding Land Use:
North: Single-family and duplex (RT-2)
East Nathan Hale Park {RT-2)
South: Four-unit condominium (RT-2)
West Muiti-family condominium (RM-2
•
�
C. FINDINGS: In order to approve ihe site plan, the Ci2y shali consider and find that the site pian is
consisfent with: �
'�3
�r . �
•
i
(1)
(2?
(3)
The city's adopfed comprehensive pfan and devefopment orproject plans for su6-areas of the city
The site plan is consistent with the recen8y adopted Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
which encourages construction of housing units suitab{e for "empty nesters° (page 14) and
supports "designs that use the smaAer development sites creative4y" (page 16).
,
�
Applicable ordinances of the Gity of Saint Paul.
The plan is consistent with applicable ordinances except for the required front yard setback.
front yard setback of 16 feet if proposed compared to the required setback of 25 feet. The
property owner applied for a variance but the Board of Zoning Appeals denied the variance.
property owner has appeaied this decision to the City Council.
�
The
P2servation of unique geo%gic, geographic or historically sign�cant characteristics of the city
and environmentally sensitive areas.
The site pla� is consistent with this finding. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the
plans for the project as being compatible with the historic character of the area. Neighboring
property owners have appealed this decision to the City Council.
(4) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable p�ovision for such ma8ers
as surtace wate� drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, �ight and air, and fhose
aspects of design which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
The site plan is consistent with this �rnding. The site pian is simifar to the one that was approved
by the City Council in March 1999.
"(5) The arrangement of buildings, uses and facilities of the proposed development in order to assure
abutting property andlor rts occupants will not be unraasonabiy affected.
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The piacement of the buiiding on the site would slide
the new building approximately 9 feet further away from 415 Summit Avenue.
(6) Creation of energy-conserving design through landscaping and location, orientation and e/evatron
of structures.
The site pian is consistent with this finding.
(7) Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traKc both within the sife and in re/afion
to access sfreefs, including fra�c circu�ation features, the locations and design of ent�ances and
exits and parking areas within the sife.
{8}
�
The s+te pian is consistent with this finding. The current site plan would permit each parking
space in the garage to be 6 inches wider than what was calied for in the earlier approved pian.
This wif{ make them easier to drive in and out of.
The satisfactory availabilify and capacity of storm and sanifary sewers, including solutions to any
drainage pro6lems in the area of the development.
The site pfan is consistent with this finding. Simifar to the previousiy approved plan, drainage wiil
be handied by grading tfie site so that storm water is directed out the driveway to the street.
Su�cienf landscaping, fences, wat�s and pa�king necessary fo meet the above objectives.
� �
The site plan is consistent with this finding. The property owner has an agreement with an
adjacent property owner to spend up to $5,000 on )andscaping along the west properly line. •
(10) Site accessibility in accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
including parking spacas, passenger/oading zones and accessible routes.
The site plan is consisfent with this finding.
( 71) Provision for erosion and sediment control as specfied in the Ramsey Erosion Sediment and
Control Handbook"
The site plan is consistent with this findirtg.
D. DISTRlCT COUNCiI RECOMMENDATION: District 8 Community Councii recommends that the
project be denied.
E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The decision on the site plan depends on whaf decisions the City
Council make on the varfance and Neritage Preservation decision:
— tf the City Councit denies the variance and historic preservation decision, the site pian must be
denied.
— If the City Councii approves the variance and hisforic preservation decision, staff recommends
that the site plan be approved.
G 1USERSIBEACH70M199163sev193} f 107Qspr.�
�
�
T �
ri ir
1. SLT\RAY-BATTZECREEK-HIGHti�'OOD
2. HAZEL PARK HAD: \•DROS°ERITY H1T�LCRcST
3. WEST SIDE
4. DAYION'S BLUFF
5. PAYIv`E-PHALEN
�J
6. NOR"I�-I EA1D
� THO�SAS-DALE
SU�i�iTT-U\�IVERSITY
�VEST SEVE�TH
10.
11.
12.
13.
SY.
1�.
1 b.
17.
CO`�f0
HAMLIV'E-;�fIDSVAY
ST'. A.h'THONY PARK
h.��.RRL��i PARK•LEXLtiGTO\ H.=.'{SLIti�-S:��r r r�;G H n,�
2�L4CALESTER GRO�L4_�'D
HIGHLA.�+�
SU�i`:IT � T
DO�V:r70«:�
`�9-1�3
ZONING F1LF ��
J./ ,
CITIZE` PARTICIPATIO` PLeti1'I:�G DISTP,iCTS
• � • • • • •
: ■ ..0 � �
� � � � �- �
. • g '
� C � 0 O� 0 �
�a�-�-`I ��1.
:�
Po2Yt�rvb �4V. � S
` ° � -�- _ � �
0 0 0
z
O J
O � �¢ O Q
`'[� '
¢Z o �'�lLt (.A�1tJ
�
0
APPLIC'ANT �`"�' `�'� 7� ���D"�
PURPOSE C��V y' Ic.UL� C�'����i�'� OJ�G
FiLE ft J �� DATE_LS�
PLNG. DtST�_ MAP # � �
SCA�E 1' = Z00'
LEGEND
��■ hpc district boundary
////////% . - s . . �- .
0 one tamily
¢ two famify
j,�¢Q muitiple family
n�C oRh�
• . � comme�
� �. � industrial
V vacant
.
`� 7 �t��
���
�. ' -�=-- --; -' � /
� � ,� � �� � � ��' ; � 0 � "� �,
iucs cHV,z=.. I y�� I ' I I y , �" > '� `\
X?4�_ �_ I f 1 _ ` _ Q \ rl r
i i " . ' '_ , _ �'._. _ .. , , � �� " (; v ��
g e . . � . O , �\� .
�� �i °° 50 �Q io 47 a�
� � I ( , ; o � .-
✓ E. � ^�,�\\ /
� � ¢ � Y� � l ? / �
�I I ( I 6 O 0 7 ; �� � �\
� : �.� ��\� � .>
� o lo_0000 � o 0 0 0¢-� o `�� �
IE. r �ry �° -- �+1 � ° �
o °
� o o ¢ -� � � �,� : �= E: � €,_ ., `� � R � �NE �
, ° ° o �� '" �- \ o
� �
Z � �� � � � l
. � ,
�� o
� � ,
� o� c� o a o ,�: �� � � 1 � C) ,L
. ''F l°, C.,� V � ��i�� � �� I i8 �J � C
__�
��t� 1..- — .. : -_.�-.----� —
i z� t � ' � � � G���
� ¢ � , _ S �t -� 2 v v v'v v — —
. � z � 6 � � ��,y �� \ z � � `j /
Q 0 � .4 _ � �/ �.J � �p� � � /
I 57A: £ OFF/�r5 � �� �
� ' o ¢ ��c /
. , . R �, _
!` i i a � .I _ •�\`� '� ,- �
` GlTY- P'LANN(�tG
F.�?�IC,�.n;�r/�
?v�?p�
F i�
Pi.NG. DIST�
�
9 9-/4S
D.4TE _
r.�,^.� ;,.
Sr` � • L"cG_�.�
. .��. ZOniny C�S;ri.;; k• �
�_ _/i % sc�i�= P��?=�i
/ O C�^P_ tz-,:ly
� ¢ r,��� �a�,.;ir
s }
'�"+�Q f�',U�;'�r7�'-��,'"'��
L__ �,�
• ♦ � CJ -?':��
� ,.. �. ic�.:s;� __
�/ � �' a':
.._.._. " ` f
�._��.v��.�.�.�.�4�— _ "._�re'aMi=wwa��as��...�.�—� _ __'
Tr� aVli� . .. . .�r
�-
� LL �Q
O a � �
a _ �Q< z� � �"s - 4 - -
: ��y�i� p� � o � w " -
o > N K U v �`n �: � : w « � 3f1NNtl @dVll'JOd �
_ � —
� � aarrt °
§
_ sW
a°�3a°_x Hrvn3a�s
.� .B .6 .SZ .�
�
I
��
�up f ��
/ �_
wg
� o>
�� 1
o,
Q a a
zm 1
��
�m �
a � ;
o �
m
P s a �
��� 1S/3.00OS -
$ wxo
�2 V� `
Q ��� �
�� .
a � p �t3a<3p rt •
\_�
� =W
;� �
¢a
gffi
�� j ��
��
< `
.S'6Z \
� \
� o f �
@� /
�
i I � I � �
C � � 1 � ��'
' 6U
1 � � ---�� ---� �£
Q , w�
— � �� oc
=
wu
� \ HSYtfl /
�
� � \
\ �i
��
��/
p` � Q �
\
�
�\
7 \ � d 3
° o�
____
�
�
_�
____
I a
, o o�
___ ; oo¢�
� a ��
O
�o
__,
a .�Z
I
I
_ — _ (
m f \
�a� oao�
a `
y o�'l`'
� / �y1
a-,i . ,
C
a
�
i
� i
�.
.
\� \
. y ,
'� \
. �
♦
� i
� ��.
,
,-'����,
/ .O6
� �
/
�i � i
° . . ./ ��_—
> o
� om
� ��
° �i
!
n
/ �
3
C
U
�
�
c
r
O
�
O
J �
a
w
N
�
�
II.
�
CD
C
�3
0
w
C
Q
c
O
�
c
�
._
�
�
�
m
�
U
N
O
C
O
a.
L
G�
N
C
Ar
�
�
4
o �
L �
� �
�-0 v
. n
C c�s'
.� O v
� '� 7
U
av U
�, 1
�N.., `
c 0.1 U �
o v �
•y ci V
. o G
� � �E
U `� � �
> �
.,0.'-� Y 't�
"� � U
- � a
U �
o "! �
� � �
a >
� � o
� .� n.
O c� Q
C3 'i7 �
U ¢ �'
N
y r1y `.�. [/Z�
�
� • •
II� . •
W � N �
> N p
� �a Z COC �� E a
. OC OW � -� � �T
'.� o m -� �^3Z `v s�^ � Yu Q � v'iia
p2 Z� \� WVN \� �U� � 2 � G X �V
�..� Q� 2�� Z� O= O O '-'O C o "
UV1 20 NO YSh Q2� Y9m �Om u]m N�- p t(J -C
�` 1� _� �� � � ���
m
N
m
N
� ,s
3 3
o° o
� � �
. a _
-x
m !� =
N �
P NO <
�
��.
0
NI \
L
O
•
�
�
m
N
�
N
�
N
�
N
IH`li?N
'j�jj"I!f;;,1:;!!i`;!;'iif
` ,;
i� Ii�;F i ;p�iii I :i'i!lie�
I��
„g��,ll i ;
; !
� pOC
� Z 7�
m wc�
: pi-N
U
r fl�a
I � Qi�
�
N
�
N
m
N
m
O
U
V
z I
� 1 ❑ C� C� ~ � _
❑��� �
w � O
I
W I�
_ ( II
w � `^��
Qi�
a r
� "
IH��aH �N'11+:1 { ��
t—. t .,</£ s:—.L �Z � i f
-- ii. \:/
2� DI 4.
NI N� i/�j �
`'�' —$— ! .�
� :
j I � �
0 Y
� � � ��C � �� E m
W O Z ZOIi � � E ��a
w Cn mv o . a - in3Z �,n ��n � m dIV c �e �i'c
�
�
Z
O
�
C
>
w
�
w
�
N
�
3
�
y , 3��
r� . �
�
!
z;
o�
_�
C;
>;
":�_
�I
�-- n
N.
�
Oj.-
� I
�
�
i i ��
C�
( � a
NI
�
NI '
�
�
N
,.�
��
i 4 "
{j;
kp
I�
N1
tl 1
li��+�i���i
�• l ,'�'�
I
I !'
I�;f{'i!j;"�
I�III�
I =
❑
Y
N
m
N
�
N
0
��
��
�
�Z
-w
0<
�o
� I
� A I II
�il:
l,l';
�
ZI
�i
r=- f
�I
�
.l.J �
T `
r-- � �I
� �"
� �
in �
�
�� �3
s� .
�
�
�
��
�; i
��
��
�:
� ;:
�
z
4
�
,
O
O
v
�J
J� ��
/ j r�ex'
� TREE
ARROWS �NQICAiE ��
DRAINAGE SLOPE ���`
c��
�\
S�'
m
G�
� .�
�� p �
�� � �
P
Q � OQ �� �� � Q �
� \ Q
/ ,�4'0 ��� i � f
G� Qe' / �
0 4'� Q P�`�� � \ �
/
"'� / CONC. OR --�
ASPHAIT
�+ �PAVEMEN7
.
/ N
��D
�
/ /
EGftESS
wi�vDOw
� /
/ .�
�
�
I /
� � �
�
-- /
` � I
C �� ST \ ` / ,
9,p �y�, � ��o
� � ������
� O`�Q /
PROPERTY UNE
� , fENCEg
w�
?!
J
r
ol
�'
I
�n � o�
oo
� n
�,
� SfTE PLAN
� �„E� - , �-o
PATIO
;� /
PR��OSED
G9RAGE 8�
, LOF7
� \ ; / ��.
/
.� i
. ,,
Q '.
HEDGE — - — -
90.00' � • '
N52°52'25"E
ensEMeNr
STAIftS
PORCH
415 SUMMlT AVE.
z vz sroRY
w00D FRAME 8UILDING
��d5,�v 3�' $�t���r��
—tttrs 4 �o�t,owt�t� 9
���r�5 �
A
�'�T�
9
9p 9 �i F^JG �
\ �'O
a
' � cxisrin�c
� rRe�
�
, � r I ,. S�Q ,
� � � �`�q .
7 I �T
CONC. WALK
' � & 6iEPS w/
IRaN RAIL�NG
� & C�iE
Q cX��6TiNG
� _:_�.CS
i
� �' ;�
�Jlt
�� ��H
� �l h I
— � I � �
— �c– - c�a � �
LL oA �
� O
9� .- ��j _
L"" U
UD ', G'
� � � O
�., o a�i U
J ~ � y
r c° o, �
� � c�' � T
o ( � � � �
a 3 '� � o�i
� � ' �. U � �
� °��° ��°
�.
� � ��
� � � �
.r
o �o N L
�( p. � �
M f �
� � � � 3
� O a. �
� o � ��
�. �
>
°" a o ,�
o � .xZc�:
�
�
�
� o � �
�� m w ra . . .
cxr�ac�
�
� w z Z ��� �Z � m
� O O z 0�` Z C 3 ¢ W
� o� me -o vi"i3z ",n �(n vc < e v '¢
�U � �X Xp W(JN _ 0 O� hQ ..Q V x �
pZ Zr t0< el0 OZO. �¢ V< �' 22 C �U
UN C(� ti CN 76 Q2� Nm Vp Np �� p N-�
I �
� W� �
X
O
W 0X pJ
a a�n o_
�
��
O
=L'
0
�
b
�
N
¢
4
Z
N
b
N
0
N
IN
�S .
m0�
ON�
Z�
Q
1/i� N
�
oz
ai�
W
m
N
0
W
N
m
N
0
N
m
N
m
m
�
�
a
❑o 0
00 0
� � �.�-
r
1H013H �Nr1i3J � 1HOi3H �Nrn3J
„il-.8 .bf�. t-.l ..9/f l�-,L �
�i
O�
4�
N�
-�'`
O I
�
�
>
:�
`f �;
��
w
0
„
�
'� A
J
�
�
w
J N � (tl y�
W Z Z 09� 22 � f0
�O Z C `�
J �S• 9p O O N�i2 �V1 t� � m YU a �D C4
<Z i"'{al O JC JCO �V� NQ O� - O � (JG � J
p_ Z� W« 9 OZd> \ VQ \Q C�� d
UN 6U ^ dN u QSF� ulm bm v�m 4 �� p�( UK
m
�
Z
O
u� m a u
o x o
m �a m
a a u a
�L'
0
�
O
�
N
�
a
N
m
N
N
N
N
N
_
�
�
K
6
❑ 0 C���I
❑oou
o❑a�
❑oo❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
D❑❑I❑
�❑a❑❑�
'❑❑�C�
❑❑�����
nnnn
u u utu
❑ �.� �'�--,
���'u
�����'
u❑❑C�
❑❑Cl�
'�❑I�t❑
z�
0
Q
W
J
�
�
L
>�
0
I
��
�
�
�
�
�7
�
r� �.�
n
u
�
•
z
0
�
<
>
�::
J
W
Y
1--'
N
0
z
✓ ,
�
�
O
ca .
N�
m
N
b ��i�
�
i1114„I�.Il�lillllllu
GL)1).i'�����y �'�
� i: x i t: k N Y
iiu��!��i�l�i ��11�
� P p P
i i � �
� �i i� �• i i �
, 6 n r
. I� .. 1� I� ��
pill'iIL� !�Ip
Hlllll,�:rclil�llllll
4
V�� � U � Y A �I J
�i41.'Il�lli
° uM�ipl
4'��--�e�
N
�1 � � )���a �w
�I �I� �o
!!! !! < II!!i Ui
9! I � il!N ��
�� ������ o
� ��
ui'"''i
�� �`� i:
0
c
�;
,�,.. �j �I
�: . , ,. , �
p;��:;,��;��. O I
�
,:yl�ti�r,� �,� �,,�� ��
��, ,
���,;. ,.,..�,.�,..,�,
0
«
a
�
.
�/ �
�
i! � ��
�
V
�
z
�
�
�
0
0
�
i
�J
�
� �
Z
�
z
�
�
�
J
l:.!
�
Lt.l
J
N
> W
>
�
J
•
�d �
�
'�� ► •
�
� �✓ r .:
�7' � O
< ..
n
a a
�
�
�
� wo a
' > w ^'
p a
y h
0 QQ
I � �
z �—
rv � V 3 (�
m Q `�' �
I � �Z .,Z-.Z
� '
I — — — 8.9XO.Z � � ..
w
i� '
N p
��
� fl � �°�
o s, xo.z & � i
�
8.9X8.Z
S— -
N �
W � �
' io <
0
N
a f
i
I � j
za
0
• I UN
�
>Z8t sZ8�
'° 9
' °
0
� ,
s ��
o�
� o
� Xi
N , o :
a:i
W i
U�
q ————-_�—
� — — — — —
Q
U
o:-—
0
� �,i
i
x,
` �
o.�
x!I
I O .
m 'i
I
5800� Ol :dOIS - ONIdd01 9NOJ 'NIW �� � � '
z im srN�na �vo� c;s;;ais;az ..s s; �Q ,
n „ Fa
a
I i ' so ;
o! or
�:i o n i,
ti�
G� x Z
� � O NQ
� �,� - — _
W
V
Q _ � _—�
v ----- �
?�
, ° o'
x
I � i
°i
� xi
� o�
I �
�
i i rae� yz3z oz8t ,; � —
� 7i3M ,NOONIM SS32393 � I
� I � I
,
� �
C
O
2
0
0
� �
Z
Q
�
�
0 �
QI
�I
~-�
N�
�
�..L.
�
0
1f
�
h
� �
�
, /� .
�. .
! !
� �
� �
�,� �
--�
i
i �
i�
I�
-�-�
�
N
O
<
0
�
Z
Q
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
O
�
�
�
z�
i�� S �
�Cy s�U
� u' ' `>y `
Z. 2>.-
N,?� pO� �
,�. -F_.i1X J
��
<_ F
J:^ «
V=w n_�;.(J S
I j
�\ \t /
V
Z
Z
0
tl
�' \
_`
2
r
Q
m
�
�
�
�
w
m
�
° c ��
" Z C�
�� T �- �K U
��- U 2 ��� ~ �.-
��_>
�� � � ? 4=1�4�0 �SZm r l
���.G 3 -�,..insa ��
. p= � �n�in�?��> ' G','V f
...v z q�GV`���v <.ijU
- 2` � Oi_ci'u��Of. ZOZ�'.� V
n�@�n C V��N3�5� �a�v�i io
r -
w
C�
Q
�
Q
U
N
W
V
Q
�
Q
U
' � � a
�- U
� � ni °�a v^(IC� h/I ! .l
-Z/t t�-.8 ..ZJL £-.6
0
-i
0
�-�ao
z � =y
UO
Z
-� Oc^
Z` O� -�J
�- ?� �'�<
�i_r s 2ZZ
V=� K
-, T_ h Jf
J _,= =� <��
I
/ i
�
I
rrw �
B �
N
�
�
�
�
0
us
O�
S
v
W
�
Q I I I �
N f i
Z'
O{
�;
V
e
��-
io
Z
'.B � � I D
! m'�
mC l
�
�h � �
4 i� i ,
o� �i�
o�P
�' �7
�
r
� , A =':.
�\.�. o�;�
r,o, �: 1 .,. / �
aReostis ir�p�c�rE �,
pRAl;1AGE SLOPE � [�O p
��
4,� � EXISTIM1iC / j
�� OQ UtACS k
O� Q �}2 ` � _--� !' \
��' 3
� � � 9 � `t
S,� /�
,�C
�
h
�—_.
�/ /
� S• �
. �
/ \ �!
( C�, � /
� CF D
o � :
N
r
�F{�+�Cl�{TM ��l�i�
��\—
' �O
w�
z
J I
Y
F- 1
c
u
G
0
c
4
�
�
W �
�M
O�
O O ( ��
M
N �
� � SlTE PLAN
( i/16" = 1'-0"
f
h•ii-G}�
__.—�-
ASPHALT —�
r PAVchIcNi
_._-� j :� \ .
/
/
-�T
�.� ��ti
L
e� fG �� , � F ���
� �'�O �
0
�' - �ExISTn«;
� TREc"
S`}eN
' <,�
\ 420 �PORTIAND A E. � � �"
�
K� �
/ ��
>
� /
\�i
I��C�I��
TRcE
PA7(0
r+�act-� �
so.eo• a
NEW ARBOP,-
v;TAE iREES
BASEtitc'NT--�
S�hfRS
415 SUMh11T AVE.
2 1/2 STORY
U100D FRr,ME BUIL�WG
� � IP.
� ��� � .� �
��/ �
�
� � p ".I •
� � / O�`" 4r � �
> �O��V` � .' v
/
QVP�� �
?�, �
�•
o , -
/ �� i
� '
Y._ � _ _ _ �� T
=FS W/
R.4ILING
n ,�✓ `
/ �� T ti
�
- � �t � I .�
❑ � ��.J-�,t-q� �,r� � . � � � ° a�
N �
t.J �,J � � 9� � > �
/ l _ �n o
SITE PLAN
i° = t0
,C , � r, � _
>
PORCH
�1 .�'
.Y . � r. ��l
� �. G
f o, a c o
1 i A� " .°
� U �
u !': ^ �
3 T.
� o�^ —° � Q
} f � � ' � � �
� co o .- = i
w r ° �
�r
o `' '3 " �
c o � " (
a y U 3 1
1 c �' '�
! � U �
A � U
o � ?+
° � U
� v° =� a
�
e �
'� V V
O � U
� G �p C
O c. c7
� -�L L
C T _j q �
V n > � 'O
� � O e�
� O "
, 1 C
.p L F ^ .
G 0. � a � G�
p �.�. .. .4 c�s (1� � '
n y N
'�
O � r
N
7 :r f/� . .
i
�n � i
�1i � 1
r 1
U
�
�
�
�
i i
�
(
z
0
r-
4
>
L'J
J
w
F--
( /�
G
w
�
,�a
��
C�
•
�
z
a
�
�
��
J �
L:� _
� II
� �
(+J
� �'
t
��
t' V %
�� . ��I
n
U
�
�
�
�
�
c�
z
O
�
<
>
�
��
_
,--
�
O
Z
(, �
r� �
n
U
�
� �
�
�
z
O
�-
<
>
u
J
L:.:
s
E-
�
O
�
�
:�
�
�
f�Y _ �
•
�
�� �
� ) o
�
� N
� O
��-}\� O
V/
�
Z
< a
� i
� -
� �:
O =
O"
N I .��
u
'? J
��' �K
�
�
�� �
L'
O
' Z
L �
N
I � �
3 0
�
z
<
�
�
0
0
�
a
z
0
U
�::
�
•
��
� �
r� . �
�
C�
.
�:
�..
<
�
�
N
N
O
Z
O
�
4
>
u
h-
N
� b
S .'
F. o
L� '
o�
_�
j ....
���
�
G
J
�
�
, Q
=✓ �
'. �
V
�
�
�
�
�
�
� ��
�� ��
� G
ti
G� �
�� � C 7
" r,
�_.�. C `-- '�.
• � �� y
.p.r� C!7
- -� .
^�f'i L ^
_ � L 7 .:=\
- •" _ N
�=_ �� j
�
�
{j .
�._. ' :.
�
=� _
� � ��
.`
1_ .n ?� r_
�� �_ _
�' `!`: _
V � ( C ' � -- : r
U� rt =.'��.
_� � -
� I '
� ° ! ,.
CI' � '
.n
W
�
� �
J �
•
�
�3 13
E
�
�
. �� �
�
�
d
; ..., ..
i � _ — __ i � d � �
x-�oa = - i` :� ,�
Y� -- - - =
_ � - :
: �,�► -
d� .,�
�
�`
�
z
0
H
�
W
a
�
.� f
�
�
.� ! ! I �
� �
� �
�
�. `" �
. :.: ; .
� r � o � �
,,, � ;.: .
��
�.�. (d �
`� �° �
�
d �
-,—"�...� ci � N
,�,
� � N
wr� �;., � ¢�
� � aa a
Z �+- G
�
I
� �.o �
_� � � � a.
�,�� � �w �
� � �,f � � � q a`
�!:N y � � � �
��
�=.��
N �+•-•
N A� �
� '�� � � �
a � �
G P
•�. � �c' li "f.
Z n. •' � .i �II �
7. �� ; � y� _ t 1�i
� , , � n ,�.� 1--
'f'- ''; ;r;' 1, :.� i
" - �' _ � .
�' I .}~`�
a ib�' i r
b
.t I
� �
1 I
a; r;
''
i
T !
� ;
4`
"
I ;
�
y . .
0' I
1 �
1 ;
I 1
�
S
�: '
1 i
..��-��
Q�
��
�� � T n
W
�
�
��
v �
Y I
�
Q�
�
�-, .
�O
��
�
�z
�
>;
�
�`z
q
�C
��
U
z
Oz
0
�
G
a
W�
� N
r �
� Q
z
� �
�
F--� �
0
�.
u�
^ N
��
VI �
�� �°
� ��
l'
. � . `,4`�J
•F�5rftUN•
'NOTSCE OF POSldC HEARING
ltte Saint Pavl CltyCounctl veill conducy
. a public Wednesday. Jannary 5,
- 20�, at 5:30 p:m. in the City Counc3l
ChamUers; Third �loor, Gity Hall-Courf
House, on-January 6, 2000, to consider
the following cases concerning a new
carria�+e house proposed to be built at 420
Portland Avenue: appeal of Greg and
Cazof Glark, Pataicia Leonazd, and Laurel
FrosC to a' decision of the Heritage
Prese3vation Commission to approve the
design; -appeal of Ron Severspn to a
decis3on of thaBoazd of 7aningAppeals,to
, deny a variance to reduce the required
, , firont yazd setback; and appllcatlon of 12on
Sevexson to revtew the site plati.
- � Dated: Decembec 16, 1999 �
NANCYANDERSON� .� .
- Assistant City Covn� SecFefazp
(Dec. 18) � � '
- . ---81:PADLIEGAT.L�GER=--"
From: Peter Wamer
To: Blakey, Jerry; Mcinemey, Gerry
Date: 4/12/00 10:OSAM
Subject: Agenda Item 43: Severson Appeal, 420 Portland Ave
CM Jerry Blakey and Gerry Mclnemey:
This is a follow up to my conversation with Gerry Mc regarding tonight's Agenda item 43, Ron Severson's
appeal conceming 420 Portland Ave.
1 would advise that you lay this matter over to May 24, 2000 subject to an earlier date if necessary. The
reason for the lay over is as follows: the planning commission will not take up the matter of the neighbors'
appeal of the administrative site plan approval until this coming Friday, April 14. The planning
commission's zoning committee met last week and moved to grant the neighbors' appeal. The zoning
committee's recommendation to grant the appeal will be reviewed on April 14 by the full planning
commission. A party must then appeal the planning commission's decision in order for the Councii to hear
the matter. I am assured by the lawyers for Severson and the neighbors that there will be an appeal to the
Council. An appeal of the site pian approva!/denial wiil allow the Council to consider in one package the
neighbor's appeal of the HPC's approval and Severson's appeals of the BZA and planning commission's
decisions.
Finally, it is possible that the matter could be set for a date earlier than May 24 if one of the parties should
file an appea! soon after the planning commission's decision.
Ifyou have quesfions, pfease call me. PWW
CC: Anderson, Nancy; Beach, Tom; Byrne, Phil
ro
�
� n�.� •
00
�ro�
• o Q„
^. C�
f � �
R �,
�
! � e�o
, C o
A �
m
�
�
O
�
�
.S �nrq��
'��' R�� ��,.
.y l5�fl;,�
i ��i { N�
r
{'�49v
i �
i °}�
� �.. %� ..1r�
i � i� " '
, ! � ��
l � `�'
i
� � � p � i f`,ii
� a{ � ��1���a
e I � "
' . .�� . I.y _—
� 16R
�';Y �i �. ,� y ��... � .
7
i i � . . � : :_ . .
� ��I, �
.Z>•
K � 4�� � , .. c � .
.n.n
.. A4b J �j�I . .. ,
Q'
k.'�'�di`Fi�rfi ia��! .. ���
0
����•��.�� � r �'� e � . ,,,._— � ��
��� �:_
a— � ��.�'�l. /� v f �/�,I�� aaa. t ���
S � i � �M�
��y'ry�� �� � i )� 1 I L I�_ ��� ��"''
Lt� �p II � I
� � � � � �s�` I� U � � � �
� Y
R. '�P�� V ` �' _I�,.�„�,.. -- � -
� . . � �
��e�.�� � � �� F 9 � ;,:
- ; ` '�-
�-' ; � 1 1 �� �T�� ������;
i
� � `` � �� ��1Ws
�� � • �� I � �� � L �������
ppp � ��_ � �
6 � i
� � 4�
, '
��
,
�' �f �',7�`�� � �� � �� � � ! ��I I�� � �,.
1� � , .� 1,. i'�� -{�Ir ilw; �i�n� ,� � ��:
,+� 'V i.V "." i�'�l� 1
� �
�� . t i , , � i � . .. :d�_
:'�
k_
�
�-�;��
�
� / ,``�•\ ' -��,�
� l� �° � � `'ti;� ' /
� r ,.
/ ,- � �
� ' �,�
. ���� �� „
D �I �
�,��� �r���� �,, �- '� � 1 (►�J
��;o�,+�,i "'� �y� �''`� ' �\'S, e � �/�����
� ���s �� . ,
, ' �! � "��,' �'/'/ �
� � '' � i
�'�� �. � ��� ,
�� � � � � ��
I� �� �����'�� �
�,
�� � �. � � �� � . � ,
� � y i � I � � ���� .
,,� ;� � " ���;';I�II��I� ��Ii� 1�����'° ' ��
'<�t
. , , ,� ; �.• � � . � .`� I �
��
,s
,.,
w
����: � �
� P
' .r � ;
�u,. 3 ,��
, ,; F ..
�
��
i
�� I�
1 ��
I �a•�
,� _ �
� �
� j� �� M
ii
♦ � » q�?
. "" ��1►o14rZ�... ' - '! ,�„
/r
�::
�� •
� � -�� „�.,,_.
T '�
_. `4 _/. ,
�+ ���� .
� # v
��i�.. . : ... .. . �.
... � . _. , . _:!
� ��
<E t
EI . ? ,
�ti
i �,; � .:
- �*
,� '� : �
�
�
l. �.N.'�.Y'� .. . .��.
�; `. . .
W .r
' 4�.a,, �
._ . .. ._ _�"� �_ _
d
�� �� � �����
.\
<<
!�' , � � � r,
� ' ��� ��
:.� � '`�., \
�!'
.:
• � ,_
F� � � r���
� pE '
� �
� �
.�
•,;-, �
<� � r
.a � C, � �
` � � P. "/
� L
. �t�i p
/)� l
a. G
: ,���;
, �
�.�. =��
a
�:
�`°� �
� r
,
...: '► �it�� _ °'.
�'/ tA111. ��� .�
�� , �� 'r �� �.` r�.��
� � �_ ��
v� T��� 11il� �. s,�, ��r r �� F9 �i�t 5 i��
�� ������ �P �ii G
� ���,�' '��`
� ^ i ( W� �i��iu
�+w.�. r
�
� �� ��i �. �� � }" �` .a1�� � �,
� �� �
i�.�>+ �� `
�? ,
�>'ai��k,�f��.�l.',�t A�' � � ���,1�'� c i
k
T
��.�i� "'�� •e,t � "' /��� � �� �cflv�i � � 7;
�a°�Y'�Y'��' ��� , � � �
� �.��.�h�����;o
�
� �� r �
'"��`��i� ' � '
��
_ �
.
��' �'l ,/1'� �
R:. �
.. .. _._., . �LL-• � .
���1 t � �
_LI�I�I � ,
i
1
A; , .
� . _ - . ..<z�` ..
_� _ -�_
� °r ` , l
y'. ���
� �
: A ° . '� „��> `
a
,,
,
� �r
� �� � 1 �
� (�,�i;gs� .;�
t�� �,�» �
. �`
�„
i
�;
w\�„ ,�
�r�
u �
o �
�. r
n_ �`
� � '�
� I � a�'
� �
ay:
� �
w.'%
�
� � �
�'., _..� �
wr .
r At:
��f1 ��/ .. _
�i�.,�l�b i, �.l `' r;�:. :
,,c�;
.�,�
,� � � ,
<a fi , ., ,°m�::
� �«'�� ",
-._ , aiC_
:u���+'��'���:;a
.R � _.
::3�` >.r.w� °!: �cx ... .. �
r �� �:.��c�'t�- �
' �` � -',j`- ^ \
,Z'�i• : �` � �".� � � / :
,. ;� / :
� t�
n� v1� � ,1.. .. - ._ i a�"°
�;�. ��`,� r
�- m � r
0.�� • �
�� �A.�1. �i �
j.. �+.-
�� � i�.a_,�:,�. , ,'
��''' �� � -- -" � �
M
�� ..', i ; . .
� \
T . ` ♦ I/ � � i��_ 1
- i ��z ! k� �,. �.ti
�! r � � 1 r� Y. ..
M
� � ��� �� b ��� � � � �'�_
y %' e . . �, �`, � 4�, '
' f �.'7 � . .
; ,. y .
�, � ,� � � � ��;
1, p � i
iI� � `/ ' ���;�' `t ,r'
4 �
��
,,
. F �,�_�:
, �� i �
l
�■
�
�
a� a
?, .
�� I i°"" . a K;. .
�, � � ! �� �- '�' ,
� �t.;��,.j��� �
_
� �: , � ,
r.:��''
i
�
i' fi ���
�� �� e
t- ,�
�� : _ ,
i f A� �
� ,A
' 4
I� �
I � i� J� j� i � t z .
�' ;
i ;.
i( �� � ,
� a�
� � � � �
— �
�
� `�
� �.
��n ,,:� � a �� � - � �
� r;, � :� ,
r � �
!�� �
c< � � : � ,
i :;
� k � �
, 3
,
.
�_m r 1 i��, �� .
�o,.��r,��i r i � �
�
� 1 � � 1
S� s
� `' # �"
4 1
r �C1 1
ry ,`��
., _..
��
' �:
�
i
my
�
�'
fi,
E.
�
'p r
—,�'�I ,�_�.�i�
_ �
� ..! ,'
+�
�,v.2y. .. ._..�.. r. _ .
�4 '
���
! �S
�,�Z�'r
Y � �.� ��' �. � .
s�< Q �� �� \ / .
' � � �'�II'ifr� l � ".
I� i ' �
�. � � � �
� ' i
ii
=- a• - r
1
'/�
�� �
z
�
dw .' ±
! �
�, �,�
4
i
f . +t'. .
a �� ��_.+.— i..�... --
i► .C/ "' __. ,
♦ � - yr,, � ,
���. �,.t�ilt''l�`.�! �w�r".�
��1 ..
Y
/,`. F �p,�.A,�'��� ,:
, �.�i, � �r
",a�,C�f����,�
u
1
�':
_
w
, ` �� ' r .�y..�. . . ...
I
'
,
.$ �� 3t11 ,. ��� .,�
1 FJ �� - ������ ' ���� i � j � \
� j 17��2�'s a9 ��� '
� �� f p � �.�1. �.
� 3 � �3��1 � 9 }� �� �
'..���3-.��{A�F'4'I1 lle�9� � 1�'l�l�i�i �'
� � �. R �°��n,� �,' � 4 �
tr,v�� 1iAw
�,° �.. � �" \\ �'� 11 • N �°� � _ 1i � �
YM15� . � A '+.. ' � .. � � �? .�
! � � .,n,`y"t j �
f�': � . . , ` , .
� , I�'� .
� 'yr , y � ,r, �
Y� � �1�:Li�FIf vj . ,� � � .
l.. � Y T�Y \� �^�_ ...1'.. 7 •.�` .' �..
4 � ��W �� ���1 � ` �.
� ,� � � �I �.�
� ��_ �
�` � ,,M s .� �. � � � �'
� °
,��--" ,/"" or � r � .
�'! V�eltr�•
k �'��� 1 �' %��i �n""e�►�.�Y\ 'r,7li � � � j . �•��
/ � n� , ����
► _.,��ag�'„'� .�> ;;; , ,, �.
,� � ,v, �r ; y .�.
� ,v�
������ . �. . � � � � , v
���iv.z , � A� �
�!-,.�J�.Ii , . � • .
<��
� '� w` ��
I �, �
� � r��
�� �,,. .,
� �:� i a�l. t4 r
�� � N �� �'=�� •
�«�� ����� ���
:o F Gt 9� 1"�.'� � nnd3NEl� _
�� � ��� n,=� ��.
II
� I
I�
P i� , �
�
`� ,� ' g �
��� I �C� �, <;I��,� i��i �.
� �� �, ' h�i � . � � .
� "�-�. � .I ).... � � ' ' f t � !
�� ���• :'� � � �_-9f—'� ..
� �� '�II�� �
� �
�.��n�e��� ,�. �9,'ll��l � "'`�'�� � � ��
.� ;� �. r �r ` � �-s'�
�,,�.�.. .;. �+,; v :; �� �
" ` �� i v��� v
SS« ��% � �� , ,r �
� f '� y ,
. . � , ' .� � <
.'.. .-- i � � �
i i �'
S "'�.
t _ , 1 .
� � � � �
x � � �
, ..f
,
, , �,
� ,
� �a3
P
E ' �
� ' � ry wM
I
�{ 4 � I �
�� ' i a
, ntci c
� �.� Y � e�
;} 5 + �
4 '
fi � $ f A I� _.a,:..,: -
1.� �'��� .:u.^is�i`- ,n.r��` � '
L�' 1 I.pJ1 .... -. ... T
�� � �, > p�.
e�� s. •.<�
� �
'� �.
" . „
— ,�:
,.---- _ _..
—� • �_�.__ _
� ; �=��, :
_ Y �
�._ --= _
� �'f.
✓ I i)
���
� j �l
�t` ��t�l
1 ��I��
I11�)��
�
* -��Nv��
� �r R
, , �,
' � .
J
r ,".5:. �,��,.
� ���,dn�,
� �
, ��
� �
� � ..
j e
��� � + � y �
��
"t..yM �:���'�1
i�
h
a
~ ��� q
y ^
^ �
g
i
�l
���� • .� i ..
�r; " ,�j , ,
�> F t -�
�f;-�_,. ;'4
; a�, , ' . -...«. .. _ :-x�i+.: �, _.
,I� �
\'
: 1 .
� � �'
S � �,
�
� I �:.Ili ��e � !" !f �'�. ����". � .
( �. � . . � � �-w... �•� .
, �' r ,,�. :
f
�Ji� I��_
y � �u
d r� ��'t�
'+���1.1� l � �� 1. _��:.=..
. W y. �A •Y.til 1h it:;�a�
1� �' i AS ' r F L: Mb1A y� ��.j�.� r � ...
.�F..�:;�
/ � � �
�/�,\��
t ` �
�' �
� ., � d e���.
:� ,1�
A .�
��.
; s �' .
�
�
j
� ��,� � �
�`
.,{ � +%
' . � .�
C
t ,� '. � .;;�/! !�J
1 � .
� :�,
� I F I �
� �,\ 1��'; � � .
� � 4 r� ---
�R�� ° �__
�i Tlt c � � � —� � � . .
n
a
0
/
..
} � �' —A �� � � .,...
�
.�_ _
��;
�� �
_�_ _ ,., � '. 'i" --__
�,�.� �
� n,
, ��
., Ji: ,
,�.-� �' ,
' ��
� .-�..L.y ...sk� R�..Q�F� y.,:
l�
� f:
k-"�' �' , F�e' �. �.,? i M,'ti
.., � + " �
. �� "
,�, , .�� ��� �
, ,
' e ,�,r;„ { � -tf �i ��'�
k � �� ��
� � '�i.�,:: v�
, � �. , �, ��;
�i `�� �
_� a ..;s;�
J -_ � �'
;;i al
1�. 4
� t?,�: � �
d
� `,
� i�, ,��
�' �
�
�. � � �''
` �� ,..� � � ,�, i.,,- � -
� ��.r ,:�,�
�
�
t
� t,g
'
� , - i �=-•_.. — n.
_ f � �' '-
,- � _ � �� , .
„
� _�_ ;
- ,�����
� � ���� , � , . �.�,� a. � � �
, --y ,i �.
�.,
i� iS : �.1� :.
� , I `
� � ` � r 1
� � \ If� � .. F� ' �.r
� � `' � i _ "
�Y� at� 1
rta' � ` � + , ii;� , _
a� "���Y k;�-`, Ia_• ;�v
44 'z' r I I �� p� � \ �
�� �� I� `� �
�� � - • ,�,. � �.°"� �
�` . ,�,�_ `.`� ����3
,.
.' ' � -
d; � �y �, \ � � �_ ���' ��
�%� — ' —
_ Tm
_ S�':°� .(,�-1f+
� �
�
�
, = ,• ��
4£ '
✓p-
� ta . . � '.' � ?N � � � a �t ;-.a.� Z
L � rl�... . � .��
F �'" � p" �
,�n �... ir., ;.
i ::�r�'. ' �
;�/:.�
� �°�'/��,—"�'��' i �
�'' �` ' �
� ��. � � �
r
�# Q
�. ,: ; �, :
,
s
;+ ; �� ;
� �. �
t< �;
� GF'
��, � . ( � �M..�i21 � � �*' � . ' '
' 1
�
� / :� �� _
� �✓ � �Illllii .
�
�� �
� � �� .... .
l.., � s,.��;_��.,
, _: T � 1nf�e_F . , .� , �
� � �� �� 18��
,���' � � --�'M,.
I ��
�s ,
:..�rr+�
e.��r R'd
A (
�, � f;,. �
, ��_
_ ,� ,
�� �
u � p2li'�3
�iL11i � , ����i _ .. .
a ',�
� ,
r �
�" '�P�EM:�. ' 7
�
�� — ==
r `
r
, F
e
,
..,
���
�'';
�-,
_ _�,.,�.
-
�,
u ' . -, ��,� �., .
� �^ ` ^�
�� ' � �� �
� � �. - �� 'f ' � . �,' �'�
$� .. � ; ; � �. -.` e�
�K_, Y �
il � �� � ..:�
r , h � ;�
+ r �.
)r �-�. _ -_ �.,, � gt �'� �e � ,
��:� - ""( � � _ ,� {; Y r
�� W � „ a ��
` �! �. � �, .
1
w � M
� � �i. 6
�! �I
I
R� 1`!+
� ;,!
dC� - 7�-�
. . � .. � . . , -..� ---�-�=,�m�e..r—r.
_ ' ' ..��... — - .. . . :,' . .
.,,.. _..., .. . . . . .,. _ _ ,.__ - _ — _
+. 'wyi—� -.�'-.�"�.t��-�_.�..�,�..'_...`..� ' ` ..., � �_.�'.._..�..�...;.
, . '. i�"`.� . � '.�-.,.' N'/�1I� --- N�131-S3'I1A�'� ` ;, .
,., i �j... - _
�1� . . . ,: - ... .. ,.
-- �"+Rp"�, ..,�..,_. .. .._�_ _ � ' . ' .. i�. ���. � ...
- . � �_�,. '� '�,..
-- - ;�::' ' �., -:� - __�:�:• _ _` - : � ._._..
. � N �- -- ._-_ -- ' � � � ,. .,.._._
� �;#°---
' ... � +--- . _�
. . . � ._ � .
. . ,'a�`� . . �`...
� � ,. . .� , . , �..
• �_.__.:_ ._ . �. — ,_� __.•__ i �.� �` . ;' '
r�' • �.�
'..
_ �-.� � ' . .. , . �. L• v "t"" t' — - , - -._ � �,.� -
'_' ti-- ... � . .. , .
.. . ,._... _
.� , '
.. ... .._...r. .
' ` � ___..._. _.__... ..._ ..-,,.��� .-...."'
. �.�T� ` ! � .,\ ,.� i � .,
,d �.. � ,�
.. _ +. � - ~ �� : •
_... -�• -�- ' ....... ...... ... . � ,
:;_
. . w � . _.. .. . . ...
:, ..._. . . .. _._ _. ......-- - - - -..
�. _: �. � ',� . . . � . a__ ... .,.. 'r•. , ...
' ; � , , �-- � _ , • .._ - ------ --.� . _..� .
���, ... �..i � �. -
..,• --
i � i ' . �' � , . . _ . .r_ _. _ _.._.. -.
, .._....,.:' - � • "-'*�` �` ' •
' � � � P _ _ _ . _ .. . �. ; - ,
� -.._. .' . . . .. . "
. . i�---�—•-....._... _. _...�,: .•�.'_"_�.:� - ---e-_• �-_ 'L �.
� - •�-i— -•---• -.� ` ' '� • '��' . .
. ,. •
. .
I ' • -- - �:_-. - — - -.:_ .
9 � • � �,._...,. �...,.__,_,_�
-J'' .- '
� ___:
,.� _. . �.,.� - -_- _. .. . .�. . .._ ._ ' � s �-- ' . �� _ ' :
, . . .. o � � .
; .__, . " .�_.._....... .._... . . : -_.�.. -- - � �... ,..,,,� _
• ci1 .,._:_ _. -- - _.., . _ .. -
1 • . ._ .... -- ^,�,:1� '
: . ` --.. - •
�� --.. .... r:— �---.. ,. .—,--=�-----. ___�___...� !
� . . - , ;_,_ _ �
� • y� % �, �
'-.—. • i � --�- �, fi � �,�,,, - �
, � . �� a' , ,
•'. � � � �• � � ,
� ' \ ti' `C � � .j • . .
� � �
°--�-- • - � �!
� ----.. _
. � , . � N _ , a` ,, �I� ! , • � �
� 'o ♦ � ,
� • �" . : /- ' . � �'' ,�,. �` . •
......... � s '• ;
—..... ..., . __.. �.� � � �� •
� � .
, _. .._.�,i _ ._.. '— ��
_ .� •°•----• ------ .__.-----
.0.. z - . --... " " ;�
-:: .. . ... - -
. ...
._.
...:.tt"3._ . . .. . '" - �----- �..._ _ . _. --
.
:.. _ _�_ _ __� � . • �. . -- . ..
, I . ., .��._" ""_' ' p ,. M ' •. . / �7 . . .
.! �. _— ' •;: � 'o. ._... ,. � . .. . . .
(�j �,�ie�l}�-",:•�,..'._��:':O : " 1
. 1' .` ' .:''.:_....,.... aeF>s«e.y ' • .
� .. , . . y�' . _ �. .� ...:-h3'�. ' �y.� r . .a. .sJP•ti-�. .
}'� . p:;. � � .
. . . 1 � ' ' aL , A�:':'' :. , .�-, ' � � _
1 ••�, _
•T ' � .
1 p _ 1 . �^ .
.. _� , i� . . ar ,°a L__� -- •- .—_ �; .. --
� 1 � , a �� ' � '
. ' • 1 . '
, : _ : � ��...�...........�..JCd�t:��1F � -. .. ..`,�'�_ . - • -
. _ 1� _ ���'..�^ .��....�
.-� ` �..__.'_•
i � .,., r „
,.�. .. , .
�. ' is ..
.. . . T • n... ' _., .
'i �^-.��� ��.�.�'� _ � , . ... ... . . • �
. ;� -- . { _ -.-m .� �%,. , . . ---.- -- - ;� �-Y s 63
1 i A ' � a_ „ � aY__._ N.'-- �-.. A
� 8:
TOTRL P.002
s __ _
% \ : �a� 4 �-�
� rz 'f�
r rb � � � " u Y{ �`+ \ \
��' �u i � �,:
�� �d� � ,�� �\ ��' �� "/i� �.
r l uo � \�� �� 11 �" y+u�
> > � � � ��
�.'s i�� I �r ay;
✓ ; '� ��� ts` ` �
i %�, f � � �ti�A, � .' '� � �
P i a �„ .� .
% y �I
�� �
���� ¢�����u� �. � .�.:.
�''N.� � �� �..,
��� \
y Nli,_ ,�'r' �*
fC i
.�
` � 1.
,� ;
,
a
i
� - � � , ,,: � '
R � �,�I,,j�� i
F
t � ; � `�(, d' t.
? �� i
1 .:�1: ��� ..
'l .:
-
� / � ,. dl�
i _�� � .��. /��.
�I ....� e,7i
i , I
I I �i 7 �j ��
�, �
+� �^ �" �
{ � �
d
I . � r ij� �.:, ��( � � �t ��
� I ��� '� ��� � ' .
i �: �
�
, . . � ����� i� �,
i/ S
.5�� , ;k. , . � ..
Np � { �� i ` �`.'
� M � •,'
t
� ,� .�
,.,
a�
�:.
=, _
_, � . ____ �,
,
e
1
�
nx � «,
�'�r
��%��
< ,
="� w A��y�,pV .� k. 44.�.;.. �' '
�
3 �rs I � ;
,.
�;��; : ,
;r ,
. ;�
�,
�� 1} �� � �,,.� ;
1 �, �, ,
/ A , ,,_ `�`��� f' �►�,I��l� ,; % ' i
�rr 'f tiu��� �� ;
� � �� �, � �
. � ��� - �-- - � � � ' ��,
/ l � I v
i I— .� I
� �s � I�I I �� �--� �
�, ..;�-� c.al
' i ,
I `3 1�
: �, r\\ f' _
� � 9� , -
� ��
� I I �'��
-� .�"' ` ' ,
\ �:,. m
;.,. �� _. -�' ° _.
�F;:'�.`% -. ,.�,,��..--�,�F`