The URL can be used to link to this page

276247 WHITE - CITY CLERK y��yyy PINK - FINANCE �i�.'�`'�� CANARY - DEPARTMENT � G I T Y O F S A I N T �PA U�L COUIICII ,� �� BLUE - MAYOR rw s � File N 0. Resolution Presented By . Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, Gerald Dufour appealed the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding the change in nonconforming use to allow the operation of a manufacturer ' s representative office at 419 South Hamline Avenue, the Board of Zoning Appeals decision having been rendered on October 28, 1980 pursuant to Zaning Board Reso- lution No. 8745; and WHEREAS, Hearing having been held on the matter for the City Council on January 8, 1981 pursuant to notice thereaf served u�on all interested parties including the owner of the property of 419 South Hamline Avenue; and WHEREAS, The Council having heard all par�ties and being informed by the owner of the property tha.t the Great Lakes Dis- tributing Company, the tenant of 419 South I3amline Avenue who had applied for the change in nonconforriing use had relocated from the building and was no Ionger planning to operate a manufacturer' s representative office at that location; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby grant the appeal of Gerald Dufour and does hereby overrule the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals and the previous decision of the Planning Commission and does hereby determine that the proposed change in nonconforming use at 419 Sauth Hamline Avenue from a grocery store to a manufacturer' s representative office be and is hereby denied; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Gerald Dufour, Robert and Florence Pittelkow, owner of the property at 419 Sauth Hamline Avenue, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. COU[VCILMEN Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays Hunt Levine �[I F8V0[ Maddox / McMahon ��9/ �,�� r� _ Against BY � wlson JAN 2 2 �gg� Form Approved y it A orn Adopte y Counci Date Ce ified Pas- by uncil Secretary BY v� Appro :Vlavor: Da 2 �98� Approved by yo for Submission to Council By - BY �� !.4N 3 1 1981 / � i sw�Z- ' � �i V 1 �;��Ty"a:`� CITY O A PAUL ! ;",« '� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �` I=i�ii°ii �,� G�� A�q -,,,, DIVISION OF PLANNING ��, �... �� "'°ms�+�� 25 West fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 GEORGE LATIMER RECEIVED 612-298-4151 MAYOR DEC 3 11980 December 30, �9so CITY ATTORNEY Rose Mix, City Clerk Room 386, City Hall St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File No. 8745 - Appeal of Gerald Dufour to the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals which allowed the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate a Manufacturer`s Representative Business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue. City Council Hearing: January 8, 1981 Dear rvladam: This letter is written in response to the appeal of Gerald Dufour to the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals which allowed the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate a nanufacturer's representative business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue. The applicant who seeks a chanae in noncon- forning use to allow this business , Robert Pittelko►�r, owns the subject property and wishes to rent it out to the Great Lakes Distributing Company. On October 14, 1980, the Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on this case, at which time Lou Ann Dufour, wife of the appellant, appealed the ruling of the Planning Commission which allowed the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate a manufacturer's representative and distributors business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue in an R-4 (Single Family Residential District). Ten letters were received in opposition to the Planning Commission ruling, including one from the Southwest Area District Council , and one from the Randolph Heights Neighborhood Association. In addition, a petition with 54 signatures also in opposition to the Planning Commission ruling was received and two people spoke in opposition to this ruling at the hearing. One letter in support of the Planning Commission ruling was received and two people spoke in support of this ruling at the hearing. The Board of Zoning Appeals recommended approval of the requested change in nonconforming use on a vote of 4 to 2 allowing the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate only a manufacturer's representative business at 419 So. liamline under the condition that this business permit no trucks incidental to this business use to either make deliveries or to pick up orders unless they are small vans. Subsequent to the hearing, and following the filing of the appeal by Gerald Dufour, the Southwest Area District Council submitted a letter which reaffirmed their previous position of opposition to the requested change �O . . ;��t f��'7 December 30, 1980 - 2 - in nonconforming use at this location and wi�ich also suggested that Mr. Pittelkow apply for a rezoning of this property to a business classifi- cation. The matter of the appeal of Gerald Dufour to the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding the requested change in nonconforming use allowing the Great Lakes Distributing Cor�pany to operate this manufacturer's representative business at 419 So. Hamline will be heard by the City Council on January 8, 1981 . Please notify me at least by JanUary 7, 1981 if any member of the City Council .wishes to have slides of the site presented at the City Council public hearing. Sincerely, . � 3�Q Marvin R. Bunnell City Planner � Zoning MRB/mb attachments • '°°_�.� � ' ��i(�� N nvember, 24, 1980 Ron Maddox City Council President St. Paul, Minn. Dear Mr. Maddox� This is to inform you of intent to appeal to the St. Paul City Council, the rulin� of the �onin� Board of Appeals of 10/28/80 re: the non-conformin� use of the property at 419 So. Hamline Ave. because of our dissatisfaction with the rulin�. We will be contacting you in reference to this matter. _ . Sincerely� �^- Gerald Dufaur Neighborhood Representive cc: Rose M�x, City Clerk Larry Soderholm, Supervisor Zoning Section, Plannin6 Dept. Gerald Dufaur 1325 Palace Ave. St. Paul, Mn. �5105 690-3277 , -�-----W ,., a r n � • �t 6;��'7 SC�UTHWEST AREA DISTRICT COUNCIL 1523 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE ST. PAUL, MN 55105 (612) 698-7973 December 11, 19iS0 Marvin B unnell Zoning Office City of' St. Paul City FI��,11 Annex St. Pa�xl, P�iinnesota 5510'? Dear t�qr. B unnell, The Southwest Area District Council on December tf, 1y80 passed unanimoualy a resolution reaffirmin� the Council's support for the neighbors of �19 South Hemline in their opposition to the granting of a Chan�e in Noncon forniing Use at that site. The S1�JAD Council recomuiends that the owner c>f 419 South Hainli,�e apply for re-zoning to an �)ffice Services classification. The appeal of the nei�*hbors on this n�atter will be heard by the Cit,y Council January 8. Please include this position of support for the neighbors in the materiel presented b,y staff to the City Council. Thank you. Sincerely, . . .��.�,�.�.� '��t,'L./Z ��,�J r��. K hie Tarnowski, Community Organizer Southwest Area District Council cc: Lou Ann Dufour Great Lakes Distributing Company Members of the City Council � � �� . city of saint paul board of zoning appeals resolution zoning file number ��45 date o�t.��.�� WHEREAS, LOU ANN DUFOUR has applied for Administrative Review under the provisions of Section 64.205(a) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the decision of the Planning Conu��ission to allow the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate a manufacturer's representative and wholesale distributor business at 419 So. Haniline Avenue in an R-4 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 14, 1980, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the require- ments of Section 64.203(a) of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes attaChed hereto, made the following findings of fact: l . That the manufacturer's representative business is the same as the business office �se permitted in an OS-1 (Office-Service District) described in Section 60.472(b). 2. That the manufacturer's representative business is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the existing R-4 (One-Family Residential ) District than the previous grocery store use, a .B-1 (Local Business District) use. 3. That the wholesale distributorship business is a B-3 (General Business District) use described in Section 60. 502(g) and is inappropriate in either an R-4 district or with an OS-1 type use in an R-4 district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the Planning Commission erred in approving the request of Robert and Florence Pittelkow for a change in nonconforming use to allow the Great l.akes Distributing Company to operate a combined manufacturer's representative and wholesale distributor business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue. NOW, THEREFOR�, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that under authority of the City's Legislative Code, Chapter 64.206, that Robert dnd Florence Pittelkow be granted a change in nonconforming use dllowing the Great L"akes Distributing Company to operate only a manufactur�r's represent�tive business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue under the condition that the Great �akes Distributing Company permit no trucks incidental to this business use to either make deliveries or to pick up orders unless they are small vans such as those used by United Parcel Service (UPS) . m oved by Mr, Kir� _ Decisions of the Board of �oning Appeals are final sub�ect to appeal s�c�nded by MC• Ws4d� _ to the City Council within 30 days �n f��,�r � by anyone affected by th� d�cision. . ��a�nst .� . � ;�1��'� P�INUTES UF TfIE MEETIPJG OF THE QOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IP� CITY COUPlC1L CHAMBERS, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 14, 1980 PRESENT: I�nes. Morton and Swumers ; P�essrs. Grai s , Ki rk, Parri sh and Woods of the Qoard of Zoning Appeals ; P�r. Jerome Segal , Assistant City Attorney; P1s. Wendy Lane of the Division of Housing and Building Code Enforcement; �1s. Beseman , Mr. Bunnell , Mr. Tedesco and Mr. Torstenson of the Planning Uivision Staff. ABSENT: P1essr. Peterson. The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairman. LOU ANN DUFOUR S#8745) : Administrative Review of the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the request of Robert and Florence Pittelkow for a Change in Nonconforming Use to allow the Great Lakes Distributing Co. to operate a manufacturer's representative and distributor business at 419 So. Hairil ine Avenue. The appellant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. t1r. Bunnell showed slides of the site and reviewed his staff report with a recomnendation that the Planning Commission erred in granting a change in nonconforming use to the Great Lakes Distributing Company and that the previously granted pei°mit be revoked. There were 10 letters received in opposltion and a petition with 54 signatures also in opposition to the change in nonconforming use. One letter was received in support. Mr. Bunnell clarified the findings made by the Planning Conunission in determining their approval of the Change in Nonconforming Use. Findings 4 and 6 of the staff report were findings used in the Planning Corr�nission's decision as well as the fact that the reduced amount of trucks generated from the site would typically occur with a grocery use and that little or na duto traffic would be generated by the wholesale distributor business. The Planning Comnission also found the use to be consistent with the safety, morals , and general welfare of the corr�nunity� and consistent with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the adjacent property. Ron Bjerstedt, 1317 Palace, representing the group in support of the appeal , stated there were several people present in opposition to the Change in Nonconforming Use permit. The area residents were first aware of this use when the truck traffic started in their neighborhood. They contacted the Department of Housing and Building Code Enforcement and found that the buSiness was operating illegally out of 420 Hamline. Shortly after that the business moved to 419 Hamline where they are presently located. ��1r. Bjerstedt stated that the area residents really don't know what type of business ts being aperated there. The Great Lake Distributing Company was first referred to as a toy rnanufacturer, after that it was a wholesaler and distributor dnd currently it is called a manufacturer's representative. He mentioned that there was no large truck traffic following the approval af th� �hange in nonconforming use permit at the site until approximately 1 hour after the deadline to file for an Administrative Review. The area residents are concerned about the proliferation of business functions in a re5iden�ial �red. Based on past experience with the Company, the residents don'� feel they contribute anything of benefit or help to the residential drea. They feel that continued approval of the change in nonconforming use �� LOU ANN UUFOUR �£�745) Page 2 of 419 Hamline by Great Lakes would result in a lot of problei�is as stated in the staff report. Ultimately the residents feel it will affect real estate values and that heavy truck traffic on a residential street will add to the wear and tear of the street and eventually they will be assessed higher taxes. He added, to have this type of business in a residential neighborhood, would result in a general degradation of the quality of life in their area. Mr. Parrish stated that the residents immediately adjacent to 419 Hamline on both sides appear to be basically in support of the change in nonconforming use. Ron Bjerstedt said he could not comment on that but that it was his opinion that since the Pittelkow's have been long time residents of the area, it Was probably based on friendship rather than facts. Qick Barrett, 1251 Edgecumb, representing SWAD for District 10, stated their main concern is the fact that it is a residential area and a business of this type does not lend itself to making for a better neighborhood. He reported that the Randolph Heights Neiqhborhood Association has been aware of the problem and is on record as being in opposition. They reaffirmed their opposition at their October meeting. Michael Kurlon, representing Great Lakes Distributing Company, explained that their ldst delivel^y for merchandise for the distributing business was on June 6, 1980, On September 22, 19t30 they requested a small truck in which to send merchandise back to California, and closed the distributing business. He stated that they are a manufactuere's representative firm that only handles the paper work between the manufacturer and their clients. The work is all done sitting at a desk, by telephone. There is not need for trucks other .� than UPS trucks that deliver samples or catalogs. He did not feel the business was dny different than a real estate or insurance office. Ms. Summers asked Mr. Kurlon if he had any written proof that the distributor- ship had ceased operation? Mr. Kurlon indicated that he could furnish the information if the Board requested it. Lois Jacobs reported that she bought the office about 7 years ago and at that time it wds i11 very bad condition. In trying to upgrade the property, she got a permit to build a storage area with no intention of operating a business. While the Pittelkow's were fixing up their building, they did use it for storaye temporarily. N�aring nq further testimony, Ms. Morton closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Mr. Segdl stated that a copy of the staff report and minutes from the Current Planning b Zoning Comnittee meeting on �uly 3, 1980, and the application made by Robert and Florence Pittelkow should be made part of the record. Ms. 5ummerS suygested that since Mr. Kurlon stated that there was no longer any r�ason for truck deliveries on the sit� and was strictly an office use, th� �odrd shou1d �ttach rQStrictions ta ensure that there would be no more than uPS deliveries. She indicated that the applicant should request for a re�pning for offlce use. � k . �: e�'1 �+� ' ��f�� 1.0U ANN DUFOUR #8745) Page 3 Mr. Segal stated that if the Board determined that a manufacturer's representative husiness as described by the operator, is a use which is equally as appropriate as a grocery store, that definition �vould prohibit warehousing, storage and wholesaling at that location. He explained that the Board could carry forward the condition imposed by the Planniny Commission i f i t is to be used as an offii ce use or�ly. Mr. Parrish made a motion that the Planning Conunission erred in their decision to approve a change in nonconforming use to allow the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate a n�anufacturer's representative and wholesale distributor business and that the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that a manufacturer's representative business is consistent with office type use, and is equally appropriate or rriore appropriate to the existiny R-4 district than the previous grocery store use with the condition that no trucks incidental to the business use be permitted other than small vans. ��r. Grais seconded the motion. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 4 to 2 with Ms. Summers and Mr. :•Joods voting against the motion. Submitted by: Approved by: / I� �� ' ' i . \. i � �"� �� _ ; E �-. , << � , ,. ; l�� -.�,� Marvin R. Bunnell Gladys h1ortdn , Chairman � ZONING STAFF REPORT �; :� •�-� � 8675 . � �� l . APPLICANT: LOU ANN DUFOUR DATE OF HEARING 10114/80 2, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review � Determinatior� of Similar Use ❑ Other ❑ Change of Nonconforming Use ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCATION: 419 (&417) So. Hamline (Ws between Juliet & Palace) 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sunnyside Plat 2,Lot 6, Block 2 5. PRESENT ZONING: R-4 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: Sections 62.102(e)(5) & 64.205(a) 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE Oct. 3. 1980 BY Marvin R. Bunnell A. PURPOSE: Administrative Review of the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the request of Robert and Florence Pittelkow for a change in nonconforming use to allow the Great Lakes Distributing Co. to operate a manufacturer's representative and distributor business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue. 6. FRONTAGE AND AREA: The property is a corner lot and has approximately 45 feet of frontage on So. Hamline and 125 feet of frontage on Palace, for a total area of 5,625 square feet. C. SITE/AREA CONDITIONS: The site is occupied by a typical two story former grocery structure with second floor apartment set at the lot lines. The property has a detached garage in the rear of the property with access from Palace. Adjacent to the north, west, and south- east are single family houses . To the east are more single family houses with the LBJ Realty Office at the northeast corner of So. Hamline and Palace. Abutting the site to the south is the Randolph Heights Presbyterian Church. The Randolph-Hamline business district is two blocks south of the property. D. ORDINANCE CITATION: Section 64.205(a) of the Zoning Ordinance gives the Board of Zoning Appea s the power of Administrative Review: "To hear and decide appeals alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Zoning Administrator and any other administrative official in carrying out or enforcing any provision of this Ordinance or that there is an error in any fact or procedure in any order, requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by the Planning Commission in carrying out or enforcing any provisions of this Ordinance." Section 62.102(e)(5) states: When a nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises in combination, is discontinued or ceases to exist for 365 days, the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall thereafter be used in conformance with the regulations of the district in which it is located , unless the Planning Comnission, pursuant to a public hearing, finds that the structure, or structure and premises in combination cannot reasonably or economically be used for a conforming purpose, that the proposed use is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the previous nonconforming use, and that the proposed use is consistent with the health, safety, morals , and general welfare of the corr�nunity and is consistent with the reasonable use and enjoy- ment of ad�acent property. " The applicant alleges that the Planning Commission erred in their approval of the r�quest of Robert and Florence Pittelkow for a change in nonconforming use to allow a manufaFturer'� representative and distributor business to operate out of 419 So. Hamline Avenue. E. ZONING HISTORY: On June 9, 1979, Mr. Robert Pittelkow applied for a change in nonconforming use from a previously vacant grocery store to a plubming contractor's office. At the public hearing before the Current Planning and Zoning Corrmittee on July 5, 1979, numerous neighborhood residents expressed support for this use through a petition and a letter. The Current Planning and Zoning Committee unanimously approved the change in nonconforming use to a plumbing office with three restrictions: no outside storage, the provision of two off-street parking spaces with obscuring fence, and a required certificate of occupancy. On July 13, 1979, the Planning Cornrnission considered the request for change in nonconforming use to allow a plumbing contractor's office with these three restrictions and unanimously approved it. � ♦ � ' ' � �� LOU ANN DUFOUR STAFF REPORT PAGE TWO E. ZONING HISTORY: (continued) On June 11 , 1980, Robert and Florece Pittelkow applied for a change in nonconforming use from a previously vacant grocery store to a manufacturer's representative and wholesale distributor business. A petition with 28 signatures in favor of the application was received. The Zoning Office also received 7 letters in opposition to the application. At the public hearing, before the Current Planning Zoning Committee on July 3, 1980, five people spoke in support of the application and four people spoke in opposition to the application. The CP&ZC approved the requested change in nonconforming use on a 4 to 1 vote. On July 11 , 1980, the Planning Commission decided to delay the matter until August 22, 1980 based on the request of the Southwest Area District Council for more time to consider the matter in order to provide a recorrunendation to the Planning Corimission. On August 13,1980, the Planning Corrmission received a letter from the Southwest Area District Council recomnending denial of the application based on a vote of 10-9 (with 2 absentions) . On August 22, 1980, the Planning Comnission considered the request for change in nonconforming use and approved it on a 15 to 2 vote with one attached condition, that the business occupant at 419 So. Hamline "encourage the use of small delivery vans and not semi-trucks" for any deliveries. F. FINDINGS: l . Building Department records indicate the structure was built in 1913 as a store with an upstairs apartment. This site was zoned "A" Residence in 1922, creating a non- conforming use. The property was zoned R-4 (Single Family Residential) in the 1975 Zoning OrdinanGe thus continuing the previous nonconforming use status. 2. Robert Pittelkow, the owner of the property, has previously stated that Pittelkow Grocery occupied 419 So. Hamline from 1946 to 1976. The Polk Directory listed Pittelkow Grocery at this location as recently as 1977 . The owner currently lives on the second floor of the structure. 3. There is no current Certificate of Occupancy for this address. The owner has previously stated that the first floor space was vacant from early 1976 until June 1980 when the Great Lakes Distributing Co. , a manufacturer's representative and distributor of toys and sporting goods moved into the space. 4. It would appear economincally unfeasible to convert the existing structure to a conforming use because the building is a turn-of-the century structure with a store on the first floor and apartment on the second , the structure is set at the Palace- Hamline lot lines, and the first floor was apparently designed specifically for non-residential use. In addition, conversion of the structure to a duplex would also be nonconforming in the R-4 zone. 5. The previous use as a corner grocery store is first allowed in a B-1 (Local Business) zone. The proposed use as a manufacturer's representative is first mentioned in an OS-1 (Office-Service District) and the other proposed use as a wholesaler/distributor is first mentioned in a 6-3 (General Business) zone. B-1 uses are intended to satisfy basic convenience shopping and service needs of nearby residents. OS-1 uses are intended to accommodate various office type uses and to serve as transitional uses between intensive uses , such as major thoroughfares or corr�nercial districts, and less intensive single family zones. B-3 uses are intended to provide more diversified types of businesses than those in either the B-1 or OS-1 zones and are intended for location along a major thoroughfare or adjacent B-2 districts . 6. The action by the Current Planning and Zoning Com�nittee and the Planning Comnission in 1979 essentially allows a use very similar to a wholesaler/distributor, and a use also categorized as suitable for a 6-3 zone by the Zoning Ordinance on this location. 7 . According to Robert Pittelkow, the owner, and Michael Kurlon, the operator of the bus�ness, the Great Lakes Distributing Company generates far less twaffic than the corner grocery store previously did . Mr. Kurlon has also indicated that he receives deliveries and ships assembled toys and sporting goods by United Parcel Service once a week and very seldom requires the delivery of toy and bike parts for assembly by semi-trailer truck. 8. Residents of the irrmediate neighborhood claim seven semi-trailer truck deliveries have occurred at both 420 and 419 So. Hamline Avenue since February 1980. They further claim that the Great �akes Distributing Co. has been receiving these deliveries while operating illegally out of 420 So. Hamline prior to moving into 419 So. Hamline in early June 1980. ° ' 9�r ��It.`►"'�� .OU ANN DUFOUR STAFF REPORT PAGE THREE F. FINDINGS: (continued) 9. Letters to the various trucking companies by staff have verified several truck deliveries to 420 So. Hamline by Transcon Lines and a semi-trailer truck delivery to 419 So. Hamline by American Freight System, Inc. Both Hall 's Motor Transit Co. and Barry Cartage Co. cannot substantiate truck deliveries to 420 So. Hamline, the latter due to the difficulty of tracing the shipment without the name of the shipper. The trucking dispatcher of Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight failed to respond to the letter sent by staff. 10. The appellant believes that the use of semi-trailer trucks for deliveries to 419 So. Hamline might obstruct emergency vehicles , might pose a serious safety hazard to children and elderly in the neighborhood , and generally detracts from the value of property in the area. 11 . Although the appellant claims that B-3 zoning is not in agreement with the Land Use Plan for this site, the Land Use Plan does not specifically provide a policy direction to deal with changes in nonconforming uses. It does state, however, that "zoning classifications should provide enough flexibility to be applied suitably in a number of local situations." In any case, the Land Use Plan does not suggest any particular zoning districts for this intersection. In addition, the property at 419 So. Hamline has not been rezoned to B-3, it is still zoned R-4. 12. The appellant claims that Great Lakes D�stributing Co. would provide no service or benefit to the neighborhood and that a B-1 business would be more desirable. The owner, Robert Pittelkow, has been unable to attract any other business to this location since he closed down the grocery store in 1976. 13. Although the Southwest Area District Council recorrmended denial by a vote of 10 to 9 with 2 absentions, this was not considered an overwhelming mandate of the DistriGt one way or the other. It should also be considered that SWAD recommenda- tions to the Planning Commission are just recomnendations and that the Planning Comnission must take these recommendations and consider tham as well as those of the Current Planning and Zoning Committee, which recomnended approval 4 to 1 , and the letters and testimony submitted . 14. The appellant claims that in previous hearings on this matter they were unable to clearly indicate the full extent of their opposition to the use of this property by the Great Lakes Distributing Company. To this end they submitted a petition with 54 names in opposition to the use of 419 So. Hamline as a manufacturer's representa- tive and wholesale distributor. The appellant also submitted a map of the immediate vicinity indicating the residential locations of those residents in opposition as well as those in support of the use of this building by Great Lakes Distributing Co. 15. The appellant claims that the previous use of 419 So. Hamline as a grocery store had many fewer deliveries and the deliveries were made in smaller trucks. In addition, the Pittelkow Grocery was neighborhood oriented which, the appellant claims , any business in a predominantly residential area should be. 16. Stephen and Eleanore Van Guilder, who live across Palace from 420 So. Hamline, have claimed ir� their letter that the truck deliveries to Great Lakes Distributing Co. , when they were located at 420 So. Hamline, essentially obstructed their driveway and therefore denied them access to their own property. 17 . Other residents in their letters also claimed that the structure at 419 So. Hamline lacks proper loading and unloading space for semi-trailer trucks and as such cannot provide a safe arrangement for deliveries of trucks of this type. In addition, these letters claim that there is insufficient space for any expansion of the business , particularly if the expansion requires additional truck traffic. 18. According to Lu Ann Dufour, Phyllis Jackson, and Pat Bjerstedt, neighborhood residents in this vicinity, in the late afternoon of Sept. 22 , 1980, there was an outward or outgoing delivery from Great Lakes Distributing Co. by a semi-trailer truck which also blocked the alley between Palace and James Ave. Since such an outgoing delivery v�ould have to be ordered by the business , Great Lakes Distributing Co. apparently chose to ignore the conditions attached to the change in nonconforming use, that discouraged the use of semi-trucks providing deliveries to the business . � . ► �^W'.7nK,j��"1 :7 ��#�� LOU ANN DUFOUR STAFF REPORT PAGE FOUR F. FINDINGS: (continued) 19. According to the Van Guilders , this firm operated as a retail sample store, selling toys and bicycles to the public for three days in July (25-27� . In addition, Ronald Bjerstedt indicated that they also operated as a retail sample store on September 27 and 28, 1980. This also is in apparent violation of the change in nonconforming use permit which does not specifically allow retail sales to occur on the site. 20. It appears , based on Items 10, 16, and 17 listed above, that the proposed use may be inconsistent with the health, safety, and general welfare of the comnunity and may also be inconsistent with the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjacent property. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on staff Findings 18-20, Staff finds that the Planning Comnission erred in granting a change in nonconfor�ning use to the Great Lakes Distributing Company at 419 So. Hamline and that the previously granted permit be revoked. � � j i � � ' � ��' �� I �� I � i i _ 1 1 1 �� Il r i i+M b ' � .b.�s� I W�LL�SLEY AVE . ! , :�` " �� - o �; p�p;oio o� o,o ��ic�, � �� I RANDOLPH NEIGHTS o�o;c I I I � ; i � � � � � .i._.._ �. .._.l__�. l_ 1 -- � , . � � -._1 .1 , -- -- -T- - � � i � G i - � I �. r^ I i � ' I _ � i i L, � � c� � �o o�o�o o c-�,c_;�o��o� , � ; o;o�c . , � ' � s- s �'�F��-so N ,�� ' a�. � , � c.� i o � oio �000�o oiao;o ; �, , � �,� o <, c�.�-;lc�,o 0 0 0 0 � . , � , v � � , � , _. , �..- �.._..;. � _1 _ 1_._I___I__ G _ C) . � __� . i i . � _1_ _ ! ---� � - -- __ I . � � - -. � - . ..r._ � , -- -- �--�--- , , , I (__I I __ o- o _ ,I ! � �__ � I ; f ��o A O�c�A o4 0 0 0,0�� -__ o - � _ - o 0 0 0 0;0;0,0 0 0 0 0 0 0�; ��t �.��T AVE . ~ � O . � --_ OOO �O�O;U�Ca00400 C� O O,c� Q C� G� �Q Q �� U �.� �. ___. __ -- U � o_.�.. . _ -- -1 i l_ l_� ; �--' � _ ,_ _ �. .� ._._. � - �. � _ ,� � . ___._._ __ ___ _, _ ___i _ , _� __._� __ _�_. � G C> , 1 ! �;o c�Q,o o �o,c�,o� o � . : c °_ - o 0 0� �c:��o�o 0 0 o a o �o 0 � :�: __ P��. ��-�... av�. � � .� oo QQaQOaQQoaQa t - � — oaao �� ; p 00000 � o 0 , o � � , � ; - ._,_ _ G --- - __ -- -1 _.L -- �_�__ -- -- ��- -- -- __^_ -_ ._----- ..._ --. . _ - - J �> Q .." i I � I . o'O o� � K� 000QOpoo __ P- -c' ---- c� 0000000000 � o � o G �/QeME S IQ1�/� . y}j � JO QOOO �4OC� OQ� C1 - - -� � �----- UOO ��iUC� OGOOO � `� -� ' -- -� -i � --C}- I ' O _ � � . _ Q � ' � _.� ., -- T ` _ --- i � op � � ' I � � I � � �O OOQO � OU OG)O�OiOI� OU�Q � �F , , �oo I , ¢ ' . ._ _�p�N�4►t p-� . - - . �; _ _. _ _ __-----��--- -._. - s I-. ,�„ -�,,> ,. �F , i o 0 0 0 0 � c�c a�l L , ,. ___�_, i ! _ � Ml.1 t - - -- - - -_ U _ � - �--r '� �R�T/N � o 0 0 0 0 0 � o io 0 0 0 0 0 0� <C � t _ �b ; � � -- _,...,...� AREA MAP APPI.ICANT LOU A�t�tJ �DUFOy � LEGENO � Administrative Review of Planning r� ZONING DISTRICT 90UNOARY e n m�SSinn annrn �al nf �h�n� ;n Non-conforming Use allowing a �i�l� SUBJECT PROPERTY � PURPOSE (ILanufact�r�^!,S rP�PSentwtiva and � distributors business to operate O ONE FAMILY PI.ANNING at al9 Sn Hamj��, �Yen�o D1STR�CT �?�'�"S- ¢ TWO FAMILY �.1 � FtI.E N0. � MULTIP�E FAMILY OATE Q�°b� 1��_19�� • � n COMMERCIAL SCA�E � I�� = 200� NORTN � � �` �NDUSTRIAL MAP NG. SAINT PAUI. PLANNIN6 90AR0 V �ACANT _ �� _ , � � � - : a7�� , . � , � , � January 23, 1981 . , , ,J . � . . . � , � � . . . . . - . , . ' . . . . ' _ / . , . � . . � � ., . . . � . . . . _ � . � � . . . ' . . . . . . . . . ` , � � - Gerald Duford � - � i325.Palace Ave. � ' 3t. Paul, Minnsaota 55105 � � ? . . , , � - Dear 3ir: • _ , • - F.nclosad is a copy of a St.. Paul City Couacil Reeolution, C.F. _No. _ 276247, adopted. by tbe.CounQEl .on :�anuary�22, 1981 grsnting youx , , app�a2� to a decieion of the Board o£Zoning Appeale for property at ;: - bI9 So�th Hamline Ave: • . � , _ ery truly�,,,�rs, � , �r .�* � . � _ � � , , � , 'l' -� . — ' ' � � : Ros� Mix ' ' Ctty Clerk . � . � Attach. , >`,� , r �rch _. � _ ,\ ec t Robert & Flor�ce Pittalk�o�, 417 So. flamline Avc. ` 't ' 7vaing Adminietrator, Glenn Bricksoa ��: � Platu►ing .Canenissian ` , , • - Boatrd of Zouing AppeaYs . - � ` ;;� - :, - �; _ _ �, , �, t _ ' -- � . . , _ � % . , t . � �. .� ,� � . � � �.� - � � � .. " � � � \ - � �� -, �� . _. \ / � ,. . - . . . . . . �� . . � . l . Janu�ry 8, 1981 t�r. Ed Starr , � City Attorneg Rooet 6b�� City �i►11 , • �ear 3ir: . . . Tbe Ctty Ooue�il tc�Qay, a!'ter puDlic h�eariog, adc�pted aeat3on � �o grant the appesl of OeY'a2d Dutour �o s deci�loa of t}ye-�oard - . � ��8 APP�al� aPfeeting:prc�perty at 419 30. Ai�mli� Av�ee�u�e. Will y�ou please prepare ttas proper rasolution impleeenting thii � , - aclion. Very truly ycura, Rose I�ix � • City Clerk . ABOsla '� � . . . _ , . , _ . _ - . � �: .< � _ � �,.. . _ _ . _..��, --__ _--- - - - -- _ _ __ - �� -?;--/9�'/ - : �� _ v� �.� .� �, , ,� , iU � ,��u��_ti� � _ � �-�-,�t�tti��.�L�� _ -- - - ____ _ __ - - - �CE<�2�i��1��__L� �- -- --- - ---- - — -- - -— � �� - -�=i'� ��'+��I- , . . . , , � r _ •� ;��G(,�?-- _ 11!Z.�,�-�u __12��?�,�. -��!%�`2`'a�.C_��t-�.``�%— - � .. �i �_� `l/��--�> --L�-��-- GLC ��! j�--��--------- , �I ' � , ��% ��--� _ X�4__ ��,�!r?��--- - —__., �-- � ' �f�� ; , � ---- ��_--�t--- -,.�2�1/_��2:'�_ _��.�%1�j: ,�'Z�--- -- '� � n �� , �-2��_ `��- 1��.�?�?�-� ____-�-�-� -�''�;/�%_�� — -- - -,`�_ _ . �LGGG-� L/}�'�L�Zt� ��/� v�"/c-�C__ �L�t��l_1_ _ -�"='_`�` -- - - -- ;.-r- - -- . "1� ; , , /� � � , � / � _ _L>..��Z_ �J �-'1��_��-��°i �z�i ;��,�,____ . .� • �- �r��' �� ,�'� --�l?� ��c�=--- -�-j— �--- - ---j; — - /� �� _,�G-�� _�-��1-- �,�_,.GJ __�--�-u!��CG�.�_--��-�_-_ __- _. ,/, , . . . ; ,,, ----- -G�u� �LG��.c;�-�-.��-/�.�i.�s-.��_G�L _ --- �✓ � , � - / —_�2�L'-LGl� _ .�.-��/ � _��"�c.��t.J��-�--G�— --- � �d �f� �'✓�'iJ/ � ___fili" 7 �r+l�.U!c�{�%�'?t_, __ ..__ . . ._._.. .... . . � l� _ __- - ----- ---- -- _ _ _ __ _ . ;- . �`.�;��t,��, _ _ - - L � � �_ _ �,/ '� 1�1. ,` ��/� ,�=4�'�'/�C/t /,i2�-� �'' _ _ _ __ �^ G �G ,/�- � � % �"•�s-�_ � �� -�1',��-� _ . _ _ _ _ �r�- �sj � 0�4�t*�`o�,� �CITY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �� iii'iinu � ° ^ DIVISION OF PLANNING ',�� i s e• . . 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4151 MAYOR December 30, 1980 Rose Mix, City Clerk Room 386, City Hall St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File No. 8745 - Appeal of Gerald Dufour to the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals which allowed the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate a Manufacturer's Representative Business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue. City Council Hearing: January 8, 1981 Dear Madam: This letter is written in response to the appeal of Gerald Dufour to the , decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals which allowed the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate a manufacturer's representative business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue. The applicant who seeks a chanae in noncon- forr�ing use to allow this business , Robert Pittelko��, oHms the subject property and wishes to rent it out to the Great Lakes Distributing Company. On October 14, 1980, the Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on this case, at which time Lou Ann Dufour, wife of the appellant, appealed the ruling of the Planning Commission which allowed the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate a manufacturer's representative and distributors business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue in an R-4 (Single Family Residential District). Ten letters were received in opposition to the Planning Commission ruling, including one from the Southwest Area District Council , and one from the Randolph Heights Neighborhood Association. In addition, a petition with 54 signatures also in opposition to the Planning Commission ruling was received and two people spoke in opposition to this ruling at the hearing. One letter in support of the Planning Commission ruling was received and t�NO people spoke in support of this rulinq at the hearing. The Board of Zoning Appeals recommended approval of the requested change in nonconforming use on a vote of 4 to 2 allowing the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate only a manufacturer's representative business at 419 So. Iiamline under the condition that this business permit no trucks incidental to this business use to either make deliveries or to pick up orders unless they are small vans. Subsequent to the hearing, and following the filing of the appeal by Gerald Dufour, the Southwest Area District Council submitted a letter which reaffirmed their previous position of opposition to the requested change O December 30, 1980 - 2 - in nonconforming use at this location and which also suggested that Mr. Pittelkow apply for a rezoning of this property to a business classifi- cation. The matter of the appeal of Gerald Dufour to the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding the requested change in nonconforming use allowing the Great Lakes Distributing Co�pany to operate this manufacturer's representative business at 419 So. Hamline will be heard by the City Council on January 8, 1981 . Please notify me at least by January 7, 1981 if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the City Council public hearing. Sincerely, ' 6z. ��,.,r..Q.Q. Marvin R. Bunnell City Planner - Zoning P1RB/mb attachments . '�---�.. _ . �� N ovember, 24, 1980 Ron Maddox City Council President St. Paul, Minn. Dear Mr. Maddox� This is to inform you of intent to appeal to the St. Paul City Council. the rulin� of the �oning Board of Appeals of 10/28/80 re: the non-conformin� use of the property at 419 So. Hamline pve. because of our dissatisfaction with the rulin�. We will be contacting you in reference to this matter. � . Sincerely� ,�� "`�" Gerald Dufour Neighborhood Representive ec: Rose Mix� City Clerk Larry Soderholm, Supervisor Zoning Section, Plannin� Dept. Gerald Dufour 1325 Palace Ave. st. Paul, Mn. 55�05 b9o-327? � ---.....� � � " SC�UTHWEST AREA DISTRICT COUNCIL 1523 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE ST. PAUL, MN 55105 (612) 698-7973 necember 11, 19ti0 Marvin B unnell Zoning Office City of St. Paul City Hall Annex St. Paul, Pdinnesota 551U2 Dear Pdr. B unnell, The Southwest Area District Council on December ti, 1y80 passed unanimously a resolution reaf'firming the Council's support for the neighbors of �19 Sauth Hamline in their opposition to the granting of a Change in Nonconforming Use at that site. The SWAD Council recommends that the owner of 419 South Hamline arply for re-zoning to an Office Services classification. The appeal of the nei�hbors on this matter will be heard b,y the Cit,y Council January F. Please include this position of support for the neighbors in the material presented by staff to the City Council. Thank you. Sincerely, ��2�/1�.��. '��f� �-L-�.,t-� -/��_ h�thie Tarnowski, Community Or�anizer Southwest Area District Council cc: Lou Ann Dufour Great Lakes Distributing Compa,ny htemb�rs of the City Council city of saint paul board of zoning appeals resolution zoning file number ��45 (�alE; Qctober 28, 19},f(Z_ WHEREAS, LOU ANN DUFOUR has applied for Administrative Review under the provisions of Section 64.205(a) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the decision of the Planning Comrnission to allow the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate a manufacturer's representative and wholesale distributor business at a19 So. Hamline Avenue in an R-4 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on October 14, 1980, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the require- n�ents of Section 64.203(a) of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes attached hereto, made the following findings of fact: 1 . That the manufacturer's representative business is the same as the business office �se permitted in an OS-1 (Office-Service District) described in Section 60.472(b). 2. That the manufacturer's representative business is equally appropriate or more appropriate to the existing R-4 (One-Family Residential ) District thdn the previous groc�ry store use, a .B-1 (Local Business District) use. 3. That the wholesale distributorship business is a B-3 (General B.usiness pistrict) use described in Section 60. 502(g) and is inappropriate in either an R-4 district or with an OS-1 type use in an R-4 district. NOW, THEREFORE, B� IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the Planning Conunission erred in approving the request of Robert and Flarence Pittelkow for a change in nonconforming use to allow the Great Lakes pistributing Company to operate a combined manufacturer's representative and whplesale distributor business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue. NOW, TH�REFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that under authority of the City's Legislative Code, Chapter 64.206, that Robert and Florence Pittelkow be granted a change in nonconforming use allowing the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate only a manufacturer's representative business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue under the condition that �he Great Lakes pistributing Company permit na trucks incidental to this business use ta either make deliveries or to pick up orders unless they are small vans such as those used by United Parcel Service (UPS) . maved by Mr 1�ir'� _ Deci s i ons of the Board pf �oni ng ' Appeals are final sub�ect to appeal S� ,(',�n(�Q�r(� by Mr. Wood,� _ to the Ci ty Counci 1 wi thin 30 days • by anyone affected by ths decision. �n f�v4r �� ainst .� , �.. --� , P4INUTES UF TtIE MEETIflG OF THE QOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IP� CITY COUPlC1L CHAMBERS, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, OCTOBER 14, 1980 PRESENT: Mmes. Murton and Su�iuners ; Messrs. Grais , Kirk, Parrish and Woods of the Qoard of Zoning Appeals ; Mr. Jerome Segal , Assistant City Attorney; P1s. Wendy Lane of the Division of Housing and Building Code Enforcement; �1s. Beseman , Mr. Bunnell , Mr. Tedesco and Mr. TorStenson of the Planning Uivision Staff. ABSENT: P1essr. Petersan. The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairman. LOU ANN DUFOUR (#8745) : Administrative Review of the decision of the Planning Comniss�o to approve the request of Robert and Florence Pittelkow for a Change in Nonconforming Use to allow the Great Lakes Distributing Co. to operate a manufacturer's representative and distributor business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue. The appellant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. F1r. Bunnell showed slides of the site and reviewed his staff report with a recormiendation that the Planning Conunission erred in granting a change in nonconforming use to the Great Lakes Distributing Company and that the previously grant�d permit be revoked. There were 10 letters received in opposition and � petition with 54 signatures also in opposition to the change in noncanforming use. One letter was received in support. Mr. Bunnell clarified the findings made by the Planning Commission in determining their approval of the Change in Nonconforming Use. Findings 4 and 6 of the staff report were findings used in the Planning Corrunission's decision as well as the fact that the reduced amount of trucks generated from the site would typically occur with a grocery use and that little or no auto traffic would be generated by the wholesale distributor business. The Planning Comnission also found the use to be consistent with the safety, morals , and general welfare of the comnunity, and consistent with the reasonable use and enjoyment of the adjacent property. Ron Bjerstedt, 1317 Palace, representing the group in support of the appeal , stated there were several people present in opposition to the Change in Nonconfarrning Use permit. The area residents were first aware of this use when the truck traffic started in their neighborhood. They contacted the Department of Housing and Building Code Enforcement and found that the business was operating illegally aut of 420 Hamline. Shortly after that the business moved to 419 Hamline where they are presently located. �1r. Bjerstedt stated that the area residents really don' t know what type af business is being operated there. The Great Lake Distributing Company was first referred to as a toy manufacturer, after that it was a wholesaler and distributor and currently it is called a manufacturer's representative. He mentioned that there was no large truck traffic following the approval af the �hange in nonconfarming use permit at the site until approximately 1 hour diter the deadline to file for an Administrative Reviev�. The area residents 3re conCerned about the proliferation of business functions in a residen�ial are�, Based on past experience with the Company, the residents don'� feel they conLribute anything of benefit or help to the residential drea. They feel that continued approval of the change �n nQnconforming use ' LOU APJN UUFOUR (N8745) Page 2 of 419 Hainline by Gre�t Lakes would result in a lot of probler��s as stated in the staff report. Ultimately the residents feel it will affect real estate values and that heavy truck traffic on a residential street will add to the wear and tear of the street and eventually they will be assessed higher taxes. He added, to have this type of business in a residential neighborhood, would result in a general degradation of the quality of life in their area. Mr. Parrish stated that the residents imnediately adjacent to 419 Hamline on both sides appear to be basically in support of the change in nonconforming use. Ron Bjerstedt said he could not conunent on that but that it was his opinion that since the Pittelkow's have been long time residents of the area, it was probably based on friendship rather than facts. Dick Barrett, 1251 Edgecumb, representing SWAD for District 10, stated their main concern is the fact that it is a residential area and a business of this type does not lend itself to making for a better neighborhood. He reported that the Randolph Heights Neighborhood Association has been aware of the problem and is on record as being in opposition. They reaffirmed their opposition at their October meeting. Michael Kurlon, representing Great Lakes Distributing Company, explained that their 1ast delivery for merchandise for the distributing business was on June 6, 1980. On September 22, 19�0 they requested a small truck in which to send merchandise back to California, and closed the distributing business. Ne stated that they are a manufactuere's representative firm that only handles the paper work between the manufacturer and their clients. The work is all done sitting at a desk, by telephone. There is not need for trucks other � .� than UPS trucks Lhat deliver samples or catalogs. He did not feel the busin�ss was an� different than a real estate or insurance office. Ms. Sumners asked P1r. Kurlon if he had any written proof that the distributor- ship had ceased pperation? Mr. Kurlon indicated that he could furnish the information 1f the Board requested it. Lois Jacobs reported that she bought the office about 7 years ago and at that time it was in very bad condition. In trying to upgrade the property, she got a permit to build a storage area with no intention of operating a business. While the Pittelkow's were fixing up their building, they did use it for storage temporarily. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Morton closed the public hearing portion of ths meeting. Mr. Segal stated that a copy of the staff report and minutes from the Current Pl�nning & Zoning Cormiittee meeting on July 3, 1980, and the application made py Robert and F1Qrence Pittelkow should be made part of the record. M�. Surrniers suyg�sted that since Mr. Kurlon stated that there was no longer �ny reason for truck deliveries on the sit� and was strictly an office use, the �oard shou1d �ttach restrictions to ensure that there would be no more than �PS deliveries. She indicated that the applicant should request for a ��Z4ning far pffice use. �OU ANN DUFOUR �8745) Page 3 Mr. Segal stated that if the Qoard determined that a manufacturer's representative business as described by the operator, is a use which is equally as appropriate as a grocery store, that definition would prohibit warehousing, storage and wholesaling at that location. He explained that the Board could carry for�ward the condition imposed by the Planning Commission if it is to be used as an office use only. Mr. Parrish made a motion that the Planning Conu�iission erred in their decision to approve a change in nonconforming use to allow the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate a manufacturer's representative and wholesale distributor business and that the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that a manufacturer's representative business is corisistent with office type use, and is equally approprtate or more appropriate to the existiny R-4 district than the previous grocery store use with the condition that no trucks incidental to the business use be permitted other than small vans. P�r. Grais seconded the motion. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 4 to 2 with Ms. Sun��ers and Mr. :�Joods voting against the motion. Submitted by: Approved by: / � �� , � �� . � �, ;� L �: �� ,. /��c�� t�yc� t�larvi n R. Bunnel 1 G1 adys Mortdn, Cha i rrnan k ZONING STAFF REPORT 8675 1�. APPLICANT: LOU ANN DUFOUR DATE OF HEARING 10/14/80 2, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review � Determination of Similar Use ❑ Other ❑ Change of Nonconforming Use ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCATION: 419 (&417) So. Hamline (Ws between Juliet & Palace) 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sunnyside Plat 2,Lot 6, Block 2 5. PRESENT ZONING: R-4 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: Sections 62.102(e)(5) & 64.205(a) 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE Oct. 3, 1980 BY Marvin R. Bunnell A. PURPOSE: Administrative Review of the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the request of Robert and Florence Pittelkow for a change in nonconforming use to allow the Great Lakes Distributing Co. to operate a manufacturer's representative and distributor business at 419 So. Hamline Avenue. B. FRONTAGE AND AREA: The property is a corner lot and has approximately 45 feet of frontage on So. Ham ine and 125 feet of frontage on Palace, for a total area of 5,625 square feet. C. SITE/AREA CONDITIONS: The site is occupied by a typical two story former grocery structure with second floor apartment set at the lot lines. The property has a detached garage in the r•ear of the property with access from Palace. Adjacent to the north, west, and south- east are single family houses. To the east are more single family houses with the LBJ Realty Office at the northeast corner of So. Hamline and Palace. Abutting the site to the south is the Randolph Heights Presbyterian Church. The Randolph-Hamline business district is two blocks south of the property. D. ORDINANCE CITATION: Section 64.205(a) of the Zoning Ordinance gives the Board of Zoning Appea s the power of Administrative Review: "To hear and decide appeals alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Zoning Administrator and any other administrative official in carrying out or enforcing any provision of this Ordinance or that there is an error in any fact or procedure in any order, requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by the Planning Commission in carrying out or enforcing any provisions of this Ordinance.° Section 62.102(e)(5) states: "When a nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and premises in combination, is discontinued or ceases to exist for 365 days , the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shall thereafter be used in conformaace with the regulations of the district in which it is located , unless the Planning Corrmission, pursuant to a public hearing, finds that the structure, or structure and premises in combination cannot reasonably or economically be used for a conforming purpose, that the proposed use �s equally appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the previous nonconforming use, and that the proposed use is consistent with the health , safety, morals , and general welfare of the community and is consistent with the reasonable use and enjoy- ment of ad�acent property. " The applicant alleges that the Planning Commission erred in their approval of the request of Robert and Florence Pittelkow for a change in nonconforming use to allow a manufacturer's representative and distributor business to operate out of 419 So. Hamline Avenue. E. ZONING HISTORY: On June 9, 1979, Mr. Robert Pittelkow applied for a change in nonconforminc use from a previously vacant grocery store to a plubming contractor's office. At the public hearing before the Current Planning and Zoning Corrmittee on July 5, 1979, numerous neighborhood residents expressed support for this use through a petition and a letter. The Current Planning and Zoning Committee unanimously approved the change in nonconforming use to a plumbing office with three restrictions: no outside storage, the provision of two off-street parking spaces with obscuring fence, and a required certificate of occupancy. On July 13, 1979, the Planning Corranission considered the request for change in nonconforminc use to allow a plumbing contractor's office with these three restrictions and unanimously � approved it. LOU ANN DUFOUR STAFF REPORT PAGE TWO E. ZONING HISTORY: (continued) On June 11 , 1980, Robert and Florece Pittelkow applied for a change in nonconforming use from a previously vacant grocery store to a manufacturer's representative and wholesale distributor business. A petition with 28 signatures in favor of the application was received. The Zoning Office also received 7 letters in opposition to the application. At the public hearing, before the Current Planning Zoning Committee on July 3, 1980, five people spoke in support of the application and four people spoke in opposition to the application. The CP&ZC approved the requested change in nonconforming use on a 4 to 1 vote. On July 11 , 1980, the Planning Commission decided to delay the matter until August 22, 1980 based on the request of the Southwest Area District Council for more time to consider the matter in order to provide a reco�nendation to the Planning Comnission. On August 13,1980, the Planning Corrmission received a letter from the Southwest Area District Council recomnending denial of the application based on a vote of 10-9 (with 2 absentions) . On August 22 , 1980, the Planning Commission considered the request for change in nonconforming use and approved it on a 15 to 2 vote with one attached condition, that the business occupant at 419 So. Hamline "encourage the use of small delivery vans and not semi-trucks" for any deliveries. F. FINDINGS: 1 . Building Department records indicate the structure was built in 1913 as a store with an upstairs apartment. This site was zoned "A" Residence in 1922, creating a non- conforming use. The property was zoned R-4 (Single Family Residential) in the 1975 Zoning Ordinance thus continuing the previous nonconforming use status. 2. Robert Pittelkow, the owner of the property, has previously stated that Pittelkow Grocery occupied 419 So. Hamline from 1946 to 1976. The Polk Directory listed Pittelkow Grocery at this location as recently as 1977 . The owner currently lives on the second floor of the structure. 3. There is no current Certificate of Occupancy for this address . The owner has previously stated that the first floor space was vacant from early 1976 until June 1980 when the Great Lakes Distributing Co. , a manufacturer's representative and distributor of toys and sporting goods moved into the space. 4. It would appear economincally unfeasible to convert the existing structure to a conforming use because the building is a turn-of-the century structure with a store on the first floor and apartment on the second , the structure is set at the Palace- Hamline lot lines, and the first floor was apparently designed specifically for non-residential use. In addition, conversion of the structure to a duplex would alsa be nonconforming in the R-4 zone. 5. The previous use as a corner grocery store is first allowed in a B-1 (Local Business) zone. The proposed use as a manufacturer's representative is first mentioned in an OS-1 (Office-Service District) and the other proposed use as a wholesaler/distributor is first mentioned in a B-3 (General Business) zone. B-1 uses are intended to satisfy basic convenience shopping and service needs of nearby residents. OS-1 uses are intended to accommodate various office type uses and to serve as transitional uses between intensive uses , such as major thoroughfares or comnercial districts, and less intensive single family zones. B-3 uses are intended to provide more diversified types of businesses than those in either the B-1 or OS-1 zones and are intended for location along a major thoroughfare or adjacent B-2 districts . 6. The action by the Current Planning and Zoning Committee and the Planning Comnission in 1979 essentially allows a use very similar to a wholesaler/distributor, and a use also categorized as suitable for a B-3 zone by the Zoning Ordinance on this location. 7 . According to Robert Pittelkow, the owner, and Michael Kurlon, the operator of the bus3ness, the Great Lakes Distributing Company generates far less tr-affic than the corner. grocery store previously did . Mr. Kurlon has also indicated that he receives deliveries and ships assembled toys and sporting goods by United Parcel Service once a week and very seldom requires the delivery of toy and bike parts for assembly by semi-trailer truck. 8. Residents of the imnediate neighborhood claim seven semi-trailer truck deliveries have occurred at both 420 and 419 So. Hamline Avenue since February 1980. They further claim that the Great Lakes Distributing Co. has been receiving these deliveries while operating illegally out of 420 So. Hamline prior to moving into 419 So. Hamline in early June 1980. �OU ANN DUFOUR STAFF REPORT PAGE THREE F. FINDINGS: (continued) 9. Letters to the various trucking companies by staff have verified several truck deliveries to 420 So. Hamline by Transcon Lines and a semi-trailer truck delivery to 419 So. Hamline by American Freight System, Inc. Both Hall 's Motor Transit Co. and Barry Cartage Co. cannot substantiate truck deliveries to 420 So. Hamline, the latter due to the difficulty of tracing the shipment without the name of the shipper. The trucking dispatcher of Admiral-Merchants Motor Freight failed to respond to the letter sent by staff. 10. The appellant believes that the use of semi-trailer trucks for deliveries to 419 So. Hamline might obstruct emergency vehicles , might pose a serious safety hazard to children and elderly in the neighborhood , and generally detracts from the value of property in the area. 11 , Although the appellant claims that B-3 zoning is not in agreement with the Land Use Plan for this site, the Land Use Plan does not specifically provide a policy direction to deal with changes in nonconforming uses. It does state, however, that "zoning classifications should provide enough flexibility to be applied suitably in a number of local situations." In any case, the Land Use Plan does not suggest any particular zoning districts for this intersection. In addition, the property at 419 So. Hamline has not been rezoned to B-3, it is still zoned R-4. 12. The appellant claims that Great Lakes Distributing Co. would provide no service or benefit to the neighborhood and that a B-1 business would be more desirable. The owner, Robert Pittelkow, has been unable to attract any other business to this location since he closed down the grocery store in 1976. 13. Although the Southwest Area Oistrict Council recomnended denial by a vote of 10 to 9 with 2 absentions, this was not considered an overwhelming mandate of the pistrict one way or the other. It should also be considered that SWAD recommenda- tions to the Planning Commission are just recomnendations and that the Planning Commission must take these recommendations and consider tham as well as those of the Current Planning and Zoning Comnittee, which recorrmended approval 4 to 1 , and the letters and testimony submitted . 14. The appellant claims that in previous hearings on this matter they were unable to clearly indicate the full extent of their opposition to the use of this property by the Great Lakes Distributing Company. To this end they submitted a petition with 54 names in opposition to the use of 419 So. Hamline as a manufacturer's representa- tive and wholesale distributor. The appellant also submitted a map of the imnediate vicinity indicating the residential locations of those residents in opposition as well as those in support of the use of this building by Great Lakes Distributing Co. 15. The appellant claims that the previous use of 419 So. Hamline as a grocery store had many fewer deliveries and the deliveries were made in smaller trucks. In addition, the Pittelkaw Grocery was neighborhood oriented which, the appellant claims, any business in a predominantly residential area should be. 16. Stephen and Eleanore Uan Guilder, who live across Palace from 420 So. Hamline, have claimed in their letter that the truck deliveries to Great Lakes Distributing Co. , when they were located at 420 So. Hamline, essentially obstructed their driveway -- and therefore denied them access to their own property. 17 . Other residents in their letters also claimed that the structure at 419 So. Hamline lacks proper loading and unloading space for semi-trailer trucks and as such cannot provide � safe arrangement for deliveries of trucks of this type. In addition, these letters claim that there is insufficient space for any expansion of the business , particularly if the expansion requires additional truck traffic. 18. According to Lu Ann Dufour, Phyllis Jackson, and Pat Bjerstedt, neighborhood residents in this vicinity, in the late afternoon of Sept. 22, 1980, there was an outward or outgoing delivery from Great Lakes Distributing Co. by a semi-trailer truck which also blocked the alley between Palace and James Ave. Since such an outgoing delivery would have to be ordered by the business, Great Lakes Distributing Co. apparently chose to ignore the conditions attached to the change in nonconforming use, that discouraged the use of semi-trucks providing deliveries to the business . LOU ANN DUFOUR STAFF REPORT PAGE FOUR F. FINDINGS: (continued) 19. According to the Van Guilders , this firm operated as a retail sample store, selling toys and bicycles to the public for three days in July (25-27) . In addition, Ronald Bjerstedt indicated that they also operated as a retail sample store on September 21 and 28, 19�0. This also is in apparent violation of the change in nonconforming use permit which does not specifically allow retail sales to occur on the site. 20. It appears , based on Items 10, 16, and 17 listed above, that the proposed use may be inconsistent with the health, safety , and general welfare of the comnunity and may also be inconsistent with the reasonable use and enjoyment of adjacent property. G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on staff Findings 18-20, Staff finds that the Planning Comn�ssion erred in granting a change in nonconforming use to the Great Lakes Distributing Company at 419 So. Hamline and that the previously granted permit be revoked. I ' ., .'. '" � � -- -- - - F�ir..• ....r�. �... � .1, ..�...� ..�---=- I L WE�.LESiEY AV E . � . u ' -;-7p�p�p;p ip u O,v c>, � �� i RANDOLPH HEIGHTS O�O;C , I , , . , i � , ; . � ._ �__�_.1 i 1. __ I. � j ; � __1 � ; - _ ._ _T i_ �_ � _ � � � I G i - i f � � ; � ' � ! c� , � � � � ca o jo�o o��o! o c-;�.:��,��<�i , c ; s- 9 o;o�c � � � � ��'F'F1�so N ,��.. �� M�■. C) � � ,�;:c� O O�O O O � � Q G?�O O�ta Q�O Caip�p;p � . �� u� C�!0��,��c � � � I 'I � ; ; � i � i I , , .�.- ��._L.1 1_--l_ �.._1._.1__ _..� � C�) ��_ i L i : � � i_ _1_ -�- . : .� __ o � I �__ _ _ r � . _� -. - --...._ _� ° _ _ � � -- � ; � , _ o_ o I � � , � ,� ;: ', I I --_ _ ._ _ __ � ; o o� o;o p ��o��oo o��o o�ao�� o - � _ o 0 0l0 0�;0�0,0 0 0 0 0 ''SV�.� I�T � � � AVE . __ O-- -_ __-- p�p!O O O O � O O � O o�c 04GpQQnc� � �� > � 0000�, , , ' � �_ �_ }_ L^ -- _ �-- o-- ___ __ _-- - _ i i _l _� � __ �-- -� - _---- � _ _ _ _____ ____ , -- --- - � _ -- -- __�_. �... � I �� .__-- � � � � �o i ' . jo q�,00aoic� o� ;o .,�.. � � - 000uc:� oc� 00000 �o 0 , P��c�E.. AV�. � � � oo c� c� Qaoa ooaoc� 7 - ( - ooao �� p oo � oo � o 0 � � . , � _-- � i , — __� _.l_ .__ � __�_ G __=-_--- . __ - -� -:1 _. __. J —�— �--- � I-- i-- --- -- _ U _p ___ n i . o'q � � K� oo4popoo -- �'- -- ---_ c� 0000000000 �''� Oio � �" �ArMES AVE . � � o oQO ooaoaa - - -o � o-- 000c��000 � 000 o 'c _ � ' .� ! -L=�- ' -�._o _ � l . _ ° � � � .__; ' I �_ � --- i � o o - - - � � � � � � � m � � o0 000;0;0��00;0 , - . ,F ; ,00�oi o000 . � � � . ._ _��OL�,.� . _ _ . _ �; _ _ - - ------��t�---- - - S �... � ,�; .� �� I,F " � � O O O U O , C;c 4� � � ; yl, � __'. �' _ .� W �' + --- -- - I-`�' � 1 C� ' ! �f�E T l�y � o 0 0 0 0 0, � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 �oi � I � _ ��r ; � � - _,....�... AREA MAP APPLICANT L�� N .AuF�y � LEGEND ; Administrative Review of Planning r� ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY �� Cnmmi cci nn�,n,rn�,l1 nf ehQn;��n �s LJ� Non-conforming Use allowing a SUBJECT PROPERTY � PURPQSE manufact�r�r't rParPCentafi��a �nd � distributors business to operate O ONE FAMILY PI.ANNING .,,�, t�,]„s Sn Haml i ng QYOnu� 1 DlSTRICT $?�S. V TWO FAMILY �.1 FILE N0. � Ot�'o�s�hr 1�"� 19 �a �� Q MUI.TIPLE FAMILY OAT E ^. 1 -- • ♦ n COMMERCIAL SCALE � I�� = 200� NORTN � � �� ` �N�USTRiAL MAP NG. SAiNT PAUL PLANNING BOARD v vacarvT ��" ' " _ . - , , � : , _ ` ' �� - _ '�;� < . . � �: . ' • . _ , �:,, _ _. . ,. � � , . � ' . .. . . � � � ' ,�, - . . � ' I .. . . �. . ' � . � ... ._ � . . � �. ' . . . . . . . . . - . ' . � � . . � : � ; �:. . . . ' .. �. . . . . . . . ' . ' . . � : . . � . ' ' . .. '.. � 1 . ., ' . ..., . .\ . . . , - � � - ' � . - . - . December'qt 1980 _ - , , . . - , � � - � . i , - Mr� Paul Deach _ . � - . , Fi.►�ance Depa.�'Cnient � r _ � , Roam �218,; Ci�Cy I�all , _ , Dettr Si.r: . , . � � - °The City Councll 23as set. s da�Le oP heering for January 8, 198a. to � . consicIer �he-appe�l oP Gerald Dufaur to a decision oP t�he Board a�3' ' ' � �oning Appea�s� af'�ectin8 Pro�er'tY at �19`S. Sae�line Avee�us. Wi11 � -- y�ou plea�e send nvt�ces to property owu+er� e►e required by 1�w4 , . , , ; , Yery tru],y yokucs� , . , ; . � . _ ' - � . - , > Rose��Mix� ' City Clerk � Attech.� ' ' _ • AEO�la � � � � - - cc s Pliani,�g �Lai'f, Zoning 8�ctioa � ' , . � - I�nsir►g �r Bldg. Cod� gat'aa�cea�t Dept. ' � _ ; , . :4 � ; _ ,: , ;:. r . , , / , / - � � , • . / , �\ . , � . , , . - , _ ,, ,. � ` - ' � -, , � � _ ; ! ' ' . , � .�, . - � � 3 -�,� � - �� /� � N ovember, 24, 1980 � Ron Maddox City Council President St. Paul� Minn. � Dear Mr. Maddox. This is to inform you of intent to appeal to the St, Paul City Couneil, the rulin� of the �onin� Board of Appeals of 10/28/8Q ret the non-conforming use of the property at 419 So. Hamline Ave. be�ause of our dissatisfaetion with the ruling. We will be contacting you in reference to this matter. _ :,. Sincerely, �� - Gerald Dufour Neighborhood Representive ces Ro�e Pnix, Ci�y C�erk Larry Soderhalm� Supervisor �oning Section, Plannin� Dept. Gerald Dufour 1325 Palace Ave. St. Paul, Mn. 55105 690-3277 S.. ��„-- . �� i1.. _ a� . -� �' `` /�::°�'� ��i,Ci ' �' �, CITY OF ST. PAUL ` DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES ASSESSMENT DIVISION � Z 1 S CITY HALL ST.PAUI,MINNESOTA 55102 December 19, 1980 * File X 2332 Page ' Zoning File 8?45 The Council of the City of St. Paul will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House (third floor) at 10:00 A. M. on January 8, 19$1 to consider the appeal of Gerald Dufour to the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals affecting the property at 419 S. Hamline Avenue; which app�oved the application of the Great Lakes Distributing Company to operate a manufacturer's representative and wholesale distributor business at said property; legally described as Lot 6, Block 2, Sunnyside Plat No. 2. If you would like further information about this hearing, contact the Current Planning Section of the Planning Board, Room 1202 City Hall Annex -- 298-4154. While the City Charter requires that we notify you of the hearing, we want to help you to learn fully about any improvement that could affect you or your community. Therefore, I sincerely hope you can attend this hearing, so that ' you can make your views about it known to the City Council, whether for or aga ins t. J. WILLIAM DONOVAN VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT ENGINEER