The URL can be used to link to this page

01-245Council File # � �-� a1► .S OR'�;��AL Presented By RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Cneen Sheet # �,� a� � � Referred To Committee: Date 1 2 WHEREAS, Maurice Weaver, made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals in 3 Zoning File 00-147798 for three variances for property commonly lrnown as 1604 Cohansey 4 Street and legally described as contained in the zoning file noted above in order to construct a 5 garage and new front entry addition to an existing four unit building. (1) A front yazd setback, 6 (2) a side yard setback, and (3) a lot coverage variance; and 8 WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals [hereinafter the "Boazd"] conducted a public 9 hearing on November 13, 2000, after having provided norice to affected property owners and the 10 Board by its Resolution Number 00-147798 moved to deny the application for the variances 11 based upon the following findings and conclusions: . 12 13 1. Until recently, the applicant has not lived in the building. He states that he has 14 had problems with bad tenants and feels that he could have better monitored the building if he 15 lived there. The applicant, along with his daughter, would occupy two units of the building. He 16 would like to provide some additional parking and a new master bedroom for his unit. 17 18 The existing building is located approximately in the center of the property. The existing 19 garage and the rear yard and the driveway along the north side of the building limits the area 20 available for a new addition. The required front setback for this block is 53 feet. The existing 21 setback of this building is 46 feet so any addition to the front of the building would require a 22 variance. A four unit apartment building requires six off-street parking spaces. Two additional 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 gazage stalls would provide these six spaces. 2. The location of the existing building on this site and the average front setback of the other buildings on the block are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The applicant is proposing a 26 x 30 foot addition to the front of the building, as well as a 14 x 16 foot entryway. While this proposed addition will provide two needed parking spaces, it appears that the addition is larger than necessary and may unduly infringe on the line of sight and the supply of light and air to the neighboring property. A smaller addition, perhaps 24 x 20 feet, could provide the needed garage space without such a major impact on the surrounding property. A smaller addition could be designed to maintain the existing sideyard setbacks, and would eliminate the need for two of the three requested variances. Only a smaller front yard setback variance would still be required. Z l ORIGINAL o�_ Z 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 4. Reducing the required sideyard setback by two-thirds with a rivo story addition would have a considerable unpact on the adjacent property. The reduced front setback when combined with the reduced sideyard setback would also contribute to the impact on the adjacent property. Maintaining the existing 15 foot sideyazd setback and reducin� the size of the needed front yard and variance would lessen the impact of the proposed addition to a more reasonable level. The applicant has submitted several letters in support of this proposal, however, these letters are not from the property owners that would be most affected by addition. Although the proposed addition has been designed to enhance the front facade of the existing building, the requested variances would change the character of the area. 5. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change the zoning classification of the proper[y. 6. The applicant states that he does not intend to increase the number of apartments in this building; and 19 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, Mr. 20 Weaver duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Board and requested a hearing 21 before the City Council for the purpose of considering the action taken by the Board; and 22 23 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 64.205 -§ 64.208, and upon notice to 24 affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Councii on December 6, 2000, 25 where all interested parties were given an opporhxnity to be heard. At the cIose of the public 26 hearing, the matter was laid over for consideration until December 13, 2000; and 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 WHEREAS, on December 13, 2000, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board: does hereby RESOLVE, that the Council hereby upholds the decision of the Board in this matter having found no error in fact finding or procedure on the part of the Board and adopts as its own the findings and conclusions set forth in Boazd Resolution Number 00-147798; and be it Page 2 of 3 1-ORIGIf�AL 2 FURTHER RESOLVEb, that the appeal of Maurice Weaver be and is hereby in all O l'.1�� 5 3 things denied; and be it 4 5 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Mr. 6 Weaver, the Zoning Administrator, the Plamiing Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. J GREEN SHEET 4\—a•v►S city counciZ Couacilmember Reiter 266-8650 7 BE ON COUNCIL AGE7JDA BY @4"fE) March 14, 2001 March 7, 2001 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES No 110292 ■ u �..�.�� a,,,�,.a _ f-0R ❑ eRYATrowEI' ❑ CrtYCFAK ❑.suNr�,smence,uz ❑,.uxr�u,exw,xre ❑IInYOn1oRIL4s44fN(f) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memoralizing City Council action taken on December 13, 2000, denying the appeal of Maurice Weaver of a Board of Zoning Appeal.s decision denying two variances in order to construct an addition to the existing apartment building at 1604 Cohansey Street. �UATIOIV AppfoVe (A) Of KeJeCt PIANNING COMMISSfON CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPROVED OF TRANSACTION S Has this person/firm ever worked under a corRract for ihis depaAmenCl YES NO Has lhis persoNfirtn ever 6een a city empbyee9 VES NO Dces this persoMfinn posaess a sldll not namalrypossessetl by any curreM ciry employeel vES NO Istfiis persoNfiim atargeteE vendof+ YES NO �lain all ves ansvrers on seoa2te sheet and attach to oreen sheet COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO SOURCE ACTNITYNUMBER 1NFORM4TION (EXPWN) ':"� �- r!<� t ✓ r .� ��'��,`.:'. ��! Mb ' - . . . . � ::/' ( f� . �iy �! � t � 7 i '� �' : � .. -. � ' .� 1 � .�� i �� `� � �` : ,� r�. {...+�,� ,- . y ��t �� ; ,� •� r. � � -� � - L - _�, ,. �,� ,;�";:. . . . �< i � �'� � ;� �� ►� �' ' l . � ��:�• � - �. k "� � �ti,'! � �'�t .d"'�a� . " � ' °�;,' � r �`` �" � ' �sp� �,, �:� ��` ' r ;t ufr�e. 1 � � t � ¢ � . ,,, i �' _._ _ _ �_r,� 'tl�1`�`.._-. � • . � �'+�a'i � �� • t s� � � ° r :;, � :'�� ,.' '� ��: . ' ?+�. � • �3^ ` : '�• �,� �' 1 y ` y � _� � , � �' . � .1_ \ .r..� �� .�.. ". .�c��s � ' �_ �.N ' si—>'�: _. •—�; . �' i .. �_: ..:. `�; _ .- , .,�- � rl y A�: �� i ._..!._. ... � �' � �•, , �. ,. �}; . : li. a � � � ' '� �,�,� `�'j� .,�, � �� p ��.. � �4�>.. � �� >'�, � . , � ;, ��,��f tt�: ;�}-3 � �._. � .: �y�!'4� _ , jre eff fil�✓ F` � ' , �. _ _ *` :C..�� ±� � �� . �� , f s / �� ' � . i . • �' \ - �ar°' I • � �.y�� .. "`a.3re� w"�-�,c , �t� ° �s�. ��.'`� +Si2,.�!{ ��< �. ,�� /1 �!'�,"�,,�; �°° , � . :�a.: a�� '�"''..r,.� : 1i, �� f � � I sr4u . K � 1 "�G � �� J � � Y' � � :;:; ' ,. ...":45. � ° ti ." l� �� .� �j, � � _ f_ �.`:�E � .� . a,�� r t� � �� " ti . � , � i� ! . � i � � . �a '� i� � � °� � � � � ` # �'j` � �1 �`.:�� / � � 1 6 �R 1 ' � + - � � �� '. . ♦ 4 � � ' � >+ � �� ,� � ��ia Y �' p � r � �� F t � x � �� ..4Y� � +�t �=:...�� ,�..��` � � '� 3.�^ > �^ �.� � -,:., >�' . �'g,a - r . �.�. . � � << •be•. �� %� , ., �� ..�. .�..�_ � . � . �� i�� . -� � i� .• �" .�.ereww�-nss..� �� Y �; ".,., . . � 1 �i:;(��qn�t .� " � ;;t �. ��` E . t� � �1 , . r.`� � t �� # � , . :, �*-°.,,. �+ i . ♦L� '. � �� y , < �. !` j � L� • % '` .. - � . . . �� .. � R / �� .` . . � �.. f . , � • ,,�� .' �/ �,� �. Y �� ' � � . �r� �: , ..' �t..• • � .,�. yn,� ;rK • . �,�� i i ; j �.,' ; << '. t'' ,i . ' -• r:. .� ? ''. �� ` ,_ �' ; fi-. �":r , �� . ��," ��,��, � h . , .� � :, T `, �. � . �� k �, � � , � � �F 7 .• a ., ' ( yr�� *` 4 �� . , f , � .� • «3 .� � �' ti k r4. ^. -� � F S � k �' �� .... _ � 'a: . �, :� '-� r V t . �"� t �h �F�` � M I �N' � ��: � '>< �� _ �� ;t ;; � , �, : ,` `+.�``� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayor November 22, 2000 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAT, PROTECTION Robert Kessler, Director � ` _ y � 3y BUILDINGINSPECI70YAND Telephone:6T2-2669007 DESIGN Facsimile: 612-2659099 350 St Peter Street Suite 310 Saint Paul, Minnesota 5510?-I510 I would like to conFirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, December 6, 2000 for the following zoning case: Appellant: File Number: Purpose: L.ocation: Staff : District 7: Board : Maurice Weaver, 1604 Cohansey Street 00-150860 Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision denying two variances in order to construct an addition to the existing apartment building. 1604 Cohansey Street Recommended denial No recommendation Denied on a vote of 5-2 I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Jun Reiter. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9082 if you have any questions. S' cerely / � John Hardwick Zoning Specialist cc: Council Member Reiter - " ' r'F7RSTAI7N• �r-�,;e.; �?: ' � � � NOTICE�OFPOHLIC-HEARII�iGi �:.:i� The=Saint�Pau1 CiLy=Counc3Z�wllI.rnn rlud a publlc hearing on Wednesaay, �December 6, 2000, at 5:30 p.m. � the Gtfy Council Clrambers. 'iYvrd Floor Cit}'_�SiaII- c�nou�, is iv�c K�u�g-so,��ra, Saint PaW, �MI!I, to'consider�the appeal. of Maurice Weaver,to a decision of-Yhe Boazd osder�tn cons�uct an'addition.to the es�si ing aparlment bwldtng-at 1604 CoUansey_ - Sfreet D�t�d:November30 2000�- _ . NANCYANDERSON -- - . �� AsststantClLy�Eouncil'Secretary-.---.� � -- ' ..'(Uec:emhez4l.�,"..: :..;..� -v�.81: PAt�.;i:ECillb�lEDOF��;--_-- �0293�586' � �;�_.. _.� _•.� � -_ - � ,^ 541Ni )wVL � All� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Depnrtn:ent ojPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 Cin• Hall Annez 25 63'esf Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 166-6589 APPELLANT I N � ° �:-a.�4S inty._`.: � 3�9: �� y� L(J � 7� GP � �7�{9f� S�e y' City-Sf ��tu � St!"'�h/ZipSSI/7 Daytime PROPERTY Zoning File Name_ ��.%eA�'�/� f�/�.? C, LOCATION '� Address/Location f/,.�'� �� olf��✓S � � �? Z� on ��( �3l��C� , 19_ File number. CC�— ly7 7!� (da o decision) TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: �Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �°�E;, Paragraph f' of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision made by the �c��A z-� c�, 2•��- �r--, h'- n't1.rjS GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. QL{ /�S'-�2 S'�t'2 �fj�'L�-t � ��ff� lZ � Atfach additional sheet if necessary) C�Q'.- � ApplicanYs signature /� /Gu� (�'"��'� Date /�� G� ° ° City agent ��-a�s Zoning file number: # 00-147798 To whom it may concem: My name is Maurice Weayer I currently own and live in the four plex at 1604 Cohansey. 1 was at the 13oazd of Goning Comittee meeting on Monday, November 13 and my application was denied and I would like to file an appeal for the following reasons: i} The Zoning boazd failed to consider my consession to the city to go along with the stafF reccomendation of reducing the size oi the addition from 30x26 feet to 20�4 feet. 2) The Zoning board failed to consider that five out of six of the neighbors agreed that the addition wouid have a positive impact on the neighborhood and have signed a letter to that affect. 3) Y'he zoning board failed to consider that 1 am the owner of the buiIding and have decided to make it my permanent home in order to better keep controll of the buiiding. 4) `i'he Goning board failed to aknowledge the fact that i have had problems with drug dealers and police calls in the past with the tennants and I have there fore decided to live in the building to keep better controll. 5) The Zoning board failed to consider that the smaller addition would require oniy one variance for a smaller fiontyard setback not affecting the side setback at aI[. For these reasons I am requesting a hearing to discuss these matters. Sincerely, ��`� l�" / c" �� c� � o �- ays BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICANT: Maurice Weaver 2, CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance FILE # 00-147798 DATE OF HEARING: 11-13-00 3. LOCATION: 1604 Cohansey Street 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: EDWIN M. WARE'S CIJMBERLAND ADDITION PLAT 1 N 75 FT OF Wl/2; LOT 2 BLK 6 5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 6 6. PRESENT ZONING: RM-1 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT DATE: 11-07-00 BY: John Hazdwick 8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12-23-00 DATE RECEIVED: 10-23-00 A. PURPOSE: Three variances in order to construct a garage and new front entry addition to the front of the existing four-unit building. 1) The existing front setback is 45 feet and the proposed setback is 22 feet, for a variance of 23 feet. 2). The required side yard setback is 15 feet and the proposed setback on the south side is 5 feet, for a variance of 10 feet. 3). Lot coverage of 30% is allowed and coverage of 31 % is proposed, for a variance of 1%(45 squaze feet). B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIOIVS: This is a 75 by 133-foot parcel with no alley access. There is an existing detached 4-stall garage in the rear yard that is accessed from the street. Sunounding Land Use: A mixture of single and multi-family residential structures. C. BACKGROUND: The applicant has owned this 4-unit apartment building since I995. He recently moved into the building and would like to construct a gara�e/room addition to the front of the building. D. FINDINGS: 1. The properiy in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Until recently, the applicant had not lived in this building. He states that he has had problems with bad tenants and feels that he could better monitor the building if he lived here. The appiicant, along with his daughter, would occupy two units in the building. He would like to provide some additional parking and a new master bedroom for his unit. Page 1 of 3 o �-a�s File # 00-147798 StafF Report The existing buiiding is located approximately in the center of the property. The existing garage in the rear yazd and the driveway along the north side of the buildin� limits the area available for a new addition. The required front setback for this block is 53 feet. The existing setback of this building is 46 feet so any addition to the front of the building would require a variance. A four-unit apartment building requires 6 off-street parkin� spaces. Two additional garage stalls wouid provide these six spaces. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the Zand owner. The location of the existing buildings on this site and the average front setback of the other buildings on the block, are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, nor consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of fhe inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The applicant is proposing a 26 by 30-foot addition to the front of the building, as well as a 14 by 16-foot entryv✓ay. While this proposed addition wiil provide two needed parking spaces, it appears that the addition is larger than necessary and may unduly infringe on the line of sight and the supply of light and air to the neighboring property. A smaller addition, perhaps 24 by 20 feet, could provide the needed gazage space without such a major impact on the surrounding property. A smaller addition could be designed to maintain the existing side yard setbacks, and would eliminate the need for rivo of the three requested variances. Only a smaller front yard setback variance would still be required. 4. The proposed variances will impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, and will alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. Reducing the required side yard setback by rivo-thirds with a two-story addition would have a considerable impact on the adjacent property. The reduced front setback when combined with the reduced side yazd setback would also contribute to the impact on the adjacent property. Maintaining the existing 15 foot side yard setback and reducing the size of the needed front yard variance would lessen the impact of the proposed addition to a more reasonable level. The applicant has submitted several letters in support of this proposal, however, these letters are not from the property owners that would be most affected by the addition. Although the proposed addition has been designed to enhance the front facade of the existing building, the requested variances would change the character of the area. Page 2 of 3 O � -�y.s File # 00-147798 Staff Report 5. The variance, if granted, wouZd not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected Zand is Zocated, nor wouZd it alter or change the zoning district classifzcation of the property. The pmposed variances, if granted, would not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The applicant states that he does not intend to increase the number of apartments in this building. E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 6. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings number 3 and 4, staff recommends denial of the variances. Staff would, however, support a reduced front yard setback for a smaller addition that maintains the existing side yard setbacks. Page 3 of 3 APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE OFFICE OF LICEN,SE, INSPECTIONS, AND ENYIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 SL Peter Street, Suite 300 SaintPaul, MIVSSIO2-ISIO 651-266-9008 APPLICAMT PROPERTY v�>� Name M 1/ � 2�LE Ll..J (=l�G��/L Company Ou: 37-P i.'�- Address�/-, O 7 �U /��r1 -S / � 2 � �r( IZ-�S`>`l7.3` City �f ��t �r State E�� s� Daytime Phone�f��,a dS�i ;'ra_�c Property interest of applicant (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) l� �/ �. U�//'7 �" ��' Name of owner (if �1 S Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) Lot size Present Zoni Rfi'� Present Use � l�' 4 Proposed Use i��r. ��J� /�ur/Gf /^� J �� J`'� f�CJ rn�_ 7 . Variance(s) req /^ro�� 7 $.� � �/�C 6 � {�� Y /i -� � i �' 5t? /' �fiC v` 2. What physical characteristics of [he property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topography, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) �� .,� �5' F�',�,2 C4 S��; 3. Explain how the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficuities or exceptional undue hardships. 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial im airment of the intent and purpose oftheZoningOrdinance. � �� /2.Pn�t1L PrU �� G�ncd � /f �4/�� jF ortG� f i✓rSC !� L� i nC� �t' ✓l f�:✓ rh 9- f� �� h� r � l9C�S� O I U✓ P1�%9G<j h/hOL2G� !�'! fG �L! /�G TU /_ C�-e 1' lt�rJ 2P.a tv>s c�c[ � L �� 1 ST °f (Attach additional sheets if needed.) � � � m � ��C' %�c>Y"-� / r � � �� CASHIERS USE ONLY ' �� 3�0, � 10-��{-�on o �� ApplicanYs signature�,�.c�'l_ �'�✓ '�'�� Date /C� �� - po °2 � �°� �-� � � � — #� �ti � iti:• L �{� i ' � �,_ �.�=�r�� s x_��s I.��.c; ��-�--��. � �y-�-. — � �� _ — � ; � ��,:, F �� o- ! # `� ; a r� f! I- ; €� �� I3LL � �.'--1--�==.-_�._____._._ ' ` f---- y %, � ■�� ot•avs Z� �1� /Joo r G � � r�.�z s �� sr ��, q Y- p {'�r o � 1 I � y --�= L,. �� /� � � c` � "�'"'rT_._T?e_ . 4 -..aw.w. � /.,./ � � ° j � 5, �'e° � , , ? �' � i � (`1' ( f �� . � -�:. � �` I ,�; , ; I , ,. -�- � ; � , t' "'� i � `'� � t � hr P 1V : ; �. ,.', F->' �; � v � 5 � �'—� jr v �� °� ; a i ,= r; i , .""+� �. f��;j�� f�� 1 � �E �@ r � e. j STk�' � '� r�=T :�._p� �> ; � � � J 1 — i � -_. _..r.. ' __--._ " � i i � ` t 1 S , � ,� � �� 3 v --.�:°'°'I � �. w , ' � �� : ? �x � :r � i '�-� `�� J I � � �i f� � �� ; r i i ; � t: � `'.: F � � ; S1 � 1 % �J \ Q +�\. � J � _ s T/� < < i � � ' + � ;� 1 � �r.-�-' � �.--�_---� } ----�=� � ��.. `�" �� : �. �.._�� .,_.___,____._ _u_y. _ __� ��;� l�. � z �� y � 0 \ -�-` To whom it may concern: My name is Maurice Weaver. I have owned a four plex at 1604 Cohansey since 199� to present. During that period I have had a time fmding good tennants, especially in the lower west apartment. I have had complaints from neighbors about noise and I have had police at the building I do the best I can at screening applicants; but it's hard to find good people who want that apartment. I sold my home in Forest Lake with plans to build in South Maplewood. I moved into the building on a temporary basis; soon after I found out how bad the tennants were in the lower west apartment. I evicted them and remodeled the apariment, but have not had any luck fmding a good tennant. With the tennant gone I found out what a nice area this is and decided to make the building my home if addition is permitted. To solve the problem of renting the lower west unit; I will take over two units, the lower west unit and the unit above it. By living on the premisis I will be able to keep better controll of the building. And by putting a very attractive addition on the building, better tennants will be attracted in the remaining two units which will improve the neighborhood. Sincerely, „^ �� // �r� i(/ / �p— �- s-rtj ;' g ?j ..: � � rr • �� To whom it may concern: I have ta]ked to and showed plans to all my neighbors; all have said they would like to see improvements, and think it wouid greatly improve the neighborhood and have no objections, all except one. When I first asked the owner of the property at 1598 Cohansey how he felt, he said that he needed to thu�lc about it and he would let me know by Oct. 17. On the 17th he said he needed to talk to the city, and on the 19th he said no without any reason given. My wife Bonnie asked his wife Sandy Flairity, and she gave her okay. When we asked her to sign the paper given to the other neighbors to okay the project; she said no because we had bad tennants in our building and she was upset. I apologized and told them I am not the police, if her child and the children who lived in the building were fighting she should have called the police. She claims I should have intervened in some way. And because of this, they want to cause us a problem. By the way; she also mentioned that she is planning to sell her house in one to two years from now, which proves that they are just trying to cause a problem because my project can only increase their property value. O1 �� Sincerely, �1'J �„�-- ��-�- j� �� S�GG ! ;J�]',+-92-00 �37:28 AM NERVER`MRURICE 464 3752 p_02 a t - i.yS ( OG?0: QO My natn� is�.,�.cs_-�.�„F,� I live at �,�2 �r -- mv phnnc numbcr is �= �S/._�€L 6�-ty "fhe tYeavcrs at 1604 CUFianscy have showed us thc plans ta improvc thuir hon�c :t ith an additi�n. We thiiil: it �i�ill improve aur arca and have no oUjcCtiom. T'hank Yoc �.r_wu-��- .�rrrM..r�.reY�� arli�... ;°/ ::= `.>. ''', . 10/20/00 � �'�� My name is � _ � � � 1 � � I live at �� (`� (�p � i?P ( � � my phone number is • - n . The Weavers at 04 Cohansey have showed us the plans to improve their home with an addirion. We think it will improve our area and have no objecrions. Thank Y � � �f- � 5 l . �•�: �. ■ • 10/20/00 �\ �� -,� My name is � )��(/�'' ��/�� I live at �� .�"d i�P my phone number is (�5% - �/�'7'$� / The Weavers at 1604 Cohansey have showed us the glans to improve their home with an addirion. We think it wiil improve our area and have no objecrions. Thank Yon • � _ !� �� .:� 10/20/00 My name is � rn c� ��l�Y�live at "�'�� .�-C� d�2 0 my phone number is�- �iu . 3'i�e �eavers at ififl� �ohansey i�ave skowed us the pians to improve their home with an addition. We think it will improve our area and have no objecrions. o t-ZVS . � � i'�' II ��. �„I J � � . ..... . .�,. 1��2�� DA N-� My name is � I live at �� my phone number is t The Weavers at 1604 Cohansey have showed us the plans to improve their home with an addition. We think it will improve our azea and hav�o�b� ch s. Thank ��^,.� a �c � I �� 7 �� t u �'��L �o i v �� -' :- e` �; �j ��n `� � 5 0. � F P P < <I iI PI I/ i a 'e < Z � c`- � r___'o I _ I —_____ ___ .__ ""' _ L _ ___ _. I �_ "_ - __ .h _' __ ��,� I i �— — � F � i i . 'i _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ ; i i . , � - A _ _ '" _ — I �' �_ � II I i � '� I � '�' ) i _"' --'—"_ ___'_'__'"_ __—�"f_\ " __' u I iI t:: � _ µ '�� i � 4 l l ` �\ \ , / �/ � �. J � � \. ` '�_ `—/. 3 � 8� - ,_ " Z Qi° _ _� -_ � ,I � : ��_ � � U1 �I � � > a;: xx,Q . i � - ��,�z -- —� I ' I , . ,.. —� _, ..... � - — � , J • � ' . il a � 3- � i• o �� e y�� , �� i _ �� v N . _— __.. � - � ' .... �1 M� �� .... . . � • 1 . G �< M j ��- = :,� � � �, �- g ,, � a_ �: � �;,_ ,-jl, � '° I = �. � � �(�= � N 4 I \� _ :. � . -�� ' i � , . = < �: j o .�:: , � � __ � __ � _. :� nk- --� ` f, �.. ..: ...: :. , . i:. {r : � I{ � I � - - .. aL il 'I . . �c11ZnS `` r ` � � o �-a��.s o � -iv.s November 7, 2000 To the board of zoning appeals, Rpi [!� � � Es . �5:d o.G� -1y.72t� � We the home owners at 1598 Cohansey Street do not wish for the variance for the Addition at 1604 Cohansey Street to be approced. The reasons for the disapprova] are as follows: The resale value of our home and pioperty will decrease with the approval of the variance 2. An easement of 6 feet by 30 feet of the back northeast corner of our yard was given in order for the garages at 1604 Cohansey to have enough turn around room. Right now all four garages are being used by Mr. Weaver. Two of them are used for his cars and the two in the back that face our yard are used for storage. One is used for the storage of his electrical equipment for Weaver Flectrical business and the other is used for the storage of other things. The people that rent from Mr. Weaver do not use any of the garages to park in they park in front of the garages in the back of the four plex or on the side of the four plex. Mr. Weaver also has a boat stored between our house and the four plex. 4. I do not wish to look out of both my front and back windows to see garages. As of right now I can watch my child get on and off of his school bus. 5. I feel that the addition will be to close to our home and will hide any view of our home being seen from the corner of Cohansey and Idaho. We do not feel it is necessazy to keep giving variances to 1604 Cohansey every time a new owner wants to make changes to the property. It was zoned for a four plex and four garages and we feel it should stay that way. 6. Last but most important is the fact that Mr. Weaver felt it was necessary to intimidate and threaten me in order to get our signature or permission for the construction to the property �� r�� «� �� o� -a�s PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 1604 COHANSEY STREET ❑ z g � W m � � U <-1 � � � �-� r--r,� 1�1 PREPARED BY: LI EP o�-a.y.s 1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD 2. HP.ZEL PARK T�DEN-PROSPERIT"Y HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE _ 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PAYNE-PHAI,EN G. NORTH ENA 7. THOMAS-DALE 8. SUMMI'I'-UNIVERSIT'Y 9. WEST SEVENTH 10. COMO 11. HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. ST. ANTHONY PARIC 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLI2v�E-SNELLING HAMLINE 14. MACALESTER GROVELAND 15. HIGHL.AND IG. SUMMIT HILL 17. DOWNTOWN �� .. �: 60 '.__._�°f'i�g� � CI"ITZEN PARTICIPATTON PLANNING DISTRICTS o � -iyS CITY OF SAINT PAUL DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12-23-00 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER # 00-147798 D1�TE: November 13, 2000 WF3EREAS, Maurice Weaver has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the construction of a new gara�e and new front entry in the RM-1 zoning district at 1604 Cohansey Street; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on November 13, 2000 pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followin� findings of fact: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Until recently, the applicant had not lived in this building. He states that he has had problems with bad tenants and feels that he could better monitor the building if he lived here. The appiicant, along with his daughter, would occupy two units in the building. He would like to provide some additional parking and a new master bedroom for his unit. The existing building is located approximately in the center of the property. The existing gazage in the rear yard and the driveway along the north side of the building limits the area available for a new addition. The required front setback for this block is 53 feet. The existing setback of this building is 46 feet so any addition to the front of the building would require a variance. A four-unit apartment building requires 6 off-street parking spaces. Two additional gazage stalls would provide these six spaces. 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. The location of the existing buildings on this site and the average front setback of Yhe other buildings on the block, are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, nor consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. Page 1 of 3 o �.a�tS File # 00-147798 Resolution The applicant is proposing a 26 by 30-foot addition to the front of the building, as well as a 14 by 16-foot enhyway. While this proposed addition will provide two needed parking spaces, it appears that the addition is larger than necessary and may unduly infringe on the line of sight and the supply of ligl�t and air to the neighboring property. A smaller addition, perhaps 24 by 20 feet, couid provide the needed garage space without such a major impact on the surrounding property. A smaller addition could be designed to maintain the existing side yard setbacks, and would eliminate the need for two of the three requested variances. Only a smaller front yard setback variance would still be required. 4. The proposed variances wi11 impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, and will aZter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish estabZished property values within the surrounding area. Reducing the required side yard setback by two-thirds with a two-story addition would have a considerable impact on the adjacent property. The reduced front setback when combined with the reduced side yard setback would aiso contribute to the impact on the adjacent property. Maintaining the existing 15 foot side yard setback and reducing the size of the needed front yard variance would lessen the impact of the proposed addition to a more reasonable level. The applicant has submitted several letters in support of this proposal, however, these letters are not from the property owners that would be most affected by the addition. Although the proposed addition has been designed to enhance the front facade of the existing 6uilding, the requested variances would change the character of the area. S. The variance, ifgranted, wouZd not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the distsict where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the vaZue or income potential of the parcel of Zand. The applicant states that he does not intend to increase the number of aparhnents in this building. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonino Appeals that the application to wave provisions of Section 61.101 be hereby denied on the property located at 1604 Cohansey street and legally described as EDWIN M. WARE'S CUMBERLAND ADDITION PLAT 1 N 75 FT OF W 1/2; LOT 2 BLK 6; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administratar. Page 2 of 3 O � -��1S File # 00-147798 Resolution MOVED BY: SECONDED BY: IN FAVOR: AGAINST: MAILED: TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board oF Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days 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 undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appealsfor the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing_ copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on 2000 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board Page 3 of 3 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, NOVEMBER 13, 2000 o� -a4s PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Duckstad, Galles, and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT: None The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. Maurice Weaver (#00-147798) 1604 Cohansev Street: Three variances in order to construct a garage and new front entry addition to the front of the existing building. 1) The existing front setback is 45 feet and the proposed setback is 22 feet, for a variance of 23 feet. 2). The required side yard setback is 15 feet and the proposed setback on the south side is 5 feet, for a variance of 10 feet. 3). Lo[ coverage of 30 % is allowed and coverage of 31 % is proposed, for a variance of 1%(45 sq. ft.) The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for denial. There was one letter in opposition to the variance request. No correspondence was received regarding the variance from District 6. Maurice Weaver, 1604 Cohansey Street, Apartment N2, stated that he would be willing to accept staffls recommendation of a smaller addition. Mr. Duckstad questioned Mr. Weaver's acceptance of the staff recommendation of a smaller addition. Mr. Weaver replied that he would be willing to build the smaller addition of 24 by 20-feet. Mr. Courtney questioned whether Mr. Weaver had discussed his willingness to reduce the size of the addition with the neighbor who opposed the variance. Mr. Weaver responded he had not. Sandy Monita, 1598 Cohansey Street, questioned the district's zoning. She stated that Mr. Weaver's wife had told her there would be an office for Mr. Weaver in the addition. Mr. Hardwick responded that building code would assure that any addition would comply with the Zoning Code. Ms. Maddox questioned whether Ms. Monita wouid have an objection to the smaller addition. Ms. Monita replied that she was in opposition to any addition to the building because it would block her view of the corner. She stated that she would no longer be able to see her son get on or off the school bus. Mr. Courtney questioned whether Ms. Monita had any other objections to the addition her wanting to see her son get on and off the school bus. Ms. Monita stated that the view out her patio doors was of the townhouse's garages and if the addition is approved, her view out the front window would be of garages. Ms. Monita stated she did not want her only possible views of the neighborhood limited to garages. Sam Monita, 1598 Cohansey Street, stated that the applicanYs building is too close to his property, and he felt the addition would have a detrimental effect on his home's resale value. Mr. Monita stated that File # 00-147798 Minutes 11113100 Page two o� -�ys all four of the current garage stalls are being used by Mr. Weaver. He stated that he does not want to see any more garages added to the applicanYs property. Mr. Monita submitted pictures of the apartment, the area around the apartment, and the garages. Mr. Monita stated that he thought Mr. Weaver was working out of the garages. Mr. Courtney questioned why the owner was using all four of the garages. Mr. Monita stated that one was being used for storage, another one was being used for his electrical equipment and the other two garages were being used for the Weaver's vehicles. Mr. Courtney questioned whether any of the renters were using the garages. Mr. Monita replied that none of the renters were using the garages. Mr. Courtney questioned where the renters were parking. Mr. Monita stated they park as the pictures show. Mr. Steve Flaherry, 385 Wentworth, West St. Paul, stated that he was Ms. Monita's brother and had owned 1598 Cohansey before the Monita's. Mr. Flaherty stated that he had granted the previous owners of the apartment an easement to reach the garages. The renters are now parking in the front of the properry, because all the garages are being used by the owner. He stated there is no room for the addition with the current Building Code and setback requirements. Mr. Flaherty stated that the applicant will be tearing down trees planted by the Ciry, that have just reached maturity. Mr. Weaver stated that he intended to move the trees to the south side of the property. He stated that the Monita's could not see their son get on or off the school bus because the trees block their view of [he comer. Mr. Weaver explained that two of the garages were full of furniture from the home he sold to move into the apartrnent and only about ten percent of the garage space was used for his electrical supplies. He stated that his daughter would be using the furniture when she moved into one of the apartments. Mr. Weaver stated that he is an electrician and wires houses so it is not possible that he works out of his residence. Mr. Galles questioned Mr. Weaver's business address. Mr. Weaver stated that he uses a post office box. Mr. Galles questioned where he stoied his electrical supplies. Mr. Weaver stated that usually the supplies are delivered to the job site and he has a work van with electrical parts in it. Mr. Galles questioned whether Mr. Weaver had employees. Mr. Weaver replied that he did have employees. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Galles moved to denied the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6. The Board discussed whether voting on the motion would end all further discussion of the variance at this time. Mr. Warner advised the Board that voting on the motion would end the matter. Mr. Courtney seconded the motion to deny the variance, Ms. Maddox questioned whechez anyone wanted to discuss a smaller addition, hearing no further discussion, Ms. Maddox accepted the second, and the denial passed on a roll call vote of 5-2 (Bogen, Duckstad). Submitted by: Approved by: John Hardwick Gloria Bogen, Secretary OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY C[ayton M. Robinson, Jr., CiryAttorney o � -�,y s CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor January 25, 2001 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of Maurice Weaver, 1604 Cohansey Street City Council Action Date: December 13, 2000 Dear Nancy: Telephone: 651266-8710 Facsimite: b51 298-5619 paR �q :i S?^. -,`°�"'1 Fv..""`+'`a{ �. .Yi4ki'vf. . r� v.... . . .t � 5 ..,v:; _,-- Enclosed please find a signed Resolution memorializing the Council's decision of December 13, 2000, in the above-entitled matter. Please place this on the Council's Consent Agenda at your easliest convenience. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ��u�,�..t-- Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney civitDivision 400 Ciry Hal! 15 Wesi Ket(ogg Btvd. Saint Paul, Minnuoia 55102 Hand Delivered PWW/rmb Enclosure Council File # � �-� a1► .S OR'�;��AL Presented By RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Cneen Sheet # �,� a� � � Referred To Committee: Date 1 2 WHEREAS, Maurice Weaver, made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals in 3 Zoning File 00-147798 for three variances for property commonly lrnown as 1604 Cohansey 4 Street and legally described as contained in the zoning file noted above in order to construct a 5 garage and new front entry addition to an existing four unit building. (1) A front yazd setback, 6 (2) a side yard setback, and (3) a lot coverage variance; and 8 WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals [hereinafter the "Boazd"] conducted a public 9 hearing on November 13, 2000, after having provided norice to affected property owners and the 10 Board by its Resolution Number 00-147798 moved to deny the application for the variances 11 based upon the following findings and conclusions: . 12 13 1. Until recently, the applicant has not lived in the building. He states that he has 14 had problems with bad tenants and feels that he could have better monitored the building if he 15 lived there. The applicant, along with his daughter, would occupy two units of the building. He 16 would like to provide some additional parking and a new master bedroom for his unit. 17 18 The existing building is located approximately in the center of the property. The existing 19 garage and the rear yard and the driveway along the north side of the building limits the area 20 available for a new addition. The required front setback for this block is 53 feet. The existing 21 setback of this building is 46 feet so any addition to the front of the building would require a 22 variance. A four unit apartment building requires six off-street parking spaces. Two additional 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 gazage stalls would provide these six spaces. 2. The location of the existing building on this site and the average front setback of the other buildings on the block are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The applicant is proposing a 26 x 30 foot addition to the front of the building, as well as a 14 x 16 foot entryway. While this proposed addition will provide two needed parking spaces, it appears that the addition is larger than necessary and may unduly infringe on the line of sight and the supply of light and air to the neighboring property. A smaller addition, perhaps 24 x 20 feet, could provide the needed garage space without such a major impact on the surrounding property. A smaller addition could be designed to maintain the existing sideyard setbacks, and would eliminate the need for two of the three requested variances. Only a smaller front yard setback variance would still be required. Z l ORIGINAL o�_ Z 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 4. Reducing the required sideyard setback by two-thirds with a rivo story addition would have a considerable unpact on the adjacent property. The reduced front setback when combined with the reduced sideyard setback would also contribute to the impact on the adjacent property. Maintaining the existing 15 foot sideyazd setback and reducin� the size of the needed front yard and variance would lessen the impact of the proposed addition to a more reasonable level. The applicant has submitted several letters in support of this proposal, however, these letters are not from the property owners that would be most affected by addition. Although the proposed addition has been designed to enhance the front facade of the existing building, the requested variances would change the character of the area. 5. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change the zoning classification of the proper[y. 6. The applicant states that he does not intend to increase the number of apartments in this building; and 19 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, Mr. 20 Weaver duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Board and requested a hearing 21 before the City Council for the purpose of considering the action taken by the Board; and 22 23 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 64.205 -§ 64.208, and upon notice to 24 affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Councii on December 6, 2000, 25 where all interested parties were given an opporhxnity to be heard. At the cIose of the public 26 hearing, the matter was laid over for consideration until December 13, 2000; and 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 WHEREAS, on December 13, 2000, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board: does hereby RESOLVE, that the Council hereby upholds the decision of the Board in this matter having found no error in fact finding or procedure on the part of the Board and adopts as its own the findings and conclusions set forth in Boazd Resolution Number 00-147798; and be it Page 2 of 3 1-ORIGIf�AL 2 FURTHER RESOLVEb, that the appeal of Maurice Weaver be and is hereby in all O l'.1�� 5 3 things denied; and be it 4 5 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Mr. 6 Weaver, the Zoning Administrator, the Plamiing Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. J GREEN SHEET 4\—a•v►S city counciZ Couacilmember Reiter 266-8650 7 BE ON COUNCIL AGE7JDA BY @4"fE) March 14, 2001 March 7, 2001 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES No 110292 ■ u �..�.�� a,,,�,.a _ f-0R ❑ eRYATrowEI' ❑ CrtYCFAK ❑.suNr�,smence,uz ❑,.uxr�u,exw,xre ❑IInYOn1oRIL4s44fN(f) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memoralizing City Council action taken on December 13, 2000, denying the appeal of Maurice Weaver of a Board of Zoning Appeal.s decision denying two variances in order to construct an addition to the existing apartment building at 1604 Cohansey Street. �UATIOIV AppfoVe (A) Of KeJeCt PIANNING COMMISSfON CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPROVED OF TRANSACTION S Has this person/firm ever worked under a corRract for ihis depaAmenCl YES NO Has lhis persoNfirtn ever 6een a city empbyee9 VES NO Dces this persoMfinn posaess a sldll not namalrypossessetl by any curreM ciry employeel vES NO Istfiis persoNfiim atargeteE vendof+ YES NO �lain all ves ansvrers on seoa2te sheet and attach to oreen sheet COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO SOURCE ACTNITYNUMBER 1NFORM4TION (EXPWN) ':"� �- r!<� t ✓ r .� ��'��,`.:'. ��! Mb ' - . . . . � ::/' ( f� . �iy �! � t � 7 i '� �' : � .. -. � ' .� 1 � .�� i �� `� � �` : ,� r�. {...+�,� ,- . y ��t �� ; ,� •� r. � � -� � - L - _�, ,. �,� ,;�";:. . . . �< i � �'� � ;� �� ►� �' ' l . � ��:�• � - �. k "� � �ti,'! � �'�t .d"'�a� . " � ' °�;,' � r �`` �" � ' �sp� �,, �:� ��` ' r ;t ufr�e. 1 � � t � ¢ � . ,,, i �' _._ _ _ �_r,� 'tl�1`�`.._-. � • . � �'+�a'i � �� • t s� � � ° r :;, � :'�� ,.' '� ��: . ' ?+�. � • �3^ ` : '�• �,� �' 1 y ` y � _� � , � �' . � .1_ \ .r..� �� .�.. ". .�c��s � ' �_ �.N ' si—>'�: _. •—�; . �' i .. �_: ..:. `�; _ .- , .,�- � rl y A�: �� i ._..!._. ... � �' � �•, , �. ,. �}; . : li. a � � � ' '� �,�,� `�'j� .,�, � �� p ��.. � �4�>.. � �� >'�, � . , � ;, ��,��f tt�: ;�}-3 � �._. � .: �y�!'4� _ , jre eff fil�✓ F` � ' , �. _ _ *` :C..�� ±� � �� . �� , f s / �� ' � . i . • �' \ - �ar°' I • � �.y�� .. "`a.3re� w"�-�,c , �t� ° �s�. ��.'`� +Si2,.�!{ ��< �. ,�� /1 �!'�,"�,,�; �°° , � . :�a.: a�� '�"''..r,.� : 1i, �� f � � I sr4u . K � 1 "�G � �� J � � Y' � � :;:; ' ,. ...":45. � ° ti ." l� �� .� �j, � � _ f_ �.`:�E � .� . a,�� r t� � �� " ti . � , � i� ! . � i � � . �a '� i� � � °� � � � � ` # �'j` � �1 �`.:�� / � � 1 6 �R 1 ' � + - � � �� '. . ♦ 4 � � ' � >+ � �� ,� � ��ia Y �' p � r � �� F t � x � �� ..4Y� � +�t �=:...�� ,�..��` � � '� 3.�^ > �^ �.� � -,:., >�' . �'g,a - r . �.�. . � � << •be•. �� %� , ., �� ..�. .�..�_ � . � . �� i�� . -� � i� .• �" .�.ereww�-nss..� �� Y �; ".,., . . � 1 �i:;(��qn�t .� " � ;;t �. ��` E . t� � �1 , . r.`� � t �� # � , . :, �*-°.,,. �+ i . ♦L� '. � �� y , < �. !` j � L� • % '` .. - � . . . �� .. � R / �� .` . . � �.. f . , � • ,,�� .' �/ �,� �. Y �� ' � � . �r� �: , ..' �t..• • � .,�. yn,� ;rK • . �,�� i i ; j �.,' ; << '. t'' ,i . ' -• r:. .� ? ''. �� ` ,_ �' ; fi-. �":r , �� . ��," ��,��, � h . , .� � :, T `, �. � . �� k �, � � , � � �F 7 .• a ., ' ( yr�� *` 4 �� . , f , � .� • «3 .� � �' ti k r4. ^. -� � F S � k �' �� .... _ � 'a: . �, :� '-� r V t . �"� t �h �F�` � M I �N' � ��: � '>< �� _ �� ;t ;; � , �, : ,` `+.�``� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayor November 22, 2000 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAT, PROTECTION Robert Kessler, Director � ` _ y � 3y BUILDINGINSPECI70YAND Telephone:6T2-2669007 DESIGN Facsimile: 612-2659099 350 St Peter Street Suite 310 Saint Paul, Minnesota 5510?-I510 I would like to conFirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, December 6, 2000 for the following zoning case: Appellant: File Number: Purpose: L.ocation: Staff : District 7: Board : Maurice Weaver, 1604 Cohansey Street 00-150860 Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision denying two variances in order to construct an addition to the existing apartment building. 1604 Cohansey Street Recommended denial No recommendation Denied on a vote of 5-2 I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Jun Reiter. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9082 if you have any questions. S' cerely / � John Hardwick Zoning Specialist cc: Council Member Reiter - " ' r'F7RSTAI7N• �r-�,;e.; �?: ' � � � NOTICE�OFPOHLIC-HEARII�iGi �:.:i� The=Saint�Pau1 CiLy=Counc3Z�wllI.rnn rlud a publlc hearing on Wednesaay, �December 6, 2000, at 5:30 p.m. � the Gtfy Council Clrambers. 'iYvrd Floor Cit}'_�SiaII- c�nou�, is iv�c K�u�g-so,��ra, Saint PaW, �MI!I, to'consider�the appeal. of Maurice Weaver,to a decision of-Yhe Boazd osder�tn cons�uct an'addition.to the es�si ing aparlment bwldtng-at 1604 CoUansey_ - Sfreet D�t�d:November30 2000�- _ . NANCYANDERSON -- - . �� AsststantClLy�Eouncil'Secretary-.---.� � -- ' ..'(Uec:emhez4l.�,"..: :..;..� -v�.81: PAt�.;i:ECillb�lEDOF��;--_-- �0293�586' � �;�_.. _.� _•.� � -_ - � ,^ 541Ni )wVL � All� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Depnrtn:ent ojPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 Cin• Hall Annez 25 63'esf Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 166-6589 APPELLANT I N � ° �:-a.�4S inty._`.: � 3�9: �� y� L(J � 7� GP � �7�{9f� S�e y' City-Sf ��tu � St!"'�h/ZipSSI/7 Daytime PROPERTY Zoning File Name_ ��.%eA�'�/� f�/�.? C, LOCATION '� Address/Location f/,.�'� �� olf��✓S � � �? Z� on ��( �3l��C� , 19_ File number. CC�— ly7 7!� (da o decision) TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: �Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �°�E;, Paragraph f' of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision made by the �c��A z-� c�, 2•��- �r--, h'- n't1.rjS GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. QL{ /�S'-�2 S'�t'2 �fj�'L�-t � ��ff� lZ � Atfach additional sheet if necessary) C�Q'.- � ApplicanYs signature /� /Gu� (�'"��'� Date /�� G� ° ° City agent ��-a�s Zoning file number: # 00-147798 To whom it may concem: My name is Maurice Weayer I currently own and live in the four plex at 1604 Cohansey. 1 was at the 13oazd of Goning Comittee meeting on Monday, November 13 and my application was denied and I would like to file an appeal for the following reasons: i} The Zoning boazd failed to consider my consession to the city to go along with the stafF reccomendation of reducing the size oi the addition from 30x26 feet to 20�4 feet. 2) The Zoning board failed to consider that five out of six of the neighbors agreed that the addition wouid have a positive impact on the neighborhood and have signed a letter to that affect. 3) Y'he zoning board failed to consider that 1 am the owner of the buiIding and have decided to make it my permanent home in order to better keep controll of the buiiding. 4) `i'he Goning board failed to aknowledge the fact that i have had problems with drug dealers and police calls in the past with the tennants and I have there fore decided to live in the building to keep better controll. 5) The Zoning board failed to consider that the smaller addition would require oniy one variance for a smaller fiontyard setback not affecting the side setback at aI[. For these reasons I am requesting a hearing to discuss these matters. Sincerely, ��`� l�" / c" �� c� � o �- ays BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICANT: Maurice Weaver 2, CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance FILE # 00-147798 DATE OF HEARING: 11-13-00 3. LOCATION: 1604 Cohansey Street 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: EDWIN M. WARE'S CIJMBERLAND ADDITION PLAT 1 N 75 FT OF Wl/2; LOT 2 BLK 6 5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 6 6. PRESENT ZONING: RM-1 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT DATE: 11-07-00 BY: John Hazdwick 8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12-23-00 DATE RECEIVED: 10-23-00 A. PURPOSE: Three variances in order to construct a garage and new front entry addition to the front of the existing four-unit building. 1) The existing front setback is 45 feet and the proposed setback is 22 feet, for a variance of 23 feet. 2). The required side yard setback is 15 feet and the proposed setback on the south side is 5 feet, for a variance of 10 feet. 3). Lot coverage of 30% is allowed and coverage of 31 % is proposed, for a variance of 1%(45 squaze feet). B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIOIVS: This is a 75 by 133-foot parcel with no alley access. There is an existing detached 4-stall garage in the rear yard that is accessed from the street. Sunounding Land Use: A mixture of single and multi-family residential structures. C. BACKGROUND: The applicant has owned this 4-unit apartment building since I995. He recently moved into the building and would like to construct a gara�e/room addition to the front of the building. D. FINDINGS: 1. The properiy in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Until recently, the applicant had not lived in this building. He states that he has had problems with bad tenants and feels that he could better monitor the building if he lived here. The appiicant, along with his daughter, would occupy two units in the building. He would like to provide some additional parking and a new master bedroom for his unit. Page 1 of 3 o �-a�s File # 00-147798 StafF Report The existing buiiding is located approximately in the center of the property. The existing garage in the rear yazd and the driveway along the north side of the buildin� limits the area available for a new addition. The required front setback for this block is 53 feet. The existing setback of this building is 46 feet so any addition to the front of the building would require a variance. A four-unit apartment building requires 6 off-street parkin� spaces. Two additional garage stalls wouid provide these six spaces. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the Zand owner. The location of the existing buildings on this site and the average front setback of the other buildings on the block, are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, nor consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of fhe inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The applicant is proposing a 26 by 30-foot addition to the front of the building, as well as a 14 by 16-foot entryv✓ay. While this proposed addition wiil provide two needed parking spaces, it appears that the addition is larger than necessary and may unduly infringe on the line of sight and the supply of light and air to the neighboring property. A smaller addition, perhaps 24 by 20 feet, could provide the needed gazage space without such a major impact on the surrounding property. A smaller addition could be designed to maintain the existing side yard setbacks, and would eliminate the need for rivo of the three requested variances. Only a smaller front yard setback variance would still be required. 4. The proposed variances will impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, and will alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. Reducing the required side yard setback by rivo-thirds with a two-story addition would have a considerable impact on the adjacent property. The reduced front setback when combined with the reduced side yazd setback would also contribute to the impact on the adjacent property. Maintaining the existing 15 foot side yard setback and reducing the size of the needed front yard variance would lessen the impact of the proposed addition to a more reasonable level. The applicant has submitted several letters in support of this proposal, however, these letters are not from the property owners that would be most affected by the addition. Although the proposed addition has been designed to enhance the front facade of the existing building, the requested variances would change the character of the area. Page 2 of 3 O � -�y.s File # 00-147798 Staff Report 5. The variance, if granted, wouZd not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected Zand is Zocated, nor wouZd it alter or change the zoning district classifzcation of the property. The pmposed variances, if granted, would not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The applicant states that he does not intend to increase the number of apartments in this building. E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 6. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings number 3 and 4, staff recommends denial of the variances. Staff would, however, support a reduced front yard setback for a smaller addition that maintains the existing side yard setbacks. Page 3 of 3 APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE OFFICE OF LICEN,SE, INSPECTIONS, AND ENYIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 SL Peter Street, Suite 300 SaintPaul, MIVSSIO2-ISIO 651-266-9008 APPLICAMT PROPERTY v�>� Name M 1/ � 2�LE Ll..J (=l�G��/L Company Ou: 37-P i.'�- Address�/-, O 7 �U /��r1 -S / � 2 � �r( IZ-�S`>`l7.3` City �f ��t �r State E�� s� Daytime Phone�f��,a dS�i ;'ra_�c Property interest of applicant (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) l� �/ �. U�//'7 �" ��' Name of owner (if �1 S Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) Lot size Present Zoni Rfi'� Present Use � l�' 4 Proposed Use i��r. ��J� /�ur/Gf /^� J �� J`'� f�CJ rn�_ 7 . Variance(s) req /^ro�� 7 $.� � �/�C 6 � {�� Y /i -� � i �' 5t? /' �fiC v` 2. What physical characteristics of [he property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topography, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) �� .,� �5' F�',�,2 C4 S��; 3. Explain how the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficuities or exceptional undue hardships. 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial im airment of the intent and purpose oftheZoningOrdinance. � �� /2.Pn�t1L PrU �� G�ncd � /f �4/�� jF ortG� f i✓rSC !� L� i nC� �t' ✓l f�:✓ rh 9- f� �� h� r � l9C�S� O I U✓ P1�%9G<j h/hOL2G� !�'! fG �L! /�G TU /_ C�-e 1' lt�rJ 2P.a tv>s c�c[ � L �� 1 ST °f (Attach additional sheets if needed.) � � � m � ��C' %�c>Y"-� / r � � �� CASHIERS USE ONLY ' �� 3�0, � 10-��{-�on o �� ApplicanYs signature�,�.c�'l_ �'�✓ '�'�� Date /C� �� - po °2 � �°� �-� � � � — #� �ti � iti:• L �{� i ' � �,_ �.�=�r�� s x_��s I.��.c; ��-�--��. � �y-�-. — � �� _ — � ; � ��,:, F �� o- ! # `� ; a r� f! I- ; €� �� I3LL � �.'--1--�==.-_�._____._._ ' ` f---- y %, � ■�� ot•avs Z� �1� /Joo r G � � r�.�z s �� sr ��, q Y- p {'�r o � 1 I � y --�= L,. �� /� � � c` � "�'"'rT_._T?e_ . 4 -..aw.w. � /.,./ � � ° j � 5, �'e° � , , ? �' � i � (`1' ( f �� . � -�:. � �` I ,�; , ; I , ,. -�- � ; � , t' "'� i � `'� � t � hr P 1V : ; �. ,.', F->' �; � v � 5 � �'—� jr v �� °� ; a i ,= r; i , .""+� �. f��;j�� f�� 1 � �E �@ r � e. j STk�' � '� r�=T :�._p� �> ; � � � J 1 — i � -_. _..r.. ' __--._ " � i i � ` t 1 S , � ,� � �� 3 v --.�:°'°'I � �. w , ' � �� : ? �x � :r � i '�-� `�� J I � � �i f� � �� ; r i i ; � t: � `'.: F � � ; S1 � 1 % �J \ Q +�\. � J � _ s T/� < < i � � ' + � ;� 1 � �r.-�-' � �.--�_---� } ----�=� � ��.. `�" �� : �. �.._�� .,_.___,____._ _u_y. _ __� ��;� l�. � z �� y � 0 \ -�-` To whom it may concern: My name is Maurice Weaver. I have owned a four plex at 1604 Cohansey since 199� to present. During that period I have had a time fmding good tennants, especially in the lower west apartment. I have had complaints from neighbors about noise and I have had police at the building I do the best I can at screening applicants; but it's hard to find good people who want that apartment. I sold my home in Forest Lake with plans to build in South Maplewood. I moved into the building on a temporary basis; soon after I found out how bad the tennants were in the lower west apartment. I evicted them and remodeled the apariment, but have not had any luck fmding a good tennant. With the tennant gone I found out what a nice area this is and decided to make the building my home if addition is permitted. To solve the problem of renting the lower west unit; I will take over two units, the lower west unit and the unit above it. By living on the premisis I will be able to keep better controll of the building. And by putting a very attractive addition on the building, better tennants will be attracted in the remaining two units which will improve the neighborhood. Sincerely, „^ �� // �r� i(/ / �p— �- s-rtj ;' g ?j ..: � � rr • �� To whom it may concern: I have ta]ked to and showed plans to all my neighbors; all have said they would like to see improvements, and think it wouid greatly improve the neighborhood and have no objections, all except one. When I first asked the owner of the property at 1598 Cohansey how he felt, he said that he needed to thu�lc about it and he would let me know by Oct. 17. On the 17th he said he needed to talk to the city, and on the 19th he said no without any reason given. My wife Bonnie asked his wife Sandy Flairity, and she gave her okay. When we asked her to sign the paper given to the other neighbors to okay the project; she said no because we had bad tennants in our building and she was upset. I apologized and told them I am not the police, if her child and the children who lived in the building were fighting she should have called the police. She claims I should have intervened in some way. And because of this, they want to cause us a problem. By the way; she also mentioned that she is planning to sell her house in one to two years from now, which proves that they are just trying to cause a problem because my project can only increase their property value. O1 �� Sincerely, �1'J �„�-- ��-�- j� �� S�GG ! ;J�]',+-92-00 �37:28 AM NERVER`MRURICE 464 3752 p_02 a t - i.yS ( OG?0: QO My natn� is�.,�.cs_-�.�„F,� I live at �,�2 �r -- mv phnnc numbcr is �= �S/._�€L 6�-ty "fhe tYeavcrs at 1604 CUFianscy have showed us thc plans ta improvc thuir hon�c :t ith an additi�n. We thiiil: it �i�ill improve aur arca and have no oUjcCtiom. T'hank Yoc �.r_wu-��- .�rrrM..r�.reY�� arli�... ;°/ ::= `.>. ''', . 10/20/00 � �'�� My name is � _ � � � 1 � � I live at �� (`� (�p � i?P ( � � my phone number is • - n . The Weavers at 04 Cohansey have showed us the plans to improve their home with an addirion. We think it will improve our area and have no objecrions. Thank Y � � �f- � 5 l . �•�: �. ■ • 10/20/00 �\ �� -,� My name is � )��(/�'' ��/�� I live at �� .�"d i�P my phone number is (�5% - �/�'7'$� / The Weavers at 1604 Cohansey have showed us the glans to improve their home with an addirion. We think it wiil improve our area and have no objecrions. Thank Yon • � _ !� �� .:� 10/20/00 My name is � rn c� ��l�Y�live at "�'�� .�-C� d�2 0 my phone number is�- �iu . 3'i�e �eavers at ififl� �ohansey i�ave skowed us the pians to improve their home with an addition. We think it will improve our area and have no objecrions. o t-ZVS . � � i'�' II ��. �„I J � � . ..... . .�,. 1��2�� DA N-� My name is � I live at �� my phone number is t The Weavers at 1604 Cohansey have showed us the plans to improve their home with an addition. We think it will improve our azea and hav�o�b� ch s. Thank ��^,.� a �c � I �� 7 �� t u �'��L �o i v �� -' :- e` �; �j ��n `� � 5 0. � F P P < <I iI PI I/ i a 'e < Z � c`- � r___'o I _ I —_____ ___ .__ ""' _ L _ ___ _. I �_ "_ - __ .h _' __ ��,� I i �— — � F � i i . 'i _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ ; i i . , � - A _ _ '" _ — I �' �_ � II I i � '� I � '�' ) i _"' --'—"_ ___'_'__'"_ __—�"f_\ " __' u I iI t:: � _ µ '�� i � 4 l l ` �\ \ , / �/ � �. J � � \. ` '�_ `—/. 3 � 8� - ,_ " Z Qi° _ _� -_ � ,I � : ��_ � � U1 �I � � > a;: xx,Q . i � - ��,�z -- —� I ' I , . ,.. —� _, ..... � - — � , J • � ' . il a � 3- � i• o �� e y�� , �� i _ �� v N . _— __.. � - � ' .... �1 M� �� .... . . � • 1 . G �< M j ��- = :,� � � �, �- g ,, � a_ �: � �;,_ ,-jl, � '° I = �. � � �(�= � N 4 I \� _ :. � . -�� ' i � , . = < �: j o .�:: , � � __ � __ � _. :� nk- --� ` f, �.. ..: ...: :. , . i:. {r : � I{ � I � - - .. aL il 'I . . �c11ZnS `` r ` � � o �-a��.s o � -iv.s November 7, 2000 To the board of zoning appeals, Rpi [!� � � Es . �5:d o.G� -1y.72t� � We the home owners at 1598 Cohansey Street do not wish for the variance for the Addition at 1604 Cohansey Street to be approced. The reasons for the disapprova] are as follows: The resale value of our home and pioperty will decrease with the approval of the variance 2. An easement of 6 feet by 30 feet of the back northeast corner of our yard was given in order for the garages at 1604 Cohansey to have enough turn around room. Right now all four garages are being used by Mr. Weaver. Two of them are used for his cars and the two in the back that face our yard are used for storage. One is used for the storage of his electrical equipment for Weaver Flectrical business and the other is used for the storage of other things. The people that rent from Mr. Weaver do not use any of the garages to park in they park in front of the garages in the back of the four plex or on the side of the four plex. Mr. Weaver also has a boat stored between our house and the four plex. 4. I do not wish to look out of both my front and back windows to see garages. As of right now I can watch my child get on and off of his school bus. 5. I feel that the addition will be to close to our home and will hide any view of our home being seen from the corner of Cohansey and Idaho. We do not feel it is necessazy to keep giving variances to 1604 Cohansey every time a new owner wants to make changes to the property. It was zoned for a four plex and four garages and we feel it should stay that way. 6. Last but most important is the fact that Mr. Weaver felt it was necessary to intimidate and threaten me in order to get our signature or permission for the construction to the property �� r�� «� �� o� -a�s PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 1604 COHANSEY STREET ❑ z g � W m � � U <-1 � � � �-� r--r,� 1�1 PREPARED BY: LI EP o�-a.y.s 1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD 2. HP.ZEL PARK T�DEN-PROSPERIT"Y HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE _ 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PAYNE-PHAI,EN G. NORTH ENA 7. THOMAS-DALE 8. SUMMI'I'-UNIVERSIT'Y 9. WEST SEVENTH 10. COMO 11. HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. ST. ANTHONY PARIC 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLI2v�E-SNELLING HAMLINE 14. MACALESTER GROVELAND 15. HIGHL.AND IG. SUMMIT HILL 17. DOWNTOWN �� .. �: 60 '.__._�°f'i�g� � CI"ITZEN PARTICIPATTON PLANNING DISTRICTS o � -iyS CITY OF SAINT PAUL DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12-23-00 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER # 00-147798 D1�TE: November 13, 2000 WF3EREAS, Maurice Weaver has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the construction of a new gara�e and new front entry in the RM-1 zoning district at 1604 Cohansey Street; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on November 13, 2000 pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followin� findings of fact: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Until recently, the applicant had not lived in this building. He states that he has had problems with bad tenants and feels that he could better monitor the building if he lived here. The appiicant, along with his daughter, would occupy two units in the building. He would like to provide some additional parking and a new master bedroom for his unit. The existing building is located approximately in the center of the property. The existing gazage in the rear yard and the driveway along the north side of the building limits the area available for a new addition. The required front setback for this block is 53 feet. The existing setback of this building is 46 feet so any addition to the front of the building would require a variance. A four-unit apartment building requires 6 off-street parking spaces. Two additional gazage stalls would provide these six spaces. 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. The location of the existing buildings on this site and the average front setback of Yhe other buildings on the block, are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, nor consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. Page 1 of 3 o �.a�tS File # 00-147798 Resolution The applicant is proposing a 26 by 30-foot addition to the front of the building, as well as a 14 by 16-foot enhyway. While this proposed addition will provide two needed parking spaces, it appears that the addition is larger than necessary and may unduly infringe on the line of sight and the supply of ligl�t and air to the neighboring property. A smaller addition, perhaps 24 by 20 feet, couid provide the needed garage space without such a major impact on the surrounding property. A smaller addition could be designed to maintain the existing side yard setbacks, and would eliminate the need for two of the three requested variances. Only a smaller front yard setback variance would still be required. 4. The proposed variances wi11 impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, and will aZter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish estabZished property values within the surrounding area. Reducing the required side yard setback by two-thirds with a two-story addition would have a considerable impact on the adjacent property. The reduced front setback when combined with the reduced side yard setback would aiso contribute to the impact on the adjacent property. Maintaining the existing 15 foot side yard setback and reducing the size of the needed front yard variance would lessen the impact of the proposed addition to a more reasonable level. The applicant has submitted several letters in support of this proposal, however, these letters are not from the property owners that would be most affected by the addition. Although the proposed addition has been designed to enhance the front facade of the existing 6uilding, the requested variances would change the character of the area. S. The variance, ifgranted, wouZd not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the distsict where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the vaZue or income potential of the parcel of Zand. The applicant states that he does not intend to increase the number of aparhnents in this building. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonino Appeals that the application to wave provisions of Section 61.101 be hereby denied on the property located at 1604 Cohansey street and legally described as EDWIN M. WARE'S CUMBERLAND ADDITION PLAT 1 N 75 FT OF W 1/2; LOT 2 BLK 6; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administratar. Page 2 of 3 O � -��1S File # 00-147798 Resolution MOVED BY: SECONDED BY: IN FAVOR: AGAINST: MAILED: TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board oF Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days 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 undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appealsfor the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing_ copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on 2000 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board Page 3 of 3 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, NOVEMBER 13, 2000 o� -a4s PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Duckstad, Galles, and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT: None The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. Maurice Weaver (#00-147798) 1604 Cohansev Street: Three variances in order to construct a garage and new front entry addition to the front of the existing building. 1) The existing front setback is 45 feet and the proposed setback is 22 feet, for a variance of 23 feet. 2). The required side yard setback is 15 feet and the proposed setback on the south side is 5 feet, for a variance of 10 feet. 3). Lo[ coverage of 30 % is allowed and coverage of 31 % is proposed, for a variance of 1%(45 sq. ft.) The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for denial. There was one letter in opposition to the variance request. No correspondence was received regarding the variance from District 6. Maurice Weaver, 1604 Cohansey Street, Apartment N2, stated that he would be willing to accept staffls recommendation of a smaller addition. Mr. Duckstad questioned Mr. Weaver's acceptance of the staff recommendation of a smaller addition. Mr. Weaver replied that he would be willing to build the smaller addition of 24 by 20-feet. Mr. Courtney questioned whether Mr. Weaver had discussed his willingness to reduce the size of the addition with the neighbor who opposed the variance. Mr. Weaver responded he had not. Sandy Monita, 1598 Cohansey Street, questioned the district's zoning. She stated that Mr. Weaver's wife had told her there would be an office for Mr. Weaver in the addition. Mr. Hardwick responded that building code would assure that any addition would comply with the Zoning Code. Ms. Maddox questioned whether Ms. Monita wouid have an objection to the smaller addition. Ms. Monita replied that she was in opposition to any addition to the building because it would block her view of the corner. She stated that she would no longer be able to see her son get on or off the school bus. Mr. Courtney questioned whether Ms. Monita had any other objections to the addition her wanting to see her son get on and off the school bus. Ms. Monita stated that the view out her patio doors was of the townhouse's garages and if the addition is approved, her view out the front window would be of garages. Ms. Monita stated she did not want her only possible views of the neighborhood limited to garages. Sam Monita, 1598 Cohansey Street, stated that the applicanYs building is too close to his property, and he felt the addition would have a detrimental effect on his home's resale value. Mr. Monita stated that File # 00-147798 Minutes 11113100 Page two o� -�ys all four of the current garage stalls are being used by Mr. Weaver. He stated that he does not want to see any more garages added to the applicanYs property. Mr. Monita submitted pictures of the apartment, the area around the apartment, and the garages. Mr. Monita stated that he thought Mr. Weaver was working out of the garages. Mr. Courtney questioned why the owner was using all four of the garages. Mr. Monita stated that one was being used for storage, another one was being used for his electrical equipment and the other two garages were being used for the Weaver's vehicles. Mr. Courtney questioned whether any of the renters were using the garages. Mr. Monita replied that none of the renters were using the garages. Mr. Courtney questioned where the renters were parking. Mr. Monita stated they park as the pictures show. Mr. Steve Flaherry, 385 Wentworth, West St. Paul, stated that he was Ms. Monita's brother and had owned 1598 Cohansey before the Monita's. Mr. Flaherty stated that he had granted the previous owners of the apartment an easement to reach the garages. The renters are now parking in the front of the properry, because all the garages are being used by the owner. He stated there is no room for the addition with the current Building Code and setback requirements. Mr. Flaherty stated that the applicant will be tearing down trees planted by the Ciry, that have just reached maturity. Mr. Weaver stated that he intended to move the trees to the south side of the property. He stated that the Monita's could not see their son get on or off the school bus because the trees block their view of [he comer. Mr. Weaver explained that two of the garages were full of furniture from the home he sold to move into the apartrnent and only about ten percent of the garage space was used for his electrical supplies. He stated that his daughter would be using the furniture when she moved into one of the apartments. Mr. Weaver stated that he is an electrician and wires houses so it is not possible that he works out of his residence. Mr. Galles questioned Mr. Weaver's business address. Mr. Weaver stated that he uses a post office box. Mr. Galles questioned where he stoied his electrical supplies. Mr. Weaver stated that usually the supplies are delivered to the job site and he has a work van with electrical parts in it. Mr. Galles questioned whether Mr. Weaver had employees. Mr. Weaver replied that he did have employees. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Galles moved to denied the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6. The Board discussed whether voting on the motion would end all further discussion of the variance at this time. Mr. Warner advised the Board that voting on the motion would end the matter. Mr. Courtney seconded the motion to deny the variance, Ms. Maddox questioned whechez anyone wanted to discuss a smaller addition, hearing no further discussion, Ms. Maddox accepted the second, and the denial passed on a roll call vote of 5-2 (Bogen, Duckstad). Submitted by: Approved by: John Hardwick Gloria Bogen, Secretary OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY C[ayton M. Robinson, Jr., CiryAttorney o � -�,y s CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor January 25, 2001 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of Maurice Weaver, 1604 Cohansey Street City Council Action Date: December 13, 2000 Dear Nancy: Telephone: 651266-8710 Facsimite: b51 298-5619 paR �q :i S?^. -,`°�"'1 Fv..""`+'`a{ �. .Yi4ki'vf. . r� v.... . . .t � 5 ..,v:; _,-- Enclosed please find a signed Resolution memorializing the Council's decision of December 13, 2000, in the above-entitled matter. Please place this on the Council's Consent Agenda at your easliest convenience. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ��u�,�..t-- Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney civitDivision 400 Ciry Hal! 15 Wesi Ket(ogg Btvd. Saint Paul, Minnuoia 55102 Hand Delivered PWW/rmb Enclosure Council File # � �-� a1► .S OR'�;��AL Presented By RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Cneen Sheet # �,� a� � � Referred To Committee: Date 1 2 WHEREAS, Maurice Weaver, made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals in 3 Zoning File 00-147798 for three variances for property commonly lrnown as 1604 Cohansey 4 Street and legally described as contained in the zoning file noted above in order to construct a 5 garage and new front entry addition to an existing four unit building. (1) A front yazd setback, 6 (2) a side yard setback, and (3) a lot coverage variance; and 8 WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals [hereinafter the "Boazd"] conducted a public 9 hearing on November 13, 2000, after having provided norice to affected property owners and the 10 Board by its Resolution Number 00-147798 moved to deny the application for the variances 11 based upon the following findings and conclusions: . 12 13 1. Until recently, the applicant has not lived in the building. He states that he has 14 had problems with bad tenants and feels that he could have better monitored the building if he 15 lived there. The applicant, along with his daughter, would occupy two units of the building. He 16 would like to provide some additional parking and a new master bedroom for his unit. 17 18 The existing building is located approximately in the center of the property. The existing 19 garage and the rear yard and the driveway along the north side of the building limits the area 20 available for a new addition. The required front setback for this block is 53 feet. The existing 21 setback of this building is 46 feet so any addition to the front of the building would require a 22 variance. A four unit apartment building requires six off-street parking spaces. Two additional 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 gazage stalls would provide these six spaces. 2. The location of the existing building on this site and the average front setback of the other buildings on the block are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The applicant is proposing a 26 x 30 foot addition to the front of the building, as well as a 14 x 16 foot entryway. While this proposed addition will provide two needed parking spaces, it appears that the addition is larger than necessary and may unduly infringe on the line of sight and the supply of light and air to the neighboring property. A smaller addition, perhaps 24 x 20 feet, could provide the needed garage space without such a major impact on the surrounding property. A smaller addition could be designed to maintain the existing sideyard setbacks, and would eliminate the need for two of the three requested variances. Only a smaller front yard setback variance would still be required. Z l ORIGINAL o�_ Z 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 4. Reducing the required sideyard setback by two-thirds with a rivo story addition would have a considerable unpact on the adjacent property. The reduced front setback when combined with the reduced sideyard setback would also contribute to the impact on the adjacent property. Maintaining the existing 15 foot sideyazd setback and reducin� the size of the needed front yard and variance would lessen the impact of the proposed addition to a more reasonable level. The applicant has submitted several letters in support of this proposal, however, these letters are not from the property owners that would be most affected by addition. Although the proposed addition has been designed to enhance the front facade of the existing building, the requested variances would change the character of the area. 5. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change the zoning classification of the proper[y. 6. The applicant states that he does not intend to increase the number of apartments in this building; and 19 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.205, Mr. 20 Weaver duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Board and requested a hearing 21 before the City Council for the purpose of considering the action taken by the Board; and 22 23 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 64.205 -§ 64.208, and upon notice to 24 affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Councii on December 6, 2000, 25 where all interested parties were given an opporhxnity to be heard. At the cIose of the public 26 hearing, the matter was laid over for consideration until December 13, 2000; and 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 WHEREAS, on December 13, 2000, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board: does hereby RESOLVE, that the Council hereby upholds the decision of the Board in this matter having found no error in fact finding or procedure on the part of the Board and adopts as its own the findings and conclusions set forth in Boazd Resolution Number 00-147798; and be it Page 2 of 3 1-ORIGIf�AL 2 FURTHER RESOLVEb, that the appeal of Maurice Weaver be and is hereby in all O l'.1�� 5 3 things denied; and be it 4 5 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Mr. 6 Weaver, the Zoning Administrator, the Plamiing Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. J GREEN SHEET 4\—a•v►S city counciZ Couacilmember Reiter 266-8650 7 BE ON COUNCIL AGE7JDA BY @4"fE) March 14, 2001 March 7, 2001 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES No 110292 ■ u �..�.�� a,,,�,.a _ f-0R ❑ eRYATrowEI' ❑ CrtYCFAK ❑.suNr�,smence,uz ❑,.uxr�u,exw,xre ❑IInYOn1oRIL4s44fN(f) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memoralizing City Council action taken on December 13, 2000, denying the appeal of Maurice Weaver of a Board of Zoning Appeal.s decision denying two variances in order to construct an addition to the existing apartment building at 1604 Cohansey Street. �UATIOIV AppfoVe (A) Of KeJeCt PIANNING COMMISSfON CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPROVED OF TRANSACTION S Has this person/firm ever worked under a corRract for ihis depaAmenCl YES NO Has lhis persoNfirtn ever 6een a city empbyee9 VES NO Dces this persoMfinn posaess a sldll not namalrypossessetl by any curreM ciry employeel vES NO Istfiis persoNfiim atargeteE vendof+ YES NO �lain all ves ansvrers on seoa2te sheet and attach to oreen sheet COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO SOURCE ACTNITYNUMBER 1NFORM4TION (EXPWN) ':"� �- r!<� t ✓ r .� ��'��,`.:'. ��! Mb ' - . . . . � ::/' ( f� . �iy �! � t � 7 i '� �' : � .. -. � ' .� 1 � .�� i �� `� � �` : ,� r�. {...+�,� ,- . y ��t �� ; ,� •� r. � � -� � - L - _�, ,. �,� ,;�";:. . . . �< i � �'� � ;� �� ►� �' ' l . � ��:�• � - �. k "� � �ti,'! � �'�t .d"'�a� . " � ' °�;,' � r �`` �" � ' �sp� �,, �:� ��` ' r ;t ufr�e. 1 � � t � ¢ � . ,,, i �' _._ _ _ �_r,� 'tl�1`�`.._-. � • . � �'+�a'i � �� • t s� � � ° r :;, � :'�� ,.' '� ��: . ' ?+�. � • �3^ ` : '�• �,� �' 1 y ` y � _� � , � �' . � .1_ \ .r..� �� .�.. ". .�c��s � ' �_ �.N ' si—>'�: _. •—�; . �' i .. �_: ..:. `�; _ .- , .,�- � rl y A�: �� i ._..!._. ... � �' � �•, , �. ,. �}; . : li. a � � � ' '� �,�,� `�'j� .,�, � �� p ��.. � �4�>.. � �� >'�, � . , � ;, ��,��f tt�: ;�}-3 � �._. � .: �y�!'4� _ , jre eff fil�✓ F` � ' , �. _ _ *` :C..�� ±� � �� . �� , f s / �� ' � . i . • �' \ - �ar°' I • � �.y�� .. "`a.3re� w"�-�,c , �t� ° �s�. ��.'`� +Si2,.�!{ ��< �. ,�� /1 �!'�,"�,,�; �°° , � . :�a.: a�� '�"''..r,.� : 1i, �� f � � I sr4u . K � 1 "�G � �� J � � Y' � � :;:; ' ,. ...":45. � ° ti ." l� �� .� �j, � � _ f_ �.`:�E � .� . a,�� r t� � �� " ti . � , � i� ! . � i � � . �a '� i� � � °� � � � � ` # �'j` � �1 �`.:�� / � � 1 6 �R 1 ' � + - � � �� '. . ♦ 4 � � ' � >+ � �� ,� � ��ia Y �' p � r � �� F t � x � �� ..4Y� � +�t �=:...�� ,�..��` � � '� 3.�^ > �^ �.� � -,:., >�' . �'g,a - r . �.�. . � � << •be•. �� %� , ., �� ..�. .�..�_ � . � . �� i�� . -� � i� .• �" .�.ereww�-nss..� �� Y �; ".,., . . � 1 �i:;(��qn�t .� " � ;;t �. ��` E . t� � �1 , . r.`� � t �� # � , . :, �*-°.,,. �+ i . ♦L� '. � �� y , < �. !` j � L� • % '` .. - � . . . �� .. � R / �� .` . . � �.. f . , � • ,,�� .' �/ �,� �. Y �� ' � � . �r� �: , ..' �t..• • � .,�. yn,� ;rK • . �,�� i i ; j �.,' ; << '. t'' ,i . ' -• r:. .� ? ''. �� ` ,_ �' ; fi-. �":r , �� . ��," ��,��, � h . , .� � :, T `, �. � . �� k �, � � , � � �F 7 .• a ., ' ( yr�� *` 4 �� . , f , � .� • «3 .� � �' ti k r4. ^. -� � F S � k �' �� .... _ � 'a: . �, :� '-� r V t . �"� t �h �F�` � M I �N' � ��: � '>< �� _ �� ;t ;; � , �, : ,` `+.�``� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayor November 22, 2000 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAT, PROTECTION Robert Kessler, Director � ` _ y � 3y BUILDINGINSPECI70YAND Telephone:6T2-2669007 DESIGN Facsimile: 612-2659099 350 St Peter Street Suite 310 Saint Paul, Minnesota 5510?-I510 I would like to conFirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, December 6, 2000 for the following zoning case: Appellant: File Number: Purpose: L.ocation: Staff : District 7: Board : Maurice Weaver, 1604 Cohansey Street 00-150860 Appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision denying two variances in order to construct an addition to the existing apartment building. 1604 Cohansey Street Recommended denial No recommendation Denied on a vote of 5-2 I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Jun Reiter. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9082 if you have any questions. S' cerely / � John Hardwick Zoning Specialist cc: Council Member Reiter - " ' r'F7RSTAI7N• �r-�,;e.; �?: ' � � � NOTICE�OFPOHLIC-HEARII�iGi �:.:i� The=Saint�Pau1 CiLy=Counc3Z�wllI.rnn rlud a publlc hearing on Wednesaay, �December 6, 2000, at 5:30 p.m. � the Gtfy Council Clrambers. 'iYvrd Floor Cit}'_�SiaII- c�nou�, is iv�c K�u�g-so,��ra, Saint PaW, �MI!I, to'consider�the appeal. of Maurice Weaver,to a decision of-Yhe Boazd osder�tn cons�uct an'addition.to the es�si ing aparlment bwldtng-at 1604 CoUansey_ - Sfreet D�t�d:November30 2000�- _ . NANCYANDERSON -- - . �� AsststantClLy�Eouncil'Secretary-.---.� � -- ' ..'(Uec:emhez4l.�,"..: :..;..� -v�.81: PAt�.;i:ECillb�lEDOF��;--_-- �0293�586' � �;�_.. _.� _•.� � -_ - � ,^ 541Ni )wVL � All� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Depnrtn:ent ojPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 Cin• Hall Annez 25 63'esf Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 166-6589 APPELLANT I N � ° �:-a.�4S inty._`.: � 3�9: �� y� L(J � 7� GP � �7�{9f� S�e y' City-Sf ��tu � St!"'�h/ZipSSI/7 Daytime PROPERTY Zoning File Name_ ��.%eA�'�/� f�/�.? C, LOCATION '� Address/Location f/,.�'� �� olf��✓S � � �? Z� on ��( �3l��C� , 19_ File number. CC�— ly7 7!� (da o decision) TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: �Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �°�E;, Paragraph f' of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision made by the �c��A z-� c�, 2•��- �r--, h'- n't1.rjS GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. QL{ /�S'-�2 S'�t'2 �fj�'L�-t � ��ff� lZ � Atfach additional sheet if necessary) C�Q'.- � ApplicanYs signature /� /Gu� (�'"��'� Date /�� G� ° ° City agent ��-a�s Zoning file number: # 00-147798 To whom it may concem: My name is Maurice Weayer I currently own and live in the four plex at 1604 Cohansey. 1 was at the 13oazd of Goning Comittee meeting on Monday, November 13 and my application was denied and I would like to file an appeal for the following reasons: i} The Zoning boazd failed to consider my consession to the city to go along with the stafF reccomendation of reducing the size oi the addition from 30x26 feet to 20�4 feet. 2) The Zoning board failed to consider that five out of six of the neighbors agreed that the addition wouid have a positive impact on the neighborhood and have signed a letter to that affect. 3) Y'he zoning board failed to consider that 1 am the owner of the buiIding and have decided to make it my permanent home in order to better keep controll of the buiiding. 4) `i'he Goning board failed to aknowledge the fact that i have had problems with drug dealers and police calls in the past with the tennants and I have there fore decided to live in the building to keep better controll. 5) The Zoning board failed to consider that the smaller addition would require oniy one variance for a smaller fiontyard setback not affecting the side setback at aI[. For these reasons I am requesting a hearing to discuss these matters. Sincerely, ��`� l�" / c" �� c� � o �- ays BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT 1. APPLICANT: Maurice Weaver 2, CLASSIFICATION: Major Variance FILE # 00-147798 DATE OF HEARING: 11-13-00 3. LOCATION: 1604 Cohansey Street 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: EDWIN M. WARE'S CIJMBERLAND ADDITION PLAT 1 N 75 FT OF Wl/2; LOT 2 BLK 6 5. PLANNING DISTRICT: 6 6. PRESENT ZONING: RM-1 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT DATE: 11-07-00 BY: John Hazdwick 8. DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12-23-00 DATE RECEIVED: 10-23-00 A. PURPOSE: Three variances in order to construct a garage and new front entry addition to the front of the existing four-unit building. 1) The existing front setback is 45 feet and the proposed setback is 22 feet, for a variance of 23 feet. 2). The required side yard setback is 15 feet and the proposed setback on the south side is 5 feet, for a variance of 10 feet. 3). Lot coverage of 30% is allowed and coverage of 31 % is proposed, for a variance of 1%(45 squaze feet). B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIOIVS: This is a 75 by 133-foot parcel with no alley access. There is an existing detached 4-stall garage in the rear yard that is accessed from the street. Sunounding Land Use: A mixture of single and multi-family residential structures. C. BACKGROUND: The applicant has owned this 4-unit apartment building since I995. He recently moved into the building and would like to construct a gara�e/room addition to the front of the building. D. FINDINGS: 1. The properiy in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Until recently, the applicant had not lived in this building. He states that he has had problems with bad tenants and feels that he could better monitor the building if he lived here. The appiicant, along with his daughter, would occupy two units in the building. He would like to provide some additional parking and a new master bedroom for his unit. Page 1 of 3 o �-a�s File # 00-147798 StafF Report The existing buiiding is located approximately in the center of the property. The existing garage in the rear yazd and the driveway along the north side of the buildin� limits the area available for a new addition. The required front setback for this block is 53 feet. The existing setback of this building is 46 feet so any addition to the front of the building would require a variance. A four-unit apartment building requires 6 off-street parkin� spaces. Two additional garage stalls wouid provide these six spaces. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the Zand owner. The location of the existing buildings on this site and the average front setback of the other buildings on the block, are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, nor consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of fhe inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The applicant is proposing a 26 by 30-foot addition to the front of the building, as well as a 14 by 16-foot entryv✓ay. While this proposed addition wiil provide two needed parking spaces, it appears that the addition is larger than necessary and may unduly infringe on the line of sight and the supply of light and air to the neighboring property. A smaller addition, perhaps 24 by 20 feet, could provide the needed gazage space without such a major impact on the surrounding property. A smaller addition could be designed to maintain the existing side yard setbacks, and would eliminate the need for rivo of the three requested variances. Only a smaller front yard setback variance would still be required. 4. The proposed variances will impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, and will alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. Reducing the required side yard setback by rivo-thirds with a two-story addition would have a considerable impact on the adjacent property. The reduced front setback when combined with the reduced side yazd setback would also contribute to the impact on the adjacent property. Maintaining the existing 15 foot side yard setback and reducing the size of the needed front yard variance would lessen the impact of the proposed addition to a more reasonable level. The applicant has submitted several letters in support of this proposal, however, these letters are not from the property owners that would be most affected by the addition. Although the proposed addition has been designed to enhance the front facade of the existing building, the requested variances would change the character of the area. Page 2 of 3 O � -�y.s File # 00-147798 Staff Report 5. The variance, if granted, wouZd not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected Zand is Zocated, nor wouZd it alter or change the zoning district classifzcation of the property. The pmposed variances, if granted, would not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The applicant states that he does not intend to increase the number of apartments in this building. E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 6. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings number 3 and 4, staff recommends denial of the variances. Staff would, however, support a reduced front yard setback for a smaller addition that maintains the existing side yard setbacks. Page 3 of 3 APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE OFFICE OF LICEN,SE, INSPECTIONS, AND ENYIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 SL Peter Street, Suite 300 SaintPaul, MIVSSIO2-ISIO 651-266-9008 APPLICAMT PROPERTY v�>� Name M 1/ � 2�LE Ll..J (=l�G��/L Company Ou: 37-P i.'�- Address�/-, O 7 �U /��r1 -S / � 2 � �r( IZ-�S`>`l7.3` City �f ��t �r State E�� s� Daytime Phone�f��,a dS�i ;'ra_�c Property interest of applicant (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) l� �/ �. U�//'7 �" ��' Name of owner (if �1 S Legal description (attach additional sheet if necessary) Lot size Present Zoni Rfi'� Present Use � l�' 4 Proposed Use i��r. ��J� /�ur/Gf /^� J �� J`'� f�CJ rn�_ 7 . Variance(s) req /^ro�� 7 $.� � �/�C 6 � {�� Y /i -� � i �' 5t? /' �fiC v` 2. What physical characteristics of [he property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topography, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) �� .,� �5' F�',�,2 C4 S��; 3. Explain how the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficuities or exceptional undue hardships. 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial im airment of the intent and purpose oftheZoningOrdinance. � �� /2.Pn�t1L PrU �� G�ncd � /f �4/�� jF ortG� f i✓rSC !� L� i nC� �t' ✓l f�:✓ rh 9- f� �� h� r � l9C�S� O I U✓ P1�%9G<j h/hOL2G� !�'! fG �L! /�G TU /_ C�-e 1' lt�rJ 2P.a tv>s c�c[ � L �� 1 ST °f (Attach additional sheets if needed.) � � � m � ��C' %�c>Y"-� / r � � �� CASHIERS USE ONLY ' �� 3�0, � 10-��{-�on o �� ApplicanYs signature�,�.c�'l_ �'�✓ '�'�� Date /C� �� - po °2 � �°� �-� � � � — #� �ti � iti:• L �{� i ' � �,_ �.�=�r�� s x_��s I.��.c; ��-�--��. � �y-�-. — � �� _ — � ; � ��,:, F �� o- ! # `� ; a r� f! I- ; €� �� I3LL � �.'--1--�==.-_�._____._._ ' ` f---- y %, � ■�� ot•avs Z� �1� /Joo r G � � r�.�z s �� sr ��, q Y- p {'�r o � 1 I � y --�= L,. �� /� � � c` � "�'"'rT_._T?e_ . 4 -..aw.w. � /.,./ � � ° j � 5, �'e° � , , ? �' � i � (`1' ( f �� . � -�:. � �` I ,�; , ; I , ,. -�- � ; � , t' "'� i � `'� � t � hr P 1V : ; �. ,.', F->' �; � v � 5 � �'—� jr v �� °� ; a i ,= r; i , .""+� �. f��;j�� f�� 1 � �E �@ r � e. j STk�' � '� r�=T :�._p� �> ; � � � J 1 — i � -_. _..r.. ' __--._ " � i i � ` t 1 S , � ,� � �� 3 v --.�:°'°'I � �. w , ' � �� : ? �x � :r � i '�-� `�� J I � � �i f� � �� ; r i i ; � t: � `'.: F � � ; S1 � 1 % �J \ Q +�\. � J � _ s T/� < < i � � ' + � ;� 1 � �r.-�-' � �.--�_---� } ----�=� � ��.. `�" �� : �. �.._�� .,_.___,____._ _u_y. _ __� ��;� l�. � z �� y � 0 \ -�-` To whom it may concern: My name is Maurice Weaver. I have owned a four plex at 1604 Cohansey since 199� to present. During that period I have had a time fmding good tennants, especially in the lower west apartment. I have had complaints from neighbors about noise and I have had police at the building I do the best I can at screening applicants; but it's hard to find good people who want that apartment. I sold my home in Forest Lake with plans to build in South Maplewood. I moved into the building on a temporary basis; soon after I found out how bad the tennants were in the lower west apartment. I evicted them and remodeled the apariment, but have not had any luck fmding a good tennant. With the tennant gone I found out what a nice area this is and decided to make the building my home if addition is permitted. To solve the problem of renting the lower west unit; I will take over two units, the lower west unit and the unit above it. By living on the premisis I will be able to keep better controll of the building. And by putting a very attractive addition on the building, better tennants will be attracted in the remaining two units which will improve the neighborhood. Sincerely, „^ �� // �r� i(/ / �p— �- s-rtj ;' g ?j ..: � � rr • �� To whom it may concern: I have ta]ked to and showed plans to all my neighbors; all have said they would like to see improvements, and think it wouid greatly improve the neighborhood and have no objections, all except one. When I first asked the owner of the property at 1598 Cohansey how he felt, he said that he needed to thu�lc about it and he would let me know by Oct. 17. On the 17th he said he needed to talk to the city, and on the 19th he said no without any reason given. My wife Bonnie asked his wife Sandy Flairity, and she gave her okay. When we asked her to sign the paper given to the other neighbors to okay the project; she said no because we had bad tennants in our building and she was upset. I apologized and told them I am not the police, if her child and the children who lived in the building were fighting she should have called the police. She claims I should have intervened in some way. And because of this, they want to cause us a problem. By the way; she also mentioned that she is planning to sell her house in one to two years from now, which proves that they are just trying to cause a problem because my project can only increase their property value. O1 �� Sincerely, �1'J �„�-- ��-�- j� �� S�GG ! ;J�]',+-92-00 �37:28 AM NERVER`MRURICE 464 3752 p_02 a t - i.yS ( OG?0: QO My natn� is�.,�.cs_-�.�„F,� I live at �,�2 �r -- mv phnnc numbcr is �= �S/._�€L 6�-ty "fhe tYeavcrs at 1604 CUFianscy have showed us thc plans ta improvc thuir hon�c :t ith an additi�n. We thiiil: it �i�ill improve aur arca and have no oUjcCtiom. T'hank Yoc �.r_wu-��- .�rrrM..r�.reY�� arli�... ;°/ ::= `.>. ''', . 10/20/00 � �'�� My name is � _ � � � 1 � � I live at �� (`� (�p � i?P ( � � my phone number is • - n . The Weavers at 04 Cohansey have showed us the plans to improve their home with an addirion. We think it will improve our area and have no objecrions. Thank Y � � �f- � 5 l . �•�: �. ■ • 10/20/00 �\ �� -,� My name is � )��(/�'' ��/�� I live at �� .�"d i�P my phone number is (�5% - �/�'7'$� / The Weavers at 1604 Cohansey have showed us the glans to improve their home with an addirion. We think it wiil improve our area and have no objecrions. Thank Yon • � _ !� �� .:� 10/20/00 My name is � rn c� ��l�Y�live at "�'�� .�-C� d�2 0 my phone number is�- �iu . 3'i�e �eavers at ififl� �ohansey i�ave skowed us the pians to improve their home with an addition. We think it will improve our area and have no objecrions. o t-ZVS . � � i'�' II ��. �„I J � � . ..... . .�,. 1��2�� DA N-� My name is � I live at �� my phone number is t The Weavers at 1604 Cohansey have showed us the plans to improve their home with an addition. We think it will improve our azea and hav�o�b� ch s. Thank ��^,.� a �c � I �� 7 �� t u �'��L �o i v �� -' :- e` �; �j ��n `� � 5 0. � F P P < <I iI PI I/ i a 'e < Z � c`- � r___'o I _ I —_____ ___ .__ ""' _ L _ ___ _. I �_ "_ - __ .h _' __ ��,� I i �— — � F � i i . 'i _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ ; i i . , � - A _ _ '" _ — I �' �_ � II I i � '� I � '�' ) i _"' --'—"_ ___'_'__'"_ __—�"f_\ " __' u I iI t:: � _ µ '�� i � 4 l l ` �\ \ , / �/ � �. J � � \. ` '�_ `—/. 3 � 8� - ,_ " Z Qi° _ _� -_ � ,I � : ��_ � � U1 �I � � > a;: xx,Q . i � - ��,�z -- —� I ' I , . ,.. —� _, ..... � - — � , J • � ' . il a � 3- � i• o �� e y�� , �� i _ �� v N . _— __.. � - � ' .... �1 M� �� .... . . � • 1 . G �< M j ��- = :,� � � �, �- g ,, � a_ �: � �;,_ ,-jl, � '° I = �. � � �(�= � N 4 I \� _ :. � . -�� ' i � , . = < �: j o .�:: , � � __ � __ � _. :� nk- --� ` f, �.. ..: ...: :. , . i:. {r : � I{ � I � - - .. aL il 'I . . �c11ZnS `` r ` � � o �-a��.s o � -iv.s November 7, 2000 To the board of zoning appeals, Rpi [!� � � Es . �5:d o.G� -1y.72t� � We the home owners at 1598 Cohansey Street do not wish for the variance for the Addition at 1604 Cohansey Street to be approced. The reasons for the disapprova] are as follows: The resale value of our home and pioperty will decrease with the approval of the variance 2. An easement of 6 feet by 30 feet of the back northeast corner of our yard was given in order for the garages at 1604 Cohansey to have enough turn around room. Right now all four garages are being used by Mr. Weaver. Two of them are used for his cars and the two in the back that face our yard are used for storage. One is used for the storage of his electrical equipment for Weaver Flectrical business and the other is used for the storage of other things. The people that rent from Mr. Weaver do not use any of the garages to park in they park in front of the garages in the back of the four plex or on the side of the four plex. Mr. Weaver also has a boat stored between our house and the four plex. 4. I do not wish to look out of both my front and back windows to see garages. As of right now I can watch my child get on and off of his school bus. 5. I feel that the addition will be to close to our home and will hide any view of our home being seen from the corner of Cohansey and Idaho. We do not feel it is necessazy to keep giving variances to 1604 Cohansey every time a new owner wants to make changes to the property. It was zoned for a four plex and four garages and we feel it should stay that way. 6. Last but most important is the fact that Mr. Weaver felt it was necessary to intimidate and threaten me in order to get our signature or permission for the construction to the property �� r�� «� �� o� -a�s PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 1604 COHANSEY STREET ❑ z g � W m � � U <-1 � � � �-� r--r,� 1�1 PREPARED BY: LI EP o�-a.y.s 1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD 2. HP.ZEL PARK T�DEN-PROSPERIT"Y HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE _ 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PAYNE-PHAI,EN G. NORTH ENA 7. THOMAS-DALE 8. SUMMI'I'-UNIVERSIT'Y 9. WEST SEVENTH 10. COMO 11. HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. ST. ANTHONY PARIC 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLI2v�E-SNELLING HAMLINE 14. MACALESTER GROVELAND 15. HIGHL.AND IG. SUMMIT HILL 17. DOWNTOWN �� .. �: 60 '.__._�°f'i�g� � CI"ITZEN PARTICIPATTON PLANNING DISTRICTS o � -iyS CITY OF SAINT PAUL DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12-23-00 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER # 00-147798 D1�TE: November 13, 2000 WF3EREAS, Maurice Weaver has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the construction of a new gara�e and new front entry in the RM-1 zoning district at 1604 Cohansey Street; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on November 13, 2000 pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the followin� findings of fact: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Until recently, the applicant had not lived in this building. He states that he has had problems with bad tenants and feels that he could better monitor the building if he lived here. The appiicant, along with his daughter, would occupy two units in the building. He would like to provide some additional parking and a new master bedroom for his unit. The existing building is located approximately in the center of the property. The existing gazage in the rear yard and the driveway along the north side of the building limits the area available for a new addition. The required front setback for this block is 53 feet. The existing setback of this building is 46 feet so any addition to the front of the building would require a variance. A four-unit apartment building requires 6 off-street parking spaces. Two additional gazage stalls would provide these six spaces. 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. The location of the existing buildings on this site and the average front setback of Yhe other buildings on the block, are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variances are not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, nor consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. Page 1 of 3 o �.a�tS File # 00-147798 Resolution The applicant is proposing a 26 by 30-foot addition to the front of the building, as well as a 14 by 16-foot enhyway. While this proposed addition will provide two needed parking spaces, it appears that the addition is larger than necessary and may unduly infringe on the line of sight and the supply of ligl�t and air to the neighboring property. A smaller addition, perhaps 24 by 20 feet, couid provide the needed garage space without such a major impact on the surrounding property. A smaller addition could be designed to maintain the existing side yard setbacks, and would eliminate the need for two of the three requested variances. Only a smaller front yard setback variance would still be required. 4. The proposed variances wi11 impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, and will aZter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish estabZished property values within the surrounding area. Reducing the required side yard setback by two-thirds with a two-story addition would have a considerable impact on the adjacent property. The reduced front setback when combined with the reduced side yard setback would aiso contribute to the impact on the adjacent property. Maintaining the existing 15 foot side yard setback and reducing the size of the needed front yard variance would lessen the impact of the proposed addition to a more reasonable level. The applicant has submitted several letters in support of this proposal, however, these letters are not from the property owners that would be most affected by the addition. Although the proposed addition has been designed to enhance the front facade of the existing 6uilding, the requested variances would change the character of the area. S. The variance, ifgranted, wouZd not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the distsict where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the vaZue or income potential of the parcel of Zand. The applicant states that he does not intend to increase the number of aparhnents in this building. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonino Appeals that the application to wave provisions of Section 61.101 be hereby denied on the property located at 1604 Cohansey street and legally described as EDWIN M. WARE'S CUMBERLAND ADDITION PLAT 1 N 75 FT OF W 1/2; LOT 2 BLK 6; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administratar. Page 2 of 3 O � -��1S File # 00-147798 Resolution MOVED BY: SECONDED BY: IN FAVOR: AGAINST: MAILED: TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board oF Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days 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 undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appealsfor the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing_ copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on 2000 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board Page 3 of 3 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, NOVEMBER 13, 2000 o� -a4s PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Duckstad, Galles, and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT: None The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. Maurice Weaver (#00-147798) 1604 Cohansev Street: Three variances in order to construct a garage and new front entry addition to the front of the existing building. 1) The existing front setback is 45 feet and the proposed setback is 22 feet, for a variance of 23 feet. 2). The required side yard setback is 15 feet and the proposed setback on the south side is 5 feet, for a variance of 10 feet. 3). Lo[ coverage of 30 % is allowed and coverage of 31 % is proposed, for a variance of 1%(45 sq. ft.) The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for denial. There was one letter in opposition to the variance request. No correspondence was received regarding the variance from District 6. Maurice Weaver, 1604 Cohansey Street, Apartment N2, stated that he would be willing to accept staffls recommendation of a smaller addition. Mr. Duckstad questioned Mr. Weaver's acceptance of the staff recommendation of a smaller addition. Mr. Weaver replied that he would be willing to build the smaller addition of 24 by 20-feet. Mr. Courtney questioned whether Mr. Weaver had discussed his willingness to reduce the size of the addition with the neighbor who opposed the variance. Mr. Weaver responded he had not. Sandy Monita, 1598 Cohansey Street, questioned the district's zoning. She stated that Mr. Weaver's wife had told her there would be an office for Mr. Weaver in the addition. Mr. Hardwick responded that building code would assure that any addition would comply with the Zoning Code. Ms. Maddox questioned whether Ms. Monita wouid have an objection to the smaller addition. Ms. Monita replied that she was in opposition to any addition to the building because it would block her view of the corner. She stated that she would no longer be able to see her son get on or off the school bus. Mr. Courtney questioned whether Ms. Monita had any other objections to the addition her wanting to see her son get on and off the school bus. Ms. Monita stated that the view out her patio doors was of the townhouse's garages and if the addition is approved, her view out the front window would be of garages. Ms. Monita stated she did not want her only possible views of the neighborhood limited to garages. Sam Monita, 1598 Cohansey Street, stated that the applicanYs building is too close to his property, and he felt the addition would have a detrimental effect on his home's resale value. Mr. Monita stated that File # 00-147798 Minutes 11113100 Page two o� -�ys all four of the current garage stalls are being used by Mr. Weaver. He stated that he does not want to see any more garages added to the applicanYs property. Mr. Monita submitted pictures of the apartment, the area around the apartment, and the garages. Mr. Monita stated that he thought Mr. Weaver was working out of the garages. Mr. Courtney questioned why the owner was using all four of the garages. Mr. Monita stated that one was being used for storage, another one was being used for his electrical equipment and the other two garages were being used for the Weaver's vehicles. Mr. Courtney questioned whether any of the renters were using the garages. Mr. Monita replied that none of the renters were using the garages. Mr. Courtney questioned where the renters were parking. Mr. Monita stated they park as the pictures show. Mr. Steve Flaherry, 385 Wentworth, West St. Paul, stated that he was Ms. Monita's brother and had owned 1598 Cohansey before the Monita's. Mr. Flaherty stated that he had granted the previous owners of the apartment an easement to reach the garages. The renters are now parking in the front of the properry, because all the garages are being used by the owner. He stated there is no room for the addition with the current Building Code and setback requirements. Mr. Flaherty stated that the applicant will be tearing down trees planted by the Ciry, that have just reached maturity. Mr. Weaver stated that he intended to move the trees to the south side of the property. He stated that the Monita's could not see their son get on or off the school bus because the trees block their view of [he comer. Mr. Weaver explained that two of the garages were full of furniture from the home he sold to move into the apartrnent and only about ten percent of the garage space was used for his electrical supplies. He stated that his daughter would be using the furniture when she moved into one of the apartments. Mr. Weaver stated that he is an electrician and wires houses so it is not possible that he works out of his residence. Mr. Galles questioned Mr. Weaver's business address. Mr. Weaver stated that he uses a post office box. Mr. Galles questioned where he stoied his electrical supplies. Mr. Weaver stated that usually the supplies are delivered to the job site and he has a work van with electrical parts in it. Mr. Galles questioned whether Mr. Weaver had employees. Mr. Weaver replied that he did have employees. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Galles moved to denied the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6. The Board discussed whether voting on the motion would end all further discussion of the variance at this time. Mr. Warner advised the Board that voting on the motion would end the matter. Mr. Courtney seconded the motion to deny the variance, Ms. Maddox questioned whechez anyone wanted to discuss a smaller addition, hearing no further discussion, Ms. Maddox accepted the second, and the denial passed on a roll call vote of 5-2 (Bogen, Duckstad). Submitted by: Approved by: John Hardwick Gloria Bogen, Secretary OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY C[ayton M. Robinson, Jr., CiryAttorney o � -�,y s CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor January 25, 2001 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of Maurice Weaver, 1604 Cohansey Street City Council Action Date: December 13, 2000 Dear Nancy: Telephone: 651266-8710 Facsimite: b51 298-5619 paR �q :i S?^. -,`°�"'1 Fv..""`+'`a{ �. .Yi4ki'vf. . r� v.... . . .t � 5 ..,v:; _,-- Enclosed please find a signed Resolution memorializing the Council's decision of December 13, 2000, in the above-entitled matter. Please place this on the Council's Consent Agenda at your easliest convenience. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ��u�,�..t-- Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney civitDivision 400 Ciry Hal! 15 Wesi Ket(ogg Btvd. Saint Paul, Minnuoia 55102 Hand Delivered PWW/rmb Enclosure