The URL can be used to link to this page

02-857�SRIG6�,�� Council File # O � � ��$ r'( Crreen Sheet # 00 G 'l RESOLUTION CITY OF SAI1�T PAUL, MINN�sf�TA Presented By Refesed To Committee: Date 33 2 Whereas, Khalid Effendi, in zoning file No. 02-130178, made application to the Board of 3 Zoning Appeals (hereinafter, "BZA") for a variance from the strict application of the provisions 4 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for property located in an RT-2 zoning district and commonly 5 known as 449 Portland and as legaliy described in the said zoning file; and 7 Whereas, The purpose of the application was to vary the standards of the Zoning Code for 8 minimum lot size, side yazd setback, rear yard setback and lot coverage so as to construct an 9 addition to an existing two-car garage at 449 Portland, containing three additional parking spaces 10 and a one-bedroom apartment, which will be the third dwelting unit on the lot, and will have the 11 appearance of a"carriage house" structure; and 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Whereas, The BZA conducted a public hearing on 7une 24, 2002 after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the BZA, by its Resolurion No. 02-130178 dated June 24, 2002, decided to grant the application based on the following findings and conclusions: � 2 The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The house on this property is currently being used as a duplex. The applicant states that when he purchased the property in 1991, there were three units in the building and that he has since removed one of the units. He further states that the existing two-car garage is not large enough to provide the needed parking. Since he needs to construct additional garage space, he would like to have a carriage house type structure that would fit in with the historic character of the neighborhood. A third dwelling unit is permitted in this zoning district, however, the lot is not large enough to meet the current standards. The project is further constrained by the desire to incorporate the existing brick gazage into the new building. 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 size of t}�e lot and the location of the existing garage on the site limit the design options for providing additional garage space and are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. � 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 R�� broposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is b�' �-S 7 o s�tstent with the health, safety, cotnfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Pau1. The proposed variances will allow the applicant to provide additional off-street parking which will ease the pazking congestion in the area. The proposed one-bedroom carriage house will also provide an additional, modest priced dweiling unit in the azea. This property is located in the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District. Provided that the applicant obtains design approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), the proposed project will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established properry values within the surrounding area. The proposed carriage house will incorporate the existing garage into the new structure and will maintain the same side yard setback on the west side and the north side. The building will be set back about 8 feet from the east properry line. The increase in height and the slightly reduced setback on the east side will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. There aze several other carriage house type structures and lazge gazages in the immediate area on similaz sized lots. The HPC review wiil ensure that the proposed building is compatible with the character of the house and the neighborhood. There will be adequate off-street pazking for the new dwelling unit as well as the existing dwelling units. The requested vaziances should not have a negative impact on surrounding properties. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. A carriage house and a multi-family dwelling are permitted uses in this zoning district. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter 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 needs to provide additional garage space and that he would like to provide a structure that is compatible with the house and the historic character of the neighborhood. 44 Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 64.205, the Ramsey Hill Association, 45 together with Thomas Dazling, JoAnn and Richard Erickson and Carol Barsness duly filed an 46 appeal from the determination made by the BZA and requested a hearing be held before the City 47 Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; and 48 49 Whereas, Acting pursuant to Leg. Code §§ 64.205 - 64.208, and upon norice to affected 50 parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on July 24, 2002 where all 51 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and 52 ��s, The Council, having heard the statements made, and ha�ing considered the � yr �� 3 variance appiication, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the BZA, does 4 hereby 5 6 Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby upholds the decision of the Boazd 7 of Zoning Appeals in this matter there being no showing of any enor in the facts, findings or 8 procedures of the Board of Zoning Appeals as set forth in BZA Resolurion No. 02-130178; and 9 be it 10 11 Further Resolved, That the appeal of the Ramsey Hill Association, together with Thomas 12 Darling, 7oAnn and Richard Erickson and Carol Bazsness be and is hereby denied; and, be it 13 14 Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall maii a copy of this resolution to the Ramsey Hill 15 Associarion, Thomas Dazling, JoAnn and Richard Erickson and Carol Bazsness, the Zoning 16 Administrator, Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals. Requested by Department of: By: � By: Form Approved by City Attomey s ��WL/�- �l—ro- oz Approved by Mayor for Submisaion to Council By: By: Adopted by Council: Date � ��O'�.� �`� Adoption C�tified by Council Secretary ��._ �s� Council DATE INRIATm Sept. 12, 2002 NUYBERf-0R ROUiIIMi TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET oa.n�r owECra� No 200697 ❑ crtrwnowEr ❑ mrttmK _ ❑ n14YJGLfER1iICCFiOYL ❑ Ni011lJt1.iFRY/ACCf6 ❑ W1VR(ORAi9fTAM1� ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memorializing City Council action denying the appeal of the Ramsey Hill Association and ot to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting four variances in order to construct a carriage house structure at 449 Portland Avenue. (Public hearing held on Suly 24, 2002) PLANNING COMMISSION CB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COA9MISSION AMOUNT OF TR/1NSACTION Has this peiwNfirtn everxrorked urider a conUact fw Nis department? VES NO Has Mia peisoNfiim ever been a ciry employce? YES NO Does this peisoNfinn possess a sidll not rro�mallypossessed by any curterR city employee7 VES NO Is this pe�soNfirm a farge[ed vendoR YES NO COSTIREVENUEBUDGETED(CIRCLE ON� ACTNI7Y NUMBER YES NO (��M CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Randy C. KeZly, Mayor September 9, 2002 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hal] 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ManuelJ.Cerv¢nles,CiryAitorney 6�..�� CtvilDivision 400CiryHall Telephone:651266-8710 IS Wut Kellogg B[vd. Facsimile: 657 298-5619 Saint Paul, Minnuota 55701 Hand Delivered Re: Resolution memorializing the City Council's decision in the matter of the appeal of the Ramsey Hill Association, et al. from a decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals granting variances for the construction of an addition to a two car garage and a one bedroom apartment on a third dwelling unit at 449 Portland Avenue. City Council Action Date: July 24, 2002. Deaz Nancy: Attached please find the signed original Resolution memorializing the decision of the Council in the above-referenced matter. Please place this resolution on the City Council's Consent Agenda at your first opportunity. Please call if you haue any questions. Very truly yours, � ��./� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure os-8s� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kelly, Mayor OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPEC110NS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 51 Roger C_ Curtis, Director LOWRYPROFESSIONALBUILD7NG Telephone: 65l-266-9090 350 St. Peter Sbeet, Suite 300 Facsimile: 651-266-9I24 SaintPaul,Minnesata55102-I570 A'eb: mvw.cistpauLmn.us/liep •��• ROTi(� Oir POffi,IC HEABi[iG July 9, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: 1Le Saint Panl City Coimdl wtiL con- duct a publlc hea=iag oa Wednesday, Juiy 24. 2002, at 5:30 p.m. 3n the GYty Councti chamners. 21�a Floor city xan- Cuurthouse, 15 West Ketlogg Boulevaid, Sa3nt Paul. MN, to conskla the appeal of the Ramsey fi171 Hssociattoa and Otheas to a dectsion of the Hoard of Zoning Appeais p�ant3ng four varSances 3n order to c»n- sfrvet a_cazxiage hovse sMch�re at 449 Portland Avenua . Dated: Juty 10, 2002 NANCYANDERSON. . Asslstant qty Council Secretazy Fru�r isl 8'C PeDL 78GAL I� 02040426 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, July 24, 2002 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Zoning File #: Purpose: Location: Staff: District 8: Board: Ramsey Hill Association & Others 02-137642 Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting four variances in order to construct a carriage house structure. 449 Portland Ave Recommended approval No recommendation - Ramsey Hill Assoc. recommended denial Approved on a 6-1 vote. I haue confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Jerry Blakey. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that you wili publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks ! S' erely, � y John Hardwick, Zoning Specialist AA-ADA-EEO Employer �,..� - . CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Randy C. Kel1y, Mayor July 9, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint PauI, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFlCGOFLICENSE,f\SPEC7TOVShND Jl�i$�� ENVIRONMENTAL PROiECt70V (/ Roger C. Cvrtis, Direttor LOWRYPROF£SSIONRLBUfLDL\'G Tetephone: 651-266-9090 3i0St.PererSo-eet,Suite300 Faaimi(e: 65l-266-9124 Sain1 Paul, hfinnesom 55101-]i16 �Yeb: �nvied.stpav! mn.��s/! would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, July 24, 2002 for the following zoning case: Appellant Zoning File #: Purpose: Location: Staff: District 8: Board: Ramsey Hill Association & Others 02-137642 Appeal a decision of the Board of Zonin� Appeats erantin� four variances in order to construct a carriage house structure. 449 Portland Ave Recommended approval No recommendation - Ramsey Hill Assoc. recomtnended denial Approved on a 6-1 vote. I have conf rmec! this date with the office of Council Member 7erry Blake�. 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 ! S �erely, j K / John Hardwick, Zoning Specialist pA-ADA•EEO Employer � APPUCA710N FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Secfiotr IY00 Cir}• Hall,4nner 25 Yi'est Fourlh Streer Saint Paul, M1V 55101 266-6589 �a-8's� APPELLANT Name�A/yl.Sc�� f fy °rL 6T/Y�,C� Address �/C�C) S�L,By /}UE. �Ct�T.E l/ City �$7, p%�L St/yl/�Zip S�/UaDaytime phone�_ /�/ G PROPERTY LOCA710N Zoning File Name_/''H/��ILJ ��F�E/YrJ.Z Address/Location �y9 I �if117 f�f/vc S�i.vr �f1�1� TYPE OF APPEA�: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals L� City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, 5ection �a� Paragraph i�' of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the aQf1QII o� z0�/N�' ,�faP�/'iLS on �u,r/6 ,� y,�OO a ,�_. File number:_ (},� —/ 3rj/ 7 g' (date of dec�sion) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Exptain why you feef there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offcial, or a� error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. S`L� ,¢rT.�CN�"/.� �� "- Attach additional sheet if necessary) Applicant's sign �� /�C� City agent � � � r . �a-gs7 �\ - ��II( Ilipllllll�.� •. i _ >./�� `?SI� .. �� I^ . �.i� ' � .%` [�l: . Ramse�� Hill Association 400 SELBY AVENIIF, SUIiE V, SAINT PAtIL, MN 55302-950U TELEPNONE: 653.221.0200 July 8, 2002 To Whom Tt May Concern: The Ramsey Hill Association and Thomas Dazling, JoAnn and Richard Erickson, and Carol Barsness (the Appeating Parties) and others hereby appeal the decision ofthe Board ofZoning Appeals (the Board) granting variances to construct a carriage house on properiy located at 449 Portland Avenue. The basis of this appeal is, among other things, that the $oazd's decision is contrary to the law governing such decisions, and is not supported by eithzr the proposed plan or the testimony presented. Section 64.203 of the Zoning Code prohibits the Board from granting a variance unless each of six separate requirements are mef. A review ofthe proposed plan, the applicant's testimony and the current and historic use of the property demonstrates that the requirements have not been, and cannot be, met. Requirement No. 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. This parcel has been used for many years by the applicant, and previous owners, as pernutted under the code. In addition, fhe applicant can construct an appropriate garage that exceeds off-street pazking requirements without the requested vaziances. The applicant has acknowledged this. By the appIicant's own admission, the use under the strict provisions is clearly possible. The appiicant simply does not desire to comply with the code. Requirement No. 2. The plzght of the landowner is due to circumstances unrque to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. As stated above, the property has been used as permitted by this owner for a number of years. Further, no c'scumstance has changed that would prevent or restrici the use of the parcel as permitted under the code. There is nothing unique about this property. It is a lot of common size and shape for the azea. To fmd that there aze unique circumstances here is tantamount to saying that vircually ali tots in this area are unique. Requirement No. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirii and intent of the code and is consistent with the health, safery, comfort, morals and welfare of inhabitants of the city. The proposed plan is directly at odds with the spirit and intent of the code. It is an attempt to avoid the density requirements that are an integral part of Yhe zoning classification of this property. Requirement No. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surroiending area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. Testimony �vas 3 � � oa-ss7 introduced indicating that the height and mass of the carriage house would significantly reduce or impair the amount of light and air on the neighboring property and create an urban "canyon°. The applicant concurred with this assessment. Requirement No. 5. The proposed variance will not change the zoning classification of the property. As noted above, the variance will result in much greater density than that permitted by the code and effectively change the classification. Requirement No. 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 stated that the upscale gazage he desues is not financially feasible for him. The only reason the applicant needs to build the carriage house unit is to provide the increased income/value he needs to give him the financial wherewithal to construct the lavish gazage he desires. However, a high quality structure that would complement the design and features ofthe house yet not require variances is possible. Moreover, the applicant has acknowledged that he may sell the carriage house. Thus, the requested variances do not meet any of the six separate prerequisites for issuance of a variance and the decision of the Boud was enoneous. Moreover, but equally important, this matter was improperly before the Boazd of Zoning Appeals in the first instance. Section 60.204 (D) of the Zoning Code defines a carriage house as an accessory dwelling above a detached garage. This is the most appropriate definition to be applied to the proposed shucture based upon its design and the plan both as submitted and as described by the applicant. Section 60.433 ofthe Zoning Code states that carriage houses aze pernutted uses subject to special conditions. As a result, this matter should first have been addressed by the Planning Commission. For these and other reasons to be developed and presented aY the heazing on this appeal, the Appealing Parties request that Tbe action of the Board of Zoning Appeals be overturned and that the vaziances be denied. y � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy G Kelly, Mayor July 9, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTiONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECIlOA1 Roger G Cur[is, Di�ecmr � � a-8�57 LOWRYPROFESSTOi\'ALBUILDL�'G Telephone: 651-266-9090 350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 Facrimife: 651-266-9724 SainlPaul,Mirsnesom5510?-UIO Web: x��v.cislpa:d.mn.:�s/(ie, I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is schzduled for Wednesday, July 24, 2002 for the following zoning case: • Appellant: Zoning File #: Purpose: Location: Staff: District 8: Board: Ramsey Hill Association & Others 02-137642 Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals erantin� four variances in order to construct a carriage house structure. 449 Portland Ave Recommended approval No recommendation - Ramsey Hill Assoc. recommended deniai Approved on a 6-1 vote. I have confirxned this date with the office of Council Member Jerry Blake} My undersfanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Leeal Ledger. Thanks ! � S�erely, � � . � � � John Hardwick, Zoning Speciahst AA-ADA-EEO Employer APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Economic Dwelopment Zoning Section I�I00 Ciq� Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MA' SSI01 266-6589 APPELLANT I Name,� �'}/y/,Sc'"� f/%LL �sso�ii�'ia� � 6T ,(f ,4ddress S�Od S"�L,B}� �}!/E. �Ct�T.E !/ City �T, �iS�i�L St,/1'/lV`Lip SS/OaDaytime PROPERTY LOCATION � Zoning File Name_ f'/f/��CJ � �FEN,D.Z Address/Location__ ��/9 1 f�d�. ,$'ff/NT PF11G TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals L� City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �a� Paragraph f�' of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the ,(�Qi4�I) O� z(J(Jit//N� f�f��1�LS on �-U,v6 .� yaoo a ,�A File number._ (},� — /;n/ 7 8� (date o dec GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offcial, or an error in 1acf, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission. S°�"� �rTlfCHE% Attach addrtional sheet if necessary) Appiicant's City agent � �� oa-gs „�„�� s, �- � ,.,%�►�'� °�_ , � ;�- :-.- Ramsey Hill Association 400 SELBY AYENUE, SIIITE Y, S0.1NT PAUL, MN 55302-4500 TELEPHONE: 651.221.0200 Jlll}' 8, 2��2 To Whom It May Concern: The Ramsey Hill Association and Thomas Darling, JoAnn and Richard Erickson, and Cazol Bazsness (the Appealing Parties) and others hereby appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals (the Boazd) granting vaziances to construct a carriage house on property located at 449 Portland Avenue. The basis ofthis appeai is, among other things, that the Board's decision is contrary to the law governing such decisions, and is not supported by either the proposed plan or the testunony presented. Section 64.203 of the Zoning Code prohibits the Board from granting a vaziance unless each of s'vc sepazate requirements are met. A review of the proposed plan, the applicanYs testimony and the current and historic use of the properiy demonstrates that the requirements have not been, and cannot be, met. Requirement No. 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. This parcel has been used for many years by the applicant, and previous owners, as pernutted under the code. In addition, the applicant can construct an appropriate gazage that exceeds off-street parking requirements without tIie requested variances. The applicant has acknowledged this. By the applicanYs own admission, the use under the strict provisions is clearly possible. The applicant snnply does not desire to comply with the code. Requirement No. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landormer. As stated above, the property has been used as pernutted by this owner for a number of years. Further, no cucumstance has changed that would prevent or restrict the use of the pazcel as permitted under the code. There is nothing unique about this property. It is a lot of common size and shape for the area. To find that there aze unique circumstances here is tantamount to saying that virtually all lots in this azea aze unique. Requirement No. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of inhabitants of the city. The proposed plan is directly at odds with the spirit and intent of the code. It is an attempt to avoid the density requirements that are an integral part of the zoning classification of this property. Requirement No. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. Testimony was " II 3 introduced indicating that the height and mass of the carriage house would significantly reduce or impair the amount of light and air on the neighboring property and create an urban "canyon". The applicant concurred with this assessment. � Requitement No. 5. The proposed variance will not change the zoning classification of the property. As noted above, the vaziance will resuh in much greater density than that pern�itted by the code and effectively cl�an�e the classification. Requirement No. 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 stated that the upscale gazage he desires is not financially feasible for him. The only reason the applicant needs to build the carriage house unit is to provide the increased income/value he needs to give him the financial wherewithal to construct the lavish gazage he desires. However, a high quality structure that would complement the design and features ofthe house yet not require variances is possibie. Moreover, the applicant has acknowledged that he may sell the carriage house. Thus, the requested variances do not meet any of fhe six separate prerequisites for issuance of a variance and the decision of the Board was erroneous. Moreover, but equally important, tYus matter was improperly before the Boazd of Zoning Appeals in the first instauce. Section 60.204 (D) of the Zoning Code defines a carriage house as an accessory dwelling above a detached garage. This is the most appropriate definition to be applied to the proposed structure based upon its design and the plan both as submitted and as described by the applicant. Section 60.433 ofthe Zoning Code states that carriage houses aze � pemiitted uses subject to special conditions. As a result, this matter sbould first I�ave been addressed by the Plauning Commission. For these and other reasons to be developed and presented at the hea,;� on tlus appeal, the Appealing Parties request that the action ofthe Board ofZoning Appeals be overturned and tt�at the vaziances be denied. . � 2 oa-gs� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT � � TYPE OF APPLICATION: APPLICANT: HEARING DATE: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLANNING DISTRICT PRESENT ZONING: REPORT DATE: DEADLINE FOR ACTION: Major Variance Khalid Effendi June 24, 2002 449 PORTLAND AVENLTE ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101 COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY NLIMBER 313 CASS GILBERT CONDOMINILTM UNIT N0.2 8 RT-2, HPL 7une 17, 2002 August 6, 2002 FTLE #02-130178 BY: John Hardwick DATE RECEIVED: June 7, 2002 A. PURPOSE: Several variances in order to construct a carria�e house addition to the existing garage. 1.) A minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet is required and 8,586 is available, for a variance of 1,414 sq. ft. 2.) Side yard setbacks of 15 feet are required and a setback of 8.8 feet is proposed on the east side, for a variance of 6.2 feet. 3.) A rear yard setback of 25 feet is required and a setback of 5.9 feet is proposed, for a variance of 19.1 feet. 4.) Lot coverage of 30% is allowed and coverage of 34% is proposed, for a variance of 4% (304 sq. ft). B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is a 56 by 144-foot lot with alley access to a detached garage in the rear. Surrounding Land Use: Mixed residential uses. C. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct a carriage house addition to the existing garage. D. FINDINGS: 1. The properry in guestion cannot be put to a reasonable :�se under the strict provisions of the code. • Page 1 of 3 5 File #02-130178 Staff Report � The house on this properry is currently being used as a duplex. The applicant states that when he purchased the property in 1991, there were three units in the building and that he has since removed one of the units. He further states that the existin� two-car garage is not large enough to provide the needed parking. Since he needs to construct additional garage space, he would like to have a carriage house type structure that would fit in with the historic character of the neighborhood. A third dwelling unit is pernutted in this zoning district, however, the lot is not large enough Yo meet the cunent standards. The project is further constrained by the desire to incorporate the existing brick garage into the new building. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circz�mstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The size of the lot and the location of the existing garage on the site limit the design options for providing additional garage space and are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit arccl intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the � City ofSt. Paztl. The proposed variances will allow the applicant to provide additional off-street parking which will ease the pazking congestion in the area. The proposed one-bedroom carria�e house will also provide an additional, modest priced dwelling unit in the area. This property is located in the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District. Provided that the applicant obtains design approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), the proposed project will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance wi11 not impair an adegz�ate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed carriage house will incorporate the existing garage into the new structure and will maintain the same side yazd setback on the west side and the north side. The building will be set back about 8 feet from the east property line. The increase in height and the slightly reduced setback on the east side will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. There are several other carriage house type structures and large garages in the immediate area on similar sized lots. The HPC review will ensure that the proposed building is Page 2 of 3 � � `E� m ba-gs7 File #02-130178 Staff Report � compatible with the character of the house and the neighborhood. There will be adequate off-street pazking for the new dwelling unit as well as the existin� dwellin� units. The requested variances should not have a negative impact on surrounding properties. 5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classifzcation of the properry. A carriage house and a multi-family dwelling are permitted uses in this zoning district. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter 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 needs to provide additional garage space and that he would like to provide a structure that is compatible with the house and the historic character of the neighborhood. • E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 8. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approval of the variances, subject to the condition that the applicant obtains design approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission. n U Page 3 of 3 � APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTION, AND ENVIRONMENTi1L PROTECTION 300 Lowry Professional Building 350 St. Peter Street Saint Paul, MN SSIO2-1 Sl0 (65l) 266-9008 Name ,F�1 s�X +`��NALi�I �f��'"D/Company. APPLICANT c�ty 5� ..�-e.�c� st. r9/�z�P 5 S"/aL Daytime Phone GS/ -��5� • e /3< Property Interest of Applicant (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) � w/�£./'� Name of Owner (if PROPERTY Address / INFORMATION 57�. � ., 1 /'�i",S� . Legal Description (affach additional sheet if necessary) Lot Size O� �� Present Zoningr�/!� �resent Use ��/� X Proposed 1. Variance(s) requested: �t: �oL2� 2. What physical characteristics of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topography, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) �e� k zf A-��L � 3. Explain how the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardships. � ,� r (,��1-�J� 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment of,th�tent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. � N �/,�G CASHIERS USE ONLY ApplicanYs � pa_ g Proposal to build a Carriage House at 449 Portiand Ave, St. Pau3, MN. • Currently at this property we have a two-caz gazage off the ally. We are proposing to build additional three garages and build an apartrnent above them. We have been committed to building gazages for some time but want to build a structure that would be complementary to the existing house and neighborhood. After some consideration we feel fhat a structure that is similar to a carriage house would meet this objective. This is the third and final phase of the project that we started in 1991. In 1991 when we purchased this property it had three separate living units in it, one unit per floor. This building had three units in it for approximately 60 years prior to our purchase. We have reduced the number of units to two in the main house. The physical chazacteristic of the property at this time has a two-caz garage, which restricts design options for a carriage house, and these conditions were not a result of my actions. We are located with in a historic district where carriage houses are common place and this design while not meeting norxnal zoning requirements, is in keeping with the turn of the century design concepts and practices. , This type of a design solution is in keeping with turn of the century desib practices and there fore should be considered with in a historic district. This carriage house provides three more off street parking spaces in a neighborhood where the streets aze already congested with parked cazs due to a lack of off street pazking. Thank-you for your consideration. Faezeh and Khalid Effendi. i __ � -� a 0 'j � Z d � m I � L � > r s � � � k � F ➢ L 9 D.RW a .� ' .VO•JO"39'LJ lY3 93 E?/S'f!J(r 3 $foRY Sfo.lF c N�JSt /43.79 i —� � � Q � m .T� 59 9 7 r � � Y � F `c i ' _ 'r) � � c � . I � f 9 ` � � _ p N � _ � ja � o ' o� �`�� G �_ °- ,; • � 6 �� - ' � � � � ,��; .A n� �. � � a-g57 -_ 1� o� �� GARDB FL�OR G6RdG_ LEV� FLOOR PL6V � i � EXIS'�NG G<RGG= � � � �>i.tc-_� w� � �� .E��,,,�. �µ '!_ C' i-0� � ___ pX.¢e N�U GGQY-= _ _.��__""_ __ _"_.___—"_?.o__ � �1 �- __==_� .�.E 1F3� _�� ---- _._� __� ��i a 6� QI90 . � t�� oa-g5� � � 1 SECONI Fi00F 4 `� ° -,- 4 - roatiE 3a BEDROO� O 50' �ew' 94 �cw I ll k . THIQp F! OOR m FLOOR PLd\ , .. ._ e<_a - - �,� - � ,> , '� a� v _ I .. d :c "__�.'� �� '�� b ^ / 6't' � ,3 � 4i-:' I60' �3-'e' n�3' � _ _,. ! � I - c � • � � �� Page 1 of 1 �a a-s 57 John Hardwick - Proposed variances for 449 Portland Ave File No. 02-130178 __ • From: "Tom Fitzgerald" <tfitzgerald@carbonair.com> To: Uohn.Hardwick@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 6/13/02 3:06 PM Subjecf: Proposed variances for 449 Portland Ave File No. 02-130178 CC: "Mary FitzGerald" <ftzmry@msn.com> Dear Mr. Hardwick: • . My name is Tom FitzGerald and I live at 458 Holly Ave which is across the alley and two houses to the west from the subject property. We have already stated our opposition to this project on another occasion, not specifically because of vaziance issues, but � because the subject structure is slated to have residential uniu on the 2nd floor. We are opposed to additiona] renta] units in the neighborhood based on increase traffic and pazking hassles. I will say that I don't want to deny Mr. Effandi the right to build a large garage, but in my opinion the structure ptoposed is too large for the ]ot and would potentially denegrate the quality of the immediate block and potentially have a negative effect on property values. Thank you for your considention, Tom FitzGerald file://C:\WINDO WS\TEMP\GW} 00012.HTM \� 6/13/02 Page 1 of 1 John Hardwick - 02-130178 From: Sarah Stonich <sarah@e-zone.com> To: <John.Hardwick@ci.stpaui.mn.us> Date: 6/12/02 1034 AM Subject: 02-130178 Dear John Hardwick, Please include these comments in the hearing for variances for file number 02-130178 As a neighbor most directly affected, visually and by proximity of Mr. Effandi's carriage house, I hope these comments will be read aloud. I've seen fhe plan for fhis structure, and design-wise it stands out as architecturally sensitive to the location and the surrounding structures. As for zoning concerns, the four variances do not request unreasonable allowance for square footage and setback. Similar variances have been allowed throughout the neighborhood, so Mr. Effandi's requests lie within perimeters of established precedent. I vote these variances be allowed. Sarah Stonich 446 Holly Avenue St. Paul, MN 55102 � �J . file://C:\WIND O W S\TEMP\G W} 00012.FITM �� 6/12/02 0�-857 PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 449 PORTLAND AVENUE � � N � PREPARED BY: LI EP c �� ., o �o -, � � , S .�,�� r — 8 °_ro„� ; � � � � .. i ,� � E _ � E � r � \` �£� - � � - ��:a �f .(�:9:E�`' � 7� 3 ��_� 14 ,�,ll. ° , i . ' � ': I :�� b� 9'i� `°' 1 �/ � g = p _., v z 4 '� $ s J�` =_ ` J `� f� � S K � � : I K r." } - = s i � . / �} \, b � o .,., __ _ _ n �../� �� ,r� �� \`��-�� CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PI_AI��'ING DISTRICIS 1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEF�-HIGHWOOD 2. HAZEL PARK IIADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE _ 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PA1'r�-PHALEN G. NORTH END 7. THOI�fAS-DALE 8. SUhS�14IT-UNIVERSITY 9. WEST SEVEIvTTH 10. COi�10 11. HAi�4LINE-MIDWAY 12. ST. t�h'THONY PARK 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLIIvTE-SNELLING HAMLIi� 14. MACALESTER GROVELAI�'D 15. HIGHI.AIvTD 16. SUMMIT HILL 17. DO\�Rv`TOWN �� `��.�, G -I ci � i \� � ` �•� � ` y .. , � Pet�tion for CaPiia¢e House at 4d� Portland Ave. �a" � We the undersigned �ave reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Portland Ave and believe it is an appropriate and sensirive addirion to our neighborhood. We believe it has properly dealt with our concerns about pazking and the historic environment in which it is sited. Name R��t,� .�,1�.. /�`/NtAFI cSAt�VtY"/ ��^� � �C`,'a`� �� i �i � � � , -. . � , �; i , `_ f I C,!�,�, �� ` � c� �---�� .L�---� -- - I "� lJ�(�� Address �1b7 ��'oekl�.� �r�'� , S� , �qJ, Mt s s � G �+-67 P A.rc �SE ��.. � n•v J3 ioa ! _ � ��`�'e D�'1Lu.c(�hNl ss/O� �� w�,P �c � �u,,.,P �,�( s -s 1 � �/G� �O,�G..�--�i��- � (�� `s-s� 2 �� C�uU,.,�4� ,� ��2.. � 6'/� 4�q- � f� �e � � � S�'Sc� ys -� �e�a��e. �rJ. ��-2 .�ro� y / � �� l, (�2�., Ss �� I �� AV�I'�(h`�, �� f �///�J JS �� `r �-�� : �� ic ss; 5� �u,r,tc�Q �� z �j-�.��.Q M� sS�o2 , ys7 �� °. �J; J/. �CCu/,� /7�ti� SS/�Z �S� ��l�Q �-� I �� Q V�t� SSI� d- `�35 �f`�� -�- S-}�. � .�.�n �� U br I ��1.�/0 !1 Ue .��- �/�� SSlO� �C� Mfi� u�i`�J �'�1� ��- � � ss loz � (� S ( ((�iu�, l�"� S5 (0 � 5 � (� r�,�dt,�, �t/ � Q �j S �6 (�TG /4,+�'D st {>13--=-�� lYl�v� s /a Z � � :`�c(�5 �'S�c��IP/�.��/1 1 a-e�-a-� ��- �/ U -E Y"Cm � S � �,��1 �- �-as3 ,. `!'wc� �ws ��,, _ _ .. �. . , .., -, -- _��:.=: , . .. -_� . �� i�t - `I Y� ..,. , ,� . � .. �. � � � �� ,6 i� Q Pefition for Carria¢e House a4449 Portland Ave. � We the undersigned have reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Portland Ave and believe it is an appropriate and sensirive addition to our neighborhood. We believe it has properly dealt with our concems about parking and the historic environment in which it is sited. �a-gs7 Name Address �"'� N � � / �� T Gi� �.�� 7'�� -, , n _ 'R � / � /1 � s�� "�^-y� � �� °�"\ - I I `� �J�/l��f � � �- , �. ��-�-,� --�— � g �� `Z ❑ - ' �"''�,��''�` CZ,�; r� �� ,�� 1 � �� .� � � � �� , . , , � �� , , �, � �� ' �'�f�``� � � ��-�.-� �� 3� Po��l�� A� -4�� -j�,�o{ f}�e y� v ��.�=� a,U.�- � � ��n � 7a � ��.�� _. s�� _ � ° � ��(-�-� C�,.�.� �� - y �, ,�o � y ��-- � �� y�� oD�e � �1 �9 �o•�i G/t�/JO �-` c, ��,� � Petirion for Carriaee House at 449 Portland Ave. We the undersigned have reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Portland Ave and believe it is an appropriate and sensitive addition to our neighborhood. We believe it has properly dealt with our concerns about pazking and the lustoric envuonment in which it is sited. Name i?6�t...�'�li 5�/�1�%y�,G��f/ � � � et�u.�- � •___---- ! /� 7� ..� Address 7� � �z� �o f y �,.� c{-Z� -�-�a ( (Y A�e - �fl �33 ��.,� �. r�� / � 5-�� S{- (�ccc,�� _��4v � Sc5 5s�� ss'r vz 33 io;[ � � , - ��- oa-g5� Perition for Carria2e House at 449 Portland Ave. ! We the undexsigned have reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Portl2nd Ave and believe it is an appropriate and sensitive addition to our neighborhood. We believe it has properly dealt with our concems about pazking and the historic environment in which it is sited. ! • Name �G��J ��o-��1 n_ A � Jl` � � �� Address 3 g� ��-,�-� Cr,�-� - 3��( I� �(�, �� J � ��1� .�� ` � �'° �`�� 0 a� Petition for Carriaee House at 449 Portland Ave. We the undersigned have reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Portland Ave and believe � it is an appropriate and sensitive addition to our neighborhood. We believe it has properly dealt with our concems about parking and the historic environment in which it is sited. Name �,�� W� `"��..w��/�^� Address �z3 � ��4 s'��-� t,� `7v � G� c.�k ! �,�,--,o� � , .S�- /f S s <v� S�'�4u I s �r-oZ � � �-"\ �a-8s� Pefition for Carria¢e House at 449 Portland Ave. � We 8�e undersigned have reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Portland Ave and believe it is an appropriate and sensitive addition to our neighborhood. We believe it has properly dealt with our concems about pazking and the historic environment in which it is sited. Name �� Address ! � ��J��- , _ . , �,5 . _ __. . . � Pefition for Carria¢e House at 449 Portland Ave. We the undersigned have reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Portland Ave and believe it is an appropriate and sensitive addition to our neigltborhood. We believe it has properly dealt with our concems about pazking and the historic environment in which it is sited. Nathe ��nniS }jJl�i�i�� Address .� S t �FS � � �r.�d � � _ � � � �� ,w 'rY -..i�. • . , _ . .- � o a-857 Petition for Carriaee House at 449 Portland Ave. • We the undersigned have reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Portland Ave and believe it is an appropriate and sensitive addition to our neighborhood. We believe it has properly dealt with our concems about pazking and the historic environment in which it is sited. Name ` ��h s � � rZ�_= ��1,-�:�'tc-�-! Address �� ,-� �/Z %� � - �r�� , � . _ . � . �� - 30 ( Thursday, June 06, 2002 To: John Hardwick, Amy Spong, and other interested parties . Re: Request by Mr. Khalid Effendi to build a carriage house in his back yard (449 Portland Ave., St. Paui, MN 55102) From: Dr. Jay Samuels, 39 Arundel SL , St. Paul, MN 55102 (651222 6368) P[ease file this [etter because there is a good chanre tha17 wi![ be aut oJtl:e country when there is a communiry hearing on Mr. Ejfendi's requuL At that time, please read this letter to ihe group in care l can not do sa in person. I have long believed that a gnnd corttract war one in wl:iclz all parties are in a win-win situation. IjMr. Effendi's request to bui[d a carriage house in his back yard is approved, I see it as a win-loose situation, a win for {tim and a loss for me. T/tere are no advantages for me, on[y losses. I tlterefore urge you tn deny leis request for t)re follnwing reasons. Mr. Effendi's proper[y line touches mine and is located to the West of my property. The location of his property is important because the afternoon sun shines across his property onto mine. My back yard wnsists of a small brick patio and wood fence that I built one summer with my own hands. It is a patio that my family and I have enjoyed over the years because we have sunlight, and air, and patio furniture for relaxing. Several months ago Mr. Effendi first approached me about his plans for building a carriage house. At that time he showed the plans to me and asked for a letter of support because his plans violated several building code and he needed the support of his neighbors because of the several variances required in his plans. His original plan was for a structure that would tower over my back yard, would almost touch my wood fence, and would impose the very tall wall of the carriane house over nearly my entire back yard. I explained to him that I could not support what he contemplated � because his proposed building would have a serious negative environmental impact on the quality of my life in the following ways. 1) His proposed building would cut the afternoon sun from my yard . and cast it in shadow at a time of the day when I spend time there. 2) It would severely restrict the circulation of air to my yard. 3) The carriage house tvas to be bvilt so close to the wood fence that it would seriously impede proper maintenance of the fence. 4) The wail of the carriage house �could be so tall that I would feel like I was living at the bottom of a canyon. 4) Going from the rear of his ne�v building to the front, it would hide 90% of my yard in its shadow. In essence, his planned structure would have a serious negative impact on the quality of my life, and judging bp the negative sentiment expressed by many other neighbors in our area, it would have a negative impact on their life quality as well. There were other factors that prevented me from supporting Mr. Effendi's request. There w�ere no plans for a path that would go from the front of the structure to the alley behind, the rain drainage patte�n would change and I did not want his drainage to go on to my back yard, and the area is becoming increasingly high density housing. Mr. Effendi then asked me why I had supported the carriage house built by bir. Lou Sudheimer. My reasons for supporting the Sudheimer structure were that it was so far away from my home that it would not cut down on my light and air circulafion, would not leave me Feeling as though I were living at the bottom of a dark canyon, and whatever he would put up would be better than the broken down garage he had for me to look at From my window. Mr. Effendi has a new plan, and I told him that from my position a117 want is jor al! the buiiding codes to be lionored, codes suck as tlre re[ationship between the keigltt of Hre building and t1:e setback codes from t/ee alley and tlze distance between his s[ructure and my property Zine. I am not in favor of supporling a�ry variancu that ltis new structttte miglet requirz Any variance that is given to him reduces the quality of my life and the value of my property. � Thank you for taking the time to consider my position on this matter. : ,, - " �� - �,.u�. � � �, m _, _ . . . , �. � .�:; yimpttrci ="is� '* %�� Ramsey Hill Associarion �.+ . � : oa-gS 400 SELBY AVENUE, SUITE Y, SAINT PCUL, MN 55302-q500 TELFPNOHE: 651.Z21.0200 June 20, 2002 Mr. John Hardwick St. Paul Zoning 350 St. Peter St. 3�d Floor St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Hardwick Please include this complete package in information to be given to Board of Zoning Appeals members Re: 449 Portland Avenue—Application to construct an addition to a 2 car garage to make a 4 car garage with 2 story living unit above. Attached please find: 1. Community issues meeting held by the Ramsey Hill Association to collect neighbor input. 10 votes in supportoithe variances 3 votes to deny the variances 2. The Ramsey Hill Association letter to the Historic Preservation Commission 3-19-2002; properfy owner pufled the appiication prior to the HPC meeting at issue. 3. 1 petititon with 16 signatures in opposition to granting these variances. 4. 4letters in opposition. 5. A zoning cotle review Adding the 16 petition names to the 3 votes at the Community issues Meeting for a total of 19 in opposition surpasses the 10 votes in support at the meeting. The letters in opposition include names who were not at these meetings, adding 1, for a total of 20 opposing, 3 in favor. Taking neighbor input into consideration, a special meeting of the Ramsey Hill Association (RHA) Board of Directors was convened to review this application. A quorum was present, and votetl unanimously to oppose the proposed construction at 449 Por�and Avenue. �� . �; '`�.�u�wixxl � a �� ✓r� � Ramsey Hill Association 400 SELBY PVENUE, SIIITE V. SAINT PAUL, MN 55102-450U TEIEPHONE: 651.221.02�U Community Issues Meeting Ramsey Hill Association 6-142002 Re: multiple variance request for addition to existing 2 car garage, to create 4 car garage with 2 story living unit above. Address 449 Portland Avenue. Attending: Refer to attached sign in sheet. Meeting conducted by RHA, Jim Keane, Land Use Chairperson Notes — presentation of the plan by owneN Khalid Effendi. 1. Kal and Faezeh Effendi bought the property in 1991; it has been a family project for 11 years. They have wanted more garage space; this proposal addresses that. 2. This is nat a single `sussei' style garage. 3. They coutd build a 3.5 car garage with no variances, hut need at least 4 car. G. The proposal places the new structure 11.8' from the east property line, 2.1' from the west. 5. The lot is 2 to 2.5' higher than the alley elevation. � 6. They need a variance of only 4% for lot coverage, 34% instead of 30% per code. 7. Many nearby lots are over 30%, 60% in the house to the east, 100°/a at Summit Court, SE comer of Portland/Arundel at 85%. (Note: these figures were not verified) 8. Re: Density, height is an issue, the footprint is no different. 9. Holly homes across the ailey wiil suffer the most, they have signed a petition to support. 10. House to the west was sold last week, new owners are in support per Kai. 11. This is not being done for profit Questions/Comments from Neighbors, names are not given in the notes. 1. Neighbor #1: Zoning for Highiand Park and suburbs shouid not be used in aIi of the city. Shouid not apply to Ramsey Hill. We shouid wefcome more density. The direction of the Ramsey Hill Assoctiation with regard to zoning and density should be re-examined. Jim Keane, representing the RHA, stopped the commenter at this point to ask that he not address his concems to Mr. Keane personaliy; that if he had issue with current zoning, he need take that up with the city. Mr. Keane reiterated that the RHA encourages observance of all existing zoning. 2. Neighbor#2 aiso favored more density; stating that the city councii was encouraging peopie to tum their attics into rentais. No comment was made as to the zoning ramifications and safety codes. � ' �� °"� .�„ umpioiil �� = �-`/'— ; �� 1 . Ramsey Hill Association 400 SELBY dYENUE, SUITE V, SGINT PRUL. MN SSIOI-4500 TELEPNONE: 651.221.0200 3. Neighbor #3 stated opposition to increased density; saying that sometimes `downsizing is good.' This person went on the point out that a precedent will be set, and has already been set that altows 2 houses to be built on one lot. In fact the main house is already 2 condos, so this make 3 houses on one lot. 4. Neighbor #4 asked that the variances be stated, which was done. 5. Neighbor #5 asked if the city had codes for air and light rights. His land is the east will lose light and air; he is in opposition. 6. What height is the new building? 29 to 30 feet. 7. Neighbor #1 added that the proposed building is better than what is there now. 8. Neighbor #6, to the west, added that the owners of 449 have made many improvements over the years; ihat there were at one time many police calls to the address. 9. Neighbor#7 agreed. 10. Neighbor #1 added that this alley is worse visually now as older carriage houses have been replaced with Sussel style garages. 11. Neighbor #8 staled ihai ihe design was nice, the 4% variance for coverage minor and that he would support. 12. Neighbor #9 agreed that the design was nice, but ihat he had issue with unfinished and partialiy itlegai new carriage houses ai 420 Portfand, and 439 Portiand. 13. The owner stated that his house was once a 4 plex. 14. RHA asked if he intended to connect water and sewer through the side yard into Portland per code, or into ihe system in the main house. Response was that he had not decided; � preference isthrough the side yard. 15. RHA will monitor this. The connection at 439 Portland should not have happened per the sewer department. 16. RHA aked if undue hardship needs (per zoning code, a hardship must be demonstrated). The ower again stated that he was not doing this to make money, but when asked would not say whether he intended to sell the living unit as a condo. 17. RHA asked if he would consider changing the proposal to just garages, no living unit; reply was no, due to cost. Motion to Vote Chuck Goenner made motion to °Support the variances needed to construct the building as designed." 10 votes yes 3 votes no Note: A petition to oppose the request was circulated in the neighborhood; original copy in the packet given to John Hardwick; contains: 16 signatures in opposition 2" Note: 7he owner referred to a petition in support, we do not have a copy to include here. End of notes � aa-gs7 3 �- 7 PM Martin Luther King Center, 270 Kent St. Library Room Issue For Action 449 Portland Ave. Application to Board of Zoning Appeals for several Variances to construct a carriage house addition to the existing garage. Variances are for setback requirements at rear, both sides, andforlot coverage Name Sign In RAMSEY HILL ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY ISSUES MEETING Monday, June 17, 2002 Address ,• � �Sl � 22� ��5 � n � � 5950 b� �_ ��, Y,.. ,��.- „-, a „,. r , _ . _ . Zi�'l�-�v ��v ��.�� C �r.v�� 4� i�o.e. — !�>�4- , -� �s'� 3�= `>3� � ��4� ��— c �- S�'evc -SK}hua� 'f 8'S Por �'��a�d Ave. sf.� bs� 8�l8_09. �Lrj�Qk �/�If;�.Diis/� ii � ff's,C�/1i.t/�Tei�/ sr = '/��/� �°�.�. :� i-�.�-�1,..��,.� , �7o s��,�.,� _. Contact Phone 3� � { d ��r�9 ;Ad m�n � �i' - a ! /� rl J�h � �-�a.-d w« i� � �e��rQ 1 t�� i' /�dd. /�. 0.2 - l�� I 1 � 5�� 1 1^ T�c7✓1 �L w �a-�s � �(/e tl�e un��r�st��e � neig�i bor.s ��looS� �ie C� C' V� l G�✓I?eY1� a� �4��r' / dr�/Clil c�'. � is �/o�e�rrs �"o ,b� ctn < <ssuC'� o � 7`wo {� � us�S o» /7c't�� r e �' � �� A��u o��/ �r/�� /o2'r��)!��'� � � �11 yv�vv�i� �ti � ��S �� -:��,-�- tlrtlQn� '-fS� �� j / �Yvndel �� C}�Je lo� li �L1 ✓t, f' _ � (�vx�u/ z'��./ .- �y� � t`-�. i � Q �� `�"'�` �' � �� '� � .� � .�t,, ' � / L.�'t�'� G , �3S � �� ; u 6� ��t 1� kd /�� p��``��,,,, ` � ��.� � � n��n V /1 �_ ;�,,W✓`^�'� N•UWC/V"`�L i � v x�� , � L.Fc,ci�� Sn1 ,Y-ti '-'_ . ___. ._1 . __ Y 7une 14, 2002 To Whom It May Concem: � My name is Cazol Clazk I live at 415 $namut Avenue and wo d like to take this opportuniry to express mq opposirion to the proposed project submitted to you by Mr.�l�'endi. I believe the project he is proposing is too dense for the site and that there will be drainage issues associated with its constiuuctian. Cazol I. Clazk umn�it Avenue 5ain , Yv1N 55102 � � � J 1 � ��)� �� -g�7 Thursday, June 06, 2002 � To: Jobn Hardwick, Amy Spong, and other interested parties ' Re: Request by Mr. Khalid Effendi to build a carriage house in his back yard (449 Parfland Ave., St. Paul, MN 55102) From: Dr. Jay Samuels, 39 Arundel St. , St. Paul, MN 55102 (657 222 6368) � � Pfease file tl:is letter because there is a good chance fhat I wi11 be out of the country when there is a community hearing on Mr. Ejfendi's request At 11tat fime, please read this IeKer to thegroup in case I can not da so in person. Iliave long believed t):at a good conlract was one in whic)r al[pariies are in a win-wirr situation. IfMr. Effendi's request to build a carriage I:ouse in I:is back ya�d is approved, I see it as a win-loose situation, a win fo� him and a loss for me. There are no advantages for me, on(y lossu. I flierefore urge you fo deny /:is request for Ihefol[awing reasons. Mr. Effendi's property line touches mine and is located to the West of my property. The location of his property is important because the afternoon sun shines across his property onto mine. My back yard consists of a small brick patio and wood fence that I built one summer with my own hands. It is a patio that my family and I have enjoyed over the years because we have sunlight, and air, and patio furniture for relaxing. Several months ago Mr. Effendi first approached me about his plans for building a carriage house. At that time he showed the plans to me and asked for a letter of support because his plans violated several building codes and he needed the support of his neighbors because of the several variances required in his plans. His original plan was for a structure that would tower over my baci: yard, would almost touch my wood fence, and would impose the very tall wall of the carriage house over nearly my entire back yard. I explained to him that I could not support what he contemplated because his proposed building would have a serious negative environmental impact on the quality of my life in the following ways. 1) His proposed building woufd cut the afternoon sun from my yard and cast it in shadow at a time of the day when I spend time there. 2) It would severely restrict the circulation of air to my yard. 3) The carriage house was to be built so close to the wood fence that it �vould seriously impede proper maintenance of the fence. 4) The wall of the carriage house would be so talt that I would feel like I was living at the bottom of a canyon. 4) Going from the rear of his new building to the front, it would hide 90% of my yard in its shadow. In essence, his planned structure would have a serious negative impact on the quality of my life, and judging by the negative sentiment expressed by many other neighbors in our area, it would have a negative impact on their life quality as fvell. There were other factors that prevented me from supporting Mr. Effendi's request. There were no plans for a path that wouid go from the front of the structure to the alley behind, the rain drainage pattern would change and I did not want his drainage to go on to my back yard, and the area is becoming increasingly high density housing. Mr. Effendi then asked me why I had supported the carriage house built by Mr. Lou Sudheimer. My reasons for supporting the Sudheimer structure were that it was so far away from my home that it rvould not cut down on my light and air circulation, would not leave me feeling as though I were living at the bottom of a dark canyon, and whatever he would put up would be better than the broken down garage he had for me to look at From my windotiv. Mr. Effendi has a new plan, and I told him thatfrom nryposition all iwant is for al[i/ie brrilding codes to be hor:ored, codes suclt as fhe re[ationship befween dee heigGt of tlte building and the selback codes from ihe alley and t/te dislance between his slrttcfure and my property line. I asn not in favor of suppotling any variances Aiat his r:ew strucfure might require. Any variance that is given to him reduces the quality of my life and the value of my property. Thank you for tal:ing the time to consider my position on this matter. . - ] �� _ � W II I_ I f I M&~ Kf i T H R YN B. 4 B C O C K 453PortlandElvenue SaintPaul, Minnesara SS012 Phone- 6SI.222.4636 May 3I, 2002 Heritage Preservation Commission Chair 350 St. Feter St., Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: File #B02-I32 Deaz Mr. Bellus: We strongly urge you to oppose the proposal at 449 Portland Ave. for the construction of a two and one-half story cazriage house with a four- to five-stall garage and one or more residential units. We live nest door at 453 Portland Ave. Our 1889 home and vintage carriage house (m use as our gazage) aze located west of the proposed site. � In the 12 years that we have lived in what remains one of the few single-family homes, we � aze ttoubled by a neazly three-fold increase in density and Ioss of gteen space in the majority of properties neaz ours. We seriously question the wisdom of a project of this magnitude. It is inappropriate for this location; the building is sunply too large for the siie, and the azea is already saturated with mulriple-family dwellings (including 449 Portland Ave. and all but one sunounding house). Light and views from �vithin our main structure aze also unpaired by much recent construction, including two garages to the north and an asphalt pazking strip to the west property line and the potential of another garage on the west sid� Another troubling aspect of this proposal would negatively impact the historic carriage house at 453 Portland Ave. The proposal uses the existing west wall and setback of the current 449 Portland Ave. gazage. These two neighboring structures aze alreadq so close that the present roofline of the 449 garage lies within seven inches of our 1889 carriage house roofline. In addition to drainage and design issues, the height and location of the new building would eclipse the view of and from the east side of the historic carriage house. A prudent and conscientious design must consider the impact of new construction on our historic building. Sincerely, � � 3� � da-gs� � March 19, 2002 Historic Preservation Corrunission Chair 350 Saint Peter Street, Suite 300 5aint Paul, MN 55102 Re: File Number B02-132 Dear HPC Chair, I am writing with concems regarding 449 Portiand Avenue and the owners' request to construct a two and one-half story carriage house with five garage stalls and residential units above. I am strongly opposed and deeply concerned with the message that this, if approved, is sending. I live a half-block down from this property, at 436 Portland Avenue. In the last few years, we have seen in this neighborhood serious disregard for both city ordinances and the city's unresponsiveness to these concerns. This is a proposal which should first go before LIEP for the determination of whatever variances will be required, once the complete plan is presented. We have seen in the past � when a design appears before the HPC and gets approved, that this approval is then used as leverage with other city departments to get the project built, irrespective of other considerations which have to be made. The HPC approval should not be seen as an approval for the go-ahead of a project by those who wish to build. It is one step in a city approved process. There is very serious opposition on these blocks to this project. Irrespective of design, there are monumental issues to be dealt with; lot coverage, density, drainage, variances, and of course, the answers to the questions necessary to grant a variance. This is a project being proposed solely for monetary gain. The e�cisting condominium of two units does not "need" two or more units added to its Association. These units wiil be sold. Building garages for the e�cisting condominiums is one thing, adding more units and a five stall garage is another in an area that is already crowded. This is a historic district. Please help protect it and its integrity. This matter should be referred to LIEP, and follow through the normal process, one step of which would be to appear before you later as other issues resolve. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, � Laurel Frost " 3� . . . . ,�y\If �IIqNIIL % F �� f - �� _ , :.��,� � Ramsey Hill Associarion 40U SELBY pYENUE, SUITE Y, SAINT PAUL, MN 55102-45U0 TELEPNONE: 651.221.0200 March 19, 2002 Ms. Amy Spong Historic Preservation Officer 300 Lowry Professiona! Building St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Ms. Spong, Please include this lefter in information to be given to HPC members. Re: 449 Po�land Avenue—Application to construct a 2 YZ story carriage house for living units and a five car garage. At the regular monthiy mee6ng March 94, 2Q�2 the Ramsey Hill Association (RHA) 8oard of Directors voted unanimously to oppose the proposed construction at449 Por�antl Avenue. In general, the RNA has historically opposed zoning variances. It is obvious that th+s project witl require multiple variances and as such is opposetl. s The RHA desires to point out to the members of the HPC several areas of concern with this pa�icular proposal: 1) A recent simi(ar carriage house projecf under construction for over iwo years at 439 Portland has utilized a methotl of connection to city water and sewer utilities that is contrary to building codes—the connec6on is made fhrough the basement of the neighboring fiistoric house rather than at the street This was done to save on cosf as there are no utilities under Arundel Street and making a connection wouid fiave required the appficantto excavafe info Arundel to make the connection to Portland. City sewer officials have expressed to the RHA thatthey are concerned aboutfuture problems with this method of connection. If 449 Po�land is connected in the same way, the same concern repeats itself. 2) This area is already highly congested with living units, secondary structures and cars. A simple drive down the alley behind 449 Portland provides fhe evidence ofthis congestion and makes obvious the impact that a structure the size of the one proposed will have on those living nearby. The RHA is concerned about further congestion being added to this part of the neighborhood. � �� 3� � �a-g57 3) Several recent carriage house construction projects have sought HPC approval priorto dealing � with the city building officiais and such major code issues as the utility connections detailed in item #1 and lot size concerns detailed in item #2. Alfhough we know the mission of the HPC is to endorse design concepfs, the RHA views the above activities as an attempt to use a HPC design approval as leverage to strong arm other city agencies into approving projects that may not be in the long-term best interests of our neighborhoods. This should not happen. Thank you for your consideration of these points. The Ramsey Hill Association has a{ways taken into account the impact of such projects on this Historic Hill District and look to the Historic Preservation Commission to lead and protect the district. Sincerely, Rod Richter Historic Preservation Committee Chair Ramsey Hill Association r� � i � � ��1 ' _ _ .. _. l 1 I � � .g\Nllpllllll _ % �� ._�►� Ramsey Hill Associarion 400 SELBY pYENUE, SUfTE Y, SFINT PAlit, MN 55302�q500 TELEPNONE: 653.221.0200 Zoning Review Submitted by: Mark Voerding Vice President, Ramsey Hill Association June 19 2002 While some residents in the community voted in favor of the project, strict and fair application of the Zoning Code must apply. Therefore, based on the testimony from the applicant, the site plan presented, the testimony from neighbors and the applicable portions of the Zoning Code as outlined below, the Ramsey Hill Association requests that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny the application for variances in order to construct a carriage house on property located at 449 Portland at this time. (1) The applicant stated that an appropriately designed garage only was not financially feasible for him and that he needed the income from the carriage house unit in order to construct something other than a"Sussel" garage. Additionally, the applicant stated that he may, at some point in the future, sell the carriage house. This is not consistent with Section 64.203 (b) (6) of the Zoning Code which clearly states that the request for variance cannot be based on the desire to increase value or income potentia( of the parcel. (2) The applicant stated that he could construct an appropriate garage that exceeds off- a sYreet parking requirements without the requested variances, thus the request for variances and the carriage house proposal is not consistent with Section 64203(b)(1) which requires that a property cannot be put to reasonable use under strict provisions of the code as a condition for a variance. By the applicant's own admissio;� the use under the strict provisions is clearly possible, but not desired. (3) One neighbor stated that the height and mass ofthe carriage house « significantly reduce the amount of light and air on his property and create an urban "�canyon". The applicant concurred with this assessment. Section 64.203 (b)(4) requires that the variance(s) will not result in impairing an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property nor diminish property values in the surrounding area. This cor:dition is not met. (4) Sections 60.433 indicates that the proposed carriage house is not zn accessory structure but a principal use subject to special conditions as required under Section 60.413(14). This requires that such a unit (1) had space originally built to house domestic employees, (2) requires a petition with two-thirds of the property o��ners within 100 feet consenting and, (3) requiring that the number of existing off-street pazking spaces not be reduced and that additional of£ street parking for the carriage house unit be provided. Conditions 1 and 2 cannot be met while condition 3 appears to be met ifthe requested variances are granted. f� U "1 � a (4) Section 61.101 of the Zoning Code states that a distance of 18 feet between buildings � is a mandatory requirement. Based on the information presented, it appears this requirement may not be met. (5) Section 61.101 also states that the total number of rooms shall not be more than the area ofthe parcel, in square feet, divided by 1,100. The applicant provided no information to deternune whether or not this condition was met. L� � �a-gs� "'It > !� � � A 4 � tj John Hardwick - Variance sought for 449 Portland Avenu 0� 1,3 ` From: Tim Pera <chadacook@yahoo.com> To: <John.Hardwick@ci.stpaul.mn,us> Date: 6/i 9(02 2:58 PM Subject: Variance sought for 449 Portland Avenu June 19, 2001 TO: Mr. John Hardwick, LIEP RE: Board of Zoning Appeals File No. 02-130178 Dear Mr. Hardwick, I am writing in reference to the variances sought for proposed construction at the site located at 449 Portland Avenue in St. Paul, Minnesota. I wish to register my objection to granting the variances sought, since the effect of all variances would, in my view, result in a building that substantially deviates from the standards that exist. It appears that the lot is undersized for the proposed building by a not insignificant amounY, that the side yard setback would be abused by 50%, and the rear yard setback would be abused by 80%. I do not advocate blind adherence to standards and believe that thoughtful granting of variances is often useful if not necessary, for example if a family situation is such fhat denying the exceptions wouid resuft in severe economic hardship or decreased quality of life. In the absence of such compelling reasons, I argue against granting the exceptions since it appears to me thaf the resulting building would insult the "look and feel" of the surroundings in a way that the standards are designed to prevent. Sincerely- Timothy J. Pera 475 Holly Ave. St. Paul, MN 55102 651 225-4510 Tim Pera chadacook@yahoo.com Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http: //fifawo rld cu p.yahoo. com Page 1 of 1 � l � � file:!/C:\ WIND O W S\TEMP\G W} 00012.HTM 1� 6/20l02 a ba-gs� � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER: 02-130178 DATE: June 24, 2002 WHEREAS, Khalid Effendi has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to 1.) Minimum lot size; 2.) The east side yard setback; 3.) The rear yard setback; 4.) Lot coverage; of a new carriage house addition to an existing garage in the RT-2 zoning dishict at 449 Portland Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on June 24, 2002 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The house on this property is currently being used as a duplex. The applicant states that when he purchased the property in 1991, there were three units in the building and that he has since removed one of the units. He further states that the existing two-caz garage is not lazge enough to provide the needed parking. Since he needs to construct additional garage space, he would like to have a carriage house type structure that would fit in with the historic character of the neighborhood. A third dwelling unit is permitted in this zoning district, however, the lot is not lazge enough to meet the current standards. The project is further constrained by the desire to incorporate the existing brick garage into the new building. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unigue to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The size of the lot and the location of the existing garage on the site limit the design options for providing additional garage space and aze circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The proposed variances will allow the applicant to provide additional off-street parking � which will ease the pazking congestion in the area. The proposed one-bedroom carriage house will also provide an additional, modest priced dwelling unit in the azea. This property , -� - Page 1 of 3 �/) J � File #02-130178 Resolution is located in the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District. Provided that the applicant � obtains design approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), the proposed project will be in keeping with the spirit and intent ofthe code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor wi11 it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established properiy values within the surrounding area. The proposed carriage house will incorporate the existing garage into the new structure and will maintain the same side yard setback on the west side and the north side. The building will be set back about 8 feet from the east property line. The increase in height and the slightly reduced setback on the east side will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. There are several other carriage house type structures and lazge gazages in the immediate azea on similar sized lots. The HPC review will ensure that the proposed building is compatibie with the chazacter of the house and the neighborhood. There will be adequate off-street parking for the new dweliing unit as well as the existing dwelling units. The requested variances should not have a negative impact on surrounding properties. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions � of the code for the property in the district where the affected Zand is Zocated, nor woz�ld it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. A carriage house and a multi-family dwelling aze pemutted uses in this zoning district. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or aiter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primariZy on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The applicant states that he needs to provide additional garage space and that he would like to provide a structure that is compatible with the house and the historic chazacter of the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 61.101 aze hereby waived to allow: 1.) A minunum lot size of 8,586 square feet for a variance of 1,414 sq. ft; 2.) An east side yard setback of 8.8 feet for a variance of 6.2 feet; 3.) A rear yard setback of 5.9 feet for a variance of 19.1 feet; 4.) I,ot coverage of 34% for a variance of 4%; subject to the condition that the applicant obtains design approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission. In order to construct a carriage house addition to the existing garage on property located at 449 Portland Avenue; and legally described as COMMON INTEREST COMMLINITY NUMBER 313 CASS GILBERT CONDOMII«IUM . LINIT N0.2; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the _ Zoning Administrator. �/ r Page 2 of 3 ' �� a-8"57 File #02-130178 Resolution A MOVED BY: Morton SECONDED BY : Duckstad IN FAVOR: AGAINST: i MAILED: June 25, 2002 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 rvithin 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 Secrefary to Yhe Board of Zoning Appeals for 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 June 24, 2002 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 � P � �� v �� Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board . Page 3 of 3 ' � 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TAE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, JUNE 24, 2002 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Morton and Otteson; Messrs. Duckstad, Faricy, Kleindl, 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: Vincent Courtney* *Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. Khalid EfFendi (l102-130178) 449 Portland Avenue• Several variances in order to construct a carriage house addition to the existing garage. 1.) A minimum lot size of 10,0�0 square feet is required and 8,586 is available, for a variance of 1,414 sq. ft. 2.) Side yard setbacks of 15 feet are required and a setback of 8.8 feet is proposed on the east side, for a variance of 6.2 feet. 3.) A rear yard setback of 25 feet is required and a setback of 5.9 feet is proposed, for a variance of 19.1 feet. 4.j Lot coverage of 30`/'o is allowed and covera�e of 34% is proposed, for a variance of 4% (304 sq. fr.). Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval, subject to the condition that the applicant obtains design approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission. One letter was received from the neighbor at 475 Holly opposing the variance request. One letter was received from District 8, who's communiry issues meeting approved the variance request. However, later the Executive Board met and recommended denial of the proposed variances. Ramsey Hill included a petition with signatures of 15 people in opposition to the proposal. The applicant KHALID & FAEZEH BFFENDI, 449 Portland Avenue, were present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Effendi commented that they have lived in the neighborhood for the last 15 years as property owners and before that as students. Both sides of the condominium is owner occupied. According to the Effendi's in conversations with their neighbors the noimal boxy garages ("Sussel Garage") that have been built in the area are unappealing. They would like to build something that is more in keeping with the area and the building they live in. The consensus reached with their neighbors suggested that the garage should look like a carriage house and yet be a garage. The building they live in is 50 feet tall and the roof has a 12/12 pitch. The current garage is a two-car garage that is 15 feet tall, with a hip roof. Mr. Effendi claimed that they need the income from the carriage house in order to make the garage/carriage house design affordable. It will cos[ between $40,000 -$50,000, to design a compatible gazage incorporating the current garage, verses a plain two- stail boxy gazage at a cost of $15,000. So in order to incorporate the carriage house design it is necessary to include the carriage house living space, providing the necessary income to pay for the new garage. They had filed their application, with the Heritage Preservation Commission and were about to file their Zoning Variance application, when they received a letter from the Ramsey Hill Association. Prior to any public hearing on the request, Ramsey Hill sent them a letter denying the request. At this point the garage was reduced from a five-stall to a four-stall gara�e. They also lowered the height of the proposed carriage house/garage from 38 feet to 29 feet hi;h. � � � • .�" y � y, t' AA-ADA-EEO Employer �t � va-g5� File #02-130178 � Minutes June 10, 2002 Page Two Mr. Effendi claimed that they have spoken to neighBors even if they ogposed the project. He submitted a petition signed by 52 of his neighbors that support the project, each signature represents a discussion the Effendi's had with that neighbor prior to Lhem signing. Many of the neighbors wanted to stay neutral because of past issues in the neighborhood. They contacted District 8, so they could have a public forum to get more of neighborhood involvement. However, at that time the district was in the process of reorganization and did not schedule a public meeting. Mr. Effendi explained that their variance request was only asking for a variance of 4% on the lot coverage. The structure that is being proposed is not uncommon to the area. On either side of the proposed building are large structures one being another carriage house and a garage. The 12/12 pitch of the proposed garage will eliminate the runoff water going between the two buildings improving drainage. They are asking for what has been allowed in the area and i ts in well. The owners of the three properties to the north have signed the petition supporting the project and they are the only neighbors that could be affected by the new structure blocking light or air to their properties. His mother is near retirement and he would like to have a p]ace where she could have her own place but still be close. This would be a perfect livin; arrangement for her. Ms. Otteson questioned whether there was a condo association. Mr. Effendi replied that the land in the back is wha[ is called an air ground unit, which allows a third unit to be built there and the Effendi's • hoId the rights to thac space. Ms. Otteson questioned Mr. Effendi's intent to seil the carriage fiouse in the future. Mr. Effendi claimed that any[hing is possible but tha[ is not the motivation for this, nor is it the plan. Marvin Houghe, 436 Pordand Avenue, stated he has ]ived in his building for [he last 3l years. Most of the changes have been for the better reducing the number of living units in the neighborhood. Sixteen unit buildings have been reduced to 8-units. Noting that some additional housing units have been added to the neighborhood but very few. The alley behind 449 Portland has declined in qualiry over the last few years. In 1971 it was a charming alley, it is no longer charming, Heritage Preservation has neglected the alley in ffie neighborhood. Aaving people live on the alley will encourage people to improve ihe alfey. Brigitte Bachmeier, 459 Portland Avenue, stated she has lived in the neighborhood for 22 years. Before the Effendi's puzchased the properiy at 449 Portland there were problems with the property. Noting that there seemed to be dru; dealing and vandalism taking place out of the properry. Also the properry was not maintained causing properry values to drop in the neighborhood. She commented that friends that visit her always comment on the carriage houses in the area and how wonderful they look. She fully supports the Effendi's project knowing that they will do a superb job building their carriage house. L.eaetta Houge-Dunnette, 370 Summit Avenue, noted that she had lived in the neighborhood for 25 years. Having been a guest of the Effendi's she testified to the fine quality of the work done on the home at 449 Portland both inside and out. � AA-ADA-EEO Employer \� � File #OZ-130178 Minutes June 10, 2002 Page Three Linda Salway, 467 Porfland Avenue, remarked that her home is three houses wes[ of the Effendi's and unfortunately has a view of "Sussel Garages," 46 feet of roof shingle in a straight 1ine. She would much rather look at a carriage house structure. She believes that bringing new people into the neighborhood, whether by single family ownership or by rental makes the azea interesting and diverse. Mr. Louis Slidheunmer, 439 Porfland Avenue, remarked that many of the neighbors who were opposed to his own carriage house addition, are now very supportive. There were over 14 caniage houses in his block, which is immediately adjacent to 449 Porfland's block in 1888 according to the Sandbom Fire Insurance Map. Though he did not check how many were in [he Effendi's block, he thinks the number was similar. He thinks it is unfortunate that so many carriage houses were lost over the years. He wants to encourage those who are willing to take the abuse offered by those who do not understand the loss of historic buildings. � Joann Erickson, 21 Arundel, remarked ihat she has lived in the neighborhood for 29 years. She does not think that densiry is the answer to problems in the area. Sandbom's had a lot of carriage houses but they also had a lot of horse bams as well. 3ust because a Sandbom map says there was a carriage house on a site it still could have been a regular horse barn, Sandborn's did not seeing the distinction. She noted ihat the Mr. Effendi had stated that the new owners of 453 Portland would be ok with his plan. She presented the Babcocks[sicj who just purchased 453 Portland. Donovan & Darlene McCain, 2656 Goodrich Avenue, stated that they are long time Saint Paul � residents and have a signed contract to purchase 453 Portland Avenue. Mr. McCain noted that they are excited to be moving back to the area. They first heard about the project the previous Thursday, June 20, 2002, when Mr. Effendi called to ask for the McCain's support. He stated that he and his family are strongly opposed to the Effendi's project. The above ground building is 26,000 square feet and the height off [he a11ey is 31 feet which is about the height of a three-siory building. The propased cazriage house gazage will be 4 feet from their new residence, and he disagrees with Mr. Hardwick's opinion about the light and the air issues. The view from their back yard wiil be of a large biank wall approximately 32 feet wide by 31 feet high, and is not an appealing prospect. He notes that the Effendi's are proposing to add another 2,600 square foot house and a four-car garage where there already is a large house. He requested tha[ the Board denies the Effendi's request. Tom Darling, 445 Summit Avenue, stated he lives the block over from the Effendi's block. He thinks it is very difficult to speak against this issue because the Effendi's are very nice people. He thinks finding number one is incorrect, and a garage can be built on the site which is a reasonable use of the property. A three-car garage could be built and a fourth stall would not be necessary, if there is no living space above the garage and it would not require as large a variance. He thinks that the applicants are trying to get as large a building as possible rather than building a three-car garage. The plight of the land owner due to circumstances unique to the properry. Again anyone in the neighborhood who wanted to build an extra housing unit could say they have small width lots and need significant variances in order to build as ]arge as they want. There are many large carriage houses being built in the area and it is not unique, it is the desire of the land owner to build a carriage house and the situation was created by the land owners. He thinks it is not in the best interest of the City. • AA-ADA-EEO Employer ". �U Y�a-s'S; File /102-130178 � Minutes June 24, 2002 Page Four Mr. Darling continued that he thinks that preserving green space is important to the neighborhood and is worthy of preservation. The Zoning Ordinances provides predictability although the variances limit that predictability. The net result of this will be an increase in the value of the piece of property. He does not think that the findings that staff came up with are valid. The number of units is going down in the area, there were too many units in the past, it is not that there are too few now. Duplexes were brought back to single family homes, they no longer have rooming houses and that is positive not a negative. Mark Voerding, 113 Farrington Street, remarked that he is the Vice President of the Ramsey Hill Association. Stating that he is noi familiar with the letter mentioned by the applicant that was received before the Effendi's applied to the Board of Zoning Appeal. The Ramsey Hill Association did not take any position until after the community issues meeting on June 14, 2002. Some of the residents oppose the variance and others support it. However, zoning matters, variances and other decisions regarding development and land uses are not decided on popularity. They are based on fact and a set of standards that have gone through a public process for review, comment, and adoption. The Ramsey Hill Association has consistently asked for strict and fair application of the codes. Based on the testimony from the applicant, the site plan presented, the testimony from the neighbors and the Ramsey Hill Associations review of the Zoning Code. The Ramsey Hill Association requesu that the Board of Zoning Appeals denies this application at this time. Mr. Voerding stated that Mr. Effendi had stated � on June 14, 2002 and again today that it is not financially feasible for him to build an appropriately designed garage only unit, unless he has the income from the carriage house/garage, in order to create something other than a"Sussel Garage" as he called it. This is not consistent with Section 64.203 of the Code which states that the request for variance cannot be based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel. Also the property owner on the east stated that the height and mass of the carriage house would significantly reduce the amount of light and air to his property and create an urban canyon, [he applicant concurred with this assessment. Sections of the Code require [hat the variances not result in impaired an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties nor diminish property values in the surroundin, area. By the applicant's own admission this cannot be met. Section 60.433 indicates that the proposed carriage house requires a special condition use permit. In order to get this permit there are three conditions: First the space had originally to have been built to house domestic employees. Secondly it requires a petition signed by two thirds of the property owners within 100 feet consenting to the request. Third that the number of off street parking spaces not be reduced and additional off street parking spaces be provided. The third condition can probably be met, the second condition may be met but no petition was submitted, the first condition cannot be met as the proposed carriage house will be a new space. He argues that the special use permit should have been met before the variance requests are considered. Mr. Voerding submitted a copy of the letter from the Ramsey Hill Association. Mr. Effendi questioned Mr. Voerding's not knowing a letter sent from the Ramsey Hill Association, of which he is the Vice President, to the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC), where Mr. Effendi first filed his application, then withdrew it. The first letter from Ramsey Hill Association stated that if HPC were to review the matter it would place undue pressure on the Board of Zoning Appeals. He offered . to provide a copy of the letter for the Board's review. The applicarion was withdrawn in order to AA-ADA-EEO Employer � 1� Q File #02-130178 Minutes June 10, 2002 Page Five participate in a public hearing. Mr. Effendi stated that he had called the Ramsey Hill Association to request a public hearing, at the regular monthly meeting of the boazd, to explain his project before the board and the neighborhood to get feedback. At that time the Ramsey Hill Assceiation denied him the opportunity for a public hearing. The new neighbors are buying a property that is similar to the proposed project with the same size foot print. The garage/carriage house will be two and a half stories one of which is a garage. Part of the height comes from the fact that the house on the properry has a 12/12 pitch and the garage is being designed to match the pitch of the house. The McCain's had tried to sell the Effendi's a rental property a block away with the promise that a carriage house could be built there. Also the McCains will not be looking at a flat wall, but at a dormer and the wall between the garage and the carriage house will be a flat wall because City Codes do not allow a window there. Mr. Effendi stated that they wani to build something that blends in and enhances the neighborhood, there is a precedent to build a new carriage house. The ]etter sent to the Historic Preservation Commission was sent before any open meeting. Mr. Effendi noted that he had called the Ramsey Hill Association the day he filed, he was told tfiey would have a public hearing. However, two days later they received a letter noting sewer issues, making profit issues. Properry value does go up when nnprovements are made to the house. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. Ms. Otteson questioned whether there was a way to compromise. Mr. Hardwick stated that the property is zoned RT-2, there can be more than one principal structure on this properry. Anything that is first permitted in an R-4 Zoning District is also permitted in a RT-2 District. So anyone who wanted to build a carriage house on the properry in an RT-2 can do so if they get a special use permit from the Planning Commission. However, a second principal structure can be piaced on a properry without going through the Special Use process. This is a second principal structure and the term carriage house is being used to describe the design principles of this principal structure. So an applicant in property zoned multiple family such as RT-2 has two options: One they can apply to the Planning Commission for a Special Use pernut and develop a ffue carriage house that meets the definition of a carriage house. Second they can apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the necessary variances to construct the second principal structure. Here the applicant decided to apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals and for putposes of describing the structure, its relative size, and characteristics it will be similar to a real carriage house. That is a struciure that is built to accommodate domestic servants. Mr. Hardwick noted that in a historic preservation district there are no height limits to an accessory structure such as a carriage house. The height limits are determined by the Heritage Preservation Commission as to a height that is deemed appropriate with the principal structure and the other homes and buildings in the area. It has been noted that the house has a steep pitch and so the carriage house should be compatible with the principal house to maintain the character of the neighborhood and the property. That is left by the Zoning Code, up to the Heritage Preservation Commission. The application before the Board is accurate and complete as far as the variances needed to comstruct the second principal structure on this property. The height issues are decided by [he design experts with the Heritage Preservation Commission. AA-ADA-EEO Employer � . • �� a-g57 File #02-130178 Minutes June 24, 2002 � Page Six Mr, Wilson questioned wheiher another name for the second structure would be a"Mother-in-law house." Mr. Hardwick stated that is certainly another term that has been used to describe a small accessory dwelling unit. Which can be either another uniT built inside The unit or in an accessory building. Mr. Wilson questioned whether because the struciure is considered a carriage house, the height restrictions are nullified. Mr. Hardwick noted that a true carriage house is an accessory building, not a second principal stmctuze. An accessory building the Zoning Code says that the height restricaons for an accessory building in a Heritage Preservation Area shall not apply, that height is determined by the Heritage Preservation Commission. For a second principal structure on the same lot in an RT-2 Zoning District, even though they call it a carriage house, it is not really a carriage house it is a second principal structure, ottlerwise the applicant would have to go to the Pianning Commission. The Height restriction is the same as it would be for a principal structure which in this case is 30 feet, which they measure again from the midpoint between the peak and the eave of the building, down to the grade. Mr. Faricy questioned mention of a Special Use Permit. Mr. Hardwick res[ated that in a multiple famIly zoning district, everything fhat is permitted in an R-4 district is also permitted in this multiple family zoning district. There are two options: First, a structure called a carriage house can be built, because a carriage house is permitted use with a special use permit in an R-4 zoning district. Tt�is would be done through the Planning Commission. Second, because it is a multiple family zoning district more than one principal structure is allowed. In a residential town house zoning classification, • someone couid build town houses on this properry, that is two separate buildings with two unites in each. If the standards are not met for two separate buildings on a single zoning parcel the necessary variances can be applied for. Which is what the applicant has elected to do. Mr. Faricy remarked that than there is no reason to apply for a special use permit. Mr. Hardwick stated that is correct. Mr. Wilson moved to continue the req¢est for two weeks to give ttie applicant and those in opposicion time co meet and come to a consensus. Ms. Otteson seconded the motion. Mr. Kleindl remarked that even if the matter goes back to the Ramsey Hil] Association, it appears that the applicant has done a lot in meeting with neighbors and going over plans and he has spent a lot of time doing this. The peopie that are against this project are going to be against this project no matter what che applicant comes up with. It sounds Iike the appIicant has already moved from the original vision, to what they have today in accordance with what the neighbors. Since [hey have done everything they can with the neighbors and the Ramsey Hill Association, and the question before the Board is that they are within their rights, according to staff the Board should vote on ihat issue. Otherwise the Board will be in the same position in two weeks that they are in now. Ms. Otteson remarked that the purpose of this project is to provide off-street parking for the residents cars. If down the road they sell the carriage house, the parking provided for the current duple� residents wi]] no ]onger be available. Mr. Faricy stated that they could work out a parking aareement. Mr. Hardwick stated that the carriage house could be sold, but it would be sold as a condominium association and as such the parkin; agreement wouid be written into the lan;uage of the associauon. Ms. Otteson stated that the Effendi's actually own the rights to the land not the association. � File #/02-130178 AA-ADA-EEO Employer �J Minutes June 24, 2002 Page Seven Mr. Hardwick noted ffiat they cannot sell the carriage house separately unless they sell it as a condominium. They would have to go through a subdivision to split off part of that lot which would require a lot more variances. So the only way that unit could be sold is if it is part of the condominium association. The motion to continue the matter for two weeks failed 1-6(Morton, Faricy, Oiteson, Kleindl, Duckstad, Maddox). Ms. Morton moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6, subject to the condition ihat the applicant obtains design approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission. � Mr. Duckstad seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 6-1 (Wilson). Submitted by: Approved by: • John Hardwick Jon Duckstad, Secretary AA-ADA-EEO Employer • � �