The URL can be used to link to this page

254893 a I ., x ^ �7 g!�� .INAL TO CITY CL6RK t � (.�L't?�y�T� _ ' '�� CITY OF ST. PAUL FCOENCIL N0, " 1' OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK > � COUNCIL RESOLUTION-GENERAL FORM PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONE ATF WHTsREAS, Mi hael J. McDonough has appealed, pursuant to the Zoning Code, or variances from the Code' s requirements for density, set ck, buffer, building coverage and parking ratio and has also applied for a permit to install a 32-car parking lot, all with respect to property located on the southeast corner of Prior and Iglehart Avenues, described as: West 1/2 of Lot 5, all of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 26, Merriam' s Rearrangement of Blocks 24-29, Merriam Park; and WHEREAS, a full public hearing on the appeals and ap- plication was held befo=e the Board of Zoning on June 3, 1971, and said Board did recommend approval of the five variance requests and of the parking lot application because: 1) the rezoning of the subject property was delayed a year; 2) the parking lot application has filed prior to the establishment of the revised parking ratio; and 3) the variances seemed minor; and WHEREAS, a full public hearing on this matter was held before the City Council on June 30, 1971, at whieh time the Council heard evidence on behalf of appellant and inapposition to appell�nt' s appeals and application; and o WHEREAS, on the basis of the evidence taken at said public � hearing before the City Council that Council does specifically > Q find: � � `o °- °` 1. That, in light of the unusually long delay o- `o in processing appellant' s parking lot application, N i.mposition of the revised parking ratio would work p ¢ an unreasonable hardship on appellant; and, further, COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Counci� 19— Yeas Nays Butler Ga�lean Conway A �0 19` Levine _�n Favor Meredith Sprafka Mayo A gainat Tedesco Mr. President, McCarty p�l�� JUL 1 ? 1971 � � ` , ., , , � . � . �. ' .( , , s�.�r"��'�] f ;' ) 2 it is expressly found that relaxation of said parking ratio requirement, in this case, will be consistent with the public health and general welfare and in accordance with the purposes of such off-street parking requirements. It is also expressly found, in view of the evidence that the proposed dwelling space will be used primarily by elderly persons who rely on bus transportation rather than owning their own automobiles, that the anticipated demand for off- street parking space will not be greater than the amount of parking space provided as a result of granting the requested variance. 2. That compliance with the strict letter of the restriction governing setback would unreasonably prevent appellant from using his property for a permitted purpose, that imposition of the 35-foot setback would create practical difficulties, that according to the City Architect, the 35-foot setback was arrived at by computing the average of setbacks of three older homes built at the turn of the century in the area with setbacks of 37 feet, 37 feet, and 32 feet, and, that the setback restriction for property, (such as appellant' s) zoned "C" Residential is 10% of the lot depth. Appellant' s property is 141 feet deep. Application of "C" Residence setback re- striction would result in a setback of 14'� feet; however, the "C" Residence setback restriction cannot be applied in this case because the remaining area is zoned "B" Residential and therefore subject to the 35-foot setback restriction. 3 . That strict compliance with the restrictions covering density, building coverage and buffer requirements would work practical difficulties or peculiar hardships on appellant, that said buffer variance is slight and is conditioned upon appellant erecting screening similar to that used at 5herburne and Pascal Avenues and meeting the approval of the City Architect, that the density and building coverage variances are minimal and will significantly ease appellant' s hardship without adversely affecting neighboring landowners. and � , �O IG NAL TO 41TY CLERK • ' � p 10�� , `. . . � CITY OF ST. PAUL FCOE NCIL NO. -�� . .• . . , ,, -� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK � COUNCIL RESOLUTION—GENERAL FORM PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER oATF 3 WHEREAS, the City Council does find that granting the requested variances and application is in harmony with the , general intent and purpose of the Zoning Code and will do substantial justice and will ensure that the public health, safety and general welfare will be secured; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, Z'hat appellant, Michael J. McDonough, be granted the requested variances: 1j Relaxing the area requirement for a 32-unit apartment building from 33,000 square feet to 31,867.47 square feet; 2) relaxing the building line restriction from 35 feet to 16 feet from Iglehart Avenue; 3) Relaxing the buffer strip requirement from 8 feet to 5 feet; 4) Relaxing the building coverage area requirement from 35% to 39.7�; 5) Relaxing the parking ratio requirement for apartment buildings from 1'� to 1 to 1 to 1; and appellant is hereby granted a permit to install a 32-car parking lot on said premises. All of the foregoing is to be in compliance with the plat plan and specifications attached hereto and subject to the condition that said appellant and his successo�s and assigns, otherwise, shall make due compliance with all applicable provisions of municipal ordinances, state statutes, and rules and regulations of public authorities having cognizance. ,e�� 1319T1� COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Council 19— Yeas Nays Butler•/' ,J�� 14 1,� �F�so� Conway A e� 19� �Levine �n Favor �Meredith �prafka Mayor gainst �Tedesco Mr. President, McCarty J U L 1 � 19 7i pj18LISHED � , ' � � � � � . � . ' Mr. Harry E. Marshall (continued) June 28, 1971 Mr. Doug Kelm, Chairman of the Zoning and Ordinance Committee for the Merriam Park Community Council, noted the gross variance that is requested for the setback. He proceeded to read a statement concerning the legal basis for granting variances and presented a written copy to become part of the file. Mr. Todd J. Lefko spoke in opposition and emphasized the need for veriances to be granted on the basis of unusual hardship having to do with physical characteristics of the land. He said that the number of cars owned by potential occupants in the future must also be considered. Miss Pam Jackson spoke for the Association of St. Paul Communities, in opposition to the appeals. Several residents of the area also spoke in opposition. In considering these matters, the Board noted how the legal setback for the block face was determined and questioned whether construction would have begun prior to the passage of the revised parking ratio had not the rezoning gone to court. bsequently, the Board heard a motion to reco�nend approval of all five varianc � requests and of the parking lot application because: 1) the rezoning of the su ject property was delayed a year; 2) the parking lot application was filed prior to the establishment of the revised parking ratio; and 3) the variances seem minor in nature. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 4-1. Very truly yours, . ; ��. ��/�z� , � � PETER J. MAIETTA Secretary, Board of Zoning PJM:gaf PLR Z. F. �k6716 and �k6717 -2- , ,, � , , � � t r 224-4345 � • � • �10HN E. DAUBNEY ' ATTORNEY AT LAW �5I �� 73B MINNESOTA BUILDING � ST. PAUL, MINNE50TA 55101 �� r� � � February �+, lg6g �� The Honorable City Council City of St. Paul Court House St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Mayor Byrne and Gentlemen: Please be advised that Michael J. McDonough requests a variance on T� of Lot 5, all of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, Block 26, Merriam's Reaxrangement of Blocks 2�+, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 29, Merriam Park, wi�.ich is at the southeast corner of Iglehart and Prior in St. Paul, Minnesota. Mr. McDonough proposes to construct a 31 unit apartment house on this property and a variance is requested so as to permit a 16 foot setback from Iglehart and a density varia,n.ce so as to permit the construction of 31 units. The tract contains 31,86�+ square feet of land and Ordinance #60.2�+ would require 32,100 square feet, requiring a variance as to 236 squaxe feet, or in terms of percentages, a variance of less than 1�. A rezoning application is presently pending involving the same parcel of ground, and it is requested this petition for variance be made a paxt of the same file as the rezoning application. This application for variance applies both to �den's` ity.,�,nd�front~ ' a ui ements and is made ursuant to Section�`� sub ara� ra h yard setb ck req r p 3, P g P i of the Legislative Code of the City of St. Paul. I am enclosing herein Mr. McDonough's check in the sum of $20.00 as and for a filing fee. Ve truly r JO E. DAUBNEY At rney for Michael J. McDono JED:pr En.c. � ,� • 4 � ' � 224-4345 • � � . �10HN E. DAUBNEY ' ATTORNEY AT LAW 73B MINNE50TA BUILDING ST. PALIL, MINNESOTA 55101 February 17, 196g AMENDED VARIANCE PETITION The Honorable City Council City of St. Paul Court House St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Mayor Byrne and Gentlemen: Please be advised that Michael J. Mcnonough requests a varia.nce on T� of Lot 5, all of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, Block 26, Merriam's Rearrangement of Blocks 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 29, Merriam Park, which is at the southeast corner of Iglehartand Prior in St. Paul, Minnesota. Mr. McDonough proposes to construct a 32 unit apartment house on this property a.nd a variance is requested so as to permit a 16 foot setback from Iglehart and a density variance so as to permit the construction of 32 units. The tract contains 31,864 square feet of land and Ordinance #60.24 would require 33,000 squaxe feet, requiring a vasiance as to 1136 square feet, or in terms of per- centages, a variance of less than 3•5�• A rezoning application is presently pending involving the same � pascel of ground, and it is requested this petition for variance be made a part of the same file as the rezoning application. This application for variance applies both to density ancl fron�` yard setback requirements and is made pursuant to Section 6�+.03, subparagraph i of the Legislative Code of the City of St. Paul. Mr. McDonough on February �+, 1969 paid a $20.00 filin.g fee on this matter. Very truly y�s, �" �` � ��,��,,�+,.:�� x�s ( i.�� JO�IN E. DAUBNEY Attorney for Michael J. Mc nough 4: / JED:pr � �� . _ �� . ...- " :� !'�'� '�' �:ii �� . u °�; � �_: � _ ,. . . . . . . .....,,..� �: ._ �... . ,_. a' ,.LL� ,{, (r�J .l � .�.4�AhW 1 . . :��i ,=avi, + it�..::r.�ti8 r � ...,...__.,.- � . . �,. ., , . , � � , � � ' 224-4345 ' �JOHN E. DAUBNEY ATTORNEY AT LAW 73B MINNESOTA BUILDING ST. PALJL, MINNESDTA SS7O1 March lg, 1969 Pla.nning Department City of St. Paul Court House St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Gentlemen.: It is requested that you include the followin g, in addition to the other variances listed in the request on behalf of Mr. Michael McDonoug�. for the property located at the southeast corner of Iglehart and Prior in the City of St. Paul� known and described as: T 2 of Lot 5, all of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, Block 26, Merriam's Reasrangement of Blocks 2�-, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 29, Merriam Park; , ,.... �_ __. <<__.._._ _�, l. That a `5.. foot buffer �trip be permitted from the east side of the parking lot to t��,adjacent property on the south side of the subject premises. _ -- - _.....___ - �� 2. That the '35�o lot coverageirequirement be waived so as to permit a building that �ould cover a land area of 12,780 square feet. Respectf'ul�y ubmitted, �� 3/'�',,,�,,�- '• ' ; v e/�Li/ ,/ � JOH�V �. DAiT�NEY / A�ttor�.ey for Michael J. ,1�IcDonough r� , ,� .,`� JED:pr `"� cc - Michael J. McDonough Uu � � �� ` U � � MAR i `•� �969 CITY �LAi�i�ii3u B13ARD Saint Paut, Minneso' , � , , � ' � A1�N'DED � . City of Saint Paul, Minneaota � � � � . r APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL USE PERMIT � (Please print or type) �') . TO THE H�NORABLE MAYOR AND CITY (70U1ViCIL �s� ' D%� 96 the City Clerk � �� City of Saint Paul, Minnesota �%` � � �v% Application is hereb made to remodel or reconstruct an existing °� y install and operate a nea (cross one out) � FILLING STATION No. oY islands and pumps : No. of tanks and capacity: � � PARKING LOT for (private use) ��e��er) (indicate type) Capacity of parking lot �2 car paxkin� lot To be used in coanection with; �l 1,n;t anartment buildin� to be built at southeast corner of Prior & Iglehart o ��5��: (indicate type such as Drive-in Befreshment Stand, Used Car Lot, Dry Cleaning Pick-up 3tation, Ice Vendor, etc.) Capacity of parking area: *Location . Prior & Iglehaxt, St. Paul, Minn. Legal Descriptioa • Lot Block Addition Tn� of Lot 5, all of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, Block 26, Merriam's Applicant's Name ; Rearrangement of Bl. 2�-, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 29, Merriam Park Michael J. MeDonough Home or Office Address: 1939 Maxshall Ave., St. Paul, Minn. Phone Number . 6�+5_213p FO TF�s' PL , 2-�+-68 ohn . ��i� (date A e s , 738 Minnesota g. St. Paul, Minn.. pboa o.: 22�+-�+3�+5 iNi�en completed: file three copies of this application form and three prints of tbe preliminary Lay-out piana oY tbe proposed facility aith tbe City Clerk, Room 386� City Haii and Court House, Saint Paul, Minnesota Z-3 6/11/56 *EXAMPLE: 1. S.E. corner of Main St. aad First St. 2. South side of Maia St. between First and Second St. � BOARD OF ZONING REPORT AND ACTION June 3, 1971 Plat Map � 19 Acting under Legislative Code Chapter 60 thru 64 passed August 22, 1922, as ssetrded to January 27, 1971. File No. 6716 1. APPLICANT'S NAME : Michael J. McDonough Also 6709 6711 2. CLASSIFICATION : D Amendment X� Appeal � Permit Q Other 3. PURPOSE , Relax the aen�ity, setback, buffer, building X-1065 coverege, and perking ratio requirements 4. LOCATION . Southeast corner of Prior and Iglehart Avenues West 1/2 of Lot 5, all of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9, 5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION• Block 26, Merrism's Rearrangement of Blocks � 24-29, Merriam Park 6. PRESENT ZONING . "C" Reaidence 7. PURSUANT TO Zoning Code Chaptert 64 Section: •03 Peragraph: 8. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: 'Dste: 5/2g/71 BY: PLR A. HISTORY: Thia property was rezowd to "C" Residence on March 6, 1969. / B. PROPOSAL: 1) To develop the sit� with a 32-unit ap�rtment building on a parcel with `� 31,867.47 square feet; 2) Estab�ish a setback of 16 feet from Iglehart Avenue; 3) Develop part of the site with a parking lot providing a buffer area of only 5 feet; 4) Construct an apartment building with a ground area that will exceed the allowed 35% of lot cov�rage; and 5) To provide 32 parking spaces for the 32-unit building. C. PRESENT STANDARDS: 1) Area requirement for a 32-unit apartment building is 33,000 square feet; 2) The setback requirement in this block face has been determined by the Building Department to be 35 feet; 3) An 8-foot buffer strip is required between open A / parking areas and reaidentially•soned or residentielly-used land; 4) Building coverage �� is limited to 35% of tbe lot area, or on this site: 11,153.61 square feet; and 5) The Zoning Code amendment adopted 8J70 requires a parking retio of 1'�-1 for apt. units . D. VARIANCES: 1) The �ite ie 1�132.53 equare feet ahort of 3.44%; 2) The requested building line is 19 feet closer to Iglehart Avenue than the established building line of�35 feet or 54.2%; 3) The appellant is requesting the buffer area edjacent to the , `'� parking lot be reduced to 5 feet; 4) The building area is 12,653 square feet or about �, �� 1,500 square feet over the a1loWable limit�. The coverage is 39. 7% of the lot area; I �aoley Da*_e: , � � _ prifrel . MIN[JTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING on Thursday, June 3, 1971, at 2:00 P,.M, PRESENT: Mra. Cochrane, �iessrs. Ames, McPartlin, Maietta, and Mansur of the Board; and Mr., Rosetter and Mrs, Frantzen of the ataff. MICAAEL Ja McDONOUGH: Appeals and an applicstion for a permit to: 1) Relax the d�naity, setback� buffer, building coverage, and parking ratio require- ments; and 2) Install a 32-car parking lot, on property located on the southease corner of Prior and Iglehart Avenues. Mra Rosetter suaanarized the staff report, a part of the file, stating that this involves 5 variances and l permit. He said that this property was rezoned to "C" Residence on March 6, 1969� The proposal is to: 1) Develop the site with a 32-unit apartmeait building on a parcel containing 31,867e47 square feet; 2) Eatablish s aetbaclt of 16 feet from Iglehart Avenue; 3j Develop part of the site with a parking lat providing a buffer area of only 5 feeC; 4j Construct an apartment building with a ground �rea that will exceed the allawed 35� of lot coverage; and 5) To provide 32 parking spaces for the 32-unit buildinge The present standards indicate that: 1) Area requiremen�a for a 32-unit apartment building are 33,000 square feet; 2) The setback requirement in this block face has been determined by the Building Department to be 35 feet; 3) An 8-foot buffer strip is requfred beCween open parking areas and residentially-zoaed or residentielly-used land; 4) Build�ng coverage is limited to 35X of the lot area, or on thfs site: 11,153.61 square feet; and 5) The Zoning Code amendment adopted in August, 1970, requires a parking ratio of 1�-1 for apartment unitse The variances requested are: 1) The site is 1132.53 square feet short or 3.44X; 2) The requested building line is 19 feet closer to Iglehart Avenue than the established buildfng line of 35 feet, or 54.290; 3) The appellant is requesting the buffer area gdjacent to the parking lo�t be reduced to 5 feet; 4} The bu£lding area is 12,653 square feet or about 1,500 square feet over the allowable limits. The coverage is 39.7°l of the lot area; and 5) 1 to 1 parking instead of 1'�-1 parking represenCa a variance of 509'.o The Comprehensive Plan reco�ends medium-density for this aite with Marshall Avenue being a collector street and Longfellow School being retained. One, two, snd multi-family structures front on riarshall Avenue. There are some homes scattered throughout the area which have been converted to multi-family use. Lot sizes vary greatly throughout the neighborhood, from some sub-standard lots in the block w�st of the subject site to double lots ad�ofning the sub3ect site to the east, Lon�fellow School exists across TgZehart Avenue, northwest of the subject aite. Mr, Rosetter said that one could state in favor Che fact that this was rezoned and the permit applied for for the parking lot before the parking ratio change went into effect last Augusto An opinion from the Cr�rporatfon Counsel's office, however, states that a permit would have to have been issued before tha� date in order for it to be exempt f e present ratio, In opposition to �he appeal, Mre Rbsetter said the staf feels it should he pointed out that no practical ydship has been show}� which meets the re uirements of thq Zan g Cod e�� - . jf-� ��y �� / /*/ � �4��, In regard to th ap 1�ti for a parking 1 p� it, r. et e atated this does not meet design atandards if the parking variances �re not antedo -15- � AIICHAEL Jo McDONOUGH (6/3/71) (Continued�: The Traffic $ngineer recoIInnends a new layout. Ae notes the sub-standard parking ratio and disapproves of the direct alley access. Attorney for the appellant was Mr. John Daubney, who showed a site plan to the Board; he noted it is the same plan previously pproved for the rezoningo In January, 1969, they filed an applicetion for a arking lot; that was prior to the enactment of the perking ratio change in A ust, 1970., It was pointed out to the appellant that a parking lot couldn't be taken care of until the property was zoned correctly for the use. Nothing more was done on the appeals or permit until recently when the appellant requesCed the matters be consfdered by the Zoning Board. Mr, Daubney said the general purposes of the appeals are thaC there are peculiar difficulties with the property. The land is zoned for "C" Residential developmente He noted that land costs are quite high in that vfcinity and four baildinga on the sub�ect aite would be removed for consttuction of the apartment building. He said there is an order from the court to transfer one of the properties. Mr. Daubney said that basic�lly their cost will be over $300,000 for the 32•nnft building. The land is about $1,000 per unit. Mr. Daubney pointed out tha� the average age af the homea in the area is about 90 years. The gener�l area is f�irly well-maintained and it is not economical to tear dowa homes and rebuild with new siagle-family homes. Private capital is coming in, helping to rehabilitate the land. Mr. Daubney said [hat basically Mre McDonough has two buildings in the area �t the present time, Hiseory of these two show that elderly people occupy most of the apartments; many don't have cars and prefer to take the bus. He described the elderly people as "having empty nests" and moat don't need or want automobiles since their children are grown and gone. Mr, Danbney said his cliecrt hss no intention of challenging in court the City Attorney's positton on the parking ratio questione He continned by explsining the land uses in the general areae The homes built aboat 90 years ago have a greater setbac --the setback is determined by whaC is already on the block, In regard to vehi les uaing �he alley for accessp Mr, Daubney said that plan could be chan ed to facilitate using a direct access to Prior Avenue. He �sid the City Counc 1 has the right to place restrictions on such exits, etc, Because of the high cost of th� land, Mr, Daubney said it is difficult to build a building on that properCy with a lesser number of units, Mr, Ames interjected Chat he has done s e research on these variances� and safd he might point out that there are three �residences to the easC, Howell Street� that were built in 1887, 1889, and 1901aj Their reapective setbacks Ere 37 feet, 37 feet, and 32 feet, thus constitutinglthe Building Depsrtment's arrival of a block setback of 35 feet. He noted tha� for "A" Residential land the setback is required to be 20°!0 of the lot depth; in '"G" Residence zoning the requirement is L0I'. of the lot depth. However, the aetback was set by the old residences on the� block, When this was rezoned, Mr. Meietta s�id there was a misunderstanding, He saked if the builder would have undergone conatruction had thie not been held up in courto Mr, Daubney replied they would definitely hrave started sooner. The court �udged that State law determines that a majority vote of Council rathes than 2/3 vote conatitutes approval on a rezoning. -16- � r=ICHAEL J, McDONOUGH (6/3/71) (Continued): Speaking in favor of the appellant was Zir. Patrick Curran, 1676 Marshall Avenue, who inCroduced himself as a member of the Planning Board but said he is present at thie hearing beceuse he is Chairman of the Citizens Volunteer Co�ittee of Merriam Park and is representing the people there. He said the people present in opposition �re against the besutification of land in St. Paul� Mr, Curran said that if the area is studied and looked at, it would be discovered that not long ago a woman up the street died in a fire becsuse of the shambles her home was in. He said he feels a atudy should be made of the area as to what should be done there. Mr, Curran said thst perhap� a promoter or developer should be shown favoritism since apartmenta are needed and older people cannot always get into aursing hameso He said that people call him all the time and he willingly listens and tries to help, He ie asking the Board to think twicP about voting againat this proposal. He said this might be the very thing needed for better housing and living conditions for people in St. Paul, Mr� Curran said that the people present in oppositian don't live in the area, for the most parto There is oppoa£tion from the churchgoers at St, Mark's; howevera on Suadays people park all over the place. He said that ministers are self-made politicians raho are trying to run the city. At this point, Mr, Ames asked who he is representing. Mro Curran replied that he represents the Merriam Park C�tizens Volunteer Co�ittee, which is �rganized for protecting their property from msssive devaluation. Mr� Ames asked how many people he is representing, and Mr. Curran said a concrete example was that h�1f of the Merriam Park Cammaunity Center was filled the Cime the Plenning Board held its meeting regarding the 40-acre study of their area last aum�ere Sameone in the audience asked Mr. Curran h�w many duea-paying members he is representiag, A disturbance followed, and Mr. McPartlin said this controversy is childishe Mr, Curran ended his presentation by stating that he would be "willing to give rebuttal statements following the opposition's feeble views", i Mr� Leo Lindquist, 1944 Iglehart Avenue, noted he h�s iived there� since 195Za and asked about ,the 200-foot notification proce�ure. He said that on the cor.ner of Prior and St. Anthony Avenues there is coam�ercial zoning, and he pofated out various apartments in the area. He said that Mr. McDonough built two apartments in the area which made the area 1007, better. Mre Lindquist said his camplaint is about taxes since they woald be higher if apartments are built on the subject site. Mr, Meietta said the Board should stick to the issue at hand, Appearing in opposition was Mro Philip McDona�d, 2077 Selby Avenne, who said he ia President of the Merriam Park Co�mmunity Ca�ncil� and said there are 23•24 associaCions in that area, He said it was a unanimous vote of ttaose px�esent at the Merriam Park Community Council meeting to appear in oppositian to the matter in Deanoyer Park labeled "E, Lawrence Anderson10 and ,�lso on the a�atter preaently being discusaed, Mr, McDonald saici th�t nothing can be done about the construction of the sub,ject bnilding since it is zoned properly for that use, but they are oppoaed to the variances requested, -17- � � MICNAEL J, McDONOUGH (6/3/�1) (Continued): Alsa anpearing in oppositfon was Mr. Doug Kelm, ?107 Iglehart Avenue, who noted he is Chairmen of the Zoning and Ordinance Cou�aiCtee for �erriam Park Communfty Council. He said he doesn't intend to resort to the personal attacks voiced by r!r. Curran a few moments ago. Mr, Kelm said the decision on the Comprehensive PLan was approved by the Planning Board previously. The zoning matter is a matter of fsct. He said the people he represents feel bitterly about the rezoning action, but that is noe the matter at hand. The people agree that the matter of the five variances should be discussed at this time. Mr. Kelm pointed out that it is a gross veriance that is requested as far as setback is coacernedo He continued that he hes ten points written up against the issue, and submitted a printed copy to the staff. Nir, Kelm read the ten points, as follows: 1, On Wednesday, May 26, 1971, the Merriam Park Cammunity Council, being aware of the appeel for variances from the application of the Zoning Ordfnance in respect to the property at the southwest (southeast) corner of Prior and Iglehart reaffirmed its opposition to the granting of eny of the variances sought. ?. It should first be established that the need for variances in order to construct the proposed apartment house were known from the beginning by the appellant, MaDonough, and by his attorney. rlention of such need appesrs in the minutea of the March 6, 1969, meeting of the Board of Zoning which considered the rezoning of the land in qaestion. And on March 20, 1969, the Boaxd of Zoning laid over the question of variances until after the rezoning was settled. � 3. The Municipal Planning Act of 1965 (MSA 462.357) states one of the powers of the Zoning Board: "To hear requesta for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance", 4. The Ste Paul Zoning Code, Chapter 64.03 says in part that Che city may "vary any provision of the Zoniag Code in harmony with its general purpose and intent, where there �re practical difficulties or peculiar hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this ordinance, so that the public taealth, safety, and general welfare may be aecured and substantial justice done", So The Planniag Boaxd's new zoning nrdinance Cakes pains to state very specifically in accordence with many court decisions whaC is deemed to be a hardst*.ipo It states -18- MIQ�AEL J� McDQNOUGH (6/3/71) (Continued): one power of the Board of Zoning Appeals as follows: "To authorize. upon an appeal, a variance from the sCrict applications of the provisions of this Ordinance where by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape or area of a specific piece of property at Che time of enactment of this Ordinance or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary or exceptional conditions of auch property, the strict application of the regulations enacted would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional undue hazdship upon the owaer of such property provided such relief may be granted without substanCial detriment to the public good and without sabstsntislly impairing the intent and purpose of this 4rdinance4 In granting e variance the Board may attach thereto such conditions regerding the Iocation� character, and other features of the propoaed uses as it may deem reasonable in furtherance of the purpose of this Ordinance. In granting a variance, the Board shall state the grounds upon which it juatifies the granting of a variance. 6. The Attorney General Opinion of July 30th, 1956, (59A32) offers the following: "The basis for requested speciel relief under this section for claimed hardship must not be created by the applicant himself. The burden of proving existence of facts to justify granting of the variance rests on the applicant. The hardship m�ist not be self-imposed, nor financial anly, and must relate to the very property for wh�ch variance is sought, i.e., a condition unique, oppressive, and not comnon Co other property. The power to authorize the variance from the terms of the ordinaace muet be exerciaed sparingly and only u�der exceptional circumstaaces", 7o In the State of Minneaota Division of Co�aznunity Planniag publication entitled "Ttaenty Questions and Answers About Zoning", question number 7 asks the following question: "Can adjustmenta be made for individuels suffering hard- ships under zoning?" And the answer supplied is: "Variances from a strict application of the provisions can be had in cases of hardahip. The law does not permit individuals to gain outright exemptions from the provisioas of public ordinances, Variance means only that a provision is modified and variances may be granted properly so that the intent of the law is retained in practice, public safety and welfare are protected, pnd aubstantial justice is done. Conditions of hardshfp, �.:he basis for a variance petition, do not refer to the circumstancea or fortunes of the property owner but only to unusual peculiarities in the situation. condition, size, or sha�se of Che property in question", -19- ` � MICHA$L 3. McDONOUGH (6/3/71) (Continued): 8. Ia the case of Newcomb v. Teske in 1945 (30NW2d 354) the Snpreme Court eaid that the village council of Hibbing had "acted arbitrarily, under ordinance permiCting exception in csae of unnecessary hardship, in granting pesmit merely because a substantiel sum has been expended and work was aearly caapleted, since hardship was of property owne=s ' own creation"o 90 On this subject of s variance sought on the ground of hardship Cn J, S, Zoning ?.90-?.93 says in part: "To �uati£y the grsnt of a vsriance, the hardship �uat be su�atantial, serious, real, and o£ compelling force, as distinguished from instances of variances sought for reasons of convenience, profit, or caprice. A self-created or self-inflicted hardship may not be made the basis for a variance or for a claim thereof; the hardahip complaiaed of muet arise directly out of the application of the ordinance to circumsrances ot conditions beqond the control of the party involved. So, a hardship which has been willfully and intentionallq created does not �ustify the grant of a variance", l0o The Merriam Park Coannunity Council requests that the variance be denied on the basis that there is no shawing that a hardehip exists within the meaning of the law, and further, that any difficulty claimed by the appellant has been aelf-cre�ated. In re�ard to the Teske case cited as an examp�.e, Mr. Maietta asked if that was a pErmir for construction or was it a variance. Mr, Kel.m replied that a permit had been granted illegally for variance, and the court case deals with the ordinance about variances. The next spokesman for the oppoaition was Mr. Todd Jd Lefko, who noted he is a member of the Planning Board, and deacribed himself as "one of the sinister souls on that end of town" that Mr. Cnrran referred to. He noted that everybody on the Board has been working on the new Zoning Ordinance for St. Paul, and arguments regarding variances have been voiced. Mr„ Lefko noted that Dre Heiden of the � planning staff kept telling the Board that a variance is an unusual hardship, and gave the example of a ateep cliff dividing a lot, etc. A hardship would be based on the physical cheracterigCics. Mr. Lefko said Chat anyone with this many variances conaCitutea a most amazing thing. In regard to the parking ratio vsriance requested, he said that most families have two or more cars at this time, and the point is the number they will have over the next few yeara. Yn the new Zoning Code the requirement for parking is increased to 2 spacee per unit� which would mean th� subject proposal would 'be 100'Li under the new Code's requirement�. In reaponse to the point that moat uccupants of the new apartment building would not have cars, it cannot be determined what type of people live fn the apartment. There is such a major demand for housiag that most young - people share apartment�, thus having two cars pex unie which constitutes dsnger in relatioa to traffic, especially in this instance since the apartinent building is prsctically next door to a school, Mr, Lefko pointed out that even Mr, Daubaey had to admit that it was a poor plen for the parking lot and they ,..,,�� . ' , , � . , , �MICHI�B�. J� McD�TOUGH (6/3/71) (Continued}: would t�e agreeable to chaaging it to meet the City's wishea. Iie eaid it is always interesting to note that taxes are one the most-oftea menCioned points when discussing such a proposal. He po ted out that in many caees apartm�nts are not always coffiaensurate with th r coat to the City, i.e. sewage problems, streets, etc. -• all of these ave to be considered. Mr4 I.ef1�o said that at the time when a model ordinance ia nearing completion, it ia q+�ite clear that the City does not receive a ca�enaurate value from apartmtints. It is a separate question whether a building should be on the site at all, 5peakir�g for the Association of St, Paul Conm�nities was Pam Jacksoa, who noted the Association agreed to help the Merriam Park Co�aunity Council oppose �he numerous variances requested by the appellant. Mr. Charles Berres, 1919 Iglehsrt Avenue, said thst hfa point is that he is a �esidenC and many in the area are interested in the fact that the ordivance for variances be upheld. He said he expects there are boards to help variancee from being granted. If older people cannot pay the rent of such an apsztrae�at building, they will be forced to live in a high-rise. He said he is wondering if the other McDonough apartment buildings in that ares are filled, and aeked the Bo�rd to consider the residential neture of the area. Mre Berres said he cmn see where the 1-1 parking ratio requested is reasonable. Mr. McPartLin expresaed the view that he is not impressed by ell the arguing going on regazding Chis matter, aad would like to get homne at a reasonable houro Mr� Ames esked what tqpe of buffer the appellant is planning. Mr, Daubney replied that the sideysrd clearance is 20 feet 3 inchea, and thaC a 5-foot buffer is requested for the parking lot rather than the 8-foot one that is required by the City. Mr, Daubney agreed there are nvmeroua variances requeated, but said they are all "emell", The new Zoning Ordinance has been in the works for e nuuaber of years, and Mra Daubney said according to the laws of today the parking variance requested would not be 100�� Mr, Kelm said he is "a little bit shocked" since Section 52.09 of the City Ordinance describea what constitutes a physical hardahip in relation to variancea; he said he hsa yet to hear of any physical hardshfp on the aubject property that would warrant the grantiag of thase variances. Mrs, ICstherine Spiess, 1939 Iglehart Avenue, pointed out that there ie a very old atructure on the snbject property. Mra, Doana Benaon, 1924 Iglehart Avenus, said she purchased her home in January of this year snd is clearly againat this apartment being built next door to her home. -21- � : . . . � MICHAEL Ja McDONOUGH (6/3/71) (Continued); Mr. Maietta said Chat since the rezoning of this property wes delayed a qear illegally and since the parking lot was applied for prior to the chaage in the requirement, and aince these variances do aeem minor in nsture, he moved for approval of all 5 variances, plus the parking lot permit. The mdtion was seconded by Mro McPartlin, who coma�ented that "we`re goiag to be here all day", The motion for approval passed by a 4-1 vote. Mrs. Cochrane said she voted against the motion since she feela no hardship has been shown; ather casea have came before the Board where no hardship was shown end they were not approved. She noted thet because of the depth of the lot perhaps the setback variance is reaeonable, and she said she would perhaps agree to some uadification of the frontage on Iglehart Avenue. Following the vote, Mr. Ray Faricy, attorney interested in the sub�ect srea, said he feels the Board is doing a great disservice to the area residenta. Ae said this is a mocicery of a true neighborhood out there. Mr. Kelm said he wiahea it part of the minutes that there has been no finding of l�ardship to warrant these variances. Mrq McPartlin co�mmented that "Mro Relm has been pracCiciag Law here all � afrernoon", It: wae noted that the petitions against the appeaLa will be submitted to the City Clerk. Hawever. the person aubmitting them decided to keep the petitions and present them to Council himself. Submitted by: Paul L� Rosetter Robert L� Ames, Cha�rman -22- , I , � • T • CITY OF SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 113 Court House 55102 June 18, 1971 City Clerk 386 City Hall File X1065, Page You are hereby notified that a public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House at 10:00 a.m. on June 30, 1971 on the application of Michael J. McDonough for 1) a permit to install a 32-car parking lot, and 2) an appeal to relax the density, setback, buffer, building coverage and parking ratio requirements on the property described as follows: [•lest 1/2 of Lot 5, all of Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 26, Merriam's Rearrangement of Blocks 24-29, Merriam Park. The property is located on the Southeast corner of Prior and Iglehart Avenues. For further information, contact the Planning Board, Room 1010 Coannerce Building, or telephone 223-4151. To comply with the City Charter, the Department of Finance is charged with informing you of this public hearing. If you have any questions, it is recommended that you attend this public hearing to afford you the opportunity to make your views, both pro and con, known to the City Council. ROSALIE L. BUTLEIt Co�nissioner of Finance O . . � � . � ' • . � � � . ' . zoxu�e�i , I� '.+a"'�,�;. ��o�� , i th�4t• 4s'; ��e� � .,. ��. fpo=�`. •'�'�'. 1r �t: ra � k�• Ho , - �q ,28, � x�, { e, �� D�ted��,� �A�res: ,��LI'� �J��S if71) �_ i l � • + ♦ 224-4345 � � JOHN E. DALJBNEY � ATTORNEY AT LAW 736 MINNESOTA BLJILDING ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 May 2�+, 1971 The Honorable The City Council City of St. Paul Court House Re: T� of I�ot all of Lots 6 2 5, , St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 7, 8 and g, Block 26, Merriam's Rearrangement of Blocks 24-29 Dear Mayor McCarty, Mrs. Butler and Gentlemen: Merriam Park By reason of an. opinion of the Corporation Council issued May 19, 1971 to the effect that a parking lot permit must meet the requirements of the present ordinance, even though the application for the permit was filed prior to the adoption or even the consideration of the change in off-street parking requirements, it is requested that the application for variance heretofore filed on behalf of Mr. Michael McDonough for the premises at the southeast corner of Prior and Iglehart be further amended so as to include: "A request for varian.ce from the off-street parking requirements of the �it. Paul Zonin� ordinance, as presently amended, so as to permit the construction of a 32 unit apartment building with 32 off-street parking facilities upon the said premises." This matter is set for hearing before the �oning Board on June 3, 1971, being zoning file 6716 and file 6717, and it is requested that you refer this matter to them for their consideration. V y trul�r s, �� JO E. DAUBNEY JED:pr cc - Planning Board Michael McDonough � ��:, � �G ,!�' � �1,.;( i� -�: � I�� ( ry � "� �� +.'G �_� ', n i-� �� '.�� `J� �E.�� ..,_ _.- � . . r � � � '-t i , �:'l;�� , � • ' . , �,° , ��-�� ; , � ` __.�� #..�� ••, � -. ,. , . --- x�.,>.:,. � :t., � ,.�x�m��,� F�. . �i�,t i�'<z;.;. , :e....,-:s<t� � � �� f ' ' ., � . ' ► _ 1 � d � � • i _._— - '_ . � � � _ _. . _.._. 7 i • �•b 1 . ____ � , __ � # ; C�_____.. _ -- _. _.__ .___. __ # � _ � _. _ _ _ � � . _ , j ' � '=�/vi1/v v�v .l'� - ��irs/ �`. ' � - n F `s�,. ' . � , N f -w..,�..� .1 � � r�^-, y 7 �I �,:_ _ .____---__ t ` , � ; 'l i + . i I : N �� C � ; ' � � 1 � ;I___�._.._..__..._.,_.,F .9'� '1�'� ��7 ^ e f - . � _._.._ _.,. 1 ! � _.,...._._ ._...__..__ . ._..___� �' -c!O,L �v 7 Y 7 F'j } , .. .. ____.._.___. ..._ . i � . � � �"_ GJ A ._..,..�.._. �� p � . . � . j p ! � , ; ! r .�_._ � ' : � � __ .__ __,._ ___ __ __ _ , , , --- _- ___ . � i ! � -� r + , i :� � �� x ,9Y� , ' ' ' � �� S'�ti7 v� -ar�r-� s � ; � , ; ! � � �" ;��`'n1 r�i�' i � � i i. , , ; f . ' ; � i , 1 , ; . . � , ; _._._. _� _._,___ ! . ; .. . _ . :. � _ . ; � , � + — � r � ; � � � � . � � ; � I , Sn p�y� �yn1 i c� "`+"�, 'S-� ,; � � � � �� ._,..__ � oJ . . , a j 1 ' , , f � � \1 ��ii � �J r ` i J ! . } ---•-1-�____j._._._,_..1.._.,.____. ° f � _.,._.. � i �� 1 � � `�, az�r ��y � ra�Y� S � � � ! � ; � � �l � F - � � � .�, � : � � , � � . : ° ; : i � ; , � i � + f ----� i �- �' i �; f , � i . � R t _� � � � { �•M i � ( i-- - 1 _'_ �.__ :__ r+- � , � � _. � � ; � , � � .. =� t .-- �� i , i _ ;� � �.� , • , i � , 7 � i { � f � � J �. 5'� 17_.L 5�� 75►'�/fY�1 •�7 n�07 � � - �l � ' ; ! i � � 1 � � �. � o � • ' _ �� 02 �cj 4/ �j I�^a w-� s �, ' ( }, _., � _ . _..__ .._. � � . ro� ; , � , , � i —___�' _ _ . , — ; �:. -- � _ � � �; _ --.— - a c'n 1-----� � �1 �� ,.. �.._ ___� _ � ;�'t Y ,� -� i �I i , � �---- � O ` �' I �t� q - '1 '`�"' �� N �`_'"'� d ' • � j '3; • i j � � '� �_ � � . •� > � � � Sw0/1�iHr7i "�Y / � i 3 _! _ o �. ��' ,� �-N I " t�; `� � 1 � ! 1 q '.. - �' �� J I ( I .� v1 � o� T t j J ? I � � v ` � _ �,._..____ __ . `� _ , . . .. _ _. .__.. � ; � ; , � � �.� . r; oz�� , o, �� ^z� � � �- , , c� � , .� , ►t� , � � � ', � ; � rr� t� i ' � ; � � i I l. i ;� , � � , i i a ,� - i I , 1 �t ` ! ; �! � _�-� � =_2� 1 x --!`' .�.i � f #- •_� a, : I � • MI � , ; LL , _ _.{ � � -_ �. � _ � , a :.. � 1 -- � � i ; r � --�� ---�` t�'j -x I � _-� ' r #; ; , i j i � • I f _ _ ��ti/o.l:,� 7_33H'M •��p o � ; � `C � � �, � � ; � � j I ' ! ;� , � �' I � � � � � � � c`'c. x v/ ;,-i�/ ►+-, S ' i I i � � '__�"'�—�_..-...,.,...,.__,.......�......J_. ..-.._. � � - i f � M '�. _ ; i � ! c I o ; ; + � ��/�p jYI f�r�l/ ;_! ',¢. ' N , � t . I � ! • , --�__ � � ( � � � � � � f �; ! ; , ) � :T-�..__-.---�; , �Z ; , ; ! , ,� � __.__.___.____ t � ; i ; � ; �, _. ___._.._.... _ _ . _ , � ' � � � `' I . I, � _ ( ' ,. ! � •��,. ; i . j I � i I �N'3 � �L� �`- .�?`"jf�r ; I i ~� ` i ! - �,> :� i t/ '�/ 1✓','�i „1 � � i � �----- � �• g _ ' .:1"t/ r�� r� j i / � � _.._.,,_______-- , � � �) � , / • ----- ---------- - --.. . . .. . .___._• _—__�.___—__�__...._._..:_ . _.�,._,.._ _ .. ' � d o�� v�;� 4_ .. ._ i / __ ___ ---. ._ � ; , .. ._.. _ � __._. _ __ ___ _.,. ._ __ ._.__._.._ . __ _. __ , , >r `�v rY; 7 ,-r �,� d _.____ ___.____ ___.__._�p___ _--_— __._..,�_. —.._._.. , _..�__._... ___._._.. _:.... ...Y __. __.. .. O� � � -- _. .._. __.____. ___. _ �.._. ...._.___ __ __�__ ..._ _.___. _ ____.. ___..___ _, . _.._.___ . _ . ___. . _... _ _ J .---- _.._.. . -__ _.._ _. ..--_- -- -------/ . . :� /�� / ZJ Ci 1 __"?J �-,� . �? !`}��qU � � v ' ��E�� _ _ ' � ..__._ _ __.._ � �� •T - ��.____w.___.�..� �f � I � � � � i �� i � ; � , N ._i , . j � I .{�. r iTV<,, if.l ovv ; i � ti . � � . i ' p I � I , i �, - 1 i j i � — I . � i ' - J._.�,...r�..�'��. �..�..._. ...�._.r_...��._ ' I � � � . � - �v� �_. I� ..l Q� x L.r'� . � r f 1� j I ` � G � � � ` n � - c ar� . W�Hff�L �>To�SI � � ; .--� i , � ; � ', ;�` _ .� t_=- I � c _T � ' 1—. .i. �7:--f_j � � ' � � , w , : , ; ` � � . _ Iw ,__- - : � ; ; � � i ' ��. : -i ,t-- _ � .�:�- ��"x-- � ;-�—- -� T I � � � � � - � � � � � r , `� i ' , , I N � � , �' j � � , . � � � � ' r- � � � c �F tc.. � /O K4.2 A �,� � . ' I� � i n i j 1 , � � l- _ I , _.._ _. . t _ _. :. ,.. ; i j , � � , _ �or ; � � 4 � j � � ;,, � ' ;L ,r jj - .� T _ t 1 � � � � f:; I �.I �� a � _ i- � , � N � � -- � I �-t R/T(��1�N 0 v,S � rs la �;I ��, , N i ----�.v � t----� N � ' U ' �^, � � ); � � '� r � � (� �_j �., f CJ i � `- , _ � r� m --- f (/'S r ' _r_ ., , , � �_.__. __._.__ ._.. ____ . , .._ . '� o -+-=- {� I i f , _ � _ � � jo { �t' S ��eS � /d !X. 2o� � � � 1' � I i i ' _ ► ,, � ; � � i ( i( ' I = � < i Go G-. wtheE_�L '.�:Ta If'S � I + I � ! t � � ' �:t � � i z:: . �{-___ �� ..----� j - i '. � 3 { . 1 _�1 _---- • W -�---- 1 r---+ I ' � I ; r � :� , , � , ��-�- � {--�:� , � , , . � � � � �4 i : ; r y �. � ; � � ` � - � � � � r � S ��,C.S � 0,� 1C 2 O �.; _ � � � ( + _i -___._t_ -------.�__. _��___ � ; � � d �' �` ' ; 4 ' � I -a A I � � ; � N _. � ' • �J � i 1 p �P Zi / TG.alINOVS � � � � � { ' � I � ` � I , � I � ; ' � � � � , _ � ' � } � � ' , � � i _ __� , , _.,.._...__..__ � ' � ; , � ; ` . � F r✓ T,.�,z..G' "`� I � � I � � ��w � i ( ' ; i � c..t ti G h.G A :S rE i ' � ; � I E ; � � �8� X_� L� ` �., ; � � ,` ;s .., f i -'' �s i i �, j � , � � , � I __.. __ _ ._ __....�._ ___ � _ I , __ _------__---� ' ' 4 ' N _� I �af� �� i 1 ; ` I , � t i jo �': L--- .__.__...__. ._. ...____.. ____. . ...�.,_...__....�._ . _..'_.._..--.-- , I I i 1.3G �4CK TOP� � ' (� � � i i i X I I 1 1 :; U ti' F,l�� +---...-------�--- ' N � ,' 1 ' " ' 1' ° ' ' � a t� � � � j � � � �� ! � �� i�' L i4 c...��tl , � N i � �,� S�{ali�E `c�+C.. /'c��t/T�A/G, I � N_ + p ' � 1!�� { . . _ ,j' _ _ _ ' 'f i f _ _ � _ . � � ; _ _ _ _ , ,��,,. _ __.___. .____ . ____- , ___ � , � __ l41. S2� w_ . _. I � _.. _ _ ; ; v � . j i � '�. � ' � �-� � ; . ,�,: , . . t:� - , :� ��,. . , . �s.� ��.� .�� N..� _ ��. � . �.� �� . �� r V