The URL can be used to link to this page

02-8970��J�L Council Fale # 0'�, � � � CrteenSheet# a�c ��q is�.Y1�1117ty [t3�i Presented B� � Referred'gq i Whereas, Wailace Johnson, on behaif of St. Paul Leased Housing Associates and in 2 zoning file no. 02-125892, made application to the Board ofZoning Appeals [hereinafter, the 3 "Boazd"] for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning 4 Code for property located on Osceola Street, west of the St. Clair Playground and legally 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Since the last rime the Board reviewed this project in 2000, the 20 applicant has changed his plans slightiy, however, the variances 21 required are essentially the same. The applicant has rezoned the 22 properiy and has vacated the undeveloped right-of-ways adjacent to 23 and through the site. The building will be marketed for seniors, age 24 55 and older, and will have a combination of underground and surface 25 pazking. There aze many factors that make this a difficult site to 26 develop: the urea lar shape and steep slope of the property, the street 27 right-of-ways that bisect the property, and the proximity of the 28 railroad tracks to the south and the freeway to the north. The 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 described as Stinson, Brown And Ramsey's Addition To St. Paul Subj To Hwy & Osceola St; Ex S 80 Ft; Vac Daly St & Toronto St Adj And All Of Blk 5; and Whereas, the pucpose of the application was to vary the standards of the Zoning Code for minimum lot size and front and side yard setbacks so as to construct a four-story, 88 unit aparhnent building; and Whereas, the Board conducted a public hearing on June 10, 2002 after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board, by its resolution no.02-125892 decided to grant the variance the application based on the following fmdings and conclusions: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisians of tlte code. 2. proposed 88-unit apartrnent building with underground parking is a cost efficient design and a reasonable use for this site. The plight of the Zand owner is due to circunastances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the Zand owner. The irregular shape and topography of the parcel, as well as the Page 1 of 3 CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� f O�IG��L undeveloped ri�t-of-ways through and adjacent to this site, are circumstauces that were not created by the applicant. 4 5 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the 6 code, and is consistent with the heaZth, safety, comfort, morals and 7 welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. 9 Senior cirizens are one of the fastest growing segments of popularion 10 in Saint Paul. The proposed 88-dwelling units will help meet the 11 growing need for senior housing in the City. The Housing Chapter of 12 the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan states, "In the conshuction of 13 ownership and rental housing, we should encourage a diversity of 14 building and unit types to meet the diversity of the mazket. Particular 15 attention should be paid to assessing and meeting the needs of a 16 growing number of older persons who aze looking for alternative 17 housing in their own neighborhoods." This building will provide 18 needed housing for the senior population in the area and is consistent 19 with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variances are in keeping 20 with the spirit and intent of the code. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4. The proposed variance will not tmpair 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. This parcel is separated from the nearest residential properry by about 200 feet. The proposed setback encroachments will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent proparties. This site abuts railroad tracks to the south, the I-35E pazkway to the north and the west, and a playground to the east. This isolated site has attracted various unwanted nuisance activities over the years. Establishing a productive use of the property with the proposed apartment building will reflect positively on the surrounding uea. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code far the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of tke property. The proposed variances, i£ 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 primary goal of this variance request is to construct a cost effective building, make full use of this site, and meet the housing needs of the area. o�_s�►�t Page 2 of 3 QRiG�R��L ds _tr°l'1 Whereas, pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code. § 64.205, Andrew Koebrick duly filed with the city clerk an appeal from the deterniination made by the Board and requested that a hearing be held before the City Council for the piupose of considering the acrions taken by the said Board; and Whereas, acting pursuant to Leg. Code §§ 64.205 - 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on July 24, 2002 where all interested parties were given an oppor[unity to be heard; and Whereas, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board of Zoning AppeaLs, does hereby Resolve, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the Board of Zoning Appeals decision in this matter having found no error in the facts, findings, or procedures of the Board in this matter; and, be ir Further resolved, that the appeal of Andrew Koebrick be and is hereby denied; and, be it Further resoived that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby adopts as its own the finding contained in Board of Zoning Appeals resolution no. 02-125842 as its own in tkus matter; and, be it Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Wallace Johnson, Andrew Koebrick, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Coxmnission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Requested by Department of: &y: Fonn Appr ed by City Attorney a �f.�i�l�G'�kMe— �- /'L -O Z by Mayor for Submission to Council By: � Approved by o : Date� $Y � . — — — _ K/d�!wf�+_ . Adopted by Council: Date .'L$ i1�00�. Adoption Cexti£i�l by Conncil Secretary o�-�� City Council Councilmember DATE INRNTED Sept. 18, 2002 e 266-8610 OATEI A481GN MUYBFAGOR ROIfTING ORDER TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PACaES GREEN SHEET o��rcw[c,ort ISO cm taura 20fl699 ❑ fJfYATTORIEY ❑ CRYCIHIK ❑N+41c1/J.tERNCF3oR. ❑nU11CNLa61lYIAtCfo ❑ WYORIOR/39E[OM� ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SiGNATURE) Memorializing City Council action denying the appeal of Andrew Itoebrick from a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting three variances to 5aint Paul Leased Housing Associates in order to construct an 88-unit senior apartment building at 26Q Osceola Avenue South. (Osceala Park Project) (Public Hearing held on July 24, 2002) PLANN W G COMMISSION GB COMMIITEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Has this perso�rm erer wrorked under a confrad for this department7 YES NO Has Mis person/firm e�.er been a cdy empbyee7 , VES NO �oes this pe�soNfmi possess a sluli not normalryG� M anY u+� �Y �Woyeel YES NO Is ihis persoNfirm a targetetl vendoYt YES NO �lain all ves answe�s on seoa2te sheet arM attach to ateen ahee[ OF TRANSACTION SOURCE COST/REVENUE BUDGETEG (CIRCLE ONE) ACTMSY NLMBER YES NO FINANCW.INFORMAiION (IXPWN) OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Manuet Z Cervoatu, ClryAttorney L.� _ y� � a "L CITY OF SAINT PAUL R¢ndy G Kelly, Mayor civitDivision a00 Ciry HaA li Wut Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, Minnuota 55102 Telephone: 65I 26687I0 Facsimtle: 651198-5679 September 12, 2002 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Hand Delivered Re: Resolution memorializing the City Council's decision in the matter of the appeal of Andrew Koebrick from a decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals granting variances to Saint Paul Leased Housing Associates for construction of a residenriai structure on properiy located on XX Osceola Street, west of the St. Clair Playground City Council Acrion 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 oppottunity. Please cail if you have any questions. V ery huly yours, ��;�G✓G✓�^ Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENV/RONMENTAL PROTECTfON Roger C_ Cu�tis, Director CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Randy C. Kelly, Mayor June 27, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: • � Z .�� FOTICE OF PQBIdC HEARIIQG . 1be Saint Paul City CouncII will con- duct a public heartng on Wednesday, Ju1y 24. 2A02. at 5:30 p.m. in the CYty Covncil cna�t�. 'rnua �oor city �u- Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Sffint Pavl, MN, to conslder the appeal of tlndrew Kcebrick to a decision of the Soard " of Zoriing Appeals giantin� ty�� ances in order to construct an S8 unit senior apaztment buildinb at 260 Osceola Averrue S- (�sceola Park Project) - . Dated: July i, 2002 Ne1NCY ANDERSON Assistant City Counell Secretazy � Fru�s sl — = 32. PAi1L L&GAL 7.E17GEIt =�_= 620h0107 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 #: Puzpose: Location: Staff: District : Board: Andrew Koebrick 02-125892: Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting three variances in order to construct an 88 unit senior apartment building. 260 Osceola Ave. S. (Osceola Pazk Project) Recommended approval No recommendation Approved on a 4-1 vote. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Chris Coleman. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convezuence and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paui Legal Ledger. Thanks ! Si�� ce,�ely, ` � . , John ardwick, Zoning Specialist aa-s-�.Z `+9 LOWRYPROFFSSIONALBUlLD7NC Telephone: 657-266-9090 350 St Peter Sn'eet, Suite 300 Faaimile: 657-266-9724 Saint Paul, Minnesota SS/OLl510 Web: mvw.ci.stpauLmn.us/liep AA-ADA-&EO Employer OFF[CE OF LICENSE, NSPEC110NS AND �'1 ��Lf � ENVIRONMENTAL PR07EC7ION ��" � Roger C. Curtis, Direclor s,,,x� PAUL � AAAAI i � CITY OF SAI23T PAUL Randy C. Kelty, Mayor June 27, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: LOWRYPROFESSIONALBUILDLYG Telephone: 651-266-909Q 350 SG Peter Streel, Suite 300 Facrimile: 65/-266-911�1 Saint Paul, Minnesata Si102-I510 Web: vn»v.c+.s(paul.mn.:rs�liep I would like to confirm that a public hearing before fl�e City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, July 24, 2002 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Zoning File #: Purpose: Location: Staf£: District : Boazd: Andrew Koebrick 02-125842: Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals granting three variances in order to conshuct an 88 unit senior apartment building. 260 Osceola Ave. S. (Osceola Park Project) Recommended approval No recommendation Approved on a 4-1 vote. 1 have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Chzis Coleman. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the CiTy Council at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks ! aist AA-ADA-EEO Employer APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Depariment nf Planning and Ecanomic Developmenl 2onirrg Section 1'100 Citt� Hall flnnez IS West Foarth Street Saint Paul, MP' S5101 266-6589 APPELLAt�T � SR.fi,g f)ftlCL';it52 �lF3{�::`-:. _:. :FQe �:�� s �'enfative h2aring'd8te . s ��/ � • • 7 Daytime phone2�6 `i�� PROPERTY Zoning File Na LOCATIQN Address/Locati 2 � TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeal to the: ` Board of 2oning Appeals City Counci! under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeat a decision made by the C� nard tT'c .�a� on -��'� \ b� Z��`� , i�9�-• File number. (date of decision) 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 fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning AppeaVs or the Planning Commission. �� Attach additiona! sheet ii ApplicanYs � r �. Date '�� City agent__, � � � : �� Grounds for Appeal: Osceola Park Rental Housing � (Project No. 02010.00) On 7une 10, 2002 the Boazd of Zoning Appeals approved major variances allowing the construction of a four-story apartment building on a wooded parcel adjacent to the St. Clair Playground/Pazk. The neighborhood is opposed to these variances and believes they were made in error. We respectfully request that the St. Paul City Council reverse the BZA decision. Prior to detailing why we believe these variances should be reversed, let us stress that our opposition to the variances as not necessary opposition to the idea of the development of housing on this site, but rather the size of development allowed by the variances. The variances granted allow: 1) 232 rather than 200 rooms; 2) Oft. setback from Osceola rather than 25ft as specified in the code. 3) Side yard setback of 15ft from the St. Clair Park rather than 25 8 as speci£ied in the code. 4) A lot coverage of 28,779 rather than 28,767 ft. We helieve that the variances failed to meet 5 of the 6 criteria the BZA is charged with enforcing: � 64.203(b)(1): The property in question cannot be put to a reasonabie use under the strict provision of the code. The BZA staff report recommended approval of the variances because the "inegular shape and steep slope", "street right-of-ways that bisect the property" and "proximity to rail tracks" makes it "a difficult site to develop". However, taken in turn we see than these arguments are either not accurate or irrelevant: Steep slope: Although the site currently consists of an approximately 30ft. hill, the site plan submitted by the developer clearly shows that the hill is to be entirely removed, thus negating this concern. In fact, the removal of the hill is to be accomplished with public funds, through a$300,000 STAR grant (grant name and file: Osceola Park Condo's [sic] #01-151). Street right-of-ways: Contrary to the BZA staff report, street right-of-ways do not basect the site. At one time a portion of Daly St. ran through the pazcel, but this land has been given to the developer- resulting in a large unbroken property. Additionally, the City also vacated the undeveloped Toronto St. on the eastern ed�e of the property. s Giounds for Appeal: Osceola Park Rental Housing (Project No. 02010.00), Iune 26, 2002. 1 � Becanse the whole of Toronto St. was given to the developer rather than dividing half of the former street to each neighboring property owner (as is normally fhe case in vacarions) the normal buffer between the St. Clair Playground and to-be developed parcel has already been reduced from a standard street width to zero feet. For this reason, maintaining the standazd 25ft setback on this side becomes even more critical in order to maintain the essentiat character of the park. As a side note, because one neighboring property owner of the vacated Toronto STreet is St. Paul Pazks, the Parks department would have stood to gain half of the fotmer Toronto had the street been split as is customarily done. This appeazs to be a violation (in spirit if not letter) of the City Charter section on the Disposal or diversion ofpazk property (Sec.. Sec. 13.01.1). Proximity ta rail tracks: The Canada and Pacific Railway operates an active rail line to the south of this pazcel, and the railway is on record opposing both these variances and the development of this parcel for residential purposes. While we agree that an active rail line makes this an ill-advised location for development, the existence of an unattractive neighboring use provides no special grounds for setback variances on this side of the property, and in fact none were requested. In short, the presence of the rail ]ine simply has no legal bearing to the requested variances. Irregular shape: Tha inegular shape of the lot provides challenges and demands creativity to site design, but does not preclude developing within the existing zoning ordinances. As evidence, the developers have found room on this parcel for the creation of faz more pazking (1.5 spaces per unit) than required by zoning ordinances for "elderly housing" (33 per unit). This project is being put fonvard as "senior housing", and the BZA staff report siresses that this housing is intended for the "gtowing number of older persons who are looking for altemative housing in their own neighborhoods". And yet the building is not being constructed in accordance with the requirements for the "elderly housing" zoning classification, suggesting that despite the irregular lot, there is a luxury of space on the property to develop. No variances for coverage should be granted until existing mechanisms (i.e. building to Yhe "elderly housing" specifications) for fitting the development to the existing lot size and shape have been utilized. Furthermore, a review of Yhe site plan suggests that even were the developer to maintain the current classification and required number of parking spaces, it would still not be necessary to encroach upon the St. Clair Playground/Park. Options for building without this encroachment include but are not limited to: 1) shifting the structure's footprint to the west 15ft. or Gzounds for Appeal: Osceola Park Rental Housing (Project No. 02010.00), June 26, 2002. � � oa.�9� 2) simply joining the wings of the building with an acute angle to that the eastem wing does not protrude into the setback from the park. � 64.203(b)(2): The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his proper[y, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner This property was originally zoned for townhomes (RT-2)- a use which certainly would have fit both the character and confines of this lot far more easily than the mammoth four story structure proposed. However, the landowner initiated and was granted a rezoning of the land to RM-2 (Multi- family residential). The fact this developer is now having trouble fitting a structure of this scale on the parcel is cleazly then a direct result of a situation "created by the landowner". 64.2D3(b)(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 Saint Paul The St. Paul zoning code exists to ensure the quality of our built environment. We believe that by granting these variances the Boazd of Zoning Appeal failed to consider the health, safety, and comfort of the inhabitants of St. Paul: � Health: The West 7th neighborhood currently faces numerous threats to our health through negative air quality. Gopher State Ethanol's emissions aze of course the most notable, but must be considered in conjunction to the cazbon monoxide, ozone, fine particulate, and sulfur emissions produced by the presence of three major transportation corridors through the neighborhood (35E., West 7th St., and Shepard Road) and the NSP High bridge power plant. Ttils development, if built with its variances and to the specifications of a standard apartment (rather than to the "elderly housing" parking requirements which would assume a decreased use of resident automobile use) will substantially add to the air quality problem in the neighborhood. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition projects that an 88 unit apartment would create 49 additional auto trips (39 trips per unit) per hour during the morning peek periods. These automobiles, with their resulting exhaust and noise pollution will spill primarily onto the residential streets of St. Clair and Osceola, resulting in a health impacts ranging from increased asthma to cancer (Healrh effecrs oJmotor vehicle poliution. Minnesota Pollution Conhol Agency, St. Paul MN: 2000). Safety: The increased traffic generated by this apartment, again exasperated by the variances in question, wall have a substantial negative impact on traffic safety on the neighboring streets. Osceola intersects with St. Clair at , the base of the St. Clair hill, as an uncontrolled intersection. Traffic on St. Clair descendin� this hill is moving at a higher than average speed. �Vith a Grounds for Appeal: Osceola Park Rental Housing (Fioject No. 02010.00), June 26, 2002. 3 � radical increase in the numbers of automobiles entering this high-speed traffic of St. Clair we can expect a substantial increase in the incidence of auto-auto collisions. The presence of the St. Clair Playground and ball fields adjacent to this parcel also suggests that an increase of pedestrian-automobile accidents will also be produced by this increased traffic flow. Individuals regularly pazk on the Notth side of St. Clair and cross the street to the fields. These individuals' safety will be put at risk by the increase of h'affic caused by these variances. Comfort: The increase of traffic and residence noise (i.e, radios, Iawn care...) caused by this development and exasperated by the variances wili add to the high background noise levels already present from 35E, resulring in a negative impact on the comfort level of the neighboring property. 64.203(b)(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. This section of tha code details the areas of most severe impact caused by these variances. While considering why these variances may have been granted in error by the Board of Zoning Appeal, it is importanY to note that the staffreport failed to provide anyphotos of the parcel in question from the vantage of 3t. Clair Playground. This omission resuited in a critical lack of information for the Boazd's decision making process. Light and air: The variances allowin� for encroachment on the St. Clair Playground will effect both daytime and ni�httime light and air conditions in the park. During the late aftemoon, a substantial shadow will be cast onto the ball fields. At nighttime, the apartmenYs outdoor lights and tight spillage from the units will severely impact the ability to star gaze in the park, an activity enjoyed by innumerable pazk users. Such a large flat-faced structure built to within i5ft. of the park will have negative effects on the supply of air and wind to those who regularly use the park to fly kites. Essential cltaracter: The variance that allows construction of the buildin� to within 15ft. of the St. Clair Playground will cause ineparable hann to the essential character of the St. Clair Park. The current character is that of a unique island of green space in an othenvise fully developed neighborhood. All other parks in the nei�hborhood (Palace Playground, Irvine Pazk...) aze surrounded on all four sizes by housing. The presence of trees to the West of the St. Clair Playground helps it blend with the wooded Iulls of the bluff and dampens the visual and noise impacts of the neighboring 35E comdor. This is its essential character. By replacing this hilled parcel with an Grounds for Appeal: Osceola Park Rental Housing (Project No. 02010.00), June 26, 2002. 4 � � � � oa-�� apartment of this scale, and the failure to maintain a standard setback so that a planted buffer can be put in place, will forever alter for the worse the � chazacter of the St. Clair Playground. A building of the scale allowed by the variances will aiso have a negative effect on the essentiai azchitectural character of the neighborhood. Almost all of the surrounding homes were build from the 1880s through the 1920s and are modest in scale. By allowing these variances, the resulting apartment building will be completely out of keeping with the scale of neighborhood. In addition to scale, the disjunctive architectural style of the proposed apartment must also be considered. As designed, the proposed structure has no pazallels in the surrounding homes, and would look better placed in App1e V alley than St. Paul. Because of the failure to match the historic quality o£ the neighborhood, it is essential that the standard setbacks are maintained, to allow a buffer of trees and landscaping to soRen the impact of the building's awkward saze and style. Property Values: Finally, the existence of such an over-scaled struchue, increase of traffic on neighboring streets, and the extreme loss of tree cover caused by the variances of coverage and setback seem certain to have a negative effect on the property values of the sunounding neighborhood. � 64.2U3(b)(6): The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land Throughout the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing, and in the staff report, the "cost effectiveness" of this development is stressed as reason for the granting of the variances. A smaller apartment building could obviously be constructed on this parcel that would neither require setback, coverage, nor room number variances. Such a structure would be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and result in fewer health and safety concems. The fact that a larger building is being built is purely a product of the developer's desire to ma}cimize the number of units on the property and thus increase its value and income-generating ability as a rental facility. Because the only logic for expanding the size of this apartment is at odds with a strict reading of this zoning code section, we request that the City Council reverse the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The granting of variances based upon the possibility that a smaller apartment built to the existing zoning specifications may not be economically profitable is explicitly forbidden by section 64.203(b)(6). Conciusion In closing, the nei�hbors appealin� this Board of Zoning Appeals decision � wish to stress again that the objections voiced in this appeal aze only to the scale of the development, the lack of setbacks, and the impact of this Grounds for Appeal: Osceola Park Rental Housin� (Project No. 02010.00), 7une 26, 2002. 5 � particular plan on the essential chazacter of our neighborhoods. Not to the idea of development itself. Housing may well be the most appropriate use for this land (though many in the neighborhood believe it should be acquired � and added to the St. Clair Puk). However, only by holding the developer to the existing zoning criteria can a building added to this site fit into the existing character of the adjacent pazk, maintain the quality of the life enj oyed by the naighborhood, and make St. Paul a better city in which to live, raise our families, and grow older. This appeal was prepared and submitted by Andrew Koebrick (651-224- 8626) on behalf of the Fort Road Federation. � Grounds for Appeal: Osceola Pazk Rental Housing (Project No. 02010.00), June 26, 2002. 6 �a-�97 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT � � TYPE OF APPLICATION: APPLICANT: HEARING DATE LOCATION: Major Variance Wallace Johnson St. Paul Leased Housing Associates June 10, 2002 Osceola Street west of St. Clair Playground FILE #02-125892 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: STINSON, BROWN AND RAMSEY'S ADDITION TO ST. PAUL SUBJ TO HWY & O5CEOLA ST; EX S 80 FT; VAC DALY ST & TORONTO ST ADJ AND ALL OF BLK 5 PLANNING DISTRICT: PRESENT ZONING: RM-2 ZONTNG CODE REFERENCE: 61.101 BY: John Hardwick REPORT DATE: DEADLTNE FOR ACTION: May 24, 2002 July 21, 2002 DATE RECEIVED: May 22, 2002 A. PURPOSE: Three variances in order to construct a 4-story, 8$-unit apartment building with underground parking on Osceola Street next to the St. Clair Playground. 1.) The lot size allows 200 zoning rooms and 232 rooms are proposed, for a variance of 32 rooms (19,310 square feet ). 2.) A 25-foot front setback is required and a zero setback from Osceola Street is proposed, for a variance of 25 feet. 3.) Side yard setbacks of 25 feet are required and a setback of 15 feet is proposed for the east side, for a variance of 10 feet. B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is an irregular shaped parcel of about 96,000 square feet. The property is bounded by Osceola Avenue on the north and west, undeveloped Toronto Street on the east, and railroad right-of-way and Grace Street on the south. This parcel is, basically, a large hill that rises about 30 feet above Osceola, and perhaps 20 feet above Grace Street. Webster Playground abuts the east side of the site, across undeveloped Toronto Street. Surrounding Land Use: Mixed residential uses. � C. BACKGROUND: In March of 2000, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted several variances in order to construct a 3-story, 81-unit senior apartment buildin� on this site. Page i of 3 1 File #02-125892 Staff Report The variances required were similar to the current request with the exception of 2ot coverage. � For unspecified reasons this project was never built. The applicant is now proposing to construct a 4-story, 88-unit buitding for seniors on the sita. D. FINDINGS: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable a�se under the sts-ict provisions of the code. Since the last time the Board reviewed this project in 2000, the applicant has changed his plans slightly, however, the variances required aze essentialIy the same. The applicant has rezoned the property and has vacated the undeveloped right-of-ways adjacent to and through the site. The building wiil be marketed for seniors, age 55 and older, and will haue a combination of underground and surface parking. There aze many factors that make this a difficult site to develop: the inegulaz shape and steep slope of the property, the street right-of-ways that bisect the property, and the proximity of the railroad tracks to the south and the freeway to the north. The proposed 88-unit apartment buiiding with underground parking is a cost efficient design and a reasonable use for this site. 2. The plight of the Iand owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and Yhese � circumstances were not created by the lancl owner. The irregular shape and topo�raphy of the parcel, as well as the undeveloped right-of- ways through and adjacent to this site, are circumstances that were not created by fhe applicant. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safery, comfort, morals anct we[fare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. Senior citizens aze one of the fastest gro�ving segments of popuIation in Saint Paul. The proposed 88 dwelling units will heip meet the growing need for senior housing in the City. The Housing Chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan states, "In the construction of ownership and rental housin�, we should encourage a diversity of building and unit types to meet the diversity of the market. Particular attention should ba paid to assessing and meetin� the needs of a growing number of older persons who are looking for aitemative housing in their own neighborhoods." This buiIding �vilI provide needed housing for the senior population in the azea and is consistent �vith the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variances aze in keeping �vith the spirit and intent of the code. Page 2 of 3 � �� oa s97 File #02-125892 Staff Report � 4. The proposed variance wi11 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 property values within the surrounding area. This parcel is separated from the nearest residential property by about 200 feet. The proposed setback encroachments will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. This site abuts railroad tracks to the south, the I-35E parkway to the north and the west, and a playground to the east. This isolated site has attracted various unwanted nuisance activities over the years. Establishing a productive use of the property with the proposed apartment building will reflect positively on the surrounding area. 5. The variance, ifgranteci, would not permit any use that is not permitted z�nder the provisions of the code for the property in the clistrict where the affected land is locateci, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. • The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for var is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or incon:e potential of the parcel of land. The primary goal of this variance request is to construct a cost effective building, make full use of this site, and meet the housing needs of the area. E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 9. F. STAFF RECONIMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approval of the variances. �� Page 3 of 3 �� APPtICAT10N FOR 20NING VARIANCE OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 300 Lowry Professiona! Building 350 St. Peter Street Saint Paul, M1Y 551O1-I510 (65]) 266-9008 � Cit �� St�Zip��Daytime Phone��/ o�� APPLICANT property Interest of Applicant (owner, contract purchaser, etc.)��\�� Name of Owner (if PROPERTY Address / INFORMATfON Legal Description (atfach additiona! sheet if necessary) Lot Size C �� 'Present Zoning �/,, Present Use �1 L� �� I� M ` 1 � Proposed 1. Variance(s) requested: S��- �-tf� e'l / 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.) 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. 4. Explain how the granting of a variance witl not be a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. CASHIERS USE ONLY ApplicanYs Signature �� -�a ��a oa8�t� � ZONING REQUiREMENTS: Project No. 02010.00 OSCEOLA PARK RENTAL HOUSING ST. PAUL, MN SITE DATA APPROXIi�fATE AREA INCLUAIATG EAST 50' VACATED TORONTO: 95,890 SF (220A) ZO��E RM. 2 MEDIUM D�NSITX, LOW-RISE, MULTI-FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL DISTRTGT. MARIiET: ADULTS OVER 55. PROPOSED BUILDING DATA: 4 apts. Over 1 story underground garage. AREAS (GROSS): 28,779 SF/FL x 4= 115,116 SF UNITS +25,'779 SF GARAG� i � TOTAL= 143,895 SP. 97 UBC OCGUPAI�CY: Rl OVER S3 TYPE OF GONSTRUCTION: TYPE 5,1 HR. OVL�P. TYP� 1 SEPARATION: 2 HR. UNtT DATA TYPE APPROX. NET AREA UNIT COUNT x ROOM COUNT IA- 1BDR 650 32 2 64 2A- 2BDR- SPLIT 930 42 3 126 ��BDR�OR�'�R 930 14 3 42 SS UNITS By: Lee M. Seppings Revised: 05/20/02 COLIABOR4TNE Desia Gronp, Inc. 232 ROOMS 1 of 2 `� � 1 � � �� BULK SCHEDULE 61.107 ROOMS PROPOSED: LOT AREA REQUIRED: LOT AREA PROVIDED: PLUS UG PARKING BONUS: A*. TOTAL: MAX. HEIGHT PERMITTED: PROVIDED: B . FRONTYARD PERMITTED: PROVIDED: C*. SIDE YARD PERMITTED: (1/2 HT) PROVIDED: REAR YARD PERMITTED: PROVIDED: D*. LOT COVERAGE PERMITTED: PROVIDED: PARKING REQUIRED: PROVIDED; 232 � 232 x 600 SF = I39,200 SF 9�,890 SF 80 SPACES x 30� 24,000 SF 119,890 SF (SHORT 19,310, 13.8%) rrST'Y, 50 FT 4-STY, 50 FI' 2� FT 0 FT ?� � Ij � ?� 'TT 38 FI SW 30%, 28,'167 SF 30%, 2$779 SF (12 SF OV�R) 1.5 x 83=132 SPACES � SO UG t 46 SUgFACE =1F6 SPACES (13 �DDITIONAL, OPTIO\�AL SPACES �VAILABLB) . ACCESSlBLE SPACES AEQUIRED: 6INCL. 1 Vr1.\ SPACE. PROVIDED: 7 IA'CL. 1 VAN SPACE. PARKING NOT PERMITTED !N FRONT OR SIDE YARD OR PROPOSED. YARDS MEASURED TO BALCONIES. P'*- B*. C*. D*. *VARIANCES PROPOSED LOT AREA: FRONT YARD: SIDE YARDS: LOT COVERAGE: 119,890 SF (13.$`/o SAORT, 19,310 SF) 0 SF. (25 FI' iJNDER) 15 SF. (10 FT UNDER) 12 SF OVER. By: Lee M. Seppings � COLLABOR4TIVE Design Gmup, Inc. Revised: OS/20/02 � 2of2' �a-�97 • VARIANCE A: LOT AREA 1. Lot area available for the proposed building is 13.8% short of the lot area required by the Zoning Ordinance. Lot area required is 132,200 sq.ft. Lot area available is 119,890 sq.ft. (95,890-sq. ft. of lot surface area plus 24,000-sq. ft. for underground parking). 2. The proposed building is a permitted use on this lot. 3. The triangular configuration of the lot and the compounding effect of the yard set back requirements of the Zoning Ordinance impose significant planning constraints on the eff'acient use of the property. 4. Granting the requested variance will not pose a substantial detriment to the public good in that the site is somev,hat isolated. The si[e abuts a railroad track on the south (and Grace Street beyond that), Parks and Recreation ball fields on the east, and Osceola Street on the northwest (with Interstate 35E beyond that). The closest occupied buildings are the houses south of Grace Street approximately 1S5 feet from the proposed building. Closest neighbors to the north are on the north side of St. Clair Avenue across from the ball fields, approximately 320' from the proposed building. � VARIANCE B: FRONT YARLI Request a c to reduce rec�uired front yard from 25 ft to 0 ft (measurement taken from the front of the balconies. The proposed building is a permitted use on this lot. 3. The triangular configura[ion of the lot and the compounding effect of the yard set back requirements of the Zoning Ordinance impose significant planning consh�aints on the efficient use of the property. 4. Granting the requested variance will not pose a substantial detriment to the public good in that the site is someschat isolated. The placement of the building has provided for a single entrance and exit drive onto Osceola Street The primary �valls of the proposed run parallel to the property ]ine along Osceola Street. There will be a minimum of 30 ft from the primary wall face of the building to the existing concrete walk. This encroachment into the front y�ard should hace no negative effect on the intended use of the properties to the north of Osceola Street or the Parks and Recreation ball Fields to the east. The existing communiry cen[er on the � adjacent property is approximately 300 feet from the common property line. 1 � � - � VARIANCE C: SIDE YARD 1. Request a variance to reduce required side yard from 25 ft {I/2 building height) to 15 ft. 2. The proposed building is a permitted use on this lot. 3. The triangular configuration of the lot and the compounding effect of the yard set back requirements of the Zoning Ordinance impose significant planning constraints on the e�cient use of the property. 4. The primary walls of the proposed building are at an angle to the side yard set back lines allowing a majority of the building to be far in excess of the 25-ft requirement (up to 90 Ft). This modest encroachment into the side yard should have no negative effect on the intended use of the Parks and Recreation ball fields to the east. The existing community center on the adjacent property is approximately 300 feet from the common property line. Vt1RIANCE D: LOT COVERAGE The lot surface area is 95,890 sq.ft, Allowed coverage is 28,i6 i sq. f[. Proposed coverage is 28,779 sq.ft. (12 sq. ft. over) The proposed building is a permitted use on this lot. 3. The triangular configuration of the lot and the compounding effect of the yard set back requirements of [he Zoning Ordinance impose significant planning constraints on the efficient use of the property 4. The additiona112 sq.ft o£ site coverage will not diminish the character or ��alue of the surrounding properties. This fraction of a percent increase is negligible and in our opinion �vill be unnoticeable with no negative effect on the surrounding properties. � i / /NOR�L4LD07 � u CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER # 00-119503 DATE 03/13/00 �a-�� WHEREAS, RUTZICK FAMILY PARTNERSHiP has applied for four variances from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the construction of an 81-unit, three-story, senior housing building, in the RM-2 zoning district, on Osceola Avenue across from St. Ciair Playground; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on Mazch 13, 2000, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.205 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. • There are many factors that make this a difficult site to develop: the irregular shape and steep slope of the property, the street right-of-ways that bisect the property, and the proximity of the railroad tracks to the south and the freeway to the north. They ail contribute to the difficulty and expense of developing this site. The proposed, three-story, senior apartment building makes good use of the site, with only minor setback variances needed due to the irregular shape of the pazcel. Any development on this site will require extensive site prepazation, such as grading, clean up, and street vacations. This makes development not only difficult, but costly. Again, with just minor variances of lot coverage and density requirements, the applicant has designed a building that makes the development of the site cost effective. The proposed, 81 units of senior housing, with underground pazking, is an efficient and reasonable use for this site. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The uregular shape and topography of the patcel, as well as the undeveloped right-of-ways through ttus site, are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of ihe code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and weZfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St Paul. � Senior citizens, those 50 yeazs of age and oider, are one of the fastest growing segments of population in Saint Paul. The proposed, 81 units will help meet the growing need for senior Page 1 of 4 � t housing in the City. The housing chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan states, "In the construction of ownership and rental housing, we should encourage a diversity of File # 00-119503 Resolution building and unit types to meet the diversity of the mazket. Particulaz attention should be paid to assessing and meeting the needs of a growing number of older persons who aze looking for alternative housing in their own neighborhoods." The proposed variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variances 1vi11 not impair an adeguate supply of light and air to adjacent properry, nar will they alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish eslablished property values within the surrounding area. This parcel is separated from the neazest residential property by about 300 feet. The proposed setback encroachments will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. � The applicant is providing more underground parking than is required by code for this development. This will leave the yazd areas available for green space rather than surface parking. On a site this lazge, a variance of 1% in lot coverage will not be noticeable and will not affect the character of the azea. This isolated site has amacted various unwanted nuisance activities over the yeazs. Establishing a productive use of the propert}' with the proposed � apartrnent building will reflect positively on the surrounding azea. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is notpermitted 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 three-story, multi-unit apartrnent building is a permitted use in the RvI-2 zoning district. The proposed variances, if granted, will 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 polential of the parcel of land. The primary goal of this variance request is to construct a cost effecti� building, make full use of this siYe, and meet the housing needs of the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 61.101 are hereby waived to allow: 1) lot coverage of 31%; 2) 207 zoning rooms; 3) a front yard setback of 23 feet; and 4) a side yazd setback on the east side of 14 feet; m order to construct an 81-unit, three-story, senior housing building; on propzrry located on ; Pa�e 2 of 4 � t �i % � I Osceola Avenue across from St. Clair Playground; and legally described as Stinson, Brown And Raiusey's Addition To St. Paul Subj To St & Hwy & Ex S 80 Ft, Block 5; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on �le with the Zoning Administrator. . File # 00-119503 Resolution MOVED BY : Bogen SECONDED BY : Dnckstad IN FAVOR: AGAINST: o MAILED: March 14, 2000 TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a buildiug or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or . alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or atteration 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 subjeM to appeal to the City Council �vithin 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 appea] has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a 5na] determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the 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 thereoT, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on March 13, 2000, and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 3�0 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAi3L BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS � : Page 3 of 4 � (', v; PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: OSCEOLA STREET, SOUTH OF ST CLAIR PLAYGROUND �`TSl N PREPARED BY: LI EP aa-89 � � � � 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. G. 7. E. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. ]4. 7S. 1 G. 17. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEI:-HIGH WOOD HAZEL PARK Hf�DEN-PROSPERITX HILLCREST �','EST SIDE - DAXTON'S BLUFF PAYI�'E-PHP.T_EN , I�ORTH EI��D THOMAS-DALE SUMNIT-UIvTI VERSITY �VEST SEVEN"t'H COMO HAMLINE-MID�','AY ST. t�NTHONY PARIi A4ERR�4h4 PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLih�E-SNELLING HAn4LINF� MACALESTER GROVBLA_.�'D HIGHLAND SLJMMIT HILL DO��'TO«Rv - - 1 ��.��'�� ..�� a-iaS��.�i �` CTTIZEI� PARTICIPATION PLA3�'i�`ING DISThICTS �,_.. .. _ _ _ _ ua__ vaxi �. ni.L at�ti�/ArUt(ALEL � 111 May-19-99 O1c31F' THE GAUGHAN C�MPANY 786 9320 ._ #� �..04 � s tw..' � CIiTCAGO TTIZE INSi JIZANCE COMPANY «- i�,�� - .�.�-�.-,._ �, � „��..;�,�: ; T.��.:�..V:w. _.. ..� ;,� .. � � _ �-..� :�.�ew� ��.�:»..,�� w �»�-„:,:�.., ".,� ��="^�:�;.-^ � :;.� Scheduio A Legal Desecip' ioa Coati+�xed � Filc Number: ?b10511 Parcel !; 'Ihc West 1/2 oC 131nck 5, except the South HO feet there �f, Stiason, Brown and I2amsey's Addit�on to St. Yaul, accordi ng to thc recarded plat tfierct�f; exce �t ihat pazt lying Nor[hw�ster(y nf a line runnin,� parallel wi :h and distant SD feet Southeasterly � rith the follow�ng describdd line: Beginning at a point �n the centerline of St. Clair Avenue in St Pa ul, distant I24.44 feet Hast of the Northwest corncr of Section I Z, 'I'nwnship 28 North, �Zangc 23 Wf St; thence rttns Souther]y Ht an angle nf 89 degrees 37 minutes 42 �econds with said center7lne (wh� �n measured from west td sputh) far 200 feet tn the point of beginning of the line ta be describod; the nce deflect to the right al �an angle of 67 degrees 08 minute: 49 Secnnds £or 633.42 feet; thence d �IIect io ihe ieft on a cunYe having a radius of 12U Ceet (delta a ngle 67 degrees 1D minutes l 9 5ecorn !s) for 128.67 feet and th¢re terminating. Ramsey County, Minnesota. Abstraci Yroperty Parccl2: The east half of I31uck 5, except the South $Q feet therec f, Stinsan, $rown xnJ Ra»isey's Addition to St. Paui and excep] thai part, which lies northwesterly c f a line run parallei with ancl dis[ant SO fcet southeastcrly of thi: following described line: �3eginning at a poi nt an thc center line of St. Clair AveY ue in St. Paul, distant 12d,99 fcet east uf t� nortliwest corner of Section 12, Township 28 North, Ita zge 23 West; thence run s�utherly at an angle of 39 degree:� 37 minutcs 42 seconds with said cer ter line (when measured &om west to south) for I00.44 feet; thence deflect to the right on a carve tz; tving a radius of 250 feet (delta angle 67 degrees O8 minute:. 49 seconds) fnr 175.79 feet; thence �n a tangent to said curve for 533.86 fect a�id there terminating; And except that part �f the ahrrvc descr4bed tract atljov ung and snuYheasterly oCthe above described strip wh�ch lies northerly of the following de ,enri6ed 1ine: Beginnuig al a point nn the southea_�terly boun dary of the abwe described strip, di; tant 40 €eet southwesterty of its iniersection with the east l�ne af the above described tract; thence r m easterty ta a goint on said east line, distant 2Q feet souiherly of said intersection. Torrens Properiy CAG a� . . �. � m��Gti :� ? o 'b ;� } � : � �o 'o io i v i E ;a�i� :v �,,:o :a a': 5� r b � � Q � i o � ' �' 0.a [�j e: �a � � � ' � � ` x ' a� _ � o a � � y a $ � e � ° `: � b � � c � � �`� � s` � � � g � 6 � � � °c_ C o � 0 0 n H � n s. � M 'P-�. � A � '� A � � � � F' :� :A i� : 5' i� i A to � O € P: : o' i� P.02/�2 i � ? o O � � c b i m :G . r.,. � �-�i : � �"'e :." E= �... E': Yv�] f / �J1� � � �J Thai part of Toron[q Streel, xs dedicated in tho plat of Stinson, Brown and Ramsey's Addifion to St. paul, that lie southeaStcrly of Line A, dcscribed below, easterly of thc centerHne oY said T'orortlo Street and norihcrly of [h� easlerly cxtension vf tlie notth line of the south 80.OQ feet of Hlock 5. 14.14 i U� : �r : � i� : � ; O �: ,3 �� y C � 1 � �� k �' � a o � Z l� � ' s �� - n �i ' Y l�a € � �``-' � S b ti� 1� � : � �� j �� b € �� Legal Dcscription of PropeRy Hereby Cpnveyed: Line A is a line running paralle] to and disiant 50.00 feet souiheaslerly of the following described Iine: Beginning at a point on the centerline of St Clair Avenue in St. Paul, distant 124.99 feei easterly of [he northwcs corncr of Section 12, Townshzp 28 North Ftange 23 West; thence run southerly at an angle of 89 degrces 3' minutes 42 seconds wi[h said centerline (when measured from we.et to south) for 200.Oq feet to the poin� u beginning of the line to bc described; thcnce deftect to She right a[ an angle of 67 degrees, 08 ininuceS 49 second: Cor 633.42 feet; thence deflect ro thc left on a curvc having a radius of 110.00 feet (dclta angle 67 dcgrces 1( minutes l9 Seconds) for 128.67 fcct and thet� terminating. �� TOTqL P.�z CANADIAN ' C� � PACIFiC � RAILWAY .-1 May 31, 2002 Zoning Administration City of Saint Paul Office of LIEP 350 St. Peter Street — Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55102-I510 RE: File No.: Property Address: Applicanf: Hearing Date: Dear Sir or Madam: Real Escate Suite 804 501 Marquette Aven�e South (55902) PO Box 530 (55440) Minneapoiis Minnewta Fax(612)347-6170 ` s � a 02-125892 Osceola Street, south of St. Clair Pla}'ground WaIIace Johnson — St. Paui LeasPd Huusing Associates June 10, 2002 at 3;00 pm. This letter is intended to voice the railroad's objection to the vaziances requested in connection with the above proposal. Our conceins eenter aroimd the proposed density of units and the prosimity of the proposed building to the railroad's righz of :vay. We assume that the level of acceptable residential density wa� taken into consideration �vhen the present zoning requirements were enacted. We have a3ditional concerns that involve details about the proposal for which we were provided no inforrnation. Such as, • what is the proposed setback to the south, adjacent to the railroad? • what type of residents is the pruject aimed at? e.g. Seniors? Families? • If it is anticipated that children will reside in the building, what measures are proposed to prevent the children, or any resident Yor that matter, from trespassing upon the railroad's right of wa}•? What are the plans for trash collection? • What are the plans for snow removal? Storm water runoff? • Where are the proposed parking areas? What is to prevent residents from encroaching onto the railroad right of way with lutomobiies? • Are there proposed "green" azeas for residents? for pets? • What is proposed to mitigate noise concems frem railroad operations? The railroad's first preference is that areas immediately adjacent to railroad right of way not be developed for residential putposes. Although the practice of building right up to the tracks was historically commonpiace, we feel that contemporary attitudes are less tolerant of co-existing with industrial activities and so more thought must be given to the placement of new residential development in respect to existing industrial activities. Where residential development does abut railroad rights of way, the construction should incorporate generous setbacks between the right of way and occupied dk�eltings. Green space or storage uses can be planned for areas closer to the railroad right of way. Fencing should be required along all borders with the railroad to ensure the safety of children, pets and others. Tn addition to setbacks, berming or other desien features can sofren noise and visual issues. Finaily, it should be disclosed and emphasized to � � � � � �,� � �`- S� oa-$� � prospective occupants of the residential housing that they'd be living next to a railroad main line track and that they should be awaze and accepting of the situation that they'd be • moving into. Often, prospective occupants view the living spaces at a time when there is not any rail traffic, only to discover that nighttime is a common time for through-freight trains. For informational purposes, Canadian Pacific Railway has prepared a brief brochure that attempts to answer many of the common questions that have been asked about railroad operations. I have enclosed two copies of this brochure, one for you and the other for the developer, who is welcome to copy the brochure for distribution, or may contact us for more copies. I would appreciate that this letter be made of record during the review of the subject proposal. It is the railroad's preference that any proposal to develop residentiai housing up to the right of way be denied. As a backup position, �ve request that the City require that the developer include the mitigating measures mentioned in the previous paragraph in their design and that they be required to disclose to prospective residents the nature of the adjacent railroad operations. �;_�� David S. Drach Manager, Sales and Leasing 612/347-8354 � email: david_drach@cpr.ca 02151-01.Itr.54:10 � �� P� ♦ r' �� c 9 � /t � � � f t l O T � • • neei• Meef Your New Neighbor - The Railroad tf you are a home buyer planning to move into a neighborhood which borders one of Canadian Pacific Railway's lines, we look forward to being your neighbor. At the same time, we want you to know more about us before you make your buying deci- sion to make sure we have a long and friendfy relationsh+p. You should know more about what we transport, how often trains run, and how we use our properry. Canadian Pacific Railway's (CPR) heritage is linked to North America's o(dest operating railroad and iis first transcontinenta! railway. Canadian Pacific became the first railroad to build a line across Canada connecting the Atlantic and Pacific while its Delaware & Hudson subsidiary in the Northeast is the oldest continuously operating railroad in the US. In the Tovin Cities, operations include Yhose of Soo Line Railroad Company, which is wholiy owned by CPR and does business under the CPR name. We cover 14,400 route miles in both Canada and the US, from Yhe Pacitic to the Atlantic and beyond Chicago in America's Midwest. The railroad takes in $2.6 billion each year almost ail from moving freight. In turn, we will spend nearly Si bil(ion annu- afly on repair, maintenance and improvement of equipment and iacilities. Our business is international in scope with goods moving to and from oiher points in North America inciuding ports for import or export. The goods H�e carry are c(osely related to the economy; coal for electricity, grain ior food, autos to dealers, and so on. When economic activity is booming, there are lots of trains on thz move. We hope the Question and Ansv�er format which follows along with a map of CPR's Twin City iines will be helpful to you. Keep in mind, it is a snapshot in time, subject to change as business levels go up or down and as tne Railroad changes operations. It you have addiiional questions, cail o� Public Affairs Department a� 6i 2-347-8209 or 612- 347-8271. Why shoufd f care about having a rai! line as a neighbor? . Our railroad frequently gets questions from home buyers who have moved into neighborhoods bordering on our raif lines. They are surprised to learn there are nmany trains on a line they thought was seldom used. 7rzins at midnight weren't expect2d. Others are curious about the right-of-way and how we maintain it. It is good to kno�ri before you move in, what io expect from Yhe railroad. Whicf� rai! /ines does CPR operate? Th2 map inside shows the generai location of the lines the Raiivray owns or travels over in the Tv�in Cities area. For simplification, CPR lines are de;�icted as being in iwo broad categories. "Mainline" routes carry traf�ic which is moving to or from the Twin Cities or just passing through to another city. Mainline routes are tne busiest segments and carry the most trains. "Ind�stri�!" or "branch lines" co�nect tne through routes with customers or other railroads located in the Twin Cities 22a. These lines will have fewer trains on them. Are you the on7y rai(road using your fracks? There may be agreements in pl2ce aflowing a non- ovrner to ope:ate trains over another rzilro2d's property. It would not be unusual to see severa( rziiro2ds using the tracks of a single owner. For example, numerous rail- roads operat= trains tnrough Yn= Midvray area between Minneapolis and St Paul on tr2cks ovrned by tne Bur(ington Nortnzrn Sante Fe. What is in a typical train? CPR hand'�s a v�ide variety of ma'erials related to 2griculture, mining, manu°acturing, and forestry. Long trains carrying g�ain, coal, automobiles, steel, lumber, paper, ferii(ize:s, fu�fs, cn2micals an� all types of m2nu- factured goods 2ra typical. Tne trains may b=_ mzde up of mixed products or carry a single commodity in every c2r or conta'.��er. Vi?�uzlly evzry�nina you have in your home, inc(ud:ng th= ma'eriais in your house, likely moved on a train at s�me point. (continu2d insida) � �� rinen can 1 expect a t�ain? � The simp(e 2ns•r,=r is 2*. 2ny tirne d2y cr nigh,. Rail- roads are a 24-hour operation and we schedule trains to depart and arrive at all hours of the day. Extra trains or "unit trains" (solid trainload of one commodity) are frequently used to handle increases in 6usiness and are scheduled to run without regard for the time of day. If demand for a commodiry goes up, exp=ct �dditional trains to handle the volume. If volume drops ofi, expect fewer trains. R2member, a heaithy economy means more goods on the move and more trains. Novi Do You Set Your T�ain Sc/tedules? The Railroads in North America are really one large interconnected system. A train schedule may be based on the time goods must be on a ship in time to depart from a port 2,000 miles away. The scheduie may also be based on the needs of a customer who will use parts on an assembfy line within hours of the time it arrives. Other schedules may have flexibility built in because the crew has 10 stop many times to pick up and drop off freight cars. For example, a train operating through the Twin Cities late at night may have to meet a Chicago customer's de4ivery schedvles the ne� day. As a result, schedufes are set for all hours of the day. Do you blow whistles? At the present time, our railroad blo�r�s whistles in advance of any crossing unless there has been a local ordinance in effect for some time. Even if an ordinance is in place, the crew can btow a horn if they befieve it is � needed to warn someone of the train's presence. In January of 2000, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which regufates railroads from a safety standpoint, began a formal process which is expected to lead to a national rule regarding the use of train horns. The FRA has already held hearings throughout the country seeking input from communities, safety experts, railroads and others on how horns should be used. "�hey are expected to issue a finai rule that will take efiect in the future. It will take a year or more to implement a finai policy once the rules are known. Homs are an e"ective safety device to warn motorists and pedestrians of an approaching train. Locomotives are afso equipped with a bell which is used when trains move over crossings. What kinds of noises can I expect from a irain? Uniike a freeway or busy road, the track is generaliy a very quizt pface most of the time. When a train does pass, you will hear the approach and passage of the Iocomotives foilowed by the movemeni of freight cars and arhzels making contact �vith the rails as tne train passes. Ir it has stopped or is starting, you may hear the sound of brakes beino applied or air under pressure passing tnrough piping on each car (air is used to control brakes). There couid be sounds from cars bumpting together or as the slack is taken tightens when the train moves • ahead. (f you are ciose to an area whera the railro2d s�r:itches cars or by a siding (extra track) where trains pass one another, iocomotives may set f�r an e�ended period with the engines idiing. oa-$q� CANADI�N (continued on back page) DESCRIPTIOiV O� LffVE SEGMENTS A: CPR's mainline route into the Twin Cities from tha Wes' Expect more than 16 trains on a daily basis. 7hz lin= extends west across the Mississippi River near'Camden, crosses over Highway i00 so�?n of Brookdale Shopping Center and passes through Crystal, Nzw Hop� �nd Piy- mouth. The line crosses over Highwiay 55 at Hamel and ekends on through Buffalo. B: Through the Twin Citi�s, from NE Minneapolis to tne river tront near Sheppard Roac in St. Paul, CPR tra:ns tra�r over mainline tracks own�d by tne Burli�aton Norh�rn Sante Fe. C: CPR's mainline route into t�=_ 7vrin Cities from the South. Expect 20 trains 2 day cr more and switching activity in ihe vicinity of CPR's yard. 7he line extends fror Sheppard Road south afong the Company's freigh: yard, �`� T�.., � Ci�, R , �.AC M F'''y RA 1 LWAY s Owned or Used ine nt � ziongside Highway 61 through Newport and Cottage Grove to Hastings. This line is jointly used with the Bur(ington Northern Santa Fe and is under consideration for Commuter Rzil with the corridor designated the "Red Rock Corridor." D: St. Paui industrial lines which run along the river front througt� downtown St. Paul, across Chestnut Street, up tne side of the bluff and along Ayd Mill Road to the Amtrak Depot in Midway. Expect up to a dozen trains per day including Amtrak. E: Industriai line that branches o�f line D above in the vicinity of P;�s; 7,n Street and extends to Ford Assembly Plant in Nighland Park. Expect 5-6 trains daily. F: Industriai line which extends a�est from vicini�y ot Cleveland Avenue, across 194 near highs•�ay 280, past Shriner's Children's Hospital, across PAississippi River and paralleiing 27th Street through south Minneapoiis. Line turns south, crosses lake State and parailels Hiawatha to its terminus in Minnehaha park. This line is owned by CPR but leased to and operatad by Minnesota Commerciai Rail�^ray which determfies train volumes. G: Branch line extends north from a connection with BNSF line near Maryland Avenue, past St. Paul Water � Treatment Plant, through �ittle Canad2 to connection wit� east-west line (H), at 1694 and Rice Street in Shoreview. Expect 4-8 trains per day. H: Line extends from CPR's distribution center alon Centraf Avenue NE through St. Anthony Vifiage, Ne� Brighton, Arden Hills, Shoreview, Vadnais Heights, h Oaks and White Bear Lake. This line is owned by CPR, but most trains using it are operated by Wisconsin Central Railtivay. Trafiic volume is largely determined by the number of WC trains operated daily. I: 6ranch line extendi�g south from Crystal through Nev, Hope, Golden Valley, St. Louis P2rk, Edina and B(oomington. ti crosses the Minnesota River near Shakopee and travels through Burnsville and Lakeville to its terminus in Northfield. Depending on the area, there may little activity to one or more trains each business day both directions. The line is also used by the Twin Cities and Western Railroad. This segment is under review as a potential commuter rai! corridor and has iaken on the corridor designation "Dan Patch Line." J: Branch line sxtending east from the area of Highway 55 and �00 in Golden Valley, aiongside WiRh Park, terminating on the west edge of dovmtown Minneapolis near Glenwood Avenue and 194. Expect a train each direction each work day or on zn as needed basis. K: Branch line extends NE from Auto Club Road, along Old Shakopee Road through Bloomington, along Pieas- . ant Avenue in Richfield and terminates near Lyndz�ve two biocks noRh of the crossta.vn Highway. F�pe train each direction each workday or as needed. L: CPR transits over lines of Union Pacific to Rosemount and on its own line to Norhfield. Expect one CPR train each direct+on per dey. Mtos: t:a`ic on tne linz is oper- ated by Union P2cific. M: industria! branch line runni�g north from Rosemount, paralleling Highvrays 3& 149 to its terminus at the north end near Highway 13. Expect a train each direction each business day or as needed. N: fndustriaf branch fine extending from Line A near Camden, south along 1 st Avenue NoRn to its termination near Plymouth Avenue, Expect one train each way per business day. O: CPR owns or operetes over trackage extending from jusf wesf of 1494 in Eden Prairi=, running east through Hopkins and St. Louis Park to South Minneapolis. 7he tracks are used primarily by tn= Twin Citi°s & West=_m Raiiroad. CPR does provide service as needed to one customer located along the lirn which parall°Is 2E:h Street. This porion of the railroad line is owned by Hennepin County and vrill soon include a bike and hiking trail. � � . , . r. �' Do you ca�ry hazardous materials? Fzating fuel, perfume, safe drinking water, healthy crops, soft drinks. These are life's necessities and cor,s=niences which also all contain hazardous materials. Our raliroad carries these materials to manufacturers al! North America. We fotlow strict federai rules as to ' it is done. The regulations speciy the types of coniainers, markings, piacement in trains and information that must be avaiiable should an accident occur. Raif- roads work with Iocai emergency responders (fire, police, emergency management) to make sure there are pians in piace to deal with any probfems and to understand the nature of the materials being carried. On average, haz2rdous materials are in 5% or fess of the cars we handie each year. Who owns the properfy under your fracks? In most cases the property is owned by the railroad. As a simple ru(e of thumb, railroad pcoperty genecally extends 50 feet from the center line of the tracks where there is a single track in piace. Railroads pay Minnesota taxes on their property (centrally assessed by the siate) and pay the cost for upkeep of the tracks. As a result, railroads use their private property for the benefit of the business and its customers. Do you cut brush or spray weeds along !he fracks? We do both. Weed sprays 2pproved by the Environ- mental Protection Agency are used on tnB trzc' ��rface (about the width of the ties). The spraying is �: ,entative maintenance to keep weeds from gro�rring under the track surface. Piants and shrubs along the sides of the tracks are generally feY to orovi nzturalfy. However, if brush (trees, shrubs) along tne tracks become a safety hazard to trains or motorists at crossings, they wi11 be cut down. Special equipment usualiy traveling on the tracks wiil cut brush 4vhich will ba rerr�ov�d or chipped by a folloNr-up crew. You can expec: from time to time that crews wifl take dovrn excess aro��rh, often to the edges of the property. Do you also move passengers? Amtrak uses Canadian P2ci ic Railway Iines to move passenger trains between their station located in the Midway area and Chicago. Th2re are several existing freight routes into the Twin Citi=s that are under consider- ation by the state of Minnesot=_ for commuter purposes. If established, passenger trains v+ould connect the downtown core areas of St. Paul and Minneapolis with outlying communities. 7he process to establish com- muter service is ongoing. Should I Be concerned about fhe safety of children playing on fhe tracks? Qzfinitely, Yes. Children should not pfay on the tracks o�ik across railroad bridges. It can be a very danger- o tuation to use the tracks as a trail or a place to hike, fish or for other recreationai purposes. A train or other vehicle using the tracks can come along at any time. And, since iYs private property, to do so is trespassing. Do you store frelghf cars afong the tracks? Most freight cars are brought into centrally located yards, and sp{it up tor defivery to customers. Fiom iime to time, a train may leave cars on a sidetrack for short oeriods. If business declines and a Izrge number of cars are noi needed, they will be stored on sidetracks close to areas whe�e they may be needed in the future. How lrequently do you maintain ihe tracks? Railroad tracks are maintained to a standard set by ,ne Federal Railroad Administration which aiso deter- rnines the maximum speed allowed. The agency also nspects CPR's trackage. Frequent inspections are made �y the railroad and any defects repaired. From time to :ime, special rail inspection vehicles will travel over the :rack to focate any defiects or check the alignment of the ;rack. Routine maintenance is handfed by a local "sec- :ion cre�i' whicn is responsibie for a siretcn oi track. If �ajor upgrading is done, such as laying new rail or �s�g many new ties, a speciai cre�v wiil come in and - �a the work in a production line tashion. The sailroad siso as oth2r maintenance people �vho work on bridges, �uiidings, wayside signals and the waming devices 2t :rossings. Do you anticipate any changes to your lines? We always anticipate t'nat trz`ic wiil grow on any of our �ines and there will be additional trains. Trafiic patterns can also change pariodically meaning trains may use difrerent routes to get to and from customers. The changes could be permanent or temporary. if we decide to abandon a line, we must havz Surface Transportation Board approval to do so e�d our plans will be made public in advance. What if the rai! line in the area we are looking at isn'f owned by CPR? There are other railroads ooe;ating in the Twin Cities that you can cail for information. Consult the phone book for listings for Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Union Pacific, Wiscans+n Centrai, Twi� Cities E� N/estern, or Minnesota Commercial R2�iroads. The info�mation i.� ihis 6rochu�e is pub(ished b� C�nadra,� Pacrfic Raifway, Communications. Pc5`c ANairs Department, P. O. Box 530, tfiinneapolis, MN 55440. Date oiPu�C%cztion: August, 2000 �� a 3� � I � � i � O � � O � 0 L I..L� O y m � m N H � a r ¢ � Z �w z � o a� o � �° �' o O �n m � :�; a��€ �'g�� 5$ g �a��S� � $s:iii g , I n - a � � � "" _ f fi s 5 S `� . �3i 5 �� ?fi :e �se: s� w��i�t f �1� : � @ E' £i � a'+T� �i.'v.'s_'vifS`ei41 �".iii.i . ii:f'pf p�3�� !83 - - q ' �� u�� S�i�fl� p }€@ 4� " '' - ?� = [ 3 9� 5� �?= �$ ��g�g&gi��3 � iY��g �effi d 6 7$ s f;� 3 3€ �$_s24§di3 '\ 9 � �` I `, � ) �_ '�_' \ `'� \ �. ` \ �i � �i�. I 8 � � \ r � �� r � �� . \ i \ 0 F,� �IS � •.,�, v?. .� �\ 'J f \�� r� �J •.�\, U� G 6 � �:. _,� � �\ \ ,_:�� .. ' �i� �t�t; iii�! d � I Q Ij � �}%$: } ��;�! � @ d � �`'�S ! � �� O � � ��? U� � _ �� I I �j I 1 ' I �I , � ^ I � �l� V �� i ( ij v I I� -= i �i ' _!i I I = �I �"' G i i� , �; �_ i I! � i �I �ri �, n i j'q i: �i ,; <:; � li ,`,:! I; �� '� � I' C I i I! � ! � - � , � — i ? �'_ ' �! -� j ,, i `'� .: � I; �Is C �� h k C�i , i � C � / ' �' i �� 1 L'. ,� ; �' � ,` � � �t� , �o: �-. - � �.;� -; �'� ; { E _ ! p�� e¢ � i f�d a $ � � )'�i � F � � �' �, � �� g ��3�3 � � �I: � � �13 V i �4 y ,� � � l ' II � 1 i k JNISfIOH `It/1N�2� �12idd b'IO��SO V a � �� ,� �!!�i�� d�� iiil�l��ryu� ��14��9 0�,-89� 1i �� b � �� ` �� ; � (� i �o�; I;� !4,fi;�, f� p !� �� 5 �� I i Cdi �I . GCZ�� pI t�.-� �� m�., 134igta: £�� C O O V Z Y 6 6 �h 3? Q pY Q � 1 � g � � a+ ��_ p y i� U O �;' � �__ � � JNiSf10H lt/1N�2i �12i'dd d103�S0 V��J �� r�_' � '. � c'?`?� �� c_:'_� � r.� ` °��" T � � � - � �.'�s�.�' °�_:� � s — J I ' � . "-��JI�=��11 ,v v : � -=_-�J- saaaa : �� J� 'r�..".�.:C.-=1 .. 1 � y �e `y �,L � o � W� `� "� ^ � ! j � -o � � C� _ d � �� . �`cf` ''r� �I,h �r✓1�P; a!'tPx� a ��ut�-_-� �—_- -��u �_ u: �-� �--. , �� w i � ��0� � i ~ _� • I ,� 6 'T'; � , ' –a �.�..._ Z.. r'T �'. , f. � �_ � 7. � rc �I 0 U �P 8' �W �;� "0�` w � < c (.� 0 � oa o; LL,k Z� O w � a 0 o LLk 6� O w �. V C 8 0 €3 : � �Q � I �� i��';� � e� �Ig� t i i a ��i� '��I�:�.��t I o I j s� I g: � i � (a'�'��". ��Ow� �' i e � U Z I 0� �I I � : I��'�d�;d��°� � ' I�m "�.'i � e�,� �� , —�;;—� i � Ti� _ —..; , ,:, � , , � - - -- , �° i _'.�-�; ,� ''' Y � 4 ; _ia 1 , ��: .� i i ' � - I � - ,- � '—, , ; ` � I- - r r ��` i ; I 3 �W ... '�i �'a ,�,� ;� ' i i � - I . ir� �� I I : I? i '_x —� _1( __ A .� � � U n � �, � Y � 3 D� �� Y . �; a � � e�a � �. � Q � �p3 is,@ — — �a-89� � � � � �' { � � ` Y ' �`i'3 JNIS(IOH�tf1N32i � I �� 1 � = _ f'� - �og �i I I I I ��9�; �3: i4.so � f i . i,! �'; �.��j; �1�1`dd �103�S0 � ��'� ' �� _< 3 414 I �Q !, Y • iliil I� �- a _> '�' L 3�: �� i l i� i��i'��"�a'3:q°� • x_ ;�;f3e�? ��-' ~' - _T.-_ e. ' � ! � � � _ � ^ f.i � ,-�_- � � . x '� �i �' -�-. � �: _ -_ - - € i o <_-= - - - n=..:- _- i,>. ' �° ��3,� � � ` I � W .'. � _� . .. , _.�_.., ,. . i � _ ��. _ �.; .�.L,� w , , � -. w i �.-'a- � w. �v __ .r.= ,F,i Y' .t � . ` w- r --- _ �� I, - � o � .� .�. ° � � 3 � � "� i u5 x� ��) .�' �� •'O / I.__ I ^ � a I �-� � . O �� 1 � �^ � ' . � ,� � �,� i � , �� a � 1 i 1 � �{7 -�'�f y � y � � ! , , s ��_ : �J ' � �, + �'?� � r � � y� ��A F.._ - � 4�� LL � } ��s � i ; �I � Y _ � � 4 � a - _�_ �.� 52 ,°�1.� {� I' � �.: K ' � � �T <� ��. -T ' ��^ f.�: . _ .ki �� . — � I':,., . :� _ _ - . - � 1 �. I�� . � _ �� ' �:�� f �^' � �� - - / � � } 9 � �� -� i"� ., b � h F --s �ro .. � � � j � �., ., . � { � l � �� r (�' � - I .. t - _ - , � e . "'�i � � � -'- -�� j , = y a s� ��,� � '��_ ' , � � ' � �� . ' i . z- � c " -- ..� �� @ f �� - � i . 4 ��'�"3 ' ' `3 i — �rv � , , i. _ . +'^x i A �' � � i L_ z� t �, ��F�� 5 8 / � �� [_� _ _ � ' � _ �2 �??LL� C . I � � �� i i � � e�., I i� l-,� ' �c a � � j Y , � � ' � 1 ry .. . � � .1, r 4 � ` _ � ,.,� S --I- t �tss . � . � �, " �I ti�� S `j� � � : i 3 �� lg� ,_ � � `- � � � � �� If. �, _ � i � S 5 ` ✓� '- ��`_�:�:' 3 i � ��--�— - � � � �� ' � • I � 1 _ ti I � L< II i ]I '- - r` j � , � .�� I ' - _ - d 1 .� - � r+ 1 � � I 1 � # � � &i3 �' � .. i — � --dh��: F �� i. I� �f�r'�=' L Y " , - �S J .�-.� _ A � �Y -_L) � ' I� I �� O /� 3.L f� t9 T .� { � � S S � L -� . __ i f ��'`{�' � �, �� I �. � - ' !.�• t-.-� � � { w ' . � � � _ -f _ .s-"` , �I� 1 �� {� ;, :-� , . "` � `+� ' w k '--- .., y . ,\ l �l i, �-, i }�� . � r �,;;__,._ - � � � -�' i '�--,- �; . , i � �i 3I ,� -I �� .1 - 9 � ` '"' �. O -- - t � - i � � , +N` ` ( t `� �i _ ' �= � �, ,,� — 'x�+�� l� T �t � ' i , � / / � �� L I - �.�.k "i: � � � . 3 , � f/ : i ' � ti3--T��^y_ ?� �/ i � ��- � � ¢ � e • �s s g £ i f , _ , � t : ,.� t- :3 59 .9: � � Q�� i Ys� I .�� . I � � � P - _ �.� -..- {.�—^�— _" . J� J � S f � • �� i �� F a a a a • � JNIS(lOH lt/1N3�1 � � 71�Idd t/103�S0 �' � � �; o� w� z�e w l. �� y'� ^j1 I I i 0 <; >� �e ei � a 9 �. � ' � �.� ; � � . � -jz ' I I a l I � 3 w� � £1 �� ` �r i .1 i � ` �� . Ay �� p' y_ I � � � U + i r.�G=3 �� i: .„� �.•. �; i � ��{ � A I ' 4 r �F . � .. �E�', , �� ' �� I �, � .' ��^ � � � • J I � � �� L� ■ � - f+�r�:' 6 ; t,,. . YZ x !'; T � N �I[��=' '1<� � . o0 3 ��;'= r ' a l�� > '�w n '�<'°e ; ' ' iw w � � ' � I� Q I; - _ �r� L � , ? `4 0l � w� q� �°^� i ' �� i• 2li — - � : � + � 5 y� I � ~C . �' '_?, O'� z � --� i „ �2 � = I �� rr .' _-; — _ --; � _Ef ; ~ '.' : � t,_ , _ �` '' -`_ ;;, '� �I `` � -i �i ' � ? � r� -� � � I L � 3 , � y ` f. �� ,�� -�.�- � Z � 1 �� __...� _Y. � �� '_ � ^ � _ � t f ' ` , t J � I � � - -�.�V`eiX� �' =-:�� _ -._,; _ � �;; ' ; � , _ �`�ti�.. = T � + .��:-.� i . -_ - .i::3': , ':;"r " �� i � � � —� __� " � i � v a � a : - a � � � � � oa-s�� CITY OF SAINT PAUL ! BOARD �F ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER: 02-125892 DATE: June 10, 2002 WHEREA5, Wallace Johnson - St. Paul Leased Housing Associates has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code pertaining to l.) Minimum lot size; 2.) Front yard setback; 3.) Side yard setbacks; of a 4-story, 88-unit apartment building in the RM-2 zoning district at (Osceola street west of St. Clair Playground) 0 Unassi;ned; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearin� on 3une 10, 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. T1:e property in gz�estion cminot be put to a reasonable z�se under the strict pravisions of the � code. Since the last time the Board reviewed this project in 2000, the applicant has changed his plans slightly, however, the variances required ue essentially the same. The applicant has rezoned the property and has vacated the undeveloped right-of-ways adjacent to and through the site. The building will be marketed for seniors, age 55 and older, and will have a combination of underground and surface parking. There are many factors that make this a difficult site to develop: the irregular shape and steep slope of the property, the street right- of-ways that bisect the property, and the proximity of the railroad tracks to the south and the freeway to the north. The proposed 88-unit apartment building with underground parking is a cost efficient design and a reasonable use for this site. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circz�mstances unique to this property. aracl these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The Irregular shape and topography of the parcel, as well as the undeveloped right-of-ways through and adjacent to this site, are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposecl variance is in keeping with the spirit and intenf of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals arzd welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Pau1. � Page 1 of J � � File #02-125892 Resolution Senior citizens are one of the fastest growing segments of population in Saint Paul. The � proposed 88-dwelling units will help meet the growing need for senior housing in the City. The Housing Chapter of the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan states, "In the construction of ownership and rental housing, we should encourage a diversity of building and unit types to meet the diversity of the market. Particulaz attention should be paid to assessing and meeting the needs of a growing number of older persons who are looking for altemative housing in their own neighborhoods." This building wiIl provide needed housin� for the senior population in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variances are in keeping with the spirit and intant of the code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent proper•fy, nor will it a11er Zhe essential character of ihe surrounding area or z�nreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. This parcel is sepazated from the nearest residential property by about 200 feet. The proposed setback encroachments will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. This site abuts railroad fracks to the south, the I-35E parkway to the north and the �vest, and a playground To the east. This isolated site has attracted various unwanted nwsance activities over the years. Establishing a productive use of the pzoperty with the proposed apartment � building will reflect positively on the surrounding azea. 5. The variance, ifgrante�l would not permit any use that is not permitted uncler the provisions of the code for the psoperty in the district where the affected lancl is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district class f cation of the property. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zonin� classification of the property. 6. The reqcrest for variance is not based printarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The primary goal of this variance request is to construct a cost effective building, make full use of this site, and meet the housing needs of the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zonin� Appeals that the provisions of Section 61.101 are hereby waived to allow: 1.) Two-hundred-thirty-two zoning rooms, 2.) A front yard setback of 0 feet, 3.) A east side yard setback of 15 feet. In order to construct a 4-story, 88-unit apartment buildin; on properiy located at 0 Unassigned; and legally described as Stinson, Brown And Ramsey's Addition To St. Paul Subj To Hwy & Osceola St; Ex � S 80 Ft; Vac Daly St & Toronto St Adj And All Of Btk 5; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. ' � 3�P Page 2 of 3 oa-ff97 File #02-125892 � Resolution MO�ED BY: Morton SECONDED BY : Duckstad IN FAVOR: a AGAINST: � ABSTAINING: 1 MAILED: June 18, 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 �vithin such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to tlie 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 estension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold � a public heariug. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council ��ithin 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued before an uppeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council lias made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy �vith 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 Tune 10, 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 �� Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board Pa�e 3 of 3 �� , ...-. � �G�� 10�02 �, ��l��Cc -- - K� � � �'�� -�� :� ��-ias I��I n .�- - �'�. i� - _a��f-�� . - - �P�� . �.Q ss� _c. �-o� -1a5S9 � � S� �, j-�. ._.-��J - G�/Y1S �� - �� _- - - ��'t��'.Q _ �1'l,td�'�S - . _. _ �r� l�'�� - -- -- - - - r r�/� a � � � � a -� : � j � , �� I I .____ __._.. . ._' _ _ _ � .-._ .._ � r �� '9�� T�+�� s.�r� ` - . -- w , - �.;c �- - .h,c �s . _ /: rs�+2 . _�- L�t Z �r..�. S�, _ ��.a#" f'�r�- �_lonlE'.3 .'��: .�.t � ./J�o - --....= �s�r,o�'a.•Qlt,�_._�v�i�?.s.�±t �r�.� /��.,� �.� �'c.rea �c-..,_ ,-. - -.. - - -�.�. fisvt. Ss.�.� --�L+.c -�,;E ' Ss,r�� ,�'r av.L -- -- - -. -S�' �j �CLJO�+4� - - D e/- - - �-�^g a t- - �`.c�3 l - -- -- -- ie�/r,i•� / .�t/'�i�i_ _�l_o_'.s. _�IWO�s�J�� ,.f— � �-- -- �"f" � ----- ---- -- � l'.�r--�,o ..�o� --..-_±a+� - ,�?<.� . _e��ers �,a.t . �'� �� --. _.__ . -- -�:c �- �.h,s-.�,. _. r�.L_.r,ls�_ ._s�.�•►�t .�s. _ �/.st �.co�✓�..s _ t.�r�trC�� r' �. f o�,,.b/.,�2 _ .S/Lt� �K� t�� =� ,,.�- S"3 � � G� �-- - _ - t �..� ( K+� � `^'�J (/v a � �W � I .�� . �4..� � �G � .—c � i+ '� f '�'�i"p�' �� r/r\ rt/✓� �'L/111vL �` _ ... ._ _ - _ _ ��t%yt � � - t,vaaes - s,.<- - l f� t�-s _.�._- -- � � t/ /�/� � I d' �'reY�. ..�i`�Jt !�(/�,.c�?. � � .�s.ot� � � - - s t�" t.0 . `�"� � � - - � ' l ��`'� - - - ----..:.; - ro /�±r- `C. -vt.i t- f7�.t/�_ .�.Qt `e. '� �.t � OfiJ�t �t/" �lGG � t�LSC _ . �ZS /�'t �� . . _ ._ _ - - - - - - ��t �i,�" _ f�c�, . �t a;s A•, ilo�•� - ' � �i+t�+-�v . 1 v �4 -tS - Lc.t3.vf'�l.' S•..^ f�� -_-�,/' h � - . �-�. ��-tis�fr o� �.�� - y�� r��'� f� 6 � � �- — - � �is,ar,.eaP_ � � . dur� �r,�t� .�o�{t � o� , ��- � Y : - —� - - -.. _ . �-�� . �l�t � r7Js .. -- _ t - r � � - -- � � � °�.� .� . -' � W - - = ; � -�v,s' _��.t,�v�_ e - _ �� Gc,�' � .�--� - �► --. -:;-�f��'`�7 �sf.%��--t/t/�-.�w.s --.s�f`i.�.�i` . �� . � � -- - �; �r L�-!e � .� ,�- _-�+vt�. - ��r'L S� ��- � � � �-_�a t �iofi naQ �-� a� ---------; ,-�- �` , ,� � � � -- �� 1 - ---- -----=-'.i s x.�� .__au� `G�� l - �'r� ---�i t%e -r�''�' -'--- /- .dY"�!'�t��+�--` �� . ,�� June 10, 2002 I live at 593 St. Clair Ave and am very opposed to the proposed apartment building going up � ne�ct to the park. It makes absolutely no sense to me why the city woutd consider putting up that kind of building in an area that is a family residential neighborhood. 1) There is already a lot of traffic on St. Clair with the park and the entrance to 35E being right there. Adding this high density housing right in this neighbarhood would add too much traffic to an already sometimes congested Yraffic situation. 2) I have lived here for 17 years. My wife and I raised our children here and we like the neighborhood. We both used to live in Minneapolis and one of the compeiting reasons for our move here was the great neighborhood atmasphere of the area combined �vith Yhe green spaces. This area of St. Paul is attractive to home ownership and good solid family residences. Putting in this proposed building would detract greatly from that. I don't know that I would continue to live here. 3) Why should I have to not only put up with my home value being tal:en away from (which it will with this building), but also being ta�ced to have that happen. I understand the need for additional housing, but why take away from an entire neighborhood to serve ihe needs of a few - especially at tax-payer expense. That is assininei It seems that the needs of the developer are the only needs being considered here. 4) The proposed spot is ne�ct to a playground, right neart to raikoad tracks, and on a road that has limited access. Tt does not seem to me that it is an attractive spot for "senior" housing. Who will end up living there????? Please do not allow this to be approved! It is a mistake. You wzll be ruinin� a good � neighborhood. Sincereiy, 7ohn and 7ulie Dorow 593 St. Clair Ave. St. Paul, MN. 55125 651-292-0173 �\ �V oa-s�7 �� :1 � ��'%--a=-� � June 10, 2002 Board of Zoning Appe2ls, I write in opposition to ihe proposed zoning variances for the proposed 4-story 88 unit apartment building on Osceola St. next to.the St. Clair playground. These proposed changes would be in �zolalion of the spirit and letter of Miimesota Statutes (MS462354 Sub 6 sec.2) and St Paul Legislative code (Sec. 61.203.), botl� of which states that variances can only be granted if they "will not alter the essential character of the localitt"_ This proposed development, and the variances being sought �iill in fact radically change the character of the St. Clair playground �chich borders the property in question on the East side. Variances are spec�cally forbidden simply to increase the value or potenfial income of the propem•. As the site plan demonstrates, there is space on the property being allocated to both pazldng and open space wluch could be used to accommodate a structure built ��ithin the restrictions of the zoning provision. Aldiough dus development is being described as "Senior liousing" it is imporlant to note that it is not being built according to the zoning spec�cations of"elderly housing" (sec. 62.103), but rather tias the number of parking spaces required by a standard mis-rise apariment. The developer lias so far acted in bad faith ��ith the communit}�. This proposal was uutiall}' put foncard (and public funds and the TIF district secured) as "Senior condominiums It has now morphed into market-iate rental housing. We in the neighborhood fear that the neat increment will be to drop the "senior" designaUOn. Additionally, while proposing the condomuuums last year ihe developer placed advertising signs on public propert} and did no[ remove them despite repeated citizen requests both ro the citt and to the developer direcUy. � This development is simply too large for the proposed site. The addilional rooms, e�panded footprint and elimination of the set back «�11: 1) Alter the character of the neighboring ptuk. 2) Adversely affect tr�c on neighborhood street. � Please do not approve the variances. In addition to speaking against the variances, I must address the poor public input process associated `�ith tltis project. V✓hen the signs first went up for the "senior condominiums" I requested that both LIEP and PED put me on the mailing list so that I wuld be nofified of future changes to the project. I received no hearing notice. �Vhen at last I acquired a hearing nolice, I discof ered that it included no time and place for the meeting, no email address to µhich comments could be sent, no staff phone number, and no indication that ��ritten comments would even be accepted. This is the type of closed "inside�" process that breads cynicism among our citizens I encourage you to rectify tl�ese problems in future hea�ing notices you distribute. Sincerel� � � o�.�/ Andrew Koebr�ci� 264 Oneida St. Si. Paul, MN 55102 651-224-8626 �� 7une 10, 20d2 Boazd ofZoning Appeals, Who has given so much power to committees or business ventures? What about the people who have stayed here many years to keep this a Iivable, wet[ cazed for neighborhood. We don't need any more traffic or dense populated buildings here. I feel betrayed due to ethanol problems that still exist. Increased traffic on St. Clair for the past 2 years due to what? Ayd Mill agreements have been disregarded and discarded. There should have been no question about adding resYawants to the Clark Station property on Grand. The parking in the whole area has become unacceptable but we have no power to stop it. It's like a disease that is affecting our lives @aily, but there is no cure. The vituses have Taken over. Please stop the fooiishness and money grubbing projects_ Who exactly will be benefited? Save my money for something I want. � Gretchen Craig � 959 St. Clair St. Paul, MN � �� o�-Sq 7 ��'�� oa-/� s�;� � June 10, 2002 Board ofZoning Apgeals, When I first saw the signs for the senior condos by the St. Clair playground, I thought that was a rather stupid place to build them. I couldn't see where it would fit, but then I didn't know the t�payers would be paying to have a hill removed! I totally object to THAT! And I don't understand why the building would generate NO property taxes! Especially for 25 years! That makes no sense whatsoever, and is extremely unfair to the rest of us who are paying property taxes. Why should they be exempt??? The building will be FAR too close to a well-used playground and community center. I think the children and the neighborhood deserve to keep their space without being encroached upon by a big apartment building. It's more important that they have a place to go to for recreation, and where they should be safe. I agree, St. Paul needs more housing, but there has to be a better location than 15 feet from the community center ball fields. So here's my opinion: l. It's a BAD location. 2. I totally object to spending $300,000 to remove a hill to make space for it. There are much better ways to spend that kind of money. � 3. �Vhy on EARTH would they not have to pay property taxes for 25 years??? My neighbors and I work HARD to make ends meet to pay our fair share of the taxes, even through it's often a burden to come up with the money. Why should some of us have to pay and others not? No property taxes, then no city services! 4. Why make variance rules if they just get broken all the time? If the building they propose has 32 more rooms than the lot size allows, then the answer is clear. Tel] them sorry, no building. Seems to me this is another one of those things that developers slide through under the noses of the neighborhood, and if City Hall approves this project, they are hurting the very people they are supposedly working for. Valarie Wesley 296 Duke St. St. Paul, MN 55102 651-224-6235 � �I� �' � � �- ��,.� John Hardwick, LIEP Zoning Adrainistration 350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 302 South Osceola Avenue St. Paul, MN 55102 � June 3, 2002 I2E: File No. 02-125892; Variances for Proposed Apartment Buiiding Dear Mr. Hardwick: 1 do not agree with the variances for the aparhnent building to be built on Osceola Avenue next to St. Ctair P[ayground. If the building was built for the lot size of 200 rooms, there would be no need for 32 extra rooms (requesting 232 rooms). What is the benefit of 0 setback from the sidewalk? I feel that for appearance purposes that this is not very appealing. Moving closer to the playground (east side variance request of 15 feet), is a safety hazard. The ball field is right there. The building wou(d be a prime for foul balls, noise, Iights, etc. I don't understand why anyone �vould want to live in an apartment building next to: . - a noisy, congested playground - railroad tracks in the back of the building. The building will shake and the noise level wiil be unbearable. - hot water/steam pipe. If this bursts, it would be very dangerous. - the noisy freeway across the street The issue of pazking is not addressed. Where is the proposed parking? The speed o£cars on the curves on Osceola is excessive and there is not enough room for pazking on both sides of the street. Wil1 there be a parking lot? I feel sorry for the unsuspectin� apartment dwe[ler who moves in and discovers the poor ercvironmeat they aze livina in. This seems like a very poor area to construct an apartment building. The only positive thing that comes to mind, is that the homeless people will no longer be camping out, drinking, threatening children, and making a mess of this property. c: Betty Moran, West 7�`lFort Road Federation Christopher Coleman, Nard 2 Councitmember Sincerely, / �� G-�-t'L Kathleen A. Poucher � �� - oa- S q� � �., ..� f..a 6.�n �� Q - � � 1 � � BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Public Hearing Notice CITY OF SAINT PAUL plKe or licva. �nqc.von ed frnimnrmoi Pro�ion � ss�-uQS� �J � FIL,E NO.: 02-125892 PURPOSE: Threevariancesinordertoconstructa4story88unitapazanentbuildingonOsceola Street next to the St. Clair Playgound. I.) The lot size allows 200 zoning rooms and 232 rooms aze proposed, for a variance of 32 rooms (19,310 sq. fr). 2.) A 25 foot front setback is requued and a zero setback from Osceola Street is proposed, for a variance of 25 feet. 3.j Side yard setbacks of 25 feet aze required and a setback of 15 feet is proposedfnrll�e east side, for a vaziance of 10 f�et. PROPERTY ADDRESS: Osceola Su�eet, south of St. Clair Playground APPLICANT: Wallace Johnson - St. Paul I.eased Housing Associates EF�r�1'G TATF: 3::^e 1�. 2�02 at 3:�0 p.n All Public Hearings aze held in Room 330 on the third floor of City Hall, IS W. Kel]ogg Street. You may send written conunents to Zoning AdnilnisLation at the address listed on the other side of this cazd. Please call Ms. Betty Moran, District 9 Seventh Street WesdFort Road Federation, at 651-298-5599 or John Hazdwick, LIEP, at 266-9082 or E-mail: John.Hazdwick@ci.stpaut.mn.us, if you have any questions or comments. Notice mailed: May 23, 2002 _V� � '� '�,'�Q�� 8�'"//I�!�=��f�11 ��",//�i�d�,1�� f �� ; � �6� �i � : � ��6:•1 j I �, t �� 5�� i � �� ; � 1 ��_ =,;� - a,. �i �_� . ..�...... __ � � �, � � �� . � \ �` \ � a y ��\\ r \\\� 1 .. � �� .� �,� � ;� f ��,. .. _ -: f.,.-; £'yL:�Y_ E+.+T �.,.,�r�}> s S c' - "� ti . i�.,na,s*-`Fti �"t �," " r � �� S".`. � �=�r � ` � <�` � � �.� C °3%�.`'ic_ .. ��,�f`�� 1 � -">`.� ;; �'S S t �� a � � i isj.{:.1 , � , K 4 a".�.k 4 ".£ t �' . : -.�,`, .' ; : ry a: ; : , i R �^ � % S �� '�� .,�^n�'^a� 3 = <' a� -��+, , ; �a ; °: ' �4 a,� ,-G� �. : ?< *11=?� �,_ z: fi� w � � _ � �� O v � � `�' O � � : �ri. � � I I °�°°� I .y, � Y_• �YH/S e •� � � ()Q J . �� ' .�� , � � � ' � �� 4S � \ - . nU�� . � �� ` �. �^: �� ,� � Y �— z� Y � 'S U dp Yls 3�� fy �J UZ :SS�3Fj L� 0 � I � Q o! ��, �I �� Q � �� { I �I �� zl �I w; W �� Q� �� ; �{ - �� O; _Qf - U� = i - U, - I � � I , I oa-s�� MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, JUNE 10, 2002 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Mor[on and Otteson; Messrs. Duckstad, Faricy, and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant Ciry Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Pro[ection. ABSENT: Vincent Courtney, Gcegory Kleindl* *Excused The mee[ing was chaired by 7oyce Maddox, Chair. Wallace Johnson (lf02-125892) Osceola Street south of St. Clair Plav2round: Three variances in order to construct a 4-story 88 unit apartment building on Osceola Street next to the St. Clair Playground. 1.) The lot size allows 200 zoning rooms and 232 rooms are proposed, for a variance of 32 rooms (19,310 sq. ft). 2.) A 25-foot front setback is required and a zero setback from Osceola Stree[ is proposed, for a variance of 25 feet. 3.) Side yard setbacks of 25 feet are required and a setback of 15 feet is proposed for the east side, for a variance of 10 feet. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of ihe site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval. One letter was received opposing the variance request. Staff also received two calls in opposition to the request. No correspondence was received from District 9 regarding the variance request. The applicant WALLACE JOHNSON, 7815- 133� Street West, Apple Valley, was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Johnson introduced himself and Mr. Sherman Rutzick, 2230 Jefferson Avenue, whom he was representing. Mr. Iohnson remarked that several thin�s had changed since the previous variances had been granted. He continued that the bui]ding had been reversed so that building was now being built with the long side of the buildin� along the street. Mr. Johnson remarked that the parking had been brought up the hill behind the building toward the railroad tracks. He continued that the building is the same height as the previous building which had rivo- stories of underground parking with three stories of condominiums above it. Now ttie buildin;, though the same heigh[, has only one level of underground parking with four stories of apartments above it. Mr. Johnson mentioned that there had been some confusion about the front yard setback. He continu�d that in front of the building was park land and they would not be blocking the light or air from any neighbors. Mr. Johnson stated that the building is setback five feet with the balconies extendin� out five feet to the properry line. He continued that they were still setback 33-feet off the sidewalk and the curb. Mr. Johnson submitted that the site across Osceola Street from the building is being deeded to applicant from the state and this will increase the overall property for the site. He stated that it will lessen the effect of the densiry issue for the apartment building even though the Ciry will take an easement out to develop Osceola Street. Ms. Maddox questioned whether Mr. Johnson knew what the footage wouid be. Mr. Johnson replied that he did not know the footage but it would add about an acre to the properry. AA-ADA-EEO Employer � • i �� a-8�97 File #02-125892 � Minutes June 10, 2002 Page Two Ms. Otteson questioned how the addition of the acreage would affect the variance for the number of units. Mr. Hardwick stated that assuming that the property owner actually acquires the properry and assuming that it is about an acre in size, the zoning code allows one zoning room for every 600 feet of lot size in this zoning district. Mr. Hardwick submitted that an acre is about 44,000 square feet and dividing that by 600 provides more than enough land to meet the density requirements for this project. Ms. Morton questioned whether the building would now be all rental properry. Mr. Johnson replied that it would 6e senior iental propetry. Ms. Morton questioned whether they would have someching in the lease agreement stating that renters have to be seniors to be allowed to rent the apartments. Mr. Johnson stated that their development agreement with the City of Saint Paul regarding the parcel is that the age will be restricted to age 55 or older. Ms. Mor[on questioned how long that was for and whether it was tied in with their financing. Mr. Johnson claimed that it was for a minimum of 25 years. Ms. Maddox questioned how many underground parking spaces would be available. Mr. 3ohnson stated that they will have 80 stalls. Mr. Andrew Koebrick, 264 Oneida Street, stated that he lives on the other side of the park within the . line of site of the proposed building although he is not within the area requiring notification of the variance request. He continued that he had looked into the project, last year when it was a condominium project and had not objected to it at that time. Mr. Koebrick stated that he had seen some value in the project. He noted [hat he had requested that LIEP (License, Inspection, & Environmental Protection) and PED's (Planning & Economic Development) place him on the mailing list for the property. Mr. Koebrick stated that he had not received a notification from either PED or LIEP about this variance request. However, he stated that the notifica[ion was passed on to him by a neighbor. Mr. Koebrick summarized comments from his neighbors and then submitted them to the Board. Thomas Hansen, who had been present but had to leave before the case came up, had written comments stating that the building is a behemoth and he had worked over the years to get some problem apartments out of the area. He continued that this is backtracking and the character of the neighborhood is single family homes. Also, going over the number of allowed number of units will drastically increase traffic on St. Clair. Mr. Koebrick stated that Valerie Wellesley wrote that the building is too large and Gvi11 encroach on the park. Why make variance rules if they can just get broken? If the building the} propose has thirty-two more rooms than the code allows, the answer is clear. Tell them sorry, no building. Mr. Koebrick stated that John & Julie Dooro, 593 St. Clair, commented about all the traffic that is already on St. Clair. They have lived in their home for 17 years and the traffic is getting worse and worse. The site is right next to the railroad tracks on a road that has limited access and does not seem like an attractive site for senior housing. � AA-ADA-EEO Employer �� File #02-125892 Minutes 7une 10, 2002 Page Three Mr. Koebrick stated that Gretchen Craig had written that she feels betrayed by the Ethanol plant and all the problems going on in the West 7'� Area. Noting Ihat tlte growing traffic wil] continue To decrease property values in the area. \ J Mr. Koebrick summarized his objactions. He had seen two kids get hit by cars in the area and adding another 88 units, in his opinion, will increase traffic significantly. He continued that it is not really senior honsing as it is being built with 1.5 parking spaces per unit and elderly housing has 33 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Koebrick contended that if it were really elder housing most of his objections would decrease because there would not be a11 tha[ traffic coming and going. He continued that the applicants can say they are building for elderly housing, however, it is being built to the specifications of a normal apartment building. In the beginning the project was represented as senior condominiums. Mr. Koebrick claimed that on that basis a Tiftf District was granted and a$3,000 Star Grant allowed the hill to be cleared out. The project has shifted once and there is no guarantee that it will not shift agaia unless they build it to the specifications of elderly housing. The one view that tivas not shown that is key to the neighbors is the view while standing in the park looking at the property. Building a very large building will alter the essential character of the location which goes against the reason the zoning code is in place. Mr. Koebrick submitted that Saint Paul Legislative Code 64.203 states that variances should not alter the essential character of the location. It is going to change dramatically and drastically. They are looking to encroach within 15 feeI of the property line, and that property line has been moved even closer by the vacation of Toronto Street, which was a further buffer between a large � apartment building and the park. Mr. Koebrick stated that it wili also effect the Iight and air flow which is another reason to turn down the request. A building that size casts a huge shadow. Something could be built there but this project is just too large and the irregular lot shape is not adequate reason to grant the request. According to Mr. Koebrick, the area tha[ extends into the setback along the park side could easily be moved into the area where there is surface parking since they do not need as many parkin; spaces as they are proposing. He continued that there is no reason that it is a hardship. The staff report states that it is a cost efficient building, yet the Legislative Code clearly says requests for variances should not be based on the desire to increase the value or income of the parcel. Whether it is cost efficient should not be a consideration. Mr. Koebrick claimed that he had spoken to the new Director of the Parks Deparunent who stated he had no[ had a chance to look at the request yet. He continued that he had spoken to Peggy Lynch from ihe Friends of the Parks and claimed she had not received notification of the reques[. Mr. Koebrick remarked that he had only a day to put this together and the neighbors that he had spoken to were universally opposed to the project. He reques[ed that the Board at least table the issue and get pictures with the view from the park. The staff report says that the site is an isolated parcel of land, and it is not isolated; hundreds of peopte use the area each week playing ball, etc. If the Board approves a bailding they shoul@ be sure it fits in within the Code and not make an exception for this. Mr. Koebrick continued tha[ this is not something that the neighbors want and once they build it there is no going back, it wiI[ change the patk forever. Mr. Koebrick held up a copy of the "cover sheet site plan" early notification that goes to the District AA-ADA-EEO Employer � /� oa�s�� File /f02-125892 • Minutes June 10, 2002 Page Four Councils and other City staff. He contended that this is they type of notiFication that was sent out, noting that it does not state when or where the hearin� is going to be. Also there was no return address or e-mail address showing where they could send a response. Mr. Koebrick requested that the Board keep the building within the foot print that the code allows. Ms. Rhoda Gilman, 513 Superior Street, claimed that she is one of the seniors that live in the West 7� Street area. She stated she has lived in the area For 20 years, in her own home and now in the Superior Street Cottages. Ms. Gilman stated that she had been active in the neighborhood. She continued that there had been a few problem properties that have gradually been eliminated and have been replaced with a couple of Habitat for Humaniry homes and the Superior Street Cottages. Ms. Gilman stated that in her opinion the Cottages are ideal housing for the elderly. They are well designed, low density and create a pleasant litfle community. Ms. Gilman stated that when this project was proposed as condominiums it had a different character than the apartment building now proposed has. They have increased the number of units and garages and changed i[ from a condominium, which is an o�vner occupied property to rental property. She shares the concern of her neighbors about the fact that the project is potentially a step backward for a neighborhood that the neighbors have worked hard to maintain. She stated that it is certainly a massive, block long building completely out of character in the neighborhood, which has the ambiance of single family homes from the early part of the century, • well maintained, placed on large lots. Ms. Gilman stated "the area has a historic ambiance which this project will help to destroy." She requested that the Board reconsider the question of granting variances to the project. Ms. Gilman claimed that an imaginative architect and developer could find a charming way to use the unusual topography on the site, and that this block of housing is potentially damaging to the neighborhood. Ms. Morton questioned whether Ms. Gilman lived in rhe Superior Cottages and whether they were rental or owner occupied. Ms. Gilman replied that they are ground level, essentially small townhouses and they are rental. Ms. Michelle Dima Yuga, 199 Duke Street, stated that she strongly opposes this project. She has six neighbors who are 55-60, that have had retirement parties. Many of her neighbors had been very interested in the project when it had been condominiums and she had thought the project would be similar to the Superior Street Cottages. She continued that they would have fulfilled a personal need she has for her grandmoiher. She would like to see her grandmother be able to take the money from the sale of her home and place it into a condominium, where her grandmother would own space and is within walking distance of the community center. It is an ideal area for senior housing but not for rental housin;. Ms. Dima Yuga claimed that the fumes from the Ethanol plant is the reason, that people would not buy the condominiums. According to her people would not move into the condominiums because they do not want to own a place in a stinky neighborhood. The area should be cleaned up; senior housing should 6e built; however, it should not be high density rental properry, it should be low density condominiums. Ms. Dima Yuga indicated that her grandmother could not afford to move into rental progerry but could afford to buy into a condominium. Three of her neighbors had wanted to buy into the project but it had fallen through and they never heard back from the developer. � If the developer gets the extra property ic should be maintained as a nature area. AA-ADA-EEO Employer 5� File $02-125892 Minutes June 10, 2002 Page Five, She continued that the applicant should have to go through the Fort Road Federation to get approval. Ms. Dima Yuga mentioned a safety issne coming down S[. Ciair near 35W that there is no traffic light so crossing the street mus[ be done at St. Clair and Oneida Street. Mr. Wilson questioned whether it was her understanding that the district did not know that the project was being changed from condominiums to rental property. Ms. Dima Yuma stated that the neighborhood was not notified in the Communiry Repo t�r. She continued that she keeps an eye on her e-mail for communiry related information in the West 7 Area. Ms. Dima Yuma stated that the neighbors were all upset when they found out Superior Street Cottages would be rental property rather than condominiums. . Mr. Johnson pointed out a small black triangle on the site plans that showed their encroachment on the park lands. The site is a contaminated piece of property and much of the work and changes to be done are to rid the site of the contamination. Diesel range organic soil that was placed on the site when Highway 35 was put through the site. There are some lovely trees on the site that have been there for a long [ime and the ma[erial on the site has been there for a long time. The previous building was a 81-unit project and the building is shorter than what the Board approved with the previous project. He continued that Mr. Rutzick spent a huge amount of money placing sale trailers and paying real estate commissions and had gone through a substantial amount of work with the development of the site. However, the condominiums did not sell in that neighborhood. There are no longer capital gains paid • by seniors when they sell their homes and according to Mr. Johnson, people prefer to put the money in a savings account and hold onto their nest egg. He claimed tha[ the b¢ildin, is no[ a behemoth compared to the previous building which was longer. The building was made wider and shorter in the center of the site. There is a significant contamination issue that is being taken care of. The variance requests were no[ significantly different from what had been requested and approved before. He stated that it is not possible to build 4 or 5 single famiIy homes on it, because it is an e�pensive piece of properry, and it is axpensive to clean up and deal with the soil remediation. Mr. Johnson submitted that anyone can go to the City Attorney in Saint PauI and confirm that this �vill be senior housing. They are not marketing only to residents 62 years of age or older with special services and that is why they are putting in the extra parking rather than the etder housing requirements of the City. If the agreement was amended to 72 years or older i[ would limit part of the proposed market for the building. Mr. Johnson stated that the building will have amenities, a computer room, on site management, underground parking with a car wash. He continued that the building is not dissimilar from the previous buildin� except that building was not selling as condominiums. Mr. Rutzick stated that they did not receive enough purchase agreements. He argued tha[ the sale prices were extremely low at $129,000 -�169,000 and they could not get enou�h purchase agreements to get a construction loan. One week they had 26 agreements then the next week several would come back wanting to get out of the purchase. This is the best program available today is the senior housing for 55 and over. Mr. Rutzick stated that they have the ciry's approved housin� bonds for the project, the unfortunace part being that there is 51,000,000 �vorth of dirt removal. AA-FDA-EEO Employer • �� -897 File #02-125892 • Minutes June 10, 2002 Page Six Ms. Maddox questioned Mr. Rutzick as to whether there was any way they could do iental housing and condominiums in the same project. She commented that the neighbors seem to want owner occupied housing rather than rental and the Ciry wants more housing. Mr. Rutzick claimed that if they wanted condominiums they had every opportunity in the world. He continued that they had a huge trailer marketing, Edina Realtor was constantly running open house marketing adds, but they did not sell. Ms. Maddox questioned whether they could see doing a mixed usage project. Mr. Rutzick stated it would no[ work. Ms. Morton questioned how much the uni[s would rent for. Mr. Johnson replied that a few of the units will rent for $467 a month, the majority of the 1-bedroom units will be $767 and the 2-bedroom units which are almost 1,200 square feet will be renting for �895. Ms. Morton questioned the parcel that is being given to the applicant from the City; she wanted to know if the parcel is still in the grocess or has it already been accomplished. Mr. Johnson stated that the City has not quit claimed [he property to them yet but are in the process. Ms. Morton questioned Mr. Hardwick whether the variance for 32 rooms would no longer be par[ of the request. Mr. Hardwick replied [hat if the applicant does receive about another acre of land that would be sufficient to meet the density requirements. Mr. Wilson questioned why the applicant did not return to the district council for approval of the changed project. Mr. Johnson stated that [hey had spoken to Eetry Moran and the project had been � written up in the Highland Villager. He continued that it is not a new thing and has been through public hearings through the development process. According to Mr. Johnson, since they were maintaining the senior use of this property Ms. Moran did not have a particular issue with the change. Mr. Johnson claimed that they had called to see if the district wanted them to go before one of their district council meetings and they said that because of the similarity of the buildings, and keeping the project for senior housing they did not see any reason to go back and make another formal presentation. Mr. Wilson mentioned that the change from ownership to rental is a big change. � Ms. Otteson questioned whether part of [he problem with the project was trying to ge[ a mortgage on polluted land noting that many bankers do not provide for that. Mr. Johnson stated no, when offering condominiums at a price that is equal to or greater than the value of single family homes in the neighborhood, rental housing will filt faster. Mr. 7ohnson claimed that with a project done in Brooklyn Center that was mixed use with a 65-unii rental building, a 73-unit condominium building, and 32-townhouse units, the condos were selling for the same price that single family homes were going for and that the rental building rented right away. A small number of condo's sold and marketing had persuaded them that building would increase interest. He maintained that it never picked up and only 12 units sold so they had to change the senior condominiums into an apartment building and it rented immediately. Mr. Johnson submitted that seniors do not want to give up the nest egg placing it into a condo, they would rather have it in the bank. He continued that there are not a lot of senior condominiums especially in ihis area of town. Ms. Otteson questioned �vhether they were going on a sell build option. Mr. Johnson stated that they had to for the financin�. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. AA-ADA-EEO Employer � File #02-125892 Minutes June 10, 2002 Page Seven • Mr. Hardwick stated that he would like to clear up a couple of issues. He stated that the neighbors did receive the proper notification in that the properTy owners within 350 feet received a postcard like they always do. Mr. Hardwick continued that the postcard does contain all the information regarding time, place, and who to contact for both the Ciry and District Council. He continued that what Mr. Koebrick had held up was a cover sheet tttat is not sent out to property owners but it is sent to City Departmenfs and agencies. Mr. Hardwick noted that the Parks Department has been notified, they are on a permanent mailing list and are notified anytime a variance is requested in the Ciry. Ms. Otteson questioned the let[er from Union Pacific and whether theiz concerns have been addressed. Mr. Hardwick stated that he had forwarded the letter to the coordinator of Site Plan Review. He continued ihat there are some valid concems that will be addressed during the site plan review process. Ms. Morton moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6. Mr. Duckstad seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 4-1 (Wilson), with 1-abstaining (Faricy). Submi[ted by: Approved by: John Hardwick Jon D¢cks[ad, Secretary AA-ADA-EEO Employer • �� J � **�**�**�**��** -GOMM.JOURNRL- ��**�*��***�*�*��** DRTE JUL-61-2002 *�** TIME 15�37 �** P.01 MODE = MEMORY TRRNSMISSION FILE NO.= 190 N�. LOM RBBRih1TWC STATIDN 1v'AF�/ TELFPF�NE N0. 001 OK <01> LEGRL LEDGER SiRRT=JUL-01 15�37 END=7UL-01 15�37 �a - g�� PPGES PRG.NO. PROGRPM tJAME '„'��'�'� -City of Saint Paul - �a��»��tx�x»�� -City Council - �� - 651 26b 8574- �*�� tdOTICE OF PUSLIC HEARING The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, to consider the appeal of Andrew Koebrick to a decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals granting tluee variances in order to construct an 88 unit senior aputment building at 260 Osceola Avenue S. (Osceola Park ProJect) Dated: July 1, 2002 Nancy Anderson Assistant City Council Secretary C: Shari Moore, Deputy City Clerk