03-1130Council File # p3 «3 `r
Green Sheet # ��� f5
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
�5
Committee: Date
2 WHEREAS, Bruce and Jean Bakke, in Zoning File No. 03-336358 made application to
3 the Board of Zoning Appeals, (hereinafter `BZA") for a variance from the strict application of
4 the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for property located at 2012 Iglehart Avenue and
5 legally described as set forth in the zoning file noted above; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the application was to obtain a height variance in order to
construct a 2 story addition to the rear of an existing single family dwelling; and
10 WHEREAS; the BZA conducted a public hearing on August 25, 2003, after having
11 provided notice to affected property owners and all persons in attendance were given an
12 opportunity to be heazd and the BZA, by its Resolution No. Q3-336358, dated August 25, 2003,
13 resolved to grant the appiication based upon the following findings:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
2.
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict
provisions of the code.
The applicants would like to make their house handicap accessible and are
proposing to accomplish this with an addition to the rear of the house. The
new addition will have an elevator as well as an accessible bathroom,
bedroom and kitchen. They state that the house will remain a single
family home. The rear yard drops down three feet about ten feet behind
the house and then gradually another three feet to the reaz property line. In
order to make the house accessible without the use of ramps, a portion of
the rear yard will need to be excavated exposing more of the reaz of the
building. Since the height of the building is measured from the midpoint
of the roof to the average grade around all four sides of the building, this
increases the height. The peak of the roof on the addition will be about 4
feet higher than the existing roof, however, the midpoint of the roof will
be less than 3 feet higher. This is a reasonable proposal to obtain the
needed accessibility while maintaining the architecturalintegxity ofthe
house.
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 slope of the rear yard and the desire to maintain the same roof pitch on
the addition restricts the options for making the building handicap
03 ���b
z
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
4�4
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
accessible. These are circumstances that were not created by the applicants.
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.
This is an older home in need of some exterior renovation. The proposed
addition will make the house accessible and contribute to the renovation of
the home. Provided that the house remains a single family home, the
requested variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code
and aze consistent with the Land Use and Housing chapters of the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essenUal character of the
surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values
within the surrounding area.
The proposed addition will meet all of the required setbacks. The three
foot increase in height is mainly due to the steeply pitched roof and will
not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
This is an older Victorian style two and a half story house with a steeply
pitched roof. The new addition will have three stories above grade except
for the rear elevation which will be four stories due to the change in
elevation of the rear yard. The applicants have designed an addition that is
consistent with the style and scale of the existing house. The requested
variance w111 not change the character of the home or affect the character
of the surrounding azea. The improvement to the house should have a
positive affect on the neighborhood.
WHEREAS, pnrsuant to the provisions of Legislative Code § 64.205, Phil Gerlach and
Ted Peller, duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the BZA, and requested that a
hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the
BZA; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to I.egisiative Codes §§ 64.205 - 208 and upon notice to
affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on October 1, 2003,
where, at the close of the public hearing, the matter was laid over for consideration to October
15, 2003; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2003, the matter was again considered by the City Council
with Council member Benanav indicating that he had discussed the Bakke's addiuon with the
neighbors and with Mr. Bakke, that Mr. Bakke had indicated that he could construct the addition
without the variance and that apparendy for that reason, Mr. Bakke did not object to the appeal
being granted; NOW, THEREFORE
b3 �4�
2 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council, having heazd the statements made, and having
3 considered the variance applicarion, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the
4 Boazd of Zoning Appeals, does hereby grant the appeal and reverse the BZA in this matter based
5 upon the following findings of the Council:
6
7 1. The recipient of the variance from the BZA, Mr. Bakke, does not object to
8 granting the appeal in favor of Messrs. Gerlach and Peller.
9 2. The Council finds the BZA ened in its findings Numbers 1, 2 and 4
10 3. Accordingly, the council finds: (1) that Mr. Bakke can put his property to
11 reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code; (2) that Mr. Bakke's
12 plight is not due to circumstances that are unique to the property and that
13 the circumstances were created by Mr. Bakke; and (3) the variance will
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, will alter
the essential character of the surrounding azea and unreasonably diminish
property values with the surrounding area.
AND, BE IT FURTFIER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Phil Gerlach and Ted Peller is
hereby granted; and be it
21 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Phil
22 Gerlach, Ted Peller, Bruce and Jean Bakke, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission
23 and the Boazd of Zoning Appeals.
Requested by Department of:
By: `��. � �� i a� �o �a�
Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
AdoptiOn
By'
��
Adopted by Council: Date t-�Z-t-¢-'"�`{ ¢r a3� aDO?j
� Green Sheet Green Sheet
� �� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
�
�
DepartrnenHoifice/couneil; Date Initiated: �
�p — License/Inspection/EnvironProt 09-DEC-03 Green Sheet NO: 3008915
CoMad Person 8 Phone: ���ent Sent To Person initial/Date
Peter Wamer � 0 ic nselln fio oviron Pro
266-8710 p�� 1 icense/[ns fioo/Eoviron ro De ntDirector
Mu@t Qe on Councit Agenda by (Date): Number 2 • A
S � ! P (��NSC� � ROUting 3 or's0 ce Ma or/ is�n
oraer a ����
5 i C erk Gti Clerk
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Loeations for SignaWre)
Action Requested:
Approval of a resolution ganting the appeal of Plul Gerlach and Ted Peller to a decision made by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals in
favor of Bruce and Jean Bakke to place a handicapped accessible addition on their home at 2012 Iglehart Avenue.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejed (R): Personal Service ConVacts Must Answer the Foilowing Questions: � �
Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firtn ever worked undera wMract for this department?
GB Committee Yes , No , .
Civii Service Commission 2. Has this persoNfitm ever been a city employee? '
Yes No
3. Does this perso�rm possess a skill not nortnaiy possessed by any
current ciry empioyee? . �
Yes No
� Ezplain allyes answers on separate sheet and attach M green sheet
Initiating Problem, lssues, OppoRunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): .
The Bakke's applied for and were ganted a variance from the Boazd of Zoning appeals to construct an addirion to their home on
August 25, 2003. Gerlach and Peller appealed that decision and their appeal was granted on October I5, 2003 by the 5aint Paul City
Council.
Advarrtages If APproved: � � ,
DisadvantaqeSffApproved:
DisadvanWges If Not Approved:
Total Amou� of Cost/Revenue Budgeted: -
Trensaction: ., '
Fundinp Souree: Activity Number. ° "` ��� ����
Rnancial IMormation: tq�� .g .q
(Explain) tf 1. �
0.3
OFFICE OF LICINS$ INSPE(.TfONS AND
ENVIltONMEN1'AL PROTF.CI'ION
Janern E Rnsas, D'vector
CITY OF SAINT PAUL IAWRYPROFFSSIONALBUIJ.DING Telephone: 65]-266-9090
Rmidy C. Kelly, Mayor SuKe 3Q0 Facs�ite: 657-266-9099
350 Sk Peter Sbed 651-2669724
SaintPmd, Afmne.saw 5570 NOTiOE OF PUBLIC HEARING
�'JCpCGTllUCt' I1, Z��3
Ms. Mary Erickson
Council Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
52.Il1t P3111� T'IN. 551�2
Dear Ms. Erickson:
The Saint Paul City Couacil. wiII con-
duct a public hearing on Wednesday, Oc-
to6er 1, 2003,, at 5:30 p.m. in the Gity
Council Chambers, Third Flooa, City
Hail-Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg
Boulevard, Saint Paul, MN, tn consider
the appeal of Phil Gerlach and Ted
Peller, to a decision of the Eoard of Zon-
ing Appeals approving. a height variance
in order to tiuild an addition to the rear
of tkie eaisting house at 2012 Iglehart
Avenue. � " �
Dated: Septevzber 1S, 2003 '.
MA1tY ERTCKSON, - �
� Assistank City Couacil Seer,etary
� (September 251 " -
-- -_= 81: PAUL IEGAL LEDGER =—�--s-=
22070148 . ,
I would ]�e to confirm tl�at a public hearmg before the Ciry Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
October 1, 2003 for the following zoning case:
Appellants:
Zoning File #:"
Puipose:
Location:
Staff•
District 8:
Board:
Phil Gerlach & Ted Peller, 2005 Mazshall & 2016 Iglehart
03-336358
Appeal a decision of the Boazd of Zonmg Appeals approvmg a height
variance m order to build an addition to the rear of the eacistmg house.
2012 Iglehart Ave.
Recommended approval
No recommendation at the time of the hearing.
Approved on a 6-1 vote
I have confmned tivs date with the office of Council Member 7ay Benanav. My understand'mg is that
this public hearmg request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience
and that you will publish notice of the hearing m the Samt Paul I.�ga1 I,edger. Tbanks !
Sincerely,
k,'�4f . . ..._ r.. . .....
John Hazdwick, Zoning Specialist
��� 15 2��3
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
03- 1 t 30
�
�
�
CITY OF SAL�iT Pr1UL
Randy C. Kelty, .'vlayor
September I1, 2003
14s. Mary Erickson
Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN. 55102
Beaz Ms. Erickson:
O�CE OF LICE�ISE, INSPECISONS �LW
ENVIROT3N4i IT.9I. PROTECT:ON
JaneenE. Rosas. Direcior
L013'RYPROFESS70NAL BUIIIJING ?elephone: 657-?66-9090
Su:te 300 Facsrmile: 657-266-9099
350 St Peter Sb_et 6.i1-266-9124
Sain( Paul, :Llinnesata 55102-1514 Web: www.cis[pauLn.us/iiep
I would like to confu�n that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled far Wednesday,
October 1, 2003 for Yhe following zoning case:
Appellants:
Zoning File #:
Purpose:
I.acatien:
Staff:
District 8:
Board:
Phil Gerlach & Ted Peller, 2005 Marshall & 201 b Iglehart
03-336358
Appeal a decision of the Board of Zorung Appeals approving a height
variance in order to build an addition to the rear of the e�sting house.
2Q12 �al�h�� Ave.
Recommended approvai
No recommendarion at the time of the hearing.
Approved on a 6-1 vote
I have confismed this date with the office of Council Member Jay Benanav. My understandina is that
this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eariiest convenience
and that you will puolish notice of ihe hearing in the Saint Paul Lega1 Ledger. Thanks ?
S' c y, �
John Hazdwick, Zoning Specialist
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
APPLICAT70N �=L�R AP?EAL
Deaartment of Planning mad Ecanomic �evelopment
Zorzing Seczion
I400 City Ha11 Anner
2� Wesi FourTh Street
Saint Paut, .YIV SSZOZ-?634
(637) 266-6559
i! �� ?�; �
Ai�PLlCANT � Address ;:��� #���� �✓� �� (� f i r yfA'G i f� ti�
� � City �� ��yv St. Zip =,S1D'� DaytimePhone
�r i; �, — i: =rc— > ;� � ` �` _ f.a `��J `�';�3 �
PF?DPEA7`1
LOCAT1flN Zoning File
Address 1 L
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made #or an appea: to the:
� Board af Zoning Appeals � City Council
Under the provision of Chapter &4, Section ' Paragraph ��% of the Zoning Code, to appeal a
decision made by the �'�':,�''�,a ,�-�T .�u^ s�.1i: ;c% �T' r.Q?.,,� :>
on '�'v'a;s i ��' . 20 �;� File Number: � '' ` ''� ''
(dafea�decision) �
GROUNDS FOR_APPEAL: Explain why you fieel there has been an error in anv,[equi[ement_permit, decision
or r°.'�sal made by an ad^:i�istra#ive ofticial, or an e: ror e^ tay:, procea::r_ o:
finding made by the Soard of Zoning Appeals or Yhe Planning Commission,
� �'"M�;C?,,r^�`.
f
t
� ���z�
- f ; � ,) t
;J�lLti'`i :.Zii'� /Y`.n/�'�:1„L� ��t� ,yc'%Q `� i .�c�f," � ` � � r
i p t �f 1 , o - S� :��. `
, r �� , .,=;=tJ'J �'�(�i3-K- C'.l,ji` at;%i ?.�.,t 1�.�.3a.t�'� (iY%/L�1�i.�t�t ��f'„�''�?%�^,�'yf?�
��
�� z,c,�/� ;.,�i.(� t7rc,Ms��j;�, L.r��� �It.A�
„ - _ . � ,
;;
. ti . , ,
f � , f / , .?!_ [ _� ' 1t` ; ia� j.�' L ✓(:� !'sr � -v '�^.c,s'� /.M
Ir
''���
,
�'ji �f! J 1 !�"✓�:`
�
° J�I � p'z �a ���.''r2�J' �10� �^�h l i�'� "i�% F=U �L '
t- ' i �.� C7 : L �t. � � ;/ �%��MO _i'.. `L �'2�T
. , i, ,
"�� �..�,`�:? .��.:i, � ��.�� ,�„(, �;�� � r � Gh :
(attach addi#ionai sheet if necessary) , �'�"�' !"L `'�' r `} .
1 �
E
;i����'��'�; � r5� 'v�w=C��sl /'=2 � . ,, _
" % ' �,
Appiican#'s Si 7at e ' '� .' r?: -, ? ,
g, ct� Date ,. _ City Agent �a,� ��u :; r'.c;�,�
^ ,.. . � ; � �
\ V � � � '�
✓�✓
r 1 �
�i X � , `f .. ,. '>'
CS3-//3a
saisr
'P'A..U[L �
;�
��
����ic���c�� ��� z����� ����ac�
�
�JF�ICE fJF LICE�SE, L�SPECTION, �iND
E.yTI�RO.N_ji1E:YT4L PI{flTEC'TIf?�'
3flC:,awr�P:ojessianai :uudin�
3.i0 St Peter S�7zet
Saint Paul, =�" 557/J2-i5I0
(65I) Zb6-90P8
AFPL�C1a�?
.�. -.
t' s
�
Name�:�uc� F �.��:; 5� �s��. Compa�sy
Address ��_� !aQ��:l-��=?-��v
Ci'sy `:: �«,> r St.^� v Zip-� �l Z%`� Daytime Phone�z�'�-?� -i f.�`;'
Propar#y 9nieres: oa.�ppdicanf (owner, ccntract purchaser, etc.)_ :� w n�,3
Name af flwner {if
Address / Lacatioc� -�� r_ � 1 �� i.• �= � -1� � .�'- 1 G v � r ±^rE�;
Legai Descrip4ion � �p >
(attach addifianal sheeii�
,`�,
-'��%' '�a-�' ��
La� Size � C? �^` ;� t �c- �r�sent Zaning Pres2nl tSse ;? t�,� d 2��;.'� ;��
Proposed Use '>�=�°s ;
9. Variance{s) re�uested: � v �
^+k � C C' s` . vs '— �::C. .��&'-�st..� X
j�.'Y' f3' t.t•e `' �
�
�-¢°_ � c.: � at��
3 ,
y�?.ic;w �, Y' ? sL"
✓ ��
�{; &' � 'T! ,f . ! i -.> :,�° a'
'�' � C ' '� o•�
'f -'� �}` �'� °t "�t"�
��' � r .
2. Whaf physicai charactsrisiics a# ihe praperty preveni its being used for any of the permiited uses in your
aone? (topography, size and shape ofi 3ot, soil condptions, etc.)
.-` �.;.d �r� �r G` �..t � "'.�c � t'3 i ;i. ; rr^.+3 Gi';c'�%,LCF '2�e c,� �� ,� '$ CJ � �''t' � � �..F� � £ � �.=7.2.� F�'!•e.�S
�. e}-d..� �sZs,'�L�'�'�y e.a'��i+%�5 a�.<.�a �+2-x�j�-a iLYS; � Srs�t.r�..�
} �rri: �' J�¢� r5 �S�"�tC.;��� -���z. �6�.2 f'r'LL �L�`fi#�rs
3. Ex�lain huuv tfie sfricf app a'� ion oi fhe prov�soons of the Zonifig flFdinanca wouid resuli in pecu3iar or
exceptional pracYicai ditiiculties or excepiior�al undue harsiships.
r� t _ n ,� ,
_. c�t :.�¢ � � e� -tr �� �� ' �v�j' : � t �t,e.o-!t,1-r- �,�, a-z�� t ri.; cv� ;.��t�> ;� ��. ,� a
a � e � : ' x �y+'� ��t,2ai '�� '.
;utS'Ytt. �Z.-�o�a } e�,i�',�. c�+? +1�� �ti�rst��; aS i� �o,�, �Y � - � �
�i' f� Y Lc.? �n.z L�.L9, Li s S 'Z J,.� � 1 c- i tC.� : J LSt 3 t*=LZ: .Irr� 't�W z:.Z�''
P � ��,� CASHIERS USE OtdLY
Jra aL�?Sr-4�¢-'tsCz,�"1� �I�•C�aS� �r�7'"Y1s?�¢_
A. Ezpiain hew the graniing af a variance wii) not be a substantia! detriment
to #he public gocd or a suosiantial impairment o# ihe intent and purpose
o# the Zoning fl 7 , 7 �}� �..J
{�- � d�rt.�i Y5� `T»,� S✓ dYLi='Yt � LUt''.i X£� �� v52 S.L$ �:9^.T Lc7f `f'^ 7��'�
e ai"�;.:t:�' .at , f�.z h.z � lu'F f1.z�=Zt i,ti�y, A i n.? �o<�c' .�:.,� �'�n..r�5'+t�" I
''vt yi'Yt�f ;.s..'r�'n i-�%Lv�'fL-1 sv ��t� �..`.-l'C' C'.:�:i JR% L'-� ��G ''�' t'Yt�i�
�
a rTa'YLC.�< !�:�/`�'t �:'�?��a 1 � 7 �°'�`'C— J��t-
�' f f ei.v' ��C. i�-G"`� r "2.� P�'G.�I �` T✓u a�.+ G i! i 1 T Z G"r9 :-•J
L�L�.'�'��-L 6:3fii' s:^ .. . _ n
� �. �.
,� '� \ / f :
A�,piicarst's Sis�na?ure �`� , a P`.c,I,`=; s-----'_ �_..,%
� � �
�.. �.
,--- - - _; _,
-���
��siaa�s� fo�- �rue� �aati �Tean �ai�i�e
1). �ae rooi of our progose3 additian would 7�a:%e a midpair�t greater thaai 30 feet
above the average grade af our home. The 2rade azaund our home is fairly flat; however,
there is a dre��fF at the very edge of the south end af the addition (see raof plan wiih
heights iisted in feetj. T�is midpoint of the proposed addition is higher thau ihe e�sting
midpoint For two reasons. First, the 400rboarc]s will be thicker in the addition thaa the 2
x 6's used in the present home, raising the lower edge oi the so�t. Secoad, the span is
greater. The e�sting roof spans 26 feeY compared with 34 feet. Because the roofs run
paraIIeI, it is important to keep the architectival integiity of the steep i2:i2 pitch. (Other
homes in the r�eaghborhood hav� a similar pitch and perceived heiaht.)
�Iote: We did try io inte�ate a dormer over the northeast section of the addition ta
min;mize the span required and maintain the 30-foot midpoint height. However, the
rooflines of the addition became too camplex and created drainage probtems on the roof
where The gable, dormer, and octagonal pyramid inTersecTed. fiherefore, the simple gable
plane truncating the octagonal pyrasnid created the best soiution for drainage,
construction, and appearance.
�
2). The hei�ht variance is ariique to fltis properry because we neer't Yo match the
e�sting i2:12 pitch to rnaintain the architectural integrity 3f the home rather than
constructing an addition with a conflicting, more gradual pitched roo£ �
3). This minor height difference wautd not change the overali look of the
neighborhood. The home would remain a two-story home with partial walk-ia use of the
attic.
4). The minor proposed hei�t variance wili not impair the suppIy of Iight or air to
this properry lez aione the surrounding properties. The addition is aa extension of the
exisring chazacter of our home and should ittcrease the value of our home as well as out
neighbors homes.
5). L'iranting this variance wi31 not change the zoning classification or use of our
property. It will remain a private two-story hame; but will have the capability of being
handicapped aecessible.
6). One af the main rzasons to cans3ruct this addition is to matce our home wheelchair
accessible. An elevator w711 provide access ta all levels. The new spaces will provide for
accessible baThrooms, a bedroom, kitchen and recreational azea A side benefit io
, construcring this addition is the increase in propem� value.
•
� �
���� ��h�r� ���
�2i�tP�tr1,�,1t� 55;G4-5�_�
d3 -/ /30
���1 '„�.,:
_ '.`�i�_J��
�
�
`
�iRCN \ \
: � ; `-� "- z^! � l f�- � \\
_ , , �_ ; `\� - -
� � � _ - ='' � i
��
;�- ,� �---_'" _-- ' '� _�
� ; ��� ; -'�� , °_— , �
;; . \�� . - `; �; �,
-I/" �� ' �,, . .� , '; ;; . ;
� f � j
� � F 1
�' r---=;' ,, �
Po�cN r- �- %
i � � � — � �_� 4
� �npa� ,
�
EX T,l�
/ IO� St
��.
•
5
���
`
lt✓� N i4 r> D'N
(N;lt✓o,::ap3e,�: Acc.;
�Bass �
! /'�'a'/�JT �
o.v% Y
5
� �—�` c ; i
� 1 Y i I
i i 4
i . iv`i; � ' 2 -� �
1 i�
i A�a.:c ' ==: , � i:, v- � � e `�I ;
� - � y � � -�� Y ��— : �r ; � 3 � �
� �n� i I lI �
��� 1 1 � ', � � � �1 �
i A.�'� � . � ll � qa �
I �
i �R3� �
� � I;
� i = x r� j �
� v.;ts..v"a'.E j .
�iJ� / � Y
�
'.
8ack�
�t� ±glehart Avenue
)EfA2 ?'dS1�, tYllV SJid�'a��'li
i�
L o 1 ; �'�%,�J ���
�cM! � , , -,2a'
i i
i �
� '
_J i
� _ �
ST�_</' S�oPE
/G"N.�F/'O ��Rfl.sr
�� =�it/5 l`/iRE
�
;
� ar.�
I
I 7 .zcs/
� �
� �
�
I
i �� ;'�
31.3"
30, s
/ \ �
f �
3t.' jo.9' �30.°
3�� �
J'L . `
32� �
!
�f
(
a�. �" ��
t
i
3!,S� �
i
�i oi j
t 2
2
o' {
2; � � j
�,3�
2': `1 j i
�; �
� . 3 ! �
: �
j I � ,
! � , �
� — _ �
% � - �
�8kk8
2�92 !alEh2rt Avenue
i2i�3#�3ul, �M1� 5�?�i�-;+^'
�
i � C �= ,�C .4lI/
v� , �,
Lt- �� , _.;�
i
�
i'
� '�
I �`;
�
��.
�
, �_ :
-, ,, .
�
�1oTE� �FEEe L,�-g�
a�E r�eFS�.��� Fz��
u@aD€ -o i✓(iaPO;NT oF
�R�.�GSC.: /'�E:V .;ZR.34E
�
�
�'
,
�
�
3
a
Y
\ �v
S `
��
��
J W
� %C
tiy
� `;
�
,. s �- -�
�/
�
,�
/� � �
��
/�'' L �i
\\ �
\.,`.
- �°.�A / - _ _
� i—,
,' �
�
'
' �
;!
; :�
Z
, W
` i �
V^
Z
�
��
_ � t:
i�
'� I
03 /! 3 O
���
-,r - - �� =� :
� I
i i
� � �
v ' � ti
\ + � �+ �
L L
k V
�i( S
�
I
} i
� I �
� ; -- ---
� ! ;
�� � �
�
�
; !
��
�
�-- ..` �E „2,6
— „o-,S�
„�-,/� —
.
_ ��
�2t€kc
'1�t.e ?�12�?�Ft AV2FIi:8
1d1T3� �BU�� �IU J i QG}•'J i�iE
i i � � c
� � ' ' �
r--- ' � �
� � ,
� � ; �°,�
—, � J�
� V
_ _ � �
� �
i
i
f
� "
;�
�'
i;
l'
�
�� i
—., 9 L �
t
_ Z �
Q
4
��
..' - $'dif�{9
?�12 igl2hari Avet�,E
�atrn �a;:�. �r� ss �o�-�?�
-�- r -
� ?
� �
�
y 3
-1 `
i u
�
, ��
� ��
� ; �.e - �_�
. � r � _ ._ "
J �,
� _ W. ,
�i c: �
- � �`
�� � k
i 3
v
� �
z
a
� � �a
�-
> �
� �,� �
�
� y
� S
Q v
— � �
I r + !
I �
I
� �
�
_ �
�
a
0
e
�
��
•
.�aiCd2
+��i `� ���8i`l.ct(1aV$(i}E
>ainf r aul. �AW 5510�}-�14E
03 -//30
� �
G L c -- "' r -_ � �
--- i ; `° i:—; -
i f
G-.v:
� �
�
i�
�
y
I
i
�
�
I
�
2
v
i
�
.�
�
3
�
2
2 '
y�
;i
�
e
a
0
:
�
�
O ;
� �
e
� ��
a ;�
�J
�
� Q
N v
�
�
�
t
' 2 V �
% � '
� � � ;
� � L W �
'I
� ;
� i�
Es� E. �.�{, E�E.� • �ls l'. _
E E
L �
� _
�� � � a
ti- S
` :.��
yr +`�' _
� ?.:
�`w::
x � �%
5 '
� �-��-.� - -
� �
s ', � � -�
r ';
ti a ��' `' �-�
}` t
�i .i;::
� ;s
�-
�� _ ,� ' _
� �; � z
l � -"` ... v' . ..
� �,
� " �� �.:-�;
�: "°`�.'° .. .-�.`�
"` � �ai - ° �: £ :�
� ��
N �.
F' - fi^
�
-�-,., -r= _ 4 .�
��� h_..-..-.e..--:.i
� , p ��; �'^�. _-.�`
. k
Ct}
• W �
•
`�".� ^ �tF`- .�.-{�=^
�
i � ,_
�
N
W E
S
� � � � � � � E
i
MARSHALL
0 3-/130
�
�
�
i.
2
3.
q
�.
G.
7,
b
9.
1 Q.
I1.
1 L.
�:
�_..
i-',.
1�
16
� �,
SUNRAY-BA"ITiECiZEEK-HIGH WOOD
I-IAZEL PARK "rIAi�EN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
�VEST SIDE _
DAYTON'S BLUt=F
PAYNE-PHAi_EN
NORTH END
THOA�AS-DALE
Slih1?�4IT-UNI VERSITY
1'JEST SEVEy�i`H
COMO
i-iAMLINE-M.ID`NAY
ST. Ai\''I:�ONY 1'ARK
?viE4F,igivi PARK-L£XINGTON Ii.=.MLINE-SNEi,LING I-LA;�1ii;��.
?vL=,�ALESTER GROVEL�h'D
iiI� HLa�tv'D
SUA�1MiT HI�i
DO�'v�':OV/'� � y
w �. ��h�l Y"z i� r �''-'`� ' c.`.�'��,.�
�.. � a s s� �t �� �� 1 i,. "�� t,� _..
�� i
CI'I'i"LE�t PARTICIPA770N PLAN�IING DISTRICIJ
og-t�3o
�o� t��' z���;� ���F��,s s?�A�� ���x�r
'I'YPE OF APPLICATI�N: Minor �'ariance
APPI,ICAP�''T:
I�ARING DATE:
LDCATI�N:
LEGAL I)ES�RIPT�t3N:
PLANNING DISTRICT:
PRESENT ZflNIriG:
REP�RT DATE:
i�EA➢LINE FOR ACTI�N:
l:�.iifil�'l:�:i��
August 2�, 2003
20i2 IGLF.H.4Z2T AVEN�UE
ZON�ING CaDE REFERENCE: 61.101
l�1ERRIAM'S REARRANGE�'VT OF BLOCKS 24, 25, 26,
37, 28 & 29 MERRI�M PARK LOT 6 SLK 28
13
RT-1
August 18, 2003
October 4, 2003
FILE : #03-3363�8
BY: John Hazdwick
DATE 12ECEIVED: August 5, 2003
A. PU12P�SE: A height variance in order to construct a two and a half sTory addition to the
rear of tlie single family dwelling. The allowabie height is 30 feet and the proposed height is
33 feet, for a variance of 3 feet.
B. SITE AND AREA CO\'DITION5: This is a SQ by 141-foot lot with alIey access to a
detached gara�e at the rear. The main portion of the yard is tevel with The street but the rear
yard drops down about 3 feet.
SurroundinJ Land Use: Pnmarily one- and two-family dwellings.
C. BACKGROtiND: The applicants are proposing to construct a two and a half story addition
to the reaz of their house.
D. FINDINGS:
1. ?7ie properry in guestion cannot be put to a rec�sonable use under the stricl provisions of
the code,
The applicants would like to make their house handicap accessible and are proposing to
accomplish this witfi an addition to the rear oi the house. The new addition will nave an
elevator as well as an accessible bathroom, bedrocm and kitchen. They state that the
Pa�e i of i
�
.
�
� ^�
o3-t� 30
! rile: -03-3�63�8
Staf` Report
house wiii remain a singie family home. The rzar yard drops down three feet about ten
feet behind the house and then graduaily another three feet to the rear property line. In
order to make the house accessible without the use of ramps, a portion of the rear yazd
will need to excavated esposin� more oi the rear of the building. Since the height of a
building is measured from the midpoint of the roof to tlie average grade around alI four
sides of the buildina, this increases the nei�ht. The peak of the roof on the addition wiil
be about 4 feet higher than the existing roof, however, the midpoint of the roof will be
less than 3 feet higher. This is a reasonable proposal #o obtain #he needed accessibility
while maintauung the azchitecturai inte�ity of the house.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unzque Zo this property, and these
circumstances were not creat2d by the land owner.
The slope of the rear yard and the desire to maintain the same roof pitch on the addition
restricts the options for making The building handicap accessible. These aze
circumsTances that were not created bp Yhe applicants.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and infent of the code, and is
. consistent with the keatth, snfety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the
City of St. Paul.
This is an oider home in need of some exterior renovation. The proposed addition will
riiake the house aecessible and conmhute to the rennvarinn of the hnme. Provided fha±
the house remains a single family home, the requested variances aze in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the code and aze consistent with the Land Use and Housing chapters of
the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate suppZy of light and air to adjacent
property, nor wi11 it alter the essential character of the surroaanding area ar unreasonably
diminish established propertv values within the surrounding area.
The proposed adtlition wiil meet all of the required setbacks. The three foot increase in
height is mainly due to the steeply pitched roof and will not significantiy affect the suppiy
ofli�ht or air to adjacent properties.
. y This is an older Victorian style two and a half story house with a steeply pitched roof.
The new addition will have three stories above erade except for the rear elevation which
will be four staries due tQ the change in elevation of the rear yard. The applicants have
designed an addition that is consistent wath the style and scale of the existing house. The
� requzsted variaa7ce will not change the character oi the home or affect the chasaczer of the
Pa�e ? of 3
t�
0 3-/l30
Fiie: �03-336358
Siaif Report
surround?�?g area. The unprovement :a the house should have a positive affect on the
aeiei�barhood.
.i. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for Zhe property in the distf-ict where the affected tand is located,
nor would it alter or ehange the zoning distnct cZassif cation of the property.
T'ne proposed variance, if �anted, would not charge or alter the zoning classification af
the property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire zo increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
E. DIS�'ItICT COUNCIL RECOMMEllTDATI�N: As of the date of this report, we have not
received a recommendation from District 13.
�
F. C(?I2d2ESPf3NDENCE: Staff has not received any correspoadence regarding this matter. �
G. ST�F ItECOMMENDATId�N: Based on findings 1 through b, staff recammends
approvai of the varlance.
�
pa�e 3 of i
�
l�
t �
o3-�i3o
� �I'��' �3� � �� 1'AU�,
�aa� �� zo�i�� a.,����.s �s€��L�r�c��i
�OV�1VG �'II..E NL`�I��:�..: #fl3-336358
DAT�.: A���.�s� �s, zao�
VJF3EREAS, $ruce L. Baicke has a�plied for a variance from the s�ict applicaYion of the
provisions of Secrion 61.101 of the Saint Paui Legislative Code pertaiuing to the masimum
allowed height of an addition to the existing home in the RT-1 zoning district at
2012 Igiehart Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd af Zoning Appeais conducted a public hearing on
August 25, 2QQ3 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Secfion
64.203 of the Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Boazd af 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 itse atnder the stricf provisions of the
code.
• The appiicanYS would like To make their house handicap accessible and are proposing to
accomplish this wath an addition to the rear of the house. The new addition will have an
elevator as well as an accessible baThroom, bedroom and kitchen. They state that the house
wiil remaina single f�mily hom�. 'The rear yard drops down three fee*_ »bou: ten €�e*, behir.d
the house and then gradually anvther three feet fo the rear property line. In order to make the
house accessible without the use of ramps, a portion of the rear yard will need To excavated
exposing more of the reaz of the building. Since the hei�t of a buiiding is measured from
the midpoint of the roof ta the aaerage grade around all four sides of the building, this
increases the height. The peak uf the roof on the addition will be about 4 fee# higher than the
existing roof however, the mid�roint of the roof wiA be less than 3 feet Iugher. This is a
reasonabie proposal to obtain th� needed accessibility while mainTaining the architectural
integrity of the house.
2. The plight of the land owner is �'ue to circumstances xrzique to thzs property, and these
circunzstances were no1 created by the land owner.
The siope of the rear yard and ±1� e desize to maintain the same roof pitch on the addirion
restricts the options for making :he building handicap accessible. These are circumstances
that were noi created by the app�icants.
�
Pa�e : oi _
� �
b3-!/30
Fi?e �03-336358
�esolunon
3. 7"n_e proposed varianc2 is in ;ceeping �.va1h t'ne spiral and inzeni of the code, and is consistent
tivith the he¢Ith, safety, comforr, morals and weZfare of the inhabitants of the City oj St. Paul.
This is an older nome in need of some esTerior reztovatiQn. The proposed addition wi31 make
the house accessible and contribute to the renovation of the home. Provided That the house
remains a singie fanuly home tle requested variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the code and a:e cansistent u ith the Land Use and Housing chapters of tha Camprehensive
Plan.
4. The proposed variance wi11 not impais an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
proper?y, nor will it alter the essential characier of the surrounding a�ea or unreasonably
diininish established property v,z�ues within the surrounding area.
The proposed addition will meet a3? of the required setbacks. The three foot increase in
height is mainly due to the steeply pitched roof and will not significantly affect the supply of
Iight or air to adjacenf properties.
�
This is an older V ictorian style two and a half story house wiih a steeply pitched roof, The �
new addition wilI have three stories above �ade exc�t for the reaz elevation which will be
four stories due ta the change in elevaiion of ths rear yard. The applicarzts have designed an
addition thaY is consistent with the style and scaie of the existing house. 3'he requested
variance will not change the chsracter of the home or affect the character of the surrounding
area. The improvement zu thc nouse shc�Taiti nave a posiiive affecT nn tha neighbarhoo�i
NOW, THEREFt3RE, BE IT RESGLVED, by the Saint Paul Board ofZoning AppeaIs tfiat the
provisions of Section 61101 aze he, eby waived to allow a maximum height of 33 feet, for a
variance of three feet. Itt order to construct a two and a half story addition to the rear of the
existiug home located at 2012 Igiehart Avenue and legally described as Merriam`s
Rearrangement Of $locks 24, 25, 2rS, 27, 28 & 29 Merriam Park Lot 6 B2k 28; in accordance
with the application for variance anr� the site plan on fi1_e with the Zoning Admiiustrator.
i
�a�=�: _
� � �-
03• �/ 3a
�
�
riie To3-�so�ss
Resolution
�a�� ��: ��S�II
�����'��+ � ��: �8�.71t��
�N FAVOR: 6
AGA�aTST.
MA�LE�:
1
August 27, 2d03
TIYIE LIl�IIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the ereMion or
alteration of a building nr off-street parking facility shall be valid for a
period longer #han one year, unless a building permit for such erestion ar
alteration is ebtained within such period and such erecfion or alteration is
proceeding pursuant to the terms of such peamit. The Board of Zoning
Appeais or the City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year.
in granting such eatension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide ta hold
a public hearing,
APPEAL
Decisions of the Board af Zoning Appeals are final sabject ta appeal to the
City Council ,�viUun 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building
permits shall not be issued af#er an apgeal has been �led. If ner?a±i#s havQ
been issued befc> c ar a�Fea: has ve�. �;leu, theu the permits are snspendeci
and construciion shall cease antii the City Cauncii has made a flnal
determinatioi+ of the appeal.
CER'TIFICATTON: I, t�ae nndersi,;ned Secretary to the Boartl of Zoning Appeals for the City of
5aint Panl, iVlinnssota, do hereby certif'y iha# 3 have compared the foregoing
capy with the original record in my office; and fmd the same to be a true
and correct csrpy of said original and of ihe whole tfieraof; as based on
approved mi�utes of the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals meeting 3�eld
on August 25, 2003 and on record in the Oftice of License I»spection and
Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, :Ylinnesota.
SAIN'T P.�UL �OAR� OF ZONIlVG APPEAI�S
C�
�
�CL!4`Ul¢.;icti ���1��
Pamela Bergstrom
Secretary to t�e Baard
; ��
°age: oi _
03��130
, -�.:-_
�
a��a� zs, 200�
TO: St. Paul Pl.ann;nff Comtnission
FRflM: 41ice Tibbetts 3fl15 Igiehart Ave.
ItE: variance for addition at 2012 Ialehart
I asn writing in support af ti�e request by Ted and Lorraine PeIIer ai 2016 IgIe4iart to rejecT
the varia�ce Yo build an over-sized adaition ta the back of their neighbor's house at ?012
Iglehart. I question whether increasing a house's size and height to the pourt it dwarfs its
neighbors is apprapriate to the e;�istiug housing stock or fair to adjacent neighbors.
. Afte: reviewing the ea2erior plan drawings and comparing the size of the new house
compared to the Peller s, the size of the addition looks e�traord'u�ary. It is obvious the
neighbors would lose access to ught and air. I hope the connrussion and the farniles at
2012 and 2016 Iglehart can aa ee on a smaller scale addition that will not overwhelm
nelghbors' homes. Thank you.
i
, � i �
y ,
�
� � �
�, ��--
,
�_ � a ��
�� ����
,,,; � ,,
�.,� i
'' i
,
;�
� ��
o3-ti3o
Page 1 oi %
John Hardivick - Opposition to Viinor tiariance For Bruce Bakke - File Number 03-3�5�58
�
From: <PGeriach�ptil.com> >� _
To: Uohn.Hazdwicx �
Date: 312�/200; ? 1:30 AVI " ' _ ' ' <��
, :� �
SubjecY: Opposition to iillinor Vaz;ance i or Bruca Baicke - Fila tiumber 03-3363��8
Mr. Hazdwick
My name is Phil GerIacn and I reside at 2005 Mazshall Ave. I live behind
and one house ±o the east of titr. Baicke. I have *eviewed Mr. Baki:e's
application for a minor variance and have several concems regarding his
request. I hope these concems w'tll be presented at the Pianning Commission
hearing today (Au�ust 25). Unfortunately I will not be able to attend in
person..
I take esception to Mr. Bakke's statement in his application that the
addition woutd not chan�e the overall Sook of the neighborhood. The
proposed addition would become the tallest residential s�ucture in the
area. The elevahon of Nfr. Bakle's lot is approximately 7 feet hi�her than
my tot, due m the natural contour of the area. The approvat of this
variance would ; esult in a towering structure that would loom over m;�
properiy No other residence in the area has the affect that this addition
would have.
I would also like to take esception to Mr. Sakke's contention that the
• existing roof pitch is 12/12. Mr. Fakke's sketches on pages 3/5, 4/5, and
�i5 of his application show roof, dormers, sable ends and front porch havin�
this 12/12 pitch. In the photo (pa�e 1/10 ofphotos) oflvlr. Bakke's
residence one can clearly see ffiat the slopes of the porch. dormer and �able
end aze not 12i12. Mr. Bakke also attempts to demanstrate the similarity of
his residence and thatof adiacent neighbors with regard To roof slopes and
d�sign. 3t should be notes t$at in all cases, the rco: pitc.`. of adjacer,.
residents is 1Q/12 or less. �
Mr. BakJ;e has not provided eno�gh informatioa m his applicaiion to allo�v
one to make an informed dec�sion on the merits of his request. Therefore,
at this time I am stronely opposed the approval of the granting of this
variance. The applicaTion makes vague referenoes to The addition beir�,n and
extension of the character of his residence. In fact, the proposed addition
incorporates a gable end roof, walk out decks on every 1eve1, and a lar�e
tower wnich ;s compietely out of character not only for his residence but
also for the zntire neighborhood. The conceptuai desi� abandons the hip
roof desiga with sab3e end or dormer, which is seen Througnout the rest of
the residences in the area. Tbis proposed desian does not maintain any of
The design characteristics of �Sr. Bakke's residence or of the surroundintr
structures. He has not commented on the materia7s of construction he �
intends to use {lap siding, double hun� windows, etc.). His haod sketches
do not provide many details of the addition (actual dinensions, verified
eYisTing conditions, etc.).
I would like to sue�est that, at a minimum, anv aceion on this variance
requzst oe postponed untii Mr. Bakke submits�additional infermation on his
� groposal. His conceptuai �kztches sneuld be supplemented with a set of
prz!iminarv azcnitec:ural olans snowine sarveyed site layout with contours.
addition desi�n. actual dimensions (of both esistme dwe7lin� and pronosed
addition), ma_znais of constrsction and s;te draina�e plan. Without this
iniorrr,aiion, and ior ti reasons stated above, I am suongiy 0000sed co the
I�I
i
fiie:G'C:`Documears%24and%20Settines�hardwicjALocal%20Satt:ngs�Tz�p\GW } �OOO�.T�3�_.. 8/2�/200�
Pa�e = cf 2
approvai oi ±h;s var,ance ;eqcest.
Resards
Phii Ge:lach
200= Maz�hai] Ave.
St. Paul, i�?N �5104
H:651-b45-630�:
W:76.-�51-6791
�
.
, �
� ��
�
fi1e:'� C:tDocurnents°'o20ard%205e�.�ngs�hard��icj'�Local%20Se�`fin�s�,Tem�lGT�i }00002.HI_.. 8/2�/2(?�3
03-!/30
Paee 1 of2
�
John I�ar3wick - file# 03-33635$, Bakke request
From: Carheriae Pe:rone <pe:roneVmail.anc.umn.edu>
To: <Jonn.Hardwick�cistpaul,mn:as>
Date: 8Y?5/200� I:II PM
Subjett: fiie� 03-3363:8. Bakke request
Deaz iVfr. Hardwick.
I am writing to express my concems relating to the neisht variance
request for a proposed addition at 2012 Ig3ehart Avenue (file �:
03-336358). I own che house at 2005 Yiazshall Ave; my house is across
the alley and kitty-comer from 30L iglehart.
I have reviewed the plan submitted by Mr. Ba(:ke and have the followin�
comments:
1) No dunensions, save that of tl�e midline of the roof and lot lme
setbacks, have been provided in the plan for the proposed addition.
This points to a lack of detail m the overall pian, whicb concerns me,
paRiculazly when a zonin� variance has been requested.
^ ( /�'
y�����.�
2) What is clear from the plan is ihat the addition is very lar�e in
relation to the house. Mr. Bai:ke ar�ues that a height variance is
• needed to maintam a rivelve-twelve roof pitch to better match the
arcbitecTUre of the house. However in my opinion, the entire
structure is not in keepin� with the architechire of the house. Mr.
Bakke's plan �ncludes three tenement style decks (one on each level)
ihat face into the backyard (and hence into mine}. Tnese decks are
completely out of character with the azchitecture of the house and the
n?i�hbo,�hood. The prop�sed addition itseif is �*ossly ou'. of
propor[ion with t:e existir,s house. If the o;�r.c: wcu;d :;kc to
maintain the architectural integrity of his house, it is beyond me how
he will do it based on these plans, twelve-trvelve roof pitch or not.
3) A height var�ance of 3 feet is beiag requested. Mr. Bakke's plan
would result in the uppermost porkion of the roof extendin� 4 feet
above the existin� roofline. The proposed strucNre will Ioom over the
neighborhood. My yard sits at several feet below the �rade of Mr.
Bakke's yard. if this height variance is allowed, his tower, decks,
and tivindows will overlook my backyard and ereatiy affect my sense of
privacy in my own backyazd, and for that matter, in my house.
I have literaliy invested tens of thousands of dollazs in my properry
and the overall character of the nei�hborhood, as well as my sense of
pnvacy in my own nome, is zxtremely important to me. Consequently
baszd on the plan submitted for the proposed addition to 2012 Iglehart
Ave., I do not support the request for a hei�ht variance.
Sincerety,
Catherine A. Pe:*one
� 200= Marshall Ave
St. Paul � 55104
�,
�
fil�!/C: �Docur�ents°/d=0and%20Settin�s`,hardwicjiLocal%ZOSettingsl7er�aiGG4'} 00002.H'I... 8l25/2C0�
PaQe U oi 2
Catherine A. Pe:rone, Ph.D. �
Deot. of Gene*ics, C�ll Bioloev, and ,'�evelogment
vni,�erit;. ui v2ir�,eso[a
(6:2) 526-2b21
.
� �
�
ii1e:; `C: �Doeu:nenis; �20and%205attin�s��ard�vicj �Locai%2QSeitinas�`L } 0�002.Hi... 8,�'2�/2003
03-/�.30
�
C
�
4
�
�
•
�-,�
_�>>
�
�
� �
; ,
� , : �. , ;
��`j j ; j ' 1 i;
; � J Ii � j i II i i
! �i
,
�
i
i
__
z
,
/ �
, �
3
2
�
2 i
W � .
W
N
Q
�
4
�
�
� µ
�
�
Q ;
� �
e -
> '
W.��
� -�
�
k
: �
f
� �
� f
.' � �
� .�
. F
�; ..= �-
� :ifK2
=G i z !a?eh,2r ; �a�ua
a2inr �a�:, ann� c=.�. -..�
4
�
n '"`--
l��
_.,.' `"". L
�
� , s
� �
� � c `
�
z
= � �
� �.\ r ` 2
�� � � .
� i � � ' �
' i Y
� � �.
�� �1 �_\ f
� �� v
��
� � a�
_ / '�
/ t
� I.' .
� ' t
�
F II
l:- �
� �
VI
� II
a �
� � �� � 1
: � ��
V i — ���,�
� � � i R `��
� � � � = 1 � "c. _: �
: � 1-�.�
V IV �I
� v � �
, , � � � � � � •
n
� �
_ � . c� �
3 ` " a S
� ' J I �
�, � \
� <
� �-..
�i
� _ �
—�
(r t
f`<<' - ,� �` I I = � - z
�� a
� ��, i i ` � =
j � 1� - k h o
' \ 'i ; � = �
± , : I i , ..�i -; c� � v ,
j - � - „ 7 - l,� - � � . z - 5,F T � , ; - ---- ---- _ �� _ �' y
� �
� , I� � � « q
Q � I � q �
4 � .,.. h� � . . _`:..,': __ . _ , i 1 : i �
'Q� __ __
� L _' xf - - ��y- ' ._ _ __ 'v _ _ _' '—
,
y wkic:
:�t2 ?g�r�r: averve
,__,,, ,.., -r.,., _.._
; '_' _. G —_ �_......��
J �
�
� �
_
�
� ; ; i
I ; i�� �
�
/r �
� � `' / ��
�� ;_;
� �
� � _ � -, i.�
�-
�
•
� to
o�
�
<
MPGC SnCC S�t°'_79991 08/29/03 10;21am A. q
$ (,} J_ J i,r. '! r r�
�,�q�� ����'��.�: ��.�� �
s ����.�����T ����� ��, ��� �
_5�3 v��ny a�e�ve ^ Sui�c �:! • Si. ?aui •�Ydinnzsnw ^ 55'sJa
- urww.merriam-�ark.org • C.merr";m�a5il;ti.;iet
+,et: SSi.6C5.4t587 � rax: �5;917,449?
.. �
�—�,f`; - `x"
�
�
�
27 rlugust 2003
John [I�rdwick
L.I.L.P.
3fl0 Lodvey Profess��nat }�uii�ing
;SQ Si. Pctcr Stner
St. }'au1, �N SS102
Dear Mr. Hardwick and 8oard ol�7nning ::omm�tto-: �vTemhcrs:
Fint o£ all, tha��k you ;i�r che ve�y d�ffis;uit work yoa aia> unde= incre:asing7y Lhailcagin�
tivancial conditions. �11 of us crra the community uauncdl rece,s�ni�e hcaw tiard, aad oftvBp
thanl<lcss, ynur task' is.
I am writing to you regard:ng a Minor Vanancc at 2i}12 Igl�hart that was d�scussed at the
f3ZA heanng on Monday, August 25th. The Mcniam A<uk Community Cnuncil strc�ngly
believes that the circumstances tead'ang up ta the hcazin�; and douk�ts t�y cesidenes and
some of our own councii rncmhers re�:uclinN thc fatts of tltc cas� suggesi kJte need fpr
_fur±ller in�est'soazicm ta dtierr.zane whtther or �iot chis vana�ce �houdd i��ave beer,
approvcd.
Upon talkin�; with our MPCt' ioniaag conam�itcc ch.iir J irn Vtarii, ii apoears tlzat ;he
conzmittee was le:�.ning toward not rocornmendmg the varaance due tca aneozas�si�:nc€es in
the description nf ziie variance. One iif the rz>r,u�� comm�Ciee inembers :s an archiicct and
questioned the accuracy oi'Yhe v:iiiance request, a.c. t1�e actual van�nce if buili, appeared
co he much grcarer than 3 ftvt. 'l. c�ning chair Marii triec� to rcach you �rior to the hcazin�,
bur you w�re an vacation. Thc owner of 20 i 2 tglehar;, Mr �3akkc;, did ccmtact oua affice,
but Mr. Marti had not yct tFtlkcd with him.
�n Monc(ay, the day nf the heanng, two v1en�3�rrz Nark *csidei�is, taeighbors �.o ivtr. �kkkv,
contactcd the c>ffice w�th cvncerns ahout [hc variance. Onc ofthc neigl�bors, �Ir, Te:+
Peiter, eame t<; the MPC.C; al'lice tc� ex�lain wliy 1�� thought tl�ere were ineonsisicnccea
with the dt:scrrp�ioi� of t;�c variance and exJ�ressed hia ;.oncern ove;r t}te aeit�ht af .nc
prope�sed constructivn. �lr. Perry, alon� wath �nc�r ncdhyoes, �tieaC:ed the he�rsng *.,j
express thcir c�ncerns and brought with th-�n writtcr, eo�?c�rns fzi�tt3 at lrast one
addiLivnal neighhvr.
�5
�-
b3 -��30 �P=� 5���
es;.=_=�s=s:
r79f26i23 l�.Z.an �. �3
.
With i�ur own zoain, committ�e inemberi ar�d Nix. �?aic.ke's nr,ghb�rs ques.r.c�ning .�;e
accvracy c�f tha variance requast, it �ecros p��cir:nt arid f2ar tlaac this varienec be
investigate3 zor accuracy. W'e u=ge you and you, stafftt: ini"c��rn Me. Iiakke .ha¢ this
vanance approval is on noid unril the>e qt:e:st�oi�s car :�e addzessed aud cleared u;s.
ZVe uvst that you wc�uld aexee tha: neithcr Nir. �iakke'i nc�r �is ncighbocs' interests shoulti
Le comprozz4iseci due to a lack af accurate infermation ore��Tiiliciin_ schesiulc.s among
city staff anci cnmmunity council mcmbers.
1 wi)] be ir Winnipe� until Thursday. Yleaye seel irce to contacl rne at work on Friday,
August 24th at b12-27R-7156.
Bcst re azds, � ^
)
Rol. vrdstrom
President
MezT;am Parlc t;ominunicy Council
� �
/ �`'� ,
r. J es Marti, C:hair �
erriam Park "Loning Cvmmittce
cc: Ted Pe T l ] lez. �.3erriam Park
aLUC'c J�iti�.�it., T.icTi i41T1 f�SIiC
CounciDmembcr ?ay Benanav, Si. Paui Ciry C:aur:ci�
�
�r� �
�1 4.�
u'
o3-/i3o
� MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZON3NG APPEALS
CITY COLivCII. CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUZ, MINNESOTA, AUGUST 25, 2003
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Duckstad, Faricy, Kleindl, and Wilson of
the-Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hazdwick and
Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspecrions, and Environmental Protection.
ABSENT None
The meehng was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
Bruce L. Bakke �#03-3363581 2012 Iglehart Avenue: A height variance in order
to construct a two and a half story addition to the rear of the house. The allowable height is 30 feet and
the proposed height is 33 feet, for a variance of 3 feet.
Mr. Hazdwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for
approval.
Two letters were received opposing the variance request from the neighbors at 2005 Marshall and 2015
Iglehart Avenues.
No conespondence was received from Dish 13M regarding the variance request.
• The applicant BRUCE L. BAKKE, 2012 Iglehart Avenue, was present with the architect Gretchen Fett,
10058 Barnes Avenue, Inver Grove Heights. The letters in opposition were given to the applicants. Ms.
Maddox requested that they respond to the letters.
Ms. Fett stated that they could keep within the zoning requirements by changing the pitch of the roof,
huweee;, ;a keeping the arcPr�tectural integrity of the i�ome i'riey ielt thai cne best fning for tne house and
the neighborhood was to match the pitch of the house. Because of the pitch and the garde of the land it
does require a variance. Mr. Bakke responded to the comment in the letter ahout "looming over" and
privacy issues, there are substantial trees on the south side of the lot. There is a skylight, however, with
all the trees in the yard looldng down all you see are trees below. Ms. Fett stated that this attic would be
the same height as the current attic so you would not see more than you already do.
There was opposihon present at the hearing.
Ted Peeler, 2016 IGLEI3ART, stated that he thinks the variance is actually 4 feet. He has concerns about
the length of fime for construction noting that the applScant does very good work, however, it takes him a
very long rime to do projects. He fears that this 4-story project will take years for the applicant to
complete. The second concern is about the water run off issues. These concerns are based on past
experience with the applicant. There is a lfoot to a 14-inch drop from the applicants' properry to his.
, Mr. Peeler submitted photos to the Board. He noYed that he has to remind the applicant to properly
maintain his gutters and down spouts, which overflow toward his property causing properry damage in
his basement. Mr. Peeler submitted more pichues of houses in the neighborhood showing the
neighboring home for compazison. He questioned what a partial walk-in attic is and submitted further
� drawings showmg the outlines of the proposed addition and his home with a drawing of the current
house.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer ,� �
:T"
03 - t�3 d
File #03-336358
Viinutes August 25, Zfl0?
Page Two
Mr. Peeler stated ?�e could not see how this addition would be in keeping with the neighborhood.
Ms. Meg Teg, 2017 Marshall Avenue, stated that there are major discrepancies in the written text of the
applicarion it states that the existing roof span is 26 feet compazed with 34 feet. According to the site
plan this is inconect. She noted that the first paza�aph states that the neighborhood homes have a
similar pitch and perceived height. Her home is similar to the neighboring homes, with a 12/12 pitch,
however, the height is not 37 feet from the first floor to the top pitch of the roof. Ms. Tieg azgued that
there aze 3 stories not counring the basement and the partial walk in attic, which would make it a 5-story
home. She contended that to be handicapped accessible the house would have to have all floors
handicapped accessible, she does not thnik that this house will be. She also noted that the site plans
show walk out balconies on three of the floors not including the bottom walk out or the partial attic
access. There are two people living at this residence and they do have two childten but tius house is
pretty lazge. This azea is close to St. Thomas and there are homes in the azea that are rented out tv
students. She questioned if the house is actually handicapped accessible where are the ramps to get into
the house, both from the front and the back of the house. Where are the handicapped and wheelchair
accessible accommodarions other than the ldtchen access etcetera. She assumes that there would not be a
kitchen on the second, third or fourth ]evel. The site plans do not show where the other accessible areas
will be located. She contends that based on the height, width she thinks there will be vision obstrucrion.
u
Ms. Maddox instructed that the only thing that the Board is concemed with at this time is the height .
variance. The sighT obstruction is pertinent to the variance.
Ms. Fett asked where the Board would like them to start their response. Ms. Maddox directed that the
only thing that they need to answer to is the issue of 3 or 4 feet. Ms. Fett replied that the height at the
very high�$.x poin± is 3? fee:, ?;; v�ever, ;hat :;-,�ot how they measure the overall height, 4�i,i�h i�
measured from grade to the mid point of the roof, so that should take care of the discrepancy. Mr. Bakke
stated that they plan to put an addition on their home and that will make the house somewhat bigger than
the rest of the houses.
Mr. Courhiey questioned whether the applicants were trying to show that the peak of the new addition
and the existing house roof aze the same height. Mr. Bakke stated no, it is higher. He stated that the
reason the peak is higher is that the addirion is wider than the existing house.
Mr. Wilson questioned whether the midpoint shown on page 94 and 95 were correct the old building
appeazed to be higher than the new addirion. Ms. Fett stated that the old house is the one on the right
new addition is on the left on page 95 so the midpoint is a little bit taller than the old house, Mr. Wilson
questioned how far under ground the rim joists, they do not look like they aze down more than 2-2%z feet.
He questioned whether the ceiling levels would be the same on the existing house and the addirion. Mr.
Bakke stated no. The basement level on the addition is 19 inches lower than the e�sting basement,
which has only 6.5 feet. Ms. Fett stated that the elevator will open on both sides so that it will allow
someone to get on the elevaTOr in the addition and go up to rhe existing basement and exit through the
opposite door of the elevator.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer �� �
�� �
�
�3 -/I3 0
•
File #03-336358
Minutes August 25, 2003
Page Three
Mr. Wilson quesroaed that the new addition will have a basement lower than the exisring basement. Ms.
Fett stated that is correct.
Hearing no fiu testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mz. Hardwick reminded the Boazd that the only thing in quesrion here is the height of the addition, not
the size, not the amount of water running off onto someone else's properry, and not room arrangement.
The applicant could build this same addirion with a lower pitched roof and not need any variances. The
problem with that is that by lowering the building the mass of the building will increase rather than the
height, and they would lose some usable space in the attic.
Mr. Wilson moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through b.
Mr. Kleindl seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 6-1(Courtney).
� Submitted by:
John Hazdwick
�
�
Approved by:
Jon Duckstad, Secretary
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
��
�
✓
a3-��30
�
I3rnce L. & Jear� A. ��k�
2�12 Iglehart Avenae
St. Paul, iY1� 551i)4
September 20, 2003
Rolf Nordsirom, President
Merriam Park Community Council
1573 Selby Avenue Suite 311
St. Paul, NIN 55104
Dear NIr. Nordstrom,
We tvrite in respanse to your August 271etter to 7ohn Hardwick at the City of St. Paul
L.I.E.P. re;ardin� the variance approved for our home at 2012 Iglehart. 7n that letter
(copy attached) you urae NIr. Hardwick "to inform Mr. Bakke that this variance approvai
is on hold." The reasons �ven for requesting thas action include supposed
• "inconsistencies in the description of the variance," a NIPCC zoning committee
member/architecT questioning "ihe accuracy of the variance request," and 1VIr. Bakke's
neighbors "questioning the accuracy of the variance request." We note without comment
that despite calIing MPCC in advance of the 8/ZS hearing, our input toward resolving
-- - th�s� "incuiisistencies" ivas never sou�ht. �t our requesf and with the help of Theresa
Highland of MPCC, a meeting was set for September 10`h to give us a chance to learn
exactly what were the questions and concems of the MPCC and its zoning committee.
At that meeting, Dr. 7ames Marti, zoning committee chair and co-si�ner on your letter to
Mr. Hardrvick, stated that the zoning committee had only nvo guesrions/concems: First,
are we buiiding a group home, and second, rvhat is the procediue by �vhich heipht
restrictions are calculated? The first anstiver was easy: No. The second took a bit more
explaining, but I think we aot it right: The 30 foot limit is meast�red from the midpoint of
the roof to the average grade at the perimeter of the e�sring plus proposed structure. in
any case, NSr. Hardwick was kind enough to calculate the amount of the variance neederl
from our measurements, so we can be co� dent it is conect. As far as we kno�v, these
questions were ansFVered to the satisfaction of Dr. Marti and the other two zonina
committee members preseni. '"
�
�
03-1�3a
Notiv, despite ourhavin� satisfied the zonin� cem�ittee's concems, �ve uncierstand that
� vIPCC is not �oing to take a positioa for or a�ainst the variance. I suppose thaT is
u�derstandable. However, on 9/11 two neig�hors fiied to appeal The variance to the Cit�,'
Council, stating, `:1�II'CC has rzservationlconcern about accuracy of variance request and
believes additional review and studv are necessary prior to disposition of the variance
request_" We therefore request that you acknowledge that.the concerns raised in your
8/2� 2etter have been answered_ If thev have not been answered, I ur�e you to coatact us
at your earliest. convenience, and certainly before the October 1 CiTy Council meeting. I
cannot say it better Than yon did 8/2%: "We trust that yon rvould agree that neither Ntr.
Bakke's nor his neighbors' interests should be compromised due to a lack of accurate
information...."
Sincerely,
�J
�� ��i�
Bruce L. Bakke
Email: bak1;e001C°�umn.edu
Work: (612) 728-1227
HomelFax: (b51) b45-3949
cc: Dr. James Marti, Chair
tYtemam par$ Zoning CommitTee
Mz._Te� Pel�er, ���� ;m Park _
Nir. Phil Gerlach, Memam Park
Counciimember Jay Benanav,
St. Paul City Council
/ �.
A. Bakke � P �
Mr. John Hard�vick and Zoning Committee Members
St. Paul L.I.E.P.
�
o3-J�3o
:map://ba:c.'ie001 r� balckeC01. emcul. umn. edu: ,_3(fe[eh`ie3EJID'?�o3g,'
From: "Brsce L. Balu:e" <bakkz001 C umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Aua 2G03 1=?:59:38 CBT
� To: perroneCmail.ahc.umn.edu
CC: Bruce L Bak.L'e <bai;I;z001i�umn_edu>
ue� Dr. ?errone, -
' I=°5=et th=-t our promsee edciiticn is disnlezsinq co you, 2nd thac = did
not �-r�q to tal.k to you z�out it ne£ore yesterday's zoning ?iezr±ng. Z
thouaht L wouid n=obabiy ahance to see ycu and a;.ra.ge a time, and -
nai.vely - tnat ao cne wouid 'ce much interzsted in our roo£. Mayne w�e
snoald calk scme �ime. For now, I'll try to brie£iy adciress some oi the
conceras contz.ined in yocr em�1 to Sohn Hardt,n_cic.
1) The sketch lacics dec�+1 beczuse only the heiqht oP the roof is at isst,e.
The zdd�nion can be buiit without a varience £or the added roof heignt by
sianly lower±zg the piteh oi the roo£ or meJcing it £1at. Tha would snoil
the look o= it, but it is bhe �ternative course.
2) The addit3on is rot scca].1, but that is not relevant as it is wichin the
zoning ra The "decks' are actually relatively sma11 balconies
and a:e just skznched 'co show the location. The rails will £it u4e era oE
the house.
3) The uFper floors in the house wi11 be ac same level as they are ncw, but
closer to your house. On�y the ceak o£ tne roof is higher. So che views
into your yazd wili be virtually the same: Xou can see my windows and I
can sze your wiadows. Given the garaqes and the tree, I have no view into
your back yazd and will not afser the addition is built. Whether tne roof
is £our peet taller or the same as the e.�ci.sting house does nac chanqe this. �
Let me ]cnaw ii you wznt to discuss this further. _
Bruce
. Saue001�umn.edu
6�?5-39ag
•
I oi i
9/20iO3 o:0'i Ph'
tmao:/ib:i.<ke001Cb�tk�e001.emul.umn.edu:l�O�tch ��ul�%3Fji.
F'rom: "B�ce L. Ba'�'-e" <bakke00? � umn_edu
� Date: Tue, 26 Au� 2CO3 15:19:37 CDT
To: PGerlach@pol.com
CC: Bruce L Ba::ke <bakSeCO1C umn.edt�
Dezr Mr. Ga:lzch. - . .
-T r°qrec that our procosed zccition is disnleasinq �o you, aad �h�t 2 di.d
nat z ra �z3;c to you �out it before yes..er;ay's zoning hezrinq. Z
tnoucht 2 would nro'nacly cSax:ce �o s� yoa znd arrange z tia�, and -
naively - cnat r.o one wculd �e muc'r. i*sterered in�our rooi, t3ayF� vre
sinould ta.L'c seme t�ae. For now, S'i1 tzy to brie£ly �c.'dzess �ome o the
concerns ccntained in your email to John iiiawick.
?areyz'zch 2) I don't see thaE having c.he rooP morz steeply pitched and four
`-°et higher will mak= aiuch diEfezence. The addition can �e built wit(sont a
vzriance £cr the added soof heigF.t by si_mn2y lowerinq the pitch oi the rooi
- or making i� iiat. That would scoil the Iooic of :t, but it is t4e
a7.c°raative course.
Paraqragh 3) You are right ak;out my Forch roof: It is not I2/?2 or I �
coucn't �e standing on it repairing it. The others aze 12/12 as £ar as I
. lmow, and I've measured some of them. aaay�e your are misled by the angle
o£ my photns. The neigkshoriny roo£s look equally steep to me. Z supcose •��
someone wnuld have to measure them to be sure_ again, is the perspective
o£ my gictures misleaclinq? ,
Paragraph 4) 1) The skatch lacics detail because only the heignt o£ t,he roo£
is a� issue_ mhe add.ition can be builc without a variance for the added
rooi heigfit by s;mnly lowering the piteh o£ the rco£ cr makiaiq it £Sat.
That �rou1d snoil the look oi .it, but it is the z1te�:ative course. 2 hope
you wi11 Yz pleased to leartt chat we p1an for double hung windows, narrow
siding to mztch the housa, and so on_ Again, Z wish I had talked to you
earlier.
I.�t m� know i£ you want to discuss t.fiie Yuxtner.
Bruce
Bakice00l�umn . �du
645-3949
P.s. We haoe �o i.nten±ion of_rznvina to atudents, itx case yon �sa =��=� _ _ _ _
aLr�ut that. This was hinted at in some of the testi.mony against the
variance yestarday. My understanding i5 that a1I. bu�t one oi the members
voted £or the variance. � �
Thanks Eor your concerr. about mainta'v�.ing and improvinq the neiahborhood_
That is our goal as well.
blb '
L I
�f I
�/?O/03 6:0� Pli
,.-
�
�
September 20, 2003
Dear Viemam Park Neighbors,
$ruce L. & Iean A. Bakke
2012 Iglehart Avenue
St. Paul, �SN 5�104
03-1130
This is being sent to our neighbors at 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008, 201�, 2016, and 2Q17 Iglehart and
2001, 2005, 2�i3, and 2017 Marshall. By now each you should have received a posTcard from
the ciry informing you of fhe October lst hearing before the St Paul City Council on the appeal
to our variance. On 8/25 the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approved a variance for increased
hei�ht o£ the roof on the addition we are putting on our house. We write to provide you witti a12
of the written information that we have and to invite your questions and concems. Also, because
the issue does not seem sufficiently important to justify asking anyone to spend time sitUng on a
City Hall bench, we want to provide an easy way for you to respond, whether you are for or
against, To that end we have enclosed a simple rating form, a space for your comments, and a
stamped envelope addressed to John Hardwick at the City of St. Paul L.I.E.P. The materials
enclosed are rvhat the city sent to us and we believe to the appellants Phil Gerlacb (2005
Marshall) and Ted Peiler (201b Iglehart}.
In addition, we have enclosed copies of our letter today to the Merriam Park Community
Council, and email responses to the 8/ZS emails of Phil Gerlach and Catherine Perrone (2005
Marshali). The email responses answez questions about whether the proposed addition will be
consistent with the character of our house. Reaarding consistency with the character of the
neighborhood, a stroll around the block to our west between Iglehart and Marshall will reveal our
neiahborhood's diversity in architecturz and eras: from old to more recent, fFOm little to big, and
from a concreYe block liquor store to modern brick apartment buildings. For towers with peaked
roofs, just ao one block east of hTr. Gerlach's house to 1969 Marshal, or four blocks east to 1852
Marshal. Or, from our house go three blocks east and one north Co 1921 Canoll, or four blocks
east af us to 1855 Ia;2h�i. — -- - -
In closin;, we cail your attention to Mr. Hardwick's comments in the final pazagraph of the 8/25
hearing minutes. The addition can be built with an attractive roof if the variance is not
overtumed by the City Council. Or, it can be built with a low-sloped roof that will be out of
character for Che house, or even with a flat roof. Piease cali us with any questions, and send your
"vote" and any comments to Mr. Hardwick in the enclosed envelope.
SineereIy,
� ���
Brnce L. Bakke
Email: bakke001C�umn.edu
Work: (612) 728-1227
Home/Fax: (651) 645-3949
� �
�t �� �
Jean A. Bakke
cc: Councilmember Jay Benanav,
� St. Paul City Council
Mr. John Hazdwick, St. Paul L.I.E.P. ✓
September , 2003
� To: John Hardwick
City of St. Paul L.I.E.P.
Dear Mr. Hardwick,
I/We have reviewed the materiaIs provided by Bruce and Jean Bakke re�arding the variance for
the roof fieight on the proposed addition to their home at 2012 Iglehart. We have entered our
name and address and sia ed the ratin� form. Please convey our wishes and comments to the
City Ceuncil for consideration at the October 1 hearing of the appeal on the variance.
I ask that thz City Council ALLOW NOT ALLOW the increased roof height �ranted to
Bruce and Jean Bakke on 8/25/D3 (circle one).
Si�nahue Name Address
Comments:
�
I ask that the City Council ALLOW PdOT ALLOW the increased roof height granted to
Bruce and Jean Bakke on 8/25/03 (circle one).
Si�nature Name Address
Comments:
� 1
�J