03-494Council File # �3 � �4�
Green Sheet# 3C700 �',3
RESOLUTION
OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
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
Committee: Date
WHEREAS, Wally Nelson, P.O. Box 836, Lake Elmo, MN 55042, in file no. 02-234037,
made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals (hereinafter the BZA) for variances from the
strict application of the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for property located at 1036
DeSoto Street and legally described as set forth in the said zoning file number; AND
WHEREAS, The purpose of the application was to vary the side yazd setback, lot width
and lot size standazds of the Zoning Code in order to split a lot and build a new single family
house; AND
WHEREAS, The BZA conducted a public hearing on November 25, 2002, after having
provided notice to affected property owners, and the BZA, by its Resolurion No. 02-234037
dated December 9, 2002 voted to deny the application based on the following findings and
conclusions:
The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict
provisions of the code.
The applicant is proposing to split this pazcel back into the originally
platted 40-foot lots and construct a new single family home with a
detached garage on the vacant lot. The existing duplex on this site was
constructed in 1894 and was converted from a single family dwelling
sometime around 1930. It is a legal nonconforming use in this area which
is now zoned for single family dwellings. The duplex was built entirely on
the southern 40-foot lot with the appazent intent to construct another
building on the northern lot. The proposed single family home is a
reasonable and conforming use on the proposed 40-foot lot. The variances
are required for the existing duplex which will not change other than now
being located on a 40-foot lot.
2. The plight of the Zand owner is due to circumstances unique to this
property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The existing building on this site was constructed befqr,e the adoption of
zoning ordinances in the city and was converted to a duplex at a time when
the conversion was pernutted. The changes in the zoning ordinances over
the yeazs have created a situation where the duplex has become
nonconforming and the extra lot associated with the site cannot be
as
,)
developed without a variance. These are circumstances that were not
created by the applicant.
�
3. TTxe proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
code, and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and
welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
9 The proposed variances will allow the addirion of a single family home but
10 will also create a duplex on a substandard lot. This request is not in
11 keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and the spirit and intent of the code.
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
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air
to adjacent property, but will alter the essential character of the
surrounding area and may unreasonably diminish established properry
values within the surrounding area.
This project will not involve any reduced setbacks except between the
duplex and the proposed new house. The requested variances would not
affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
This area is zoned for single family dweiling and the new house will
compliment this classification. However, the nonconfornring duglex must
meet the requirements of the schedule of regulations for the RT-1 district.
The proposed variances will change the chazacter of the R-4, single family
neighborhood and have an negative affect on surrounding properties.
S. The variance, if granZed, would not permit any use that is not permitted
under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the
affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district
classification of the property.
The existing duplex is a legal nonconfornung use and the requested
variances will not change that status. The proposed variances, if granted,
would not change the zoning classification of the property.
6. The request for variance appears to be based primarily on a desire to
increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land.
The applicant wants to provide a new, single family home and his variance
request is based on a desire to increase the income potential of both
properties.
WHEREAS, On November 26, 2002, pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 64.205,
the applicant filed an appeal fmm the determination made by the BZA and requested a hearing
before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; AND
o� yqy
WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to I.eg. Code §§ 64.205-64.208, and upon notice to affected
parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on Januaryl l, 2003, where all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; AND
Page 2 of
oz -yg4
2 WHEREAS, The Councii moved to close the public hearing and then laid the matter over
3 for two weeks to deternune whether the matter could be compromised; AND
4
5 WHEREAS, on February 5, 2003, the matter was again before the City Council with
6 Council Member Reiter indicating that the applicant had indicated a willingness to compromise
7 the matter as set forth in a letter prepared by the department of license, inspections and
8 environmental protection; ANb
9
10 WHEREAS, Council Member Reiter, upon the new information, moved to reverse the
11 BZA's decision in this matter citing eirors in findings 1,3,4, and 6 of BZA resolution No. 02-
12 234037 and to grant the appeal based upon the statements made, and having considered the
13 variance application, the repozt of staff, and all the records and information in this matter; NOW,
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
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, upon the City Council's authority pursuant to Leg.
Code § 64.207, that the appeal of Wally Nelson is hereby granted based upon errors in findings
of 1,3,4, and 6 in BZA resolution No. 02-234037; AND, BE TT
FCTRTHER RESOLVED, that the Council hereby modifies the findings in BZA
resolution No. 02-234037 consistent with its finding of error above to read as foltows:
1.
2.
The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict
provisions of the code.
The applicant is proposing to split this parcel back into the originally
platted lots and construct a new single family home with a detached
garage on the vacant lot. The existing duptex on this site was constructed
in 1894 and was converted from a singie family dwelling sometime azound
1930. It is a legal nonconfornung use in this area which is now zoned for
singte family dwellings. The duplex was built entirely on the southern 40-
foot lot with the apparent intent to construct another building on the
northern lot. The proposed single family home is a reasonable and
confornung use on the proposed 38-foot lot. The variances aze required
for the existing duplex which will not change other than now being located
on a 40-foot lot.
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 existing building on this site was constructed before the adoption of
zoning ordinances in the city and was converted to a duplex at a time when
the conversion was pernutted. The changes in the zoning ordinances over
the years have created a situation where the duplex has become
nonconfornung and the extra lot associated with the site cannot be
developed without a variance. These are circumstances that were not
created by the applicant.
Page 3 of
3.
io
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code,
and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of
the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul.
The proposed variances will allow the addirion of a quality single family
home in the city. The only property possibly affected by the variances
would be the proposed new home and the applicant has created a plan that
would still provide the required separation between the buildings. This
request is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and the spirit and intent
of the code.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air
to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the
surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established properry values
within the surrounding area.
22 This area is zoned for single family dwelling and the new house will
23 compliment this classification. There are other nonconforming duplexes
24 in the area on similar sized lots. Both the existing duplex and the proposed
25 new home will have adequate off-street pazking. The proposed variances
26 will not change the character of the neighborhood or have an adverse
27 affect on surrounding properties.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
5. The variance, if granted, would not perntit any use that is nat pernzitted
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 proper[y.
This project will not involve any reduced setbacks except between the
duplex and the proposed new house. The requested variances would not
affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties.
The existing duplex is a legal nonconforming use and the requested
variances will not change that status. The proposed variances, if granted,
would not change the zoning classification of the proper[y.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the
value or income potential of the parcel of Zand.
The applicant states that his primary desire is to put this property to its
originally intended use and to provide a new, quality single family home in
the area.
AND, BE TT FLIR'THER RESOLVED, based upon the findings above, that the
os -�94
46 application of Wally Nelson to vary the side yard setback, lot width and lot size standards of the
47 zoning code in order to split a lot and build a new single family house on property commonly
48 known as 1036 DeSoto Street aze hereby waived to allow: 1.) A lot width of 42 feet for pazcel
49 "B" and a lot width of 38 feet on parcel "A" and; 2.) A minimum lot size of 5,502 square feet for
50 parcel "B" and a lot size of 4,978 square feet for pazcel "A", in order to spiit the parcel and
Page 4 of 5
� 03 -y�y
2 legalize the duplex on property commonly known as 1036 DeSoto Street and legally described as
3 Fairview Addition Lots 10 And I.ot 11 Blk 5; in accordance with the applicarion for variance and
4 the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator; AND, BE TT
5
6 FINALI.Y RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Wally
7 �i, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the BZA.
1 V c�Sey�
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form App d by City Attorney
BY: � W �A'✓1'tL. S � �.5� Cj�
�=
Appr
By:
Adopted by Council: Date � �}a0�
i
Adoption Certified by Council Secr ry
To Legislative Hearing O�cer - 7-8-03
Public HearinQ Date - 7-23-03
T.M.S./REAL ESTATE DIVISION � Date: 5/14/03 � Green Sheet iVumber:
:ontact Person and Phon mb
Roxanna F'link��. - 1 '
be on Councii Agenda by:
be in Council Research OCtice
noon on Friday
,:::r.`�`
�
�� .. � �
� . ''f � - ' f
� �° rn4:
6-20-03
AiTOR\'EY
DIRECfOR
o� -'�83
204146
MGi. SVC. DIR
(ORASSISiA,\'� I 1 �COtiSCiLRESEARCH
# OF SIGNATURE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNA'
'ION REQUESTED:
Set date of public hearing and approve assmts for Providing weekly garbage hauling service for
the first quarter of 2003 and Summary abatements (property ciean-up) for part of Apri12003.
File No.'s J03TRASHIQ and J0304A.
�I]fE\DA7IOSS:APPROVE(A)ORREJECi(R) ERSO�ALSERVICECO\7RACiSil1GSTA\S�\'ER7HEFOLLO�V[NG:
PI,A1vTI�G COli)11SStON A SiAFF 1. Has tM1e perSONfirm ever worked under a contrac[ tor t6is departmen[? YES I�O
Code
CR7L SERVICE CO3[JIISSIOY A Enforcement • Has this person/firm ever been a City employee.'
YES \O
as Co�tanrrEE A vaaant bldg • Does [his persoNfirm possess a skili no[ normally possessed by any YES TO
_ current City employee? �
rts whidh Council Objtttive
Explain ali YES answers on a separate shee[ and attach.
Neighborhoods Ward 2 pi1�
- �������a
{ .�
1TIVG PROBLE�I, ISSUE, OPPORTUN[TY (�Vho, �L'ha[, Nhen, �Vhere, Why?): ��',�„� _L =�'L"
Property owners or renters create a health hazard at various times throughout the City of Saint
Paul when their property is not kept ua.
IF APPROVED:
Cost recovery programs to recover expenses for Grass cutting, Towing of aband vehicles,
Summary abatements and Boarding-up. This includes cutting tall grass and weeds, hauling
away all garbage, debris, refuse and tires. Also, all household items such as refrigerators, stoves,
sofas, chairs and all other items. In winter this includes the removal of snow and ice from
sidewalk and cross walks.
IF APPROVED:
If Council does not approve these charges, General Fund would be required to pay the
assessment. Assessments are payable over 1 or 10 years and collected with the property taxes if
not naid.
IF NO'I' APPROVED:
Neighborhoods would be left to deteriorate and property values would decline. Nobody would
take care of their property, especialiy vacant or rental properties. Rodents, filth, garbage and
trash would accumulate everywhere. Disease and pests could become a nroblem_
A�100NT OFTRANSACTION: $3O�OGI.SS COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE O\E)
souxce: Assessments onl ACTIVITYNUhIBER:
4LI\FOR�IATIO\:(EXPLAIN)
66 property owners will be
of tbe public h
and
YES n0
o3-�ti y
OFFICE OF LICENSE, NSPECIIONS ADiD
ENV[RO\^�fENTAL PROTECTIOV u�
Roger C. Curtis, Di�ector 1
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Ke!!y, Mayor
December 27, 2002
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Council Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN. 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
����
(� �o-�.-..�-�
� � 5/���
I
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
January 22, 2002 for the following zoning case:
Appellant:
Zoning File #:
Purpose:
Location:
Staff:
District 8:
Board:
Wally Nelson
02-234037
Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying three variances
in order to split a lot and construct a new single family dwelling.
1036 Desoto St.
Recommended approval.
No reconimendation at the time of the hearinU.
Denied 4-1
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Bostrom. My understanding is that
this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest
convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Thanks ! •�rsrawv
i'
xancs oF �srac-�nRa�c =
Sincer,t�,
�
� �-�i�?i
Jo Hardwick, Zonin� Specialist
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
LOiYRYPROFESSION�ILBG'TLDJNG Telephone: 651-?66-9090
350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 Facsimile: 651-266-912J
SaixlPaul,Minnesot¢5.5102-Ul0 Web: inmv.cislpauLmnus/[iep
1L'e Saint Paiil CiTy Council wi11 con-
ducf "a public hearing on Wednesday,
January 22. 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in fhe City
Cowicil Chambers, 17�fl Floor Eity �Aall-
Cour[k�ouse; 15 West Kellogg $oulevatd,
Saint Paul, MN, to consider the appeal of
WaIly Nelson to a decision of the Boatd of
��b` APPP?�s denying ihree varlances 3n
ordei to spLt a lotand conshvct a new sin-
gle family dwelling at 1036 Desoto Stieeti
Dated:.Janvary9,2003 �
NAN,C,Y:AI�FDE.R§ON .. . - .
Assis�aitt.CeEy�Corxncil Secrelaty � -,
� , ' �Tan�ary 1�7 ' - _ .. �
�ST PA111. .
0T.04814'L _ - . ,
03-y9y
OFFICE OF LICE\SE, LtiSPECTIONS AIv'D
EWIItON�REy'TAL PROTECTION
Roge� C. Curiis, Di>ecto�
r
L J
�
�
u
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Kelfy, .ilayor
December 27, 2002
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Council Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN. 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
LO�t'RYPROFESSION,fLBUlLD.NG Telephone: 6i1-266-9090
350 St Pe�er Street, 5ui1e 300 Faaimife: 6�7-?66-9I?1
Sain[Pw1,Minnesom5J102-f5l0 Web: mnv.ci.stpaulmn_vs/(�¢�
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
January 22, 2002 for the following zoning case:
Appellant:
Zoning File #:
Purpose:
Location:
Staff:
District 8:
Board:
Wally Nelson
02-234037
Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denyin� three variances
in order to split a lot and construct a new sin�le family d�velling.
1036 Desoto St.
Recommended approval.
I�o recommendation at the time of the hearin�.
Denied 4-1
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Bostrom. My understanding is that
this public hearino requzst will appear on the abenda of the City Council at your eazliest
convenience and that y�ou will publish notice of the hearine in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Zoning Specialist
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
Thanks!
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Depattment ojP/anning axd Economic Development
Zoning Seclion
1100 Cit}� Ha!! Annex
15 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, M.V SSIO2
266-6589
APPELLANT
so v
_ ...... _ .. .
_.__.. .
�Zoning of�ite iise::inty
File na. C�Z'`��/`7�s7
'Fee � r5C3: �
Tentative hearirig iiate: !
t/z21a 3
�c
Address Po ��C a 3 �
City Lo�lit � Pn�P� St.,KdZip _�`tL Daytime phone (t ��- z ��
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeal to the:
= Board of Zoning Appeais � City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �, Paragraph 3 `i of the Zoning Code, to
appeal a decision made by the
on ��' o�I� ,
(date of decision)
Z File number: GZ - L 3'-f � 3�
LOCATION I Address/Location �U3(y �F.Sa�°
s��cEr
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
; ��s� s�� �r,��h�d.
Attach addifiona/ sheet if necessary)
ApplicanYs
Date���� o Cityagent
\'
c� \Sc." � 13oSS
03 �l9 �f
! Project Descrintioa
The duplex on Lot 11 is currently zoned a legal duplex.
The duplex is situated on lot 1 l.
I would like to split off lot 10 to build a 1,522 square foot single-family home. (See
attached site and house plan)
The variances I am requesting aze to make the duplex on lot 11 a legal Nonconformin�
duplex so that we can build a sin�le family home on Lot 10.
I do not need any variances for the building of the single family home.
�
•
�
1. The property in question canaot be put to reasonable use under the strict �
provisions of the code: and
Staff report suaports this Finding
Lot t0 is an open lot and cannot be put into a reasonable use with out grantin� the
variance for the duplex on lot 1 l. Under the strict guidelines of the code we
would have to deconvert the duplex on Lot l lto a single family home in order to
build a sin�le family home on Lot 10. This is unreasonable because when the
zonin� rules were changed no other duplexes on 40 ft wide lots in the city were
forced to deconvert to sin�le family homes.
•
�J
�)
s 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property,
and these circumstances were not created by the landorrner: and
Staff report supports this Findin6
03-ys4
The ori�inal zonin� laws allowed lot 11 to have a duplex on it and Lot 10 could
also have a single family or duplex built on it also. In 1993 when the City
chan�ed the zoning ordinance to R-4 sin�le family use the existin� duplexes were
allowed to stay even if they were on 40-foot wide or smaller lots. The duplex
owners were not forced to deconvert their properties. Sin�le family homes were
allowed to be built on 40-Foot wide lots.
These Circumstances were not created by the applicant..
�
�
�
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, !
and is cousisteat with the health, safety, comfort, morals, aod welfare of the
inhabitants of the City of St. Paul; and
The proposed Variances will allow the addition of a quality sin�le family home in
the city. We have also created a plan that will provide the proper separation
beriveen the buildings.
The intent of the code and the East Consolidated Small Area Plan is to allow
single-family homes to be built on 40-foot wide lots.
"Efforts should be made to construct nerv single Tamily homes
for sale to homeowners on individual vacant lots throu;hout the area." Page
9, # 11 East Consolidafed Small Area Plan.
The proposed variance is consistent with the other homes and duplexes in the
nei�hborhood and the city.
There are numerous duplexes on 40-foot wide lots in the neiehborhood and the
city. In the 1000 block of Desoto there aze 2 duplexes on 40-foot wide lots, 1012
and 1076 Desoto.
In the more general neighborhood the following duplexes are on 40-foot wide
lots: �
694 Bradley Street, 69� Bradley Street, 697 Bradley Street, 702 Bradley Street,
734 Bradley St�eet, 973 Bradley Street, 975 Bradley Street, 1076 Bradley Street,
1225 Bradley Street, 1229 Bradley Street, 647 Desoto Strzet, 694 Desoto Street,
724 Desoto Street, and 730 Desoto Street.
That makes for a total of 16 Duplexes on 40-foot wide lots in my neighborhood.
There are many more throu�hout the City of St. Paul.
As you know the buildin� of a sin�le family home on a 40-foot �vide lot is
consistent and acceptable in this zoning district.
�Vhat I am askina for is consistent with what mv neiahbors alreadv have and
will complement the neiehborhood and help to increase properri� values in
the neighborhood.
i
5
03
�
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
the adjacent property, nor wiil it alter the essential character of the
surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values
within the surrounding areas: and
There will be an adequate supply of li�ht and air to the adjacent properties.
The proposed ne�v sin�le family home will be 13 feet away from the esistin�
duplex, which meets your current code �uidelines. The current code asks for a 9-
foot side yard setback for the duplex and a 4-foot side yard set back for the Sin�le
family home. That is a total of 13 feet. We are proposin� 8 foot and 5 foot side
yard set backs. That is a total of 13 feet thus meeting the code.
The home to the North of the proposed new single family home on Lot 10 sits up
on a hill and we are proposin� to hold the north side yard set back 9 feet off of the
property line even thou�h the code only asks for a 4-foot side yard set back.
Therefore, there will be sufficient supply of light and air to all the structures
involved.
� The existing duplex structure is in character with the surrounding area both in
stylz and size. The proposed sin�le family home will also be in character with the
nei�hborhood as we are building a two-story home with a front porch, a good
color scheme, and lots of windows. The size of the proposed single family home
wiil also fit the neighborhood.
The renovatin� of the duplex during 2002 could only ha��e helped increase the
property values in the neighborhood. The building of a new sin�le family home
will also benefit the property values in the neighborhood.
The proposed variance will have a positive impact on the neighborhood.
I��'ould also like to point out that the Board of Zonine recentiv granted a
variance for a aroperri� located at 1019 Burr Street to allo�� a 20 foot wide
house to be built on a 29 foot wide lot. Guess what is next door. A dualex
that sits on a 40 foot wide lot.
�
�
�
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted
under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where
affected land is located, nor will it alter or change the zoning district
classification of the property: and
Staff report supaorts this Findina
When the zonin� chan�ed to R-4 residential all the duplexes on 40 foot wide lots
were grand fathered in; That is there use as a duplex on a 40 foot wide lot was
permitted.
As previously stated in number three above there are lots of duplexes on 40-foot
D - - •
This variance will not change the zoning status of the duples. It is a dupiex.
As stated in the staffreport "The proposed variance, if�ranted, wou(d not chan�e
the zonin� classification of the property."
�
�
� �
�
/
�
v3
�
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the
value or income potential of the parcel of land.
This request is based on two factors.
The first is that the original platting intended to have a sin�le family home or
duplex built on Lot 10.
1. Affidavit from 1957
2. I received 2 warranty deeds when I purchased the duplex and Lot 10
Lot 10 is Torrens property
Lot 11 is abstract property
Secondly, there is a housing shortage and providin� this variance will take us one
home closer to elevatin� this problem.
.
�
�
Condusion•
In Conclusion what I am askin� for is consistent with w�hat my neighbors already
have.
In fact the small area plan promoted the buiidin� of sin�le family homes in this
azea.
"The goal is to provide a mixture of ownership and rental housing,
meeting the needs of a wide spectrum of households" East Consolidated Small
Area Plan page 5.
The landowner did not create these circumstances.
�
•
�
L�
,
03-Lf9`f
APPLICATION FOR 20NING VARIANCE
• "" OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTION, AND
IM ENVIRONLilENTAL PROTECTION
�, 300 Lowry Professional Building
350 St Peter Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102-I510
(651) 266-9008
APPLICANT
Name of Owner (if
�
PROPERTY
INFORMATION
Name t,� 0.liv p�/Scp,� Company 2eraCkz�aN,�',:>L -
Address Pn f;o� � �CG
City L�.Jet` - e�n'�P> St�_Zip r'"�� Daytime Phone GS�• � 5/• 5! 3`•
Property Interest of Applicant (owner, contrect purchaser, etc.) ��v •� � Cor Y�',r�r�='
Address / Location 1 �' 3� �• ��f�' S721 ,,;-�
Legal Description /, �`� Id A�/� � � � Vi4o�-� S rA�eJ 4ccJ l�f��� %(��'
(aftach additional sheet if necessary)
Lot Size � Y. I'z z- Present Zoning Present Use � � f �.�C
ProposedUse `JJp�S�j A�:O �A L�7 =�� R 5��'y�FG,4.o'1.���. /.�,,n�
1. Variance(s) requested: �+
�:
�;, r ...,; �T�. r� o
L4T so'z e, -� �
5� cLL �c%e F�'FrCK:�I
��'L �x � s � � --� +'�'�� <
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.)
�� ,� 7��-C��
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.
S� � �,?-���--
�
4. Explain how the granting of a variance will 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
�� ��✓ '.
/
� i r �/�
ic-d4
ApplicanYs Signature
/> >
���
�a�:� �
Boazd of Zoning Appeals
300 Lowry Professional Building
350 St. Peter Street
St. Paul, Mn 55102-1510
Project Description
1036 Desoto Street East is currently zoned a legal duplex.
There aze currently 2— 40 ft x 120 ft lots under one PID number.
The duplex is situated on lot 11.
•
I would like to split off lot 10 to build a 1,522 square foot sin�le family home. (see
The variances I am requesting are to make the duplex on lot 11 a legal Nonconfomiing
duplex.
I do not need any cariances for the building of the sin�le family home.
Reasons to grant Variance
The current zoning codes are causing us a hardship because the lots in this zoning district �
were originally platted as 40 foot wide lots. The intention was to build homes and
duplexes on these sized lots. As you know there are many homes and duplexes that were
actually built on these 40 foot wide lots. There are numerous duplexes in the city that
have nonconformin� lot sizes, many with even smaller lot widths than what we are
proposing. These are existing circumstances that were not created by us.
Furthermore, lot I 1 is abstract property and lot 10 is Torrens, showin� further proof that
lot i l was intended to be built on.
The grantin� of this variance is not a detriment to the public good and in fact is a benefit
to the neighborhood as �ve will build a beautiful home.
As we all know there is a housing shortage in the city of St. Paul and allowin� us to split
the lot and build a new single family home will take us one home closer to mayor Kelly's
goal of 5000 new homes.
Sincerely,
������"�
�Vallace D. Nelson, Jr.
Vice president
�
1`
�
PROPERTY SK�TCH
ACCESS INFORi�ATION 6YSTE1�5
cThts ts not c surveyi
LEOAL : l,OTS 10 t II BLK 6 FAIRyIEW ADD
3o SCALE
S20*
�
JUL-18-2002 TFU 03�57 PIt
�
� ,.
O
� o
� p
(/� �
W `�
Ca
i�o=
i
i
�
r AX N0,
F,�. �a. 204595-NELSaN
� .
}-
LLJ
�
Q
vr�e� itAddress 1(336 DESOTO ST ST PAUL
TN! S I S N0T A SURyEY NOR St10LLD TH: S �E USED AS A SUR'vEY 70 tOCATE FUTtRR� 11�1PRp�E1,�?�TS.
inls dro�tnq is tor restaenitof nor�qaqe �nlcrna�icno� puposes on1y, The Infornction r¢loi�nq
fo Ih� praper�y dlnenttony �s Cosed upon the :ecettletl pi0f o� nops in 1Ae county rocordt.Tnc
7nproVeneni loe�tion und dtnanplon7 sho�M1 Cro approeinpte Cn0 DCSeO upon a yiyual InspeCtlon.
\�
o3- HS y
- -------- P. Ol
� r'� C' �
t'� . : .
� �. ' ` l
� ��_:,c�^
t�" � i� �, -
�rv'7
�
�c,� �� - aa
, �'
��
�
i
!
�
;
�'
�-�
�— � � �, ,. �' � %/' �� ". �
� ,
N �- _-���' , !; ,c�asqe
� - LpT i o
N '/% � _ 2�'
, i �i
i� 9� ` , i
� � -
� -------------------- ---------- --
� ' \\ �
�
� Lol ii
�xI57�- r��L1sc.
� x p/z.FosE�
� par��t: u� �
�_ _ I2ri _ �---
Sc,sLr : I ��• 20�
4N
�
�
�
.
, ��
�
0
>
w
Y�
��
a
-- 1 �
��
��
n
��
_J
i
I I '�'i: .
�:� :
� i,l�;�'li��
�I
_,�—.
� li °L��
I �I. j I I i '' I
� �� ; i
r'
�`
�i � � ��
��"'$
3} �3
����
�
�
�
�
a
� z
0 0
N f
W V
� Q
0 F
J H
J Z
� �
� U
,� u
¢ b
W f
> 6
6 ��..
O N
� W
< Q
¢ �
� W
O m
U
W �i
¢V3
��:
Y�
M�
aEc
c�Y
�
---_
-� T - -- '.
i
r�
�,,
i °
_� -
�I �
�� 4
I 'i
I' '
I;
--Ll- - - _
h
- --{
-n �
� �
4
I� -- - �
� �-
_ -,�,,; :��
��
i s ' o "
/L-�o
- __ ��'�' �
1 I
I I
( - Z 28 �
r IB��P F�<�oK lFlkf�S
19.2 c.c. pe��.e ��
-O%2
� � 1� tl � i
I � I
� b �
9 I I I�
� F�.7Rlv I' 3�vX'.�co s-h�.
� WJ 4iw��.�_ _ � ___
_— se � y 6 � �
Z" �, {�W �
I I 9 - . � r'� ���
S� r
� I 2 4 � - �
r Q t ,�
I E
� = N !\ i i i 2 m �, ; � F
`� � i
I
_y — � , t!_�o�
- ` �
- Q is
� - —
i
_ �' 4 �_ u 4�_9° '' � ,�
0
I�
� _ _
" z y ��'r.cs}-1'��} h.
�
<
P
O
��
� U/ \
�
�
�7=bF. L-1�1
S.L'
II 1 1 I 1
�j��0 �'(O 5��
n
I"f,�,�! Ft�r�- R.�,.1
aoa � t - �f. y
.�,.
�,
-• Y c.�
��n
�
—�
0
_�
�
l�
�
5y
I�
� _: �
�
�
o ffi ij.
b.��L ilr��
�
Oin _ -.
�C�n,�t� �l..cx� �.�
�aabp. ��: Y4�,i�_6u
_._ .
IIICK �)IF1TE I CONTRACTOR VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS
�6Jfif�iR CO. gEFORE STARTING CONSTRUCTION
30UTM iA1MT IMlL, yy
�1 ' `V —
�
PROPERTY WITHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 1036 DESOTO STREET
a
� � ��� � ���
MAGNOLIA
� I�
� � ;�
i �� ; I
I C �'
� - 1
�ns�
433
- ��
i'��!'�'�I
'- , `�. �
� - = � i
� i� � �
�
,o�o. I I
� � !
I .�I`� �' �L� �
�
�
� � -,
�-
� _.
L
�-
; i
i .�7' �
I
2 —
I � I
I �
� — I
, i � �
��m � _
�.�5� ) (49) '� �� 8 i� ��
I �,?Q`t6 � Q . ,' � o!� � � '
� �) n �� r�2 � Ci � D
� I i � I m�� � L � ��
O �'=r�� n --� ,.L7L_,r,
–I � ! ' ^ 2 `-' ---� ' - G ' �' -
O , � I 'n ;�� G 5 � � - -
� ioz)8�r ❑ C� I �za-';�' �� ; - - _
i �i� ;
LAWSON �,��
nz�� � �
' �06� j � � o' �
�iez� , I— �.�.' - i r5 j
409 i � � � � ��195) ,
��� �, � � ` ��i
'—t.�ay� ' — � I ;
: i � I - — � ��—, �; '
I � i � � '� I� 'U'L='
i� ❑ i �' , ' ' ' �
i _
�
� r i � �
I ,-,-�� . _ ��:
W
PREPARED BY: LIEP
� L -�
�
i L�
� �
� : . -.
� �= -
N
�
S
�
��
_ , o3-yq`� -
u
�
�
�
7.
2.
3.
4.
5.
G.
7.
s.
9.
i D.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
1G.
17.
SUNRAY-BATI�LECREEK-HIGH�VOOD
HAZEL PARIi f-LADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
�VEST SIDE -
DAYTON'S BLUFF
PAYI�'E-PHALEti
NORTH END
THO��fAS-DALE
S U�4 h1I T-U Iv�I �'E R S IT Y
�VEST SEVENT�H
CO�SO
HA?�1LI\'E-MID�','AY , .
ST. Aiv'THO�IY PARK
MERRIAM PAP.K-LEXINGTON HAMLIiv�E-ShTELLIITG HA'•.L?:�`E
MACALESTER GROVEL.fLND
HIGHI.AND
SU,�iMIT HILL
DOWl�'TOWIv
� �° � � �'� � �` � �.. �� n " =-''��
G��—
��.
CI'ITZEN PARTTCIPATION PLANt��Ii�'G DISTRICIS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
APPLICANT:
HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PLANNING DISTRICT:
PRESENT ZONING:
REPORT DATE:
DEADLINE FOR ACTION:
Major Variance
Wally Nelson
November 25, 2002
1036 DESOTO STREET
ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 67304
FAIRVIEW ADDITION LOTS 10 AND LOT 11 BLK 5
�• ,i
November 13, 2002
December 23, 2002
FILE #02-234037
BY: John Hazdwick
DATE RECEIVED: October 24, 2002
�
A. PURPOSE: Three variances in order to split a lot and build a new single family house. The
lot split would leave the existing duplex with an insufficient lot size and setback. The
following variances would legalize the duplex: 1.) A side yazd setback of 9 feet is required
and a setback of 8 feet is proposed, for a variance of 1 foot. 2.) A lot width of 50 feet is
required and a width of 40 feet is proposed, for a variance of 10 feet. 3.) A lot size of 6,000
squaze feet is required and a lot size of 5,200 feet is proposed, for a variance of 800 square
feet.
B. SITE AND AREA CONDTTIONS: This is an 80 by 120-foot parcel �� ith alley access at the
rear. There is an existin� duplex located on the south half of the site.
Sunoundin� Land Use: Primarily one- and rivo-family dwellings.
C. BACKGROUND: The applicant recently purchased this property and is proposing to split
the parcel and construct a new sin�le family home on the north half of the site.
D. FINDINGS:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use z�nder the strict provisions of
the code.
Page I of 3
�
�
1 ��
�
D3 -4s�
� File #02-234037
STaff Report
The applicant is proposin� to split this parcel back into the ori�inally platted 40-foot lots
and construct a new single family home with a detached gara�e on the vacant lot. The
existin� duplex on this site was constructed in 1894 and was converted from a single
family dwelling sometime around 1930. It is a le�al nonconformin� use in this area
which is now zoned for sin�le family dwellin�s. The duplex was built entirely on the
southem 40-foot lot with the appazent intent to construct another buildin� on the northem
lot. The proposed single family home is a reasonable and conforming use on the
proposed 40-foot lot. The variances are required for the existin� duplex which will not
change other than now being located on a 40-foot lot.
2. The plight of the land owner is da�e to circumstances unique to this property, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The existin� buildin� on this site was constructed before the adoption of zoning
ordinances in the city and was converted to a duplex at a timz when the conversion was
permitted. The changes in the zoning ordinances over the years have created a situation
where the duplex has become nonconforming and the extra lot associated with the site
cannot be devetoped without a variance. These are circumstances that were not created
� by the applicant.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
consistent with the health, safery, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the
City of St. Paul.
The proposed variances will allow the addition of a quality single family home in the city.
The only property possibly affected by the variances would be the proposed new home
and the applicant has created a plan that would still provide the required separation
between the buildin�s. This request is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and the
spirit and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance will no1 impair an adeqarate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor will it alter the essentia! chctracter of the sz�rrot�ndir:g area or unreasonably
diminish established property values within the sc�rrot�nding area.
This project will not involve any reduced setbacks except bznveen the duplex and the
proposed new house. The requested variances would not affect the supply of light or air
to adjacent properties.
This area is zoned for single family dwellin� and the new house w�ill compliment this
� classification. There are other nonconformin� duplexes in the area on similar sized lots.
Page 2 oC 3
��,
�/
File #02-234037
Staff Report
Both the existing duplex and the proposed s�ew home will have adequate off-street
parkin�. The proposed variances will not change the character of the neighborhood or
have an adverse affect on surrounding properties.
S. The variance, ifgranted, wottld not permit any use that is not perntitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located,
nor woz�ld it alter or change fhe zoning district classification of the property.
The existing duplex is a legal nonconforming use and the requested variances will not
change that status. The proposed varian if granted, would not change the zoning
property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
�
The applicant states that his primary desire is to put this property to its originaliy intended
use and to provide a new, quality single family home in the area.
E. DISTRICT COUNCTL RECOVIMENDATION: As ofthe date ofthis report, we have not �
received a recommendation from District 5.
F. CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has not received any correspondence re�arding this matter.
G. STAFF RECO�IMENDATIO\': Based on findin�s 1 through 6, staff recommends
approval of the variances.
Pa�e 3 of 3
�
�'
a3 -45y
--�,
� .a
_a
-�� 7
� November 18, 2002
John Hardwick
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protections
City of Saint Paul
350 Saint Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
Re: 1036 Desoto Street - File No.: 02234037
To Mr. John Hardwick:
Enclosed you will find the Neighborhood BI«k Group of 1000 Burr & Desoto Street
recommendation and findings to the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding the above mentioned
Zoning File number.
On Sunday evening, the lOth of November, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. a neighborhood meeting took
place at my home, 1037 Burr Street, to discuss and inform the .neighbors about the variance
request of Wallace Nelson and his proposal. At that time we discuss his proposal to build a new
� single family home next to the duplex by splitting the lot which would create a few zoning issue for
1036 Desoto.
We are forwarding you the neighborhood recommendQtion, a copy of Zoning File 02-100698,
statement, affidwit, and neighborhood map listing to include in your report. Please make copies of
this information available to the zoning appeals board members to review.
Thank you,
�a--b_M w.,.�nY.a.
Paul Maruska
1037 Burr Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101
651-776-8052
�
�
��
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
fOR THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
In Re: Wailace Nelson, d/b/a Renovation, Inc.
and Morrow Partners inc.,
for
1036 Desoto Street, Saint Paul
Major Variance Request
Zoning File No: 02-234037
The Neighborhood Block Group of 1000 Burr & Desoto Streeu had a neighborhood
meeting on the IOth of November, 2002 at 1037 Burr Sueet around 6:30 p.m. to discuss the
proposed three major variance requests for 1036 Desoto Street and their impact to the
neighborhood.
The neighbors determined, applying the Saint Code and identified property, that the
requested variances would not be beneficial to the neighborhood even tfiough, if granted for
approval, would provide the are with a needed new single family home.
In evatuating the request for the variances at 1036 Desoto, the neighbors concerns
were resolved using the s'ix "findings of fad" and the city code by which the Board of Zoning
Appeals would determine a basis for approval or disapproval.
The Neighborhood Block Group of 1000 Burr & Desoto Sueeu recommends to the
Board of Zoning Appeals the request for the three variances at 1036 Desoto Sveet by
Wallace Nelson of Lake Elmo, Minnesou, d/b/a Renovations Inc and Morrow Partners Inc. of
Lake Elmo, Minnesota, be non-approval of the three variances for the stated reasons as
follows:
�
�
�
_I_ ^
� J
o3-y 9 y
❑
NEIGHBORHOOD FINDINGS
1. The property in question cannot be put to reasonable use under the strict provisions of the
code.
Currently, under the city code, the property is being using as duplex - a"legal
nonconforming use" of the building and land on a 80' wide lot Thus under the svict zoning
provisions there already eacisu a reasonable use of this property.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this properry, and these
circumstances were not created by the land owner.
The set of circumstances for the request of these variances are a direct result of Mr.
Nelson's intentions to divide the property into two lou thus creating his own set of
circumstances; requesting a setback, width, and area variances at 1036 Desoto. These
, circumstances were also controilable by Mr. Nelson when purchasing the property in January
of 2002 at which time he had the option to remove the structure or renovate into a single
family; split the lot for two singie family homes (40' foot wide lot per property) for which a
simple yard requirement variance (if needed) would have been easily acquired with acceptance
of the neighbors.' The Zoning Deparcment was notified in February of 2002 concerning the
prior "use" of 1036 Desoto (single family dwelling) and the subsequent remodeling to restore
the svuc[ure into two full rentai units. See attached Zoning Complaint No.: 02-100698.
� The praposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and irstent of the code, and is consistent
with hea[th, safery, com fort, morals and weZfare of the inhabitanu of City of Saint Paul.
' Saint Paul Legistative Code - Chapter 62 - Zoning Code §62.102(c) Nonconforming Lots. In any disVict in which
single family dweilings are permitted, notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisbns of this code, a single
family dwelling and customary accessory buiidings may be ereded on any single bt of record at the effective date of
� adoption or amendment of this code. This provision shall apply even though such bt fails to meet the requirements of
area or width, or both, that are applicable in the disirict; provided, that yard dimertsions arx1 other requirements not
involving area or width, or both, of the lot shail conform to the regulations for the district in which such bt is located.
Yard requirement variances may be obtained through approval of the board of zoning appeals.
_Z � �
The proposed variances are not in keeping with the spirit of the code or ECON Small �
Area Plan of June 17, 1993. The code subjects restric[ions on nonconforming structures and
uses of land, or both in combination, from any form of enlargement, relocation on the lot,
greater height, and greater occupied area, etc. These variances, if granted, would in the spirit
of this code enlarge the structure onto a smaller area, relocate its position on the new
property lot, and occupy a greater percenuge of area requiring major exceptions to the zoning
code and this disuict, zoned R-4 single-family residences.
In 1993, under the City Comprehensive Plan and ECON Small Area Plan this
neighborhood was rezoned from RT-I (two-family res'rdence) to a more restrictive use of R-4
(one-family residence). The need and observance to change the zoning distritt status was a
direct result that density plays a major role in deteriorating neighborhoods and homes. As
such, granting the variance requesu is not in the spirit and intent of the code or the Small Area
Plan for our neighborhood.
� The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent
property, nor will it aZter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably
diminish estab[ished property values within the sunounding area.
The proposed variance would impair an adequate supply of light to the single family
home proposed to be built norch of the variance requested property, 1036 Desoto, due to the
large and oversized duplex structure blocking southerly exposure to sunlight The close
spacing between the duplex and single family structures would not be in character for this
Desoto Sueet neighborhood, and would leave a small yard for two families to share for iheir
outdoor activities.
•
5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not perneined under the provisions
of the code of the prope�ry in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter
or change the <oning district classification of the property. �
� Sairt[ Paul Legislative Code • Chapter 62 - Zoning Code §62.102(d)(e)(� r
_ ` 1
� J
.J�
03—`19y
�
The proposed variance, if granted, would continue to alter the cument zoning
ciassification for this property and would allow the "legal, nonconforming use and suucture"
as a duplex to continue in a single family residence zoning distritt with City approvai which
would result in "spot zoning;" something the ECON Small Area Pian worked to clean up.
/ 6. / The request for the variance is not bared primarily on a desire to increase the value or
�� zncome potential of the parcel of land.
in consideration for splitting this lot, a basis for the requested variance at 1036 Desoto
�
\J
would have taken into account a financial viability determination of increased land value and/or
income potential, should Mr. Nelson choose to use the proposed single family residence as a
rental dwelling or to sell the property. The neighbors are aware that Mr. Nelson, d!b/a
Morrow Partners Inc., has numerous one and two family rental properties in Saint Paul and we
are not please with the idea that more property in this area may not be owner occupied.
��%/�d�� ' �l' �� �� �2 �'�/ u.e�' ^ L,r'�,�r�— '�'�� �
, �J��
Mike Gehrt Ryan & Sheena Bauer Leonard & Leanne Franco
1028 Desoto St. 1032 Desoto St. 1039 Desoto St.
Tim Vasquez Martha Alicea
1031 Desoto St 1031 Desoto St.
i=
G /
Christine Baeumler
I 043 Burr St.
�, ��l Sk�� �,i� (�,1
Curtis & Jennifer Miller
I 03 I Burr St
1
i ,
j ` !�' 1 �� - � . �4.tN
Ang Simons d C�,1v�. S � ai s
1031 Desoto St
,�a�F� �`1�-�? �,....� �.�,
Papious Castillo Paul & Mary Maruska
I 041 Burr St I 037 Burr St.
��
Chad & Sara Cor�in
1029 BurrSt
-a-
�;T ���
Patricia Sir.dt v
1046 Desoto St
r
�� �
�
�
�
�
U
�
n
^ j c.
� Q �
N � �
� G b
j O
� Q
C
Z �
� �
N m
t $
��
�
C
O
X
N
�
�
�
�
t
U
�
�
�
m
O
�
�
�
4
3 �,
p� 'J�
O m
� �
t �
c2$
m
>
rn
}
r m p
u �
� m N - �
� I�
� N N � ^
�
°�s=
��.�o
m .��
P o ^ `o
N a 'a '
�iH�
Pf�O� y _
a d : c�. �-
o c�? �m m
(� Q � $ c
� c o o � m �
fid 8 O
q _ q
6�p
€ oz � �
�
a=v� O
0
ep� o �
o �
Q a a .. �
'oa �' J
r >` O m '�-� ^
C C V N = L L
� L L
� � � a " '3 '3
L m N � � m - m
� m j O_ � [A �yp� � �'
o Q
m o � � � O __ � � o
Y Z � a �- � �
�, c' H � m - �- p�p
o r o i �
C7 °' U �, � �''i- U c
t�6 c6 N �6 � _ � fn
d d R U ���i �,�„ t
(n cn ¢ cL -= cn U
a '`
� �c_ 'o- -S �°7- •csr`= s = _
2 = _
Q� O� " I�
� O -: n
rn c� � � _`��- O
O
� � � � �
� � Z I� � -' I�
r d � � � O
0
N � d
� ; `o a o - o
� Y m N O N 'C� N
o m� n U � _.� G
U m` o �v .t �-= c co
� > L p J ct1 �T,y � cY
� � O _ O
C °tt = � E -p �� � C
O 0 U j � � m
Y � � �y — _ R
�25 o L i � ' t4 �
� Y U R T -_ U o
c6 c p � �
— O �
m i¢ m C ;- [E m
Y v a Q -- d C4
- - ---- _ - .•. -. ,'- =-a
0 0 0
`o `o = `o
Q � N N �- v)
= a O U � �
• � � R t _' ci `
� O � O _ __ � O
� C
d d - d
in m =� �
p °� 1� O
� Z �� U
N
�
n
a..
m
�
O �
.�
m
U
�
�
�
Q.
R
d
�
�
N
^
n
�
m
t0
0
m ^
N
.�
Z
�
�
�
v
n
N c'
c. �O �' � s..
L 0 L L
m '� m m
c6 N z �D �7
O O 0�� O = O
c ^. C c ° .� N .--
� � N
J Q :
} c= F
� � � � r
N
J 3°m� O
s a a CC -
�
V
�
� �
L L
R V m � �
� � N �
M � M
R � � � �
� { -�
�� d
� � �
� � �
°� �? y
c
9
d � U
�.�j 8 O
� �
� L = �
� �
� e o �
�"' ow N
� z
� d v�i �
e ¢ v'
� � � � �
N W
m O m O
Z m E
T� g`w
� _ � s
3 0m �
� a m
m � °- m
U W `p x
D j � m
6 r m
m � Q
3 v a
ii _ 1
C
O
N
Q
�
O
f ---
c
0
cc
t
�
N
�
n
P
�
n
n
0 0
O U
y C
N �
G LL
� C
O �
J
�
- o
m
c
0
�
n
t
L
�
C �
O1
O -� O
U � ^
� �
�
� a
� y
� ..
t �
U c�i
�
P
�
C*�
(+7
P
o ^
`o �
d �
G m
{D
M (4
O �
N
L
� �
�S
R =
� �
.,_� -_- T ., .: �
c�J
W
V
�
�
n
�
0
N
�
G1
O d
6
R
>
0
.�
O
�
N
N
C
N
M
O
0
N
d
O
1+f
M
O
�
^
N
c
�
c
0
�
�
a>
�
O
V
N
�
�
�
F
O
N
G
�
N
O
a`�
�
Y
�
U
O�
�
O
�
n
n
�
H
�
Q
03 -��y
� John Hardwick
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protections
City of Saint Paul
350 Saint Peter Street - Suite 300
Saint Paul, MN 551021510
RE: FILE NO.: 02-234037
The Zoning Complaint and Affidavit, Zoning File No.: 02-100698, accompanying
ttus statement was filed with LIEP and delivered personally xo ZVendy Lane on ihe 28ih �f
February, 2002. The orib nally signed zoning complaint and notarized �davit should be
on file with your office, as I did not make a copy (signature �es) for my records.
TI' IS HEREBY CERTIFIED under the penalty of perjury that the foregoin; STATII�iIIvTI'
and ZOrIING COMPLAINT is true and correct.
Executed on this day of November I 1, 2002
.
���zn�� /�
Signa[ure
Paul J. Maruska
1037 Burr SYreet
Saint Paul, MN 551 O1
652-776-8052
State of Minnesota)
ss:
County of Ramsey)
On this day the l lth of November, 2002, before me the undersigned Notary Public in and
said State, personally appeazed Paul Joseph Maruska, �roved to me on Yhe basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to this instrument and
who acknowledged personally executing it.
�nro�y s��
� �
►_►I .i... .� A%. ��1._ �
�.
I-�I-2�(>�
My commission eacpires
■ �
� � � F��At�%N KAY BERGSRUD F
�T�1 T:BL'G#rtlW�
�C� f
■ �
��
�
February 28, 2002
Wendy Lane, Zoning Administrator
city of Saint Paul
Office of license, Inspections and Environmental Protection
350 Saint Peter Street
Suite 300
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
- � �- - .. � ��_•_
Please fmd enclosed a formal zoning complaint with regards to the
aforementioned property, property owners, and building contractor due to the
issuance of tcvo-family repair permit based upon city information.
With respect to the investigation and �etermination �f zoning staYus .of fhe
property, please include for the record the zoning complaint and the appended
affidavit.
.
Sincerely,
Paul Maruska
�
2� I
V
o3-y9y
.
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION
FOR THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
In Re: ltvo Family Repair Permit of
Wallace Nelson, d/b/a Renovation, Inc.
and
Jeff Sjursen and Kathy Sjursen, owners of
1036 Desoto Street, Saint Paul
Zoning File No.: 02-1 00698
This matter involves the issuance of a building pernut ('Itco-Family Repair �20
.
02 097089), based upon city zoning information designating "legal, nonconforming"
status for the property located at 1036 Desoto Street in Saint Paul, to Wallace Nelson,
d/b/a Renovation, Inc., a licensed building contractor, for ordinary repairs of the
dcvelling. This matter was referred to the Zoning Administration of the Office of
License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection (LIEP) based upon objections and
the filing of a complaint to the issuance of the permit by adjacent property owners.
The objections to the issuance of the building permit by the adjacent property
o�vners are as follows:
1) The "use" at 1036 Desoto Street is incorrectly identified for zoning
purposes as "legal, nonconforming." and;
2) The "dwelling" at 1036 Desoto Street is incorrectl� identified for zoning
purposes as "legal, nonconforming," and:
3) The building permit should be a remodeling permit due to the removal of
the kitchen and bathroom from the first floor unit in 1998.
Based upon unsubstantiated and presumptive information for the issuance of
.
the building permit at 1036 Desoto by the Office of LIEP, an investigation and
deternunation is deemed necessary so as to included other pertinent evidence to
correct the legal zoning status of the property stated herein.
1
�, C!
)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Jeff and Kathy Sjursen purchased 1036 Desoto as a duplex dwelling in
June 1992 when the property was zoned RT-1, Two-Family Residential, since
October, 1975.'
2. In June 1993, the City Council of the City of Saint Paul adopted the East
e
Consolidated Small Area Pian and 40-Acre Study which amended the Land Use
Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan which amended the zoning for the area
i
- . .- •.- - - .- - . -
denoting the "legal, nonconforming status.s
3. Jeff and Kathy Sjursen maintained the '�se'� of the 1036 Desoto from
June 1992 to mid 2000 as a single family dwelling and changed the "structure"' of
the dwelling for a continuous period �reater than three hundred si�cty-five (365) days.
4. In 1998, Jeff and Kathy Sjursen removed the latchen and bathroom on
the lst floor; and these elements were not repiaced during their ownership.
5. Jeff and Kathy Sjursen maintained a one family mailbox on the dwelling
and closed off the rear entrance door for 2nd floor. The second floor held tkte two
bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom, and living room; the first floor held a bedroom.
fanuly/1'V room, play/rec. room, and storage.
6. In late 2000, Mindy Foley and friends occupied the residence at 1036
Desoto using the two bedrooms, kitchen, bathroom, and living room on second floor
along with the bedroom and living rooms on the first floor.
` Saint Paul LegSslative Code. Section 62.102(b)
� Saint Paul Legislative Code. Sec4on 62.102(a)
' Saint Paul LegSSlative Code, Section 62.102(b)
' Saint Paul Legislative Code, Section 62102(h)
' Saint Paul Legislative Code, Section 62.102(fl(7)
2
�
�
�, i
o3-y9 y
• 7. Mainard Vinge, City of Saint Paul Code Enforcement - Rental Dwelling
Registration, does not have an application or record of a certificate for the property
located at 1036 Desoto w-ith regards to the Rental Dwelling Registration program.
8. Renovation, Inc. of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, a licensed building
contractor, obtained a two-family repair permit to remodel and re-establish a two-
family dwelling at 1036 Desoto, including the installation of a kitchen and bathroom
on the first floor.
CONCLUSION
1. The duplex dwelling at 1036 Desoto has undergone "structure" and "use"
changes during the period of residency between 1992 and 2001. During t1�is period
the land use of most of the ECON area, specifically 1036 Desoto, was rezoned from
RT-1 (two-family residence) to a more restrictive use R-4 (one-family residence).'
• Thus, from the date of purchase of the dwelling at 1036 Desoto in June 1992 to June
1993 the property was correctly zoned RT-1. Following the period from June 1993 to
June 1994 the property was correctly zoned R-4 "legal, nonconforming."
2. Due to the owners, Jeff and Kathy Sjursen, conduct, use, and changes to
the property at 1036 Desoto for the period of 1998 to 2001 constitutes a discontinued
use of the legal, nonconforming status for a continuous period of one year and more.�
Therefore. 1036 Desoto is amended in conformance with the zoning regulations (R-4)
for the district.
3. Jeff and Kathy Sjurseri s nonperformance and obligation to notify the
corresponding governmental authorities (city of Saint Paul, LIEP 8 Ramsey County.
Property Records/Assessments) as to the changes of "use" and the "structure" at
6 Saint Paul Le� slati� e Code, Chapter 51
� ' Fast Consolidated Small rlrea Plan, June 17, 1993
$ Saint Paul Legislative Code, Sectlon 62.102(fl(7)
9 Id.
3 � �
1036 Desoto does not allow for continuance of the "legal, nonconforming" status by
withholding pertinent information as to the "use" and changes of the "structure" to
the property during their period of residence. And the City of Saint Paul does not
have a record or certificate establishing a rental dweiling unit for 1036 Desoto under
the Rental Dwelling Unit Registration, Chapter 51 of Saint Paul Legislative Code.
.
4. Jeff and Kathy Sjursen's principal purpose for occupying the dwelling at
1036 Desoto, lst and 2nd floor, was for their personal use of both units. Thus,
conforming the "use" of the property and dwelling to R-4; and furthermore
elements of a two unit dwelling around the summer of 1998 (kitchen and bathroom,
1 st floor unit).
5. Since the nonconfornung use changed to a use permitted in the district
by the conduct of the owners of 1036 Desoto, the Two-Family Repair permit issued to
Wallace Nelson of Renovation, Inc. is improper as sYated herein and accompanying
affidavits:
.
a. Inaccurate and unsubstantiated information representing the
previous "use" and "structure' of the dwelling as a ttco-family d�r and:
b. The dwelling requires a re-installation of a kitchen and bathroom
on lst floor which is consider a remodeling of the dwelling under the Building Code
and not a"repair of facilities for the maintenance" of the dwelling."
10 Saint Paul Legislative Code, Section 62.102(b)
" 1997 Cniform Building Code, Section 219-R
4
.
� �
03 -N9N
• NOTICE
It is respecffully requested that the zoni a administrator of the City of Saint
Paul, Office of LIEP conduct an investigation with regazds to the foregoing compiaint
of the property at 1036 Desoto, Lot 10 & 11 of Block 5 of the Fairview Addition, and
determine the zoning status and issuance of the building permit based upon building
records, city directories, and other pertinent evidence involving the parties cited
herein and accompanying affidavits.
It is respectfully requested for the purpose of the investigation that the legal
precedence established as to state and local zoning regtzlations involving `1ega1,
nonconforrrting use" status be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence of the
dwelling as a two-family use, and that the property owners maintained said status
during their residence period and zoning regulation changes.
The burden of proof shall be upon Jeff and Kathy Sjursen or Wallace Nelson.
• d/b/a Renovation, Inc. through lease agreements, rental records, a Rental Dwelling
Unit Registration Certificate, utility or cable bills, and/or building repair pernZits
during the period 1992 to 2001 to establish the continuance of the two-famil}'
d�velling "legal nonconforming use" status.
Respectfully submitted this day of February 28, 2002
Sigr.ature
Paul J. Maruska
1037 Burr Street
Saint Paul. MN 55101
652-776-8052
� "Saint Faui Leaslative Code, Seciion o"4.t0i(o)
13 Id.
5
� �
AFFIDAVIT
1. I, Paul J. Maruska, swear under the penalty of perjury that I am of sound
mind and body, and attest to the facts stated herein.
2. I reszde at 1037 Burr Street in the City of Saint Paul of Ramsey County in the
State of Minnesota as of July 1994, and an adjacent property ocvner of 1Q36
Desoto (Lot 10 & 11, Block 5 of the Fairview Addition).
3. Jeff Sjursen and Kathy Sjursen of 2441 Oak Street in the City of White Bear
Lake of Ramsey County in the State of Minnesota are the property owners of
1036 Desoto.
�
4. Jeff and Kathy Sjursen purchased the two familp d�celling, 1036 Desoto Street
in the City of Saint Paul of Ramsey County in the State of Minnesota (Lot 10 &
11, Block 5 of the Fairview Addition), in March 1992 and maintained their
pnncip resi ence a eso o un a e .
5. During the residency of Jeff and Kathy Sjursen at 1036 Desoto, the dwelling
structure was changed to accommodate their use:
A. In 1998, the first floor residence uniYs kitchen was removed, and;
B. In 1998, the first floor residence uniYs bathroom �cas removed, and:
C. In 1999, the 2nd floor residence uniYs rear entrance was closed, and; .
D. The dwelling has maintained a one fainily mail box.
7. Jeff and Kathy Sjursen occupied the dwelling at 1036 Desoto using lst and
2nd floor as a single family d�velling of both residential units: the 2nd floor
"use" were bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, and licing room: the lst floor "use"
were family/TV room, play/rec. room, and storage.
8. In late 2000, Jeff and Kathy Sjursen allowed Mindy' Fole�' and friends to reside
at 1036 Desoto using the d�velling with a living room. one bathroom, one
kitchen, and two bedrooms on 2nd floor, and one bedroom and living rooms on
lst floor.
9. Jeff and Kathy Sjursen lived at 2441 Oak Street in Rnite Bear Lake during the
period of late 2000 to 2002 and retained o�vnership of 1036 Desoto.
10 Upon inquu_y with the City of Saint Paul regarcing the Rental Dwelling
Registration program, there is not a certificate for the propzrty at 1036 Desoto.
11. Renocation, Inc. of Lake Elmo, Minnesota, a buildizg contractor, obtained a
two-family repair building permit to remodel and re-establish a two family
dwelling at 1036 Desoto.
•
�� C
J
03-4yY
�
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED under the penaln of perjun� that the foreeoine AFFIDAVIT
is true and correct. �
•
�
Executed on this day of
State of
ss:
County of
, 2002
Paul J. Maruska
1037 Burr Street
Saint Paul. IvIN 55101
652-776-8052
Si� nature
On this day the _ of , 2002, before me the undersigned
Notary Public in and said State, personally appeared Paul Joseph Maruska, proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person �chose name is subscribed
to this instrument and who ackno�cledged personally executing it.
(Nolary Sea()
Notary in and for said State and County
My commission expires
�� �
il/25/2002 10:41 9524708034
D t S T R 1 C T P I V E
OSGOOD GRIXJP
��
y�.
�'i�
P L A N N t N G
4'aFjne-�'haln.n
MEMORANDUIVI
To: Board of Zonin,g, �.ppeals
c/o Jeff Hawkins_ City Staff
Fcom: District 5 Planriing Council, CPED Committee
Ray Sammons, chair
C O U
PAGE 01
�
N. C i �
_�te: File"62-23698G
File � Q2-234037 �
The CPED Coinmittee ofthe I3istrict 5 Plan.ain� Council met on Monday, Nocember 18
to revie�v �ajor variance requesu in front of the Baard of Zoning Appeals. .. '
The CPED is making the following recommendations to the District 5 Board oEDirectors
tomorrow, Tuesday, November 26. Since your meeting prccedes ov Bozrd meefing, vre �
ar� sharin� with you the recoriimendations the CPED will make to our Baard.
The CPED voted unanimo�tsly to recommend support for this major.vuianca request.
•
�����
0 - _ %<
We did not rec:ive any comments from neighbors in opposition to th2 request. .
Fiie T02-234037. 103fi Desotv Street Wallv Velson (aonlicantl Renovzt'ion In � ,. ,
{nronerEc• ow�erl. �
a
� ' � �i>-. -. a
. � " � . .�_ .�. i �
The CPEB ve:ed to recommend tYie Boazd not support these majo* variuzce reque
The vo.e of the comixuttee'was split, with at feast one membet voting ao inst the
recomrendafion ofno support.
Severa! n:ighbors attended the CPEI7 meeting aad expressed cheir opposition to the
variance reques�s.
If you hzve sav questions, ptezse feet free to eontact Deborah Loon Os�ood, our iuterim
executive director, at 65I-774-5234 (o�ce) or 612-Sd1-1935 (cell phene}. •
1074 Payne Avanue
Saint Paul, Minnesota SStot
� � TeiTt 657-774-5234 FaxD 651-774-97+5
� e-mail: district5@gofastnet
�
�� �
o3-y�y
� CITY OF SAINT PAUL
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION
ZONING FILE NUMBER: #02-234037
DATE: December 9, 2002
WHEREAS, Wally Nelson has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions
of Section 67304 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertainin� to three variances in order to split
a lot and build a new single family home on the new lot and legalize the existin� duplex in the
R-4 zoning district at 1036 Desoto Street; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zonin� Appeals conducted a public hearin� on December 9,
2002 pursuant to said application in accordance �vith 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 foliowin� findings of fact:
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under tl:e strict provisions of the
code.
• The applicant is proposing to split this parcel back into the ori�inaliy platted 40-foot lots and
construct a new sin�le family home with a detached gara�e on the vacant lot. The existing
duplex on this site was constructed in 1894 and was converted from a single family dwelling
sometime around 1930. It is a le�al nonconforming use in this area �chich is now zoned for
singie family dwellines.. The duplex �vas built entirely on the southem 40-foot lot with the
apparent intent to construct another buildin� on the northern lot. The proposed single family
home is a reasonable and conformin� use on the proposed 40-foot lot. The variances are
required for the existing duplex which �vill not change other than no« being located on a 40-
foot lot.
2. The plight of the land owner is daee to circzrmstances unique to this property, and these
circz�mstar:ces tivere not created by the land o:vner.
The existing bui(ding on this site was constn!cted before the adoption of zonin� ordinances in
the city and was converted to a duplex at a tirae when the con��ersion was permitted. The
changes in the zonin� ordinances over the years have created a situation where the duplex has
become nonconformin� and the extra lot associated with the site cannot be developed without
a variance. These are circumstances that werz not created by the applicant.
3. The proposed variance is in keeping tivith the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent
with the heczlth, safety, comfort, morals and ti,. elfare of the inhabitarrts of the City of St. Paz�1.
•
Page 1 oC 3
��
File #02-234037
Resolution
The proposed variances will ailow the addition of a single family home but will aiso create a
duplex on a substandazd lot. This request is not in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and
the spirit and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, nor wi11 it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or z�nreasonably
diminish es[ablished property values within the sirrrounding area.
This project will not involve any reduced setbacks except beriveen the duplex and the
proposed new house. The requested variances would not affect the supply of light or air to
adjacent properties.
This area is zoned for single family dweilin� and the new house will compliment this
classification. However, the nonconformin� duplex must meet the requirements of the
schedule of regulations for the RT-1 district. The proposed variances will chan�e the
character of the R-4, sin�le family neighborhood and have an ne�ative affect on surroundin�
properties.
�
5. The variance, ifgrantecl, woz�Id not permit any trse that is not permitted under the provisions
of the code for the property in the district where the affected lar:d is Iocatecl, nor wouZd it .
alter or change the zoning district classifzcation of the properry�.
The existing duplex is a legal nonconformin� use and the requested variances will not change
that status. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change the zonin� classification oi
the property.
6. The reqz�est for ti•ariance is not based primariZy on a desire to increase the valz�e or income
potential of the parcel of land.
The applicant wants to provide a new, single family home and is based on a desire to increase
the income potential of both properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board ofZonin� Appeals that the
request to waive procisions of Section 67304 to allow: 1.) A north side yazd setback of 8 feet;
2.) A lot width of 40 feet; and 3.) A minimum lot size of 5,200 square feet; In order to split the
lot and legalize the duplex on property located at 1036 Desoto Street; is HEREBY DENIED.
and legally described as Fairview Addition Lots 10 And Lot 11 Blk 5; in accordance with the
application for variance and the site plan on file w•ith the Zonin� Administrator.
Page 2 of 3
.
� �I
a3-y9�!
File #02-234037
� Resolution
MOVED BY : Courtney
SECONDED BY: Mo,�on
IN FAVOR: a
AGAINST: i
MAILED: December 10, 2002
TIb1E LI�IIT; No order of the Board of Zonina Appeals permitting the erection or
alteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a
period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or
alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is
proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zonine
Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension not to exceed one year.
In granting such extension, the Board of Zonine Appeals may decide to hold
a public hearing.
APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zonin; Appeals are final subject to appeal to the
• City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buildina
permits shaR not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have
been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended
and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final
determination of the appeal.
CERTIFICATIOti: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of
Saint Paul, t�Iinnesota, do hereby certify that I hace compared the foregoing
copy with the original record in my office; and tind 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 Zonina Appeals meeting held on
December 9, 2002 and on record in the Office of License Inspectian and
Encironmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Vlinnesota.
SAI�T PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
�' ���� ��
�,�/j!�{�� �����'..±.�=,�'��.-�
��
Debbie Crippen
Secretary to the Board
�
Pagz 3 af 3
�' �I
l �.
MLW'IES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCII. CHAMBERS, 330 CTTY HALL
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, NOVEMBER 25, 2002
PRESENT: Mmes. bladdox, and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Duckstad, Faricy, and Wilson of the
Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hawkins and
Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection.
ABSENT: Gre;ory Kleindl*
*Excused
The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair.
�
Walter Nelson - Renovation Inc (#0�-2340371 1036 Desoto Street Three
existing duplex with an insufficient lot size and setback. The foliowing variances�w uld legalize the
duplex. 1.) A side yard setback of 9 feet is required and a setback of 8 feet is proposed, for a variance of
1 foot. 2.) A lot width of 50 feet is required and a width of 40 feet is proposzd, for a variance of 10 feet.
3.) A lot size of 6,000 square feet is required and a lot size of 5,200 feet is proposed, for a variance of
800 square feet.
Mr. Hard�vick sho�ved slides of the site and revie�ved the staff report with a recommendation for
approval.
One letter was received opposing the variance request.
One letter was receiced from District 5 opposing the variance rzquest.
The applicant �VALTERIVELSON, 4582 Lilac Lane North, Lalce Elmo, Ka; present. Mr. Nelson
submitted packets to the Board. He noted the affidavit included in his packet from the next door
neighbor indicatin� that they had no interest in the vacant lot.
There was apposition present at the hearing. Paul Maruska, 1037 Burr Strezt, noted that he lives directly
east of the property. He noted that District 5 held a meeting on �Iovember 10 rzgarding the variance
request for 1036 Desoto. Based on the District findings the duplex on the SO-foot lot is a proper and
correct use of the property for their neighborhood. The plight of the land o«ner, �vho purchased the
property in February of 2000, is due to circumstances that he has creatzd hinself by deciding he needed
to spiit the lot in order to build a new single family home north of the duplex thus requiring variances to
the zoning code. The land owner may have been able to renovatz the duplex into a single family home or
maintain the status of the building as a single family home. A complaint as of February 2000, is attached
with the District papznvork, with reeard to the previous owner's use of this property as a single family
home with significant structural use and dwelling changes in the propzrty to accommodate a single
fami]y use. He noted that had the house been continued as a sinole family home and had the property
o��ner then wanted to split the lot to build another single family homz the neighbors w�ould have
supported some yard setback requirements. Ho�vever, the neighbors are not happy with the effort to
further add to the density of the neiehborhood. The variances ��zll not bz in kzzpin� specifically with the
Econ Smali Area Plan, which is the area immediately around what is now called the Bruce
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
t ,
�
•
03-Ll4y
�
File fr02-234037
Minutes 11/25/2002
Page Two
Vento School. bis. Janice Reitman worked very hard to change the current zoning status for the area
from an RT-� to an R� single family d�vellings. He noted the reason he had moved into the area in the
first place is a preference for the character of the single family homes and the surrounding area. Noring
that he would like to see this maintained. Mr. Murska submitted photos of the two lots noting that if the
duplex was maintained as a duplex and the lot is split the remaining yard area would not be sufficient for
the children or families living in the duplex. Dividin� up the properiy will obviously increase the incomz
potential of the tw�o lots. T'here will not be access for the off-street parking on the hvo lots due to
elevation concerns and ne�v property lines. He requested that the Board deny the variance request.
Mr. Otimio Vasquez, 1033 Desoto Street, noted that he owns the duplex across the street from this
property. He thinks that the zoning code should be followed noting that there are many open lots in the
nei�hborhood that could be built on.
An�ela Fimens(?), 1031 Desoto Street, stated she objects to the project because of the density issue and
feels that the zonin; codz should be enforced rather than varied.
•
Mr. Nelson notzd that thz duples has ahrays been a duplex and has always bzzn used as a duplex. He
remarked that Mr. Muska had filed a complaint, however, the Ciry had dznied his complaint because the
house �vas a legal duplex accordin� to their findings. He discussed the various ways to solve the parking
problem noting that he had spoken to the LIEP staff and was sure that the situation could be resolved. He
noted that he is requesting only what the other neighbors in the area have a house on a 40-foot lot.
Mr. Courtnzy questioned whether this lot split is the same as the previous casz or if it is different because
of the Small Area Plan. �ir. Nelson replied that the Board wou]d have to ans«zr. Mr. Courtney stated
that he already had the answer but was giving the applicant a chance to answer. Mr. Nelson replied that
his understandine is that it was put in place to promote the building of singlz family homes not to resh
the area to sin�le family homes.
Hearing no furthzr testimony, �is. �faddox closed the public poRion of the mzztin;.
Mr. Courtney statzd that the arza out on Desoto is cery densely populated, it is a problem, and they have
come up with the Small Area Plan to address this issue. Adding that the Small Area Plan gives the Board
a good excuse to dzny the variance here. On the grounds of findings 3, 4, and 6 the plan is not consistent
�vith the safety and morals of the City nor of the Small Area Plan. It does not hzlp the dznsiry issue to
jam anothzr house into the area.
Mc Courtney moved to deny the variance and resolution based on findinos 3, 4, and 6.
Ms. Nlorton secor.dzd the motion, «hich passed on a rol( call vote of 4-1(Duckstad) with I-
abstainin�(Wilson).
•
�
Su miued by:
��� _��..
/ i �
' John Hard��ick
�/
Approved by:
-� ' �//
�%/L �'Vi%CU�./2?�
Jdn Duckstad, Secretary
AA :-�DA-EEO Employer
C I �
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Ke[!y, Mayor
May 14, 2003
Nancy Anderson
Council Secretary
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY �` _� 9 �
Manue[J. Cervanfu, CttyAttorney
Civi1 Division
400CiryHa[/ Telephone:651266-8710
ISR'estKelloggBlvd. Facsimile:651298-5619
Saini Paul, Mirsnesota 55102
Hand Delivered
Re: Resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council on February 5, 2003, granting
the appeal of Wally Nelson for variances to split a lot and construct a new single family
home at 1036 DeSoto Street
City Councit action date: February 5, 2002.
Dear Nancy:
Attached please find a signed Resolution which memorializes the City Council decision to grant
an appeal by Wally Nelson for property located at 1036 DeSoto Street for the purpose of splitting
a lot to build a new single family home. Please place this matter on the consent agenda at your
earliest convenience. I have attached the original public hearing notice from the Council files for
your convemence.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very tnzly yours,
� ���
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
t`�ap��wn i I.4'y�'�-�v.�i:'.�'', L.:'��'. _'v5
L�
<.. _, �, � ���
PWW/rmb
Enclosures