The URL can be used to link to this page

03-77l.� ! p Y �� '� ��-��AL RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To d3 Committee: Date 2 WHEREAS, Lang Thi Vu, on August 13, 2002, made application to the Board of 3 Zoning Appeals for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Saint Pau] 4 Zoning Code for property commonly known as 1011 Burns Avenue and legally described as 5 Suburban Hills Ex E 97 07/100 Ft Lot 22 Blk 30; and 6 7 WHEREAS, the purpose of the application was to vary the standards of zoning code so 8 as to allow the construction of a new, single family house and garage; and 9 10 WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, on September 23, 2002, conducted a public 11 hearing after having provided notice to affected property owners and the said Boazd, by its 12 Resolution No. 02-205489 adopted September 23, 2002, decided to deny the variance based upon 13 the following findings and conclusions: 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 1. The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The existing house is old and deteriorated to the point where it needs to be replaced. The applicant is proposing to build a new 22 by 50 foot house and remove the existing house. However, because this is such a narrow lot, a house ttus large would be inappropriate for the site. A smaller house similar in size to the existing house would be reasonable for this site. 2. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to this property. The circumstances were created by the landowner. This is a narrow lot that limits the options for building a new home. However, the applicant was aware of this before the property was purchased. 3. The 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 Saint Paul. Replacing existing deteriorated housing stock is in keeping with the goals of the comprehensive plan and with the spirit and intent of the code. However, replacing the house with a building as large as the applicant proposes would have a major impact on adjacent properties. A reduced setback on a structure this large would present practical difficulties during construction and would be difficult to maintain without encroaching on neighboring property. 4. The proposed variance will impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property and will alter the essential character of the sunounding azea and may unreasonably diminish estabiished property values within the surrounding Council File # �3 " � � ` Green Sheet # �� 3� o� � �t�� :°\\ i� 1 3 � � � V � � 2 area. he applicant is proposing to build a 22 by 50 ft., 2'/z story house. 3 Reducing the side yard setbacks on a house this size would have a significant 4 impact on the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The applicant has 5 started grading the site in conjunction with building some new front steps and the 6 demolition of a portion of the existing house. However, no provisions have been 7 made to control erosion, and there is a considerable amount of soil that has run off 8 onto adjacent City property. This has drastically changed the character of the 9 property and has had an inverse impact on the neighborhood. Crranting variances 10 to allow further construction on this site would only exacerbate the situation. The 11 existing disturbance to any adjacent properties needs to be corrected and steps 12 taken to prevent future disturbances before any new construction on this site. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 5. The variance, if granted, would not pemut any use that is not pernutted 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 proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The applicant plans on selling the new house when it is built. It appeazs that this variance request is based primarily on a desire to buiid as large a house as possible in order to maCimize the profitability. D J �� i WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul L,egislative Code § 64.205, Lang Thi Vu duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Board; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to I.egislative Code §§ 64.205 and 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on October 2, 2002, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does hereby �l L o � � ��- as-,� 2 , that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby uphold the decision of 3 the Soazd of Zoning Appeals in this matter based on the following findings of the Council: 4 5 1. The Council finds no enors in the stated facts, findings or proceedings of the 6 Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter and so adopts the same as its own; and be it 7 8 F'CTRTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Lang Thi Vu be and is hereby denied; and 9 be it 10 11 F'INALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Lang 12 Thi Vu, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals_ Requested by Department of: By: Form Appro by City Attorney �,: ��./h/MIM�� by Mayor for Submission to Council i'S� �� /'� � ��/H - Adopted by Council: Date �_,xe��Q 0,3 Adoption Certif by Council Secretary A � �'1� � �� GREEN SHEET No y � 1i3721 °ONT Qe�ei�"amer� O � 266-8710 ""� �"'�" � / � pp7p m.■�rwe�m. anrn.t.. MUSf � I � A � 10P � $ OIlSCIIC /\SSI6N MYMB9tFOR tmATiamEY ❑CRYttFRI[ RWi1NC � RYWrJGLiERNCEiOR ❑ H4ML111LfERY/KCi6 ❑ WYOrtlort115azll�MT) ❑� TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATUREJ criori a�nuESTm Memorializing City Council acrion taken October 2, 2002, denying appeal of Lang Vu to a decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denying side yazd setback variances in order to construct a new single family home at 1011 Burns Avenue. RECAMMENDATION Approve (A) a Reject (R VERSONALSERVICE CONiRACiS MUSTANSWER THf FOLLOWINGQUE57ION5: 7. Has this persoMrm erer xrorked under a contrac[ fw this departmeriC) PIANNING COMMISSION VES NO CIB COMMI7TEE 2. Vies this perswUfirm e+er been a cdy empbyee4 CIVILSERVICECAMMISSION YES NO 3. Dces this persorvFrm poseess a sltill not normaUypossessed by a�ry curterrt city employee? YES NO , . 4. Is this pe�soNfirm a fargNed exndoR YES NO Ertpiain all y� arisv.ew on separate sheet and attach to preen shcet INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, Wlret, When, Where, W1ry) ADVAN7AGESIFAPPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVAMAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDfiETED (CIRCLE ON� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMA710N (IXPWN) OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY O ,� �� MarsuelJ Cervpntes, CiryAttorney CITY OF SAINT PAUL Rarsdy C- Kelly, Mayor civit Division 400 Ciry Kal1 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Sain! Paul, Minnesot¢ 55102 Telephone: 65l 266-87I0 Facsimile: 651298-5619 January 21, 2003 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN SS102 Hand Delivered Re: Resolution memorializing the City Council's decision in the matter of the appeal of Lang Thi Vu from a decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denying variances for the property commoniy l�own as 1011 Burns Avenue. City Council Action Date: October 2, 2002. Dear Nancy: Attached please find the signed original Resolution memorializing the City Council's decision in the above-referenced matter to uphold the denials of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Please place this Resolution on the City Council's Consent Agenda at your first opporiunity. V ery truly yours, � �� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure � �?S�B.nh r .1�� <'d` 2Q➢3 03 _�� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kelly, .Ylayor September 24, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: 1° � _' � � �,4� �o� �� I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, October 2, 2002 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Zoning File #: Purpose: Location: Staff: District 4: Boazd: Lang T. Vu, 1011 Burns Ave. 02-225265 Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying side yard setback vaziances in order to construct a new single family home. 1011 Burns Ave. Recommended approval No recommendation Denied on a 5-2 vote. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Kathy Lantry. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks ! Sin�e y � l � J� hn Hazdwic , Zoning Specialist � OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTiONS AND EWIRONMENTAL PROTECifON �t ` Roger C. Curtis, Director �� LOWRYPROFESSIONALBUILDING Telephane: 6�1-?66-9090 3�OSt.PeterSbee{Suite300 Facsimile: 6i1-266-9724 SaimPaul,.Llinneso�a5.i/02-I570 Web: mvw.cPstpauLmrzus/[iep AA-ADA-EEO Fsnployer � � OFFICEOFLICEVSE.I�SPECTIOVS.WD O3 � ` ` ENVIRONMEVT?.L PROTECl70� RogerC. Cunrs, Directo� CITY OF SANT PAUL Randy C. Ke!!y, .bfa��o> September 24, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 5510? Dear Ms. Andezson: LOiVRYPROFESSIO:�:ll Bl%LOLVG Telepkone: 65I-266-9090 3�OSt PeterStree[.Surte3/9 Facsimile: 6.i7-266-9C= SainlPaul..NinnesolaJJ1!>-1.i10 Web: invied.s(paedmnu.vlrep I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Counci] is scheduled for Wednesdai, October 2, 2002 for the following zoning case: � Appeliant: Zoning File #: Purpose: Location: Staf£ District 4: Board: Lang T. Vu, 1011 Bums Ave. 02-225265 Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying side yard setback variances in order to construct a new sinale family home. 1011 Bums Ave. Recommended approval No recommendation Denied on a 5-2 vote. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Kathy Lantr}. My understanding is that this public hearina request will appear on the aoenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Pau1 Legal Ledger. Thanks ! SinFe y, � �' J �� ` . �ohn Hardwic , Zonino Specialist AA-ADA-EEO Emptoyer SwINT �wt�t � ��A b�i a�� b`�� APPLICATION FOR AppEpL Dep¢rtmenr of p/anning nnd Ecanomic Development Zonrng Seclion II00 City Hrtll Annex 15 lf'est Fou�tlr Streel Sarnf Paul, M.�!' 55102 2 66-6589 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCqT10N Zoning File <Zoain9 s�ffi�e itsr;iiiity"<�� .'11 FjIe no. �'�. 2� "�.�.5— "�:FL°�" - �.��r % � -:<- T�itfative heaf�ng �� :- /��2 -�?�= °`,:-.:: K ` � #`r�lJ"�7 � ��fi . .� Zip �v� pa�ime TYPE OF qppEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: ��oard of Zoning qppeals � under the provisions of Cha � Council pter 64, Section 2(i , paragraph of the Zoning Code, to �ppeal a tlecision made by the �n � a,f � "� . i a � � �A-712�f"� �n �_ � pabr� J ? (date df deasion) /" F��e number._ ��{ _' �;�� r.ani �.�.,.. .. -•--� , �R rrrcqL: Explain why you feel there has been an error rn an re permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made b Y quirement, y the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pla,�ning Commission /� 1� ri- rn c� ✓� /J.O �� /j //..� JQ S'1 ,±�� c1 +L� <:l S J 6 3 F y T, , IF� � I G b (�1�/�'(�C" N� 4'1� � i Q �� C�._�-�C�r-y 7i �i'-'V d'�� . =,�c-5 �r0-n7e� .�� ih� �� sl0-rr� l� �c �u✓� ,� �n.. 7� n<-zEe c� ,.��., 7K (�t�(_ :.�� c.y ( � �+Z'lr' T �� % C c-._ ;�� Attach addrtional sheet rf necess ry) � A�ant's signature l � d � U � ; � • „v.� �, ,p��-�-,� �� '�� e �-,.-��-�� S 7s� �� /� "�� .� 4 ��lL�� ' f "c `t� L'-^/`iJ �' ��. � �� Date 9 -��`'C�;tY "age� ��/� y��7 �� ti �� " 7 J � r I � BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT TYPE OF APPLICATION: Major Variance FILE #: 02 - 205489 APPLICANT: HEARING DATE: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLANNING DISTRICT: PRESENT ZONING: REPORT DATE: DEADLINE FOR ACTTON: LANG THI Vli September 9, 2Q02 1011 BURNS AVEI`TiJE SUBIJI2BAN HILLS EX E 97 07/I00 FT LOT 22 BLK 30 ., Auwst 28, 2002 October 12, 2002 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61.101 BY: John Hardwick DATE RECEI�'ED: August 13, 2002 A. PURPOSE: A variance in order to build a new single family house and garage. The required side yard setback is 4 feet with a setback of 3 feet proposed, for a variance of 1 foot. B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is a 28 by 300-foot lot �;�ith alley access at the rear. The existing house sits on a hill with the land sloping down steeply to the south and west and less steeply to the north. Surrounding Land Use: Primarily single family homes with city park land to the northwest. C. BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposin� to construct a new house behind the existin� house which will be demolished when the ne�� house is completed. D. FINDINGS: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The existin� house is old and deteriorated to the point where it nezds to be replaced. The applicant is proposing to build a ne�v 22 by 50 foot house and remove the existing house. However, because this is such a narrow lot, even a 22 foot wide house, which is the minimum width allowed, cannot be constructed under the strict provisions of the code. Pagz I of 3 � � . � D � _'1'1 i File #02-205489 Staff Report 2. The plight of tlze land owner is due to circzmsstafrces unic�ue to t7tis property, and these circumstmices tivere not created by the land o�mier. This unusually narrow lot makes it impossible to replace the existing house without a variance. This is a circumstance that was not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping witls the spirit and inte�st of the code, and is corasistent with the health, safety, comfort, mor and welfare of the i7ahabitants of the City of St. Paul. Replacing existing deteriorated housing stock is in keeping with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and with the spirit and intent of the code. 4 The pr•oposecl variance will not intpair an adeqt�ate szcpply of light and air to adjacent property, noY tivill it aZter the essential chnracter of the sz�rrotmding area or unreasonabl} dintinish established pYOperty values tivithin the surroa�ncling area. • The existing house on this site has nonconforming side yard setbacks and the new house will not exacerbate this condition. The ne�v house will be located behind the neighborin� house to the east and with park land to the west, the proposed variances will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The applicant has started grading the site in conjunction with building some new front steps and the demolition of a portion of the existing house. Ho�ve� er, no provisions have been made to control erosion and there is a considerabie amount of soii that has run off onto adjacent city property. Provisions for erosion control should be made immediately, and when the new house is constructed, the applicant will need to restore all of the adjacent city property to its original condition and re-seed or re-sod all disturbed areas on city property as well as the applicant's property. If all of the disturbed areas are restored, the proposed new house with the relatively minor setback variance will not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. .i. The variance, ifgranted, wouZd not pennit any use that is riot per tender the pf of the code for the properry in the district where the affected land is locaterl, nor would it alter or change the zoning district cZassification of the property. The proposed variances, if �ranted, �vould not change or alter the zonin� classification of the property. � Paoz 2 of 3 � � - - - _ - -- � = - - - ��- File #02-205489 Staff Report _ 6. The request for variance is not based prinza�-ily on a desire to iricrease the value or income potential of the parcel of land. E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendation from District 4. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approval of the variances subject to the following conditions: 1) That all of the soil that has run off onto adjacent properties is removed and all areas disturbed by grading or construction are re-seeded or re-sodded immediately after construction and demolition is complete and; 2). That the existing house is to be demolished within 30 days of the completion of the new house. - � . � Page 3 of 3 � APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE � "a' OFF7CE OF LICENSE, INSPECTION, AND ��•-,�� ENVIRONMENTi1LPROTECTION � � 3�OLowtyProfessionalBuilding 350 St. Peter Street Saiitt Paul, MN SSIO2-I570 (65]) 266-9008 � APPLICANT PROPERTY INFORMATION ��r 0�-�� Zoning o�ce.use oniy.„� + - <��le.# .:`�a- �� 'Fee: ��`� � - .Teritative hearing_ dafe. � :�� -� '��Z Sec#ion(s) � � `Cify.agent �.JV ' 1_ — �� e. �--�� (�.O�y Jlv n,.iylp r City �. st,w� St. Zip �'S J O-f� Daytime Phone 6 S/- �y �" �` �'� Property Interest of Applicant (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) Q.rr, �e i Name of Owner (if different) S�un � Address / Location /O// Legal Description `,: ��,, c��a,� �� .�� S F', v z � � I ! i � 1 � �� i .�i� ��' ;'- : � '� ->` (attach additional sheet if necessary) ' , Lot Size �� ' ��% Present Zoning l� c j Present Use - •�, �„�' �,c � r ' � ProposedUse " �,zs,zb,:,.��,�t� - -:?'35`C'1 `_ Variance(s) requested: %d C'!� a�r�-1 U C � J i rn , n i m �(. ('✓i , i 5¢��ti.c�L �rv,n / �7 r n �,�.� �rrn•, '�7� �Ire � �Qf �, �- i - 7 - �=.�—�1 l ;.: �.�, !a � �'f.2/ _- . � � '' _.c , 2. What physical characteristics of the property prevent its being used for any of flie permitted uses in your xone? (topography, size and sfiape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) %�z- �oT % 1 �/P ��- /1 a � r a �✓ . 2 S � X� � ,��,'J�!'i,...� � new �-c;s-c, wi'� c�,',.,cY'c:.� s, 3. Explain how the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardships. . � � .�'r; ,� ti..� S� 6�_ L �,.� /l �r�v �.. -� s -�'r � 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. � � rn� n� sn it i", �i7 1 � /'"�� d�S�PV( <T �c. �k /'�C ��C 2 / � � / 7 i . �. � , - /P-a ✓i2 �/ ha."rt/'�� d11� �T /�-� Su�/'cur%{,r; G/ 'J are � . CASNIERS USE QNLY Applicant's Signature Date i � '\ � { � ' (` ��E ', -�bbJ��`'�i Mg i � a . ,� � ' a � � . �� } � M :� _ '`y . c,Y"_j �� 2 S � ° �J �-�`, �� -�o��{ aS �^aN PaS°�°�d ��asa�o�d r � - ✓v7/ "`O1f �''d<f" , 5 ��2 . �(,/ ��J'��/ ��;1 ,,.o� L�-� see� �, - i �,G � ' � . ,�. .�^oJ � � c3 � 5i JO jrc�z�� „ � � µ�_., P' � - r 5 .' � . � � � ,Y� ��:�-� , � � ",�� M �- � 1 � � � � , � i- � 0 r � � � I� s � � n � / Y s S � �" �' � � N _� � � M i ,r � � �` �. � 9' ., i � \ fi $ � h � � � �� 0 �, �: _� Z � , � � O � i � , � � b � ; �d � � � ti � � � � 1 � � � 0 ; �� -, �Q��' �—..�// .� ��-6 / v S �-� �j'1' N __ _. �____ _ . - — --= --- _ .._..._,. _. u � -. � �__�' � � � 5 �`r � a��5c s, zooa D 3- �� 1 Lang 7. Vu ] O1 I Burns Avenue St. Paul, MN 55106 City of St. Paul Office of License, Inspection & Environment Protection 350 St. Peter Sneet, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102 • Dear Sir, This is a letter of a�reement with the Ciry of St. r aul and myself, Lang Vu. I have receive pennission to build a new homz on the same lot located on the lot per site plan. Upon completion and receipt of certificatz of occupancy I aeree to demolish the existins house and to maintain only one buildin� as my primary residence on this lot. Sincerely Yours, Lan . u � a � � , ;� , s•:a � ,s "i85 f�_, „ - . .•;.,_��- ,':' i.;;%ii _ .>::.:m1 ..,_r, .�:r�7,%.� , �" _ ��:�:� �i ;. _'jsi; .'�" _ - _ - — ify:��.�,.` - •' ; � � =' `_%;, :..: _ ; _ ��i_,.;�:,�ri;; ;i:�:s:.,�=`,===��=:.�;;w�„�s: .. . _ . ., ..,. ..,. ;��... �... ..,. . .. <._..� � .:.. .:}; ; � °f � " //; �L'�_...lE:_�.!'�i'f '" ' ' _ " ;;: � ` "��i.�. " _ _ _ _ _—'._._..:„� {'' r �__ ;i; % ��...>....� = _ _ .!_+ • '..�= ' I I .s P�� '�-ez.i'."+' : t �1,i � �(ti � :.�" .t' ':1 �o__ _ ..=i'i��r'l.�p�: _ ) _ �' { .� �' �a >� � ! _ J t.I ;+ �e.: 1 r.;i ' _- `� _ �: i �',. . jj;; °. :., -s.-'-, ,,_� :�: �. '�' �r;;.`rj �' _ , m";..�.:�.yt�.�v�i �(`:r; = i.� f•� _.�? '. t F � { - `� - - �..' �_� x ��l i � �»s � c a,� { q� n T a Y� - � ) ��.�.� _ :- , 3�5�' � � . r: ,� _ , — : ' - . �.;;:_>; _ 'J=t �' _ �'t,: _ ' " ' •<"+':`.:." . _, . :�`P.:d - i1s:2&.1.::�_� - ... .. , , _ :-',;:�.:':�_ -- SF:i{,[-- "', ,,,;�: _ '" __ _ __ " st r r w r � C -_,,._,.�. j � , `' . _ i 5- . �.�,_' .,. ;ean.t'->;4. :. . .. _. . - i.i:: "-.;.... ...: - _ `.`1.,.:� . ( . �.;: ; F ., . ::��. .. : - ;.. - '<;,...�,;: iT,:.:;`1T6=i:1=:.�Sy��i�.n.. `�.�+�tci.:`.u�;� __ W '�,� t ...'�' 1°�v':�:i'�:t�.�T. � 9 '-t'.�oa _ 'z �'_ j y ',�+,a�;J.i='- - ".�j� _ ::& �• .. �':' ,�_ ^ y`\?.' k�.:•ii.::�i!}� "`� ' +.t �; � fs"' f.' -_' ;.c< - t ---_ `_ :�_-_F2�'�r-x•. -.t%;',. � 1-� '-P [ fP. - • E- b 1 - r y G,' J . � : �,aQ � � r ! 2 - � . i �:. . ; R v : pM � . . ..,......�.....:- -.'� ,.. -� . :, - _ _ _ _7'-"t < - -- ' ' ..�,; .�i":-�:��.�w _. .-_,.- _ _ ;iy.,`_-� . " ra^ . -- f[c.= _ ; - id� " "� I _ � ' ! �, i ' - � _ __,_ e r „ r'.� :' 7 �� _c.:..r � • � � _ .� ._____. _ - =_._-=,_ -- - � - -------� O � _ �1�1 � August 26,2002 To Whom it may concern, I Ethel Thome of 1015 Bums Ave. received a notice for a variance for 1011 Burns Ave. I am against this variance of an extra foot of properiy that would bring his house to close to mine for the following reasons. 1. I have a sewer clean out that will be difficult to clean. 2. My house is approximately 4 feet or less from property line. 3. If a variance is granted it «�ould be difficult for either party to use a ladder to repair their homes. The ladder would need to be on the persons property in order to use. 4. It will be difficult for 1011 Burns to drain his runoff water on his properiy. . 5. How is 1011 Bums Ave. going to finish his house on my side �vithout going on my property? 6. I am going to be 95 yeazs old and this project is very stressful for me. I have lived at this address for 55 years and I am a widow. Respectfully yours, Ethel Thome 1015 Bums Ave. St. Paul, MN. 55106 i t; � !�' � �� ' � ��i7`��-_ � 1 11L 1 1 I pll 1��11�11�111�1 II PROPERTY WlTHIN 350 FEET OF PARCEL: 1011 BURNS AVENUE � A n n -� � )° �p I `i r'i C �;� � � PREPARED BY: LIEP � � s � ��'ii�� o� _'��. � � � 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. G. 7. s. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 1 G. 17. SUN RA>'-B.ATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD HAZEL PARK HADETv'-PROSPERITY T-IILLCREST \VEST STDE - DAYTON'S BLUFF PAYNE-PHAT�EN I�ORTH END THOMAS-DALE SUh1MIT-LJNIVERSITY \VEST SEVENTH CO�fO HAr4LTi�'E-MIDIVAY • ST. AIv'THONY PARK MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTO� HAh4LIiv'E-SNELLTNG HA?�`:LI�E h1ACALESTER GROVELAND HIGHLAND SUMMIT HILL DOWI�'TO1VI� -- r ,,,, .. F � " - �. � � � � � � � � �� .. �; ��_�._�=, i�,� 1� CITIZET�T PAR7ICIPATTON PLA1�fiTI2�G DISTRICiS , _._. ��.��.. John Hardwick - 1011 Burns-Preservation of trees From: kamon locked <kamonlocked@juno.com> To: <ohn.hazdwick@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 9/6/02 1232 PM Subject: 1011 Burns-Preservationoftrees Dear Mr. Hardwick, I just thought that you should read this attachment. There aze already punishable crimes that the occupant of the properiy has committed. It would be nice if someone, anyone, would enforce existing codes. Enforcement before variance. Karen Lockwood Please reply that you are receiving my e-mails, thanks. file://C:\WINDO�'S\TEMPIGW } 00002.HTM Page t of 1 _�rc , � � '� 9/6/02 � � � John Nardwick - Re: e-mail From: kamon locked <kamonlocked@juno.com> To: <john.hardwick@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Dafe: 9/6/02 225 PM Subject: F2e: e-mail __._ .... _ - ' -- Dear Mr. Hardwick, A few thoughts after our phone conversation- I still think that the city property needs to be restored in order to get his variance. Also, if he wishes to get a variance for one foot on each side this shoufd be declined. IF this is to be approved, I vote that his foot variance be changed to a two foot variance on the city side only and stay away fsom the existing structure owned by Ethel Thorn. Thank you, Karen Lockwood PS You should see the city property after last nights rain. This property CANNOT wait until after construction is complete to be restored. Help to save it NOW. file:/lC:1WR�DOWS\TEMP\GW }D0002.HTM Page 1 of 1 �7 �� 9/6/02 Page I of 1 John Hardwick - Re: e-mail From: kamon locked <kamonlocked@juno.com> To: <john.hardwick@ci stpaul.mn.us> Date: 9/6/02 225 PM Subject: Re: e-mail Dear Mr. Hardwick, I have tried to reach you by phone and have been unsuccessful. I am writing to you about the unsightty properties across from my home. I have spent most of the summer trying to contact different ciry divisions to help me to restore the city !ot after the desiruction caused by the resident at 1011 Burns. It took two months to get the abatement division of parks and recreation to uncover a 150 year old tree. The story begins at the end of May 2002. De Winn (the occupant, son of owner) took a bobcat and proceeded to move his earth on to the city lot (the city lot includes a sidewalk at street level and up a hill approximately 50 feet). He destroyed his property which is his right but had no right to re sculpt the city lot, dump his dirt over the city hill and on to aIl of the city trees. The parks department helped to dig out a couple trees and took video tape of the work when they were done. This work that was done was erased by the first rainfall. t live across fhe street from an unsightly mud slide. When De Wirtn had first moved aH of the earth on to the city lot I went over to talk to him about this. 1 asked if he would uncover the trees so that ihey do not die. Nis response to me was,-and I quote, "1 am just a short term neighbor, I don't care, I'm not going to do it". I was very offended by his attitude and his response. He has proceeded to destroy the city boulevard on the city lot, his lot, and some of his neighbors lot. He is turning my neighborhood into a dumpy neighborhood and no one is to pleased about it. Now, he is requesting a variance. My vote and that of my husband is an emphatic NO! NOI I think it is a little late to be asking permission for something that he has currenfly taken, and destroyed, without asking. This guy has no regard for anyone or anything around him. If ! were in charge, he would not even be granted a buifding permit until he restores the land he has destroyed or pays a hefty fine to have it resYored for him. It is an erosion nlghtmare and a!! the trees will die and the integrity of the hill is lost. Then, we a tax payers get the bill to fix his mess. I will not be able to attend the meeting on Monday, but you know where 1 stand on the issue. All he is concerned about is building a big house, making a profit, and moving. Neighbors like him, no one needs. Sincerely, James and Karen Lockwood 1010 Burns Avenue PS I wouid still Iike to talk to you, please reach me at 774-7984 �� '� file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00002.HTM 9/6/02 D� -'1'1 � CITY OF SANT PAUL Randy C. Ke!!y, :Nayar OFFICE OF LICENSE. I\'SPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOv RogerC. Curtis. Direaor LOWRYPROFESSIO.�:ILBG'7LDING Telephone: 651-?66-9090 350SG PeterS[reet, Svite 300 Facsimile: 651-?66-9/]1 SainlPaul, Minneso�a.i�102-Ii10 4Yeb: wivw.cistpcuL�rn us.4rep t''r•' v..�n =.� c�- a��l5=j C� � September 06, 2002 Lang Thi Vu 1011 Burns Avenue �Saint Paul, MN 55106-6718 RE: Erosion control issues Dear Lang: The City of Saint Paul Building Inspection Department has been getting erosion complaints on your property. Sections 62 108 & 33 .03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code require you to control and prevent this erosion from happening. This letter will serve as written orders to provide adequate soil erosion protection and control along the frcat sidewalk, along the side property lines and any�chere else that needs protection. You will need to properly install silt fences along these boundaries to protect city and private properry from damage and wash out of soii and sediment. I wili reinspect this condition on Monday, September 9` .2002 to verify that the erosion control protection is correctly installed. Sincerel , C� - Davi . Nelson Buiiding Inspector (6�1) 266-9027 between 7:30- 9AM i �5 AA-ADA-EEO Employer Edina Realty - Real Estate in Minneapolis & Saint Paul (Twin Cities), Minnesota, Wisconsi� Page 1 of 2 BUY A HOME SELL A HOME RELOCATION EDINA RECOMMENDS NEW CONSTRUCTION MORTGAGE TITLE INSURANCE WARRANTY PROGRAMS SECURITY SYSTEMS MOV(NG SERVICES FREE NEVJSLETTERS CAREERS 011.� T a- i � " i c ?'t �L_.3. ��- �s.� There is 7 property matching your search criteria. S�arCl ({��. , �.�. a�GH� �� hsttngs 1- 1 ofi 9. sor!ed by � 101'I BURNS AVE ST PAUL, MN 55106 Property Type: Single Family MLS°: 2036650 Status: Active Betlrooms: 3 Ba[hs (FUII & Partial): 3 Year Built: 2002 ApDrox. Sq. Ft.: 2889 County:RAMSEY I�qu(re about this oropertV Us:=_c By. Ksiyer Galiery Hms • ,�p,, Broker=" "iU Reeipracity Information deemed reliable but not guarznteed. �.�Copynght 2002, Regional MW[iple Lis6ng Service of Minnesota, Inc. All rights reserved. Thz data relating to real estate for sale on this sRe comes in part fmm the Bmker Reciprocity program of the Regior Service of Mmnesota. Inc. Real Estate listings held 6y brokerage firms other than Edina Realty Inc. are marked vnth Reciprociry logo or the Broker Reciprocity house icon and tletailed information about them incWdes the names of th , s .3" listings 1- i of 1. sorted 'cy � �� _ ' - � 7 _YIElt1/�H45�-�Y v�roF ; FOPdE ABOUT US : CAREERS ; SITE MAP : PRIVACY `: Prcper;J F�nc2r � Agent Finder � �.1y Home Page � Finance Center � Customer Service � Buy A Home �� Rz �caLOn � Edina Recommends � t:ev� Construction � Mortgage � Title � Insu2nce � Warranty Programs � S Pda.:^g Serrces � Free Newsletters � C�reers =02C01-2002 cdina Realry, Inc. A HomeS=rvices Of America Inc. company Ail righ[s reserved. � � http://www.edinarealh�.com7RP/IistinQ/I,istingSearchResults.asp?Search={3C7ED9C8-92F7- 9/9/2002 11GEC�tT_FINbER :j -p9Y HOME'4AGE : FINAtdCE LENTEit ;; t1437■ . _ ___.�____ Edina Realty - Real Estate in Minneapolis & Saint Paul (Twin Cities), Minnesota, Wiscon:... Page 3 of 3 \J L07FEATURES: Acreage: 0.19 Lot Dimensions: 28X303 �3 -1'1 �_, � . . BodyofWater.NEARMI55� E;�:-� / � y , �Y 1_ ` 1 4 J l FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: � Assessments: $0 Indusions: None �- List Price: $305,000 Ovmership TyDe: Fee Simpie Tax Amount: $518 7ax Year. 2002 Tdx/Property ID:332922340102 Terms FHA, VA, Conventional, Cash, O!her y Brokcr" Reciprocity This tisting courtesy of Kruger 6allery Hms [nPormat�on deemed reliable but not guaranteed. p Copyright 2002, Regional Muitiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc Ali nghts reserved. The data relatmg to real es[ate Por saie on this si[e comes in part from the Broker Retiprocity program of the F Listmg Service of Mmnesota, Inc Real Estate listmgs held by broke�zge Firms other than Edina Realry Inc. are Broker Reaprocity logo or the Broker Reaprocity house icon and detailed informa[ion about them inciudes the hsting brokers. L:'.i�.:�� "1� M C O TOP • � `: HOME ! ABOUT US ; CAREERS i SITE MAP ` PRIVACY i Pmperty Finder � Ageni Pinder � My Home Page � Finance Center � Customer Service � Buy A Home I' Relocation � Edma Recommends � New Constrnc[ion � Mortgage � T61e � Msurance � Warzanty Programs � S� Movino Services � Free Newsletters � Care2rs OO2DOb2002 Edina Realty. Inc. A HomeServ�ces Of America Inc company. All fights reserved. Email. Webmaster(ilEtlinareain Com � �� w.:�Nr�a> c�.cRr.am '� htto://www. edinarealtv.com/IRPIListina/I,istineDetail.aso?Search= { 3 c7ed9c 8-92fl-4632-Se... 9/9/2002 _-' __ __" _ _____ --...__ "'--".-. II 1 IIIII�1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL � BOARD OF Z4NING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER: OZ-205489 DATE: September 23, 2002 WHEREAS, LANG THI VLT has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to the construction of a new single family house and garage in the R-4 zoning district at 1011 Burns Ave; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on September 23, 2002 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of fhe Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantialIy reflected in the minutes, made the follo«�ing findings of fact: The property in qa�estion can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The existing house is old and deteriorated to the point where it needs to be replaced. The • applicant is proposing to build a new 22 by 50-foot house and remo��e the existing house. However, because this is such a narrow lot, a house this large would be inappropriate for the site. A smaller house similar in size to the existing house would be reasonable for this site. 2. The plight of the land owner is not due to circumstarzces unique to this property, and fhese circumstunces were creafed by the land owner. This is a narrow lot that limits the options for building a new home. However, the applicant was aware of this before the property was purchased. 3. The proposecl variance is rtot i�t keeping with the spirit and intent of ihe code, and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitarzts of the Ciiy ofSt. Paul. Replacing existing deteriorated housin� stock is in keepin� tivith the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and with the spirit and intent of the code. Ho�ve��er, replacing the house with a building as large as the appticant proposes �vouId have a major impact on adjacent properties. A reduced setback on a structure this large would present practical difficulYies durin� construction and would be difficult to maintain without eneroachin� on rieighboring property. � Paoe 1 ot 3 �, i, l o�-�� File #02-205489 Resolution The pf-oposed variaJice 1vi11 impair an adegz�ate szipply of Zight and air to adjacent property, and will alter tTte essential charncter of tlie sur•rounding area a�icl may unreasonably diminish estabtished property v¢lues within the surrounding area. The applicant is proposing to build a 22 by 50-foot two-and-a-half-story house. Reducing the side yard setback on a house this size would have a significant impact on the supply of light an air to adjacent properties. The applicant has started grading the site in conjunction with building some new front steps and the demolition of a portion of the existing house. However, no provisions have been made to control erosion and there is a considerable amount of soil that has run off onto adjacent city property. This has drastically changed the character of the property and has had an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Granting variances to allow further construction on this site would only exacerbate the situation. The existing disturbance to adjacent properties needs to be conected and steps taken to prevent future disturbance before any new _ construction on this site. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit czny a{se that is not permitted urtder the provisions . of the code for t]ie property in the district where the affected Za�:d is located, nor would it alter or chmzge the zo�7iiig disri�iet classtfication of the property. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or aiter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for vaYimzce is basecl primarily on a desire to increase tl:e value or income potential of tTze parcel of Imzd. The applicant plans on selling the new house when it is built. It appears that this variance request is based primarily on a desire to build as large a house as possible in order to maximize the profitability. I�,TOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Pau] Board of Zoning Appeals that the request to waive the provisions of Section 61.101 are HEREBY DENIED; on the propeity legally described as Suburban Hills Ex E 97 07(1Q0 Ft Lot 22 Blk 30; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file �vith the Zoning Administrator. � Pa�e 2 of 3 i c� Fite #02-205489 Resolution MOVED BY: Morton SECONDED BY: �e�na► IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: 2 MAILED: September 24, 2002 TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alteration of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permiY for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to fhe terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council ma�� grant an extension not to exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a pnblic hearing. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are Final subject to appeal to the City Council withi�i 15 dati�s by� anyone affecYed by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction shall cease until the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATIO\T: I, tlie undersigned Secretar}� to the Board oF Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Pau[, Dlinnesota, do hereb} certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and Fnd the same to be a true and correct cop�� of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Pau[ Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on September 23, 2002 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St. Peter Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. SAINT PAtiL BOARD OF ZO\'ING APPEALS Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board " _' _ ...1 _' -. _.,,-. I � � L J � Pao= 3 of 3 n L� � __ _._._...� , _-- " O3 -'�'� � • � F�J MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 PRBSENT: Mmes. Maddox, and Morton Messrs. Courtney, Duckstad, Faricy, Kleindl, and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City A[[orney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspections, and Em�iromnental Protection. ABSENT iv'one The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. Lang Tl�i Vu (#02-205489) 1011 Burns Avenue• A eariance in order to build a new single family house and garage. The required side yard setback is 4 feet with a setback of 3 feet proposed, for a variance of I foot. Mr. Hardwick showed siides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval subject to the follo�ving conditions: 1) That all of the soil that has run off onto adjacent properties is removed and all areas dismrbed by grading or construction are reseeded or resodded immediately afrer construction and demolition is complete and; 2). That the existing house is to be demolished within 30 days of the completion of ihe new house. No correspondence was received opposing the variance request. However, staff received numerous phone calls and e-mails in opposition to the variance request. No correspondence was received from District 4 regarding the variance request. Mr. Ae Winn �cas present, representin� the applicant, his mother LANG THI VU, 1011 Burns Avenue. Mr. De Winn notzd that the erosion problem happened because they had thought that they were to begin building in early 7une. However, due to the discrepancy in the ]ot size it has taken longer to get thz correct information. He noted that they had put up silt fences and purchased a "Bobcat" to deal with any further erosion. He submitted pictures of the properry and the measures they had taken. Ms. Morron addressed one letter in the packet referred by a nei�hbor and questioned whether the soil that had been placed on the trees had been remo� ed yet because the trees would die if it is not moved. Mr. De Winn replied that the incident had been zesolved. Ms. Morton questioned wheiher Mr. De Winn would be living at the 1011 Bums address. Mr. De R�inn replied that he would not be living there but that thz house will be his mother's retirement home. There was opposition presen[ at the hearing. Jane Frince, 1004 Burns A�enue, stated that though she is Council Member Bznanav's staff inember, she is attendine as a nzighbor of the property. The degradation of the lot across the street from her has been goin� on all summer. The dirt is washin� down the slope onto the side�calk, the boulevard has been destroyed and the path ]eadina to the park under mud. The continued de�eneration has made it necessary for hzr to speak up about die ongoina problems caused by the projecc across the street. Although the house tha[ Mr. De �t'inn purchased with the lot is in poor condition. The house that he i� proposin¢ to replace it with is already listed «�ith Edina Reality for sale for 5300,000. The finished square footage of the house is 2,889 square feet and her house which is on an o�zrsized lot is about 1200 to 1300 square feet. She questionzd building a house that is almost 3,000 square feet AA-ADA-EEO Employzr � ' _ _L wwnn i File k02-205489 Minutes 9-9-02 Page Two on a 28-foot lot. If it was an appropriate l�ouse for the lot, it would be reasonabie to grant a setback variance. What is being built thece is for the enrichment of the owner and is inappropriate for the size of the lot. On findin� nwnber 4, the damage and degradation of the lot is going to be very hard foz Mr. De Winn to repair. Ttie applicant is destcoying the quality of the lot and the qualiry of the adjacent pazk ]and. The applicant has placed a silt fence around the outside edge of the park property, there is not a fence at the western edge of his properry where he should be dealing with the erosion before it washes down onto the park land. She presented a letter addressed to the City Attorney's Office from Saint Pau1 Fores[ry stating that there is a cottonwood nee 40 inches in diameter with approximately 4 feet of fill at the trunk and varied amounts over the root system, as a direct result of Mr. De Winn's project. Dirt is bein� placed on a steep hillside with no means of stabilizing the soil in piace. Five trees have been cut down on parks property without notification or permits to do so. She is concerned about the affect the project is having on the surrounding properties and park property as well as property values in her neighborl�ood. � James Lockwood, 1010 Burns Avenue, questioned what variances are bein� asked for one foot or one foot on each side. Mr. Hardwick replied it is one foot on each side. Mr. Lockwood noted that the house at 1015 Burns is rather small and very close to the property line. Iie suggested that if it is necessary to take two feet rather than havin� the house cioser to 1015 Burns, it be closer to the City's properry and both feet are taken off the Ciry side of the property. Mr. Lockwood's rvife had � questioned Mr. De Winn about the movement of dirt onto City property and Mr. De �Vinn had replied that he is a short term resident. The big cotton�cood that tipped over stabilized the «�hole hill and-there were several other trees that tivere cut down. The silt fence was put up on [he previous Saturday or Sunday. Mr. Lockwood commented that he would like to see some erosion control and some stabiliry put back into the property before the Board considers allowing any variance. Gwenith Mark, 2417 Birch Street, scated she is speaking for her mother Ethal Thorne, 1015 Bums Avenue. She noted that Mr. De V�'inn already abused her mother's property line and has torn up her sod and run all over her property. If the variance is granted where is the ��ater run off from his house going to go if not on her mother's property. She submitted pictuxes of the siie and her mother's property. Marge Ryhinial, 3007 Vander(?), stzted that she is Ethal Thorne's oldes[ daughter and [hat Mr. De Winn is using her mother's propert} no�c. That he goes back and Forth across her mother's property on the "Bobcat" all the time. Mr. De Winn responded that they had acquired the property a year ago and the lines �vere marked by the survey company. The people �cho are walking on the 1015 Bums property are the contractors, the survey company, AT&T Broadband. the phone company and trash service. There is an electrical easement that runs through there and the cable lines run back there. Ms. Thorne believes that her property line runs up to the esisting nouse which is five feet over. He rzmarked that they have had to call the police on her several times to let her kno�� not to disturb the propzrry line stakes. Mr. De Winn noted that the house is being bailt for his mother but it has been lic�zd with Edina Reality because they have not been received �t�ell in tae neighborhood, and his mother does not tivant to stay there. He � noted that the survey has not come b�ck yet so the� do not know if die lot is 28 feet or 30 feet. AA-AD:�-EEO Employcr � �; o �_�� J File I{02-205489 Minutes 9-9-02 Page Three Mr. Kleindl commented that Mr. De Winn's original statement c]aimed that the house is being built for his mo[her. He now claims that they are leaving their options open. Which is it going to be, is the house to be his mother's home or are they p]anning to sell the house? Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. Mr. Courtney noted that there are a lot of complaints about the erosion, staff recommendation takes that into consideration. The City would have more control in policin� the situation by granting the variance. Mr. Courtney moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findines 1 through 6, subject to the following conditions: 1) That all of the soil that has run off onto adjacent properties is removed and all areas disturbed by grading or construction are re seeded or re soddad immediately after construction and demolition is complete and; 2). That the existing house is to be dzmolished within 30 days of the completion of [he new house. Mr. Duckstad noted that if someone owns a piece of property that person should be able to use that properry within reason. To deny anyone the use of a lot for its intended purpose borders on an act that � seems to be illegal. Mr. Duckstad seconded the motion, which failed on a roll call vote of 2-5 (Kleindl, Wilson, Morton, Faricy, Maddox). Ms. Morton commented that the properry can be put to a reasonable use by buildin; a smaller house. The variance is not in keeping with the-spirit and intent of the Code, this is not the house to have on a small ]ot. � Mr. Kleindl remarked that he agreed with Ms. Morton. Also the applicant had first stated that the house was for his mother, then changed over the course of the discussion. The house now seems to be on the market which could increase the income potential of [he parcel of land. Mr. �Vilson noted that a smaller width house could be placed on the ]ot and the setbacks could be left at the required 4 feet. Mr. �Varner addressed the Board su�gestin� that they address the lanauage dealing �vith the current erosion problem or they allow the City Inspector ro find whether the silt fence is serving its intended purpose. Ms. Morton moved to approve the denial based on finding: 1. That the property can be put to a reasonable use with a sma]]er house being built. 2. The problem is due to circumstances created by the applicant. 3. This house is not in keepina �vith the sgirit and intent of the code. 6. The purpose of this request is based on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the property. AA-ADA-EEO Employer � � � Fiie #02-205489 Minutes 9-9-02 Page Four - � Mr. Wilson remarked that finding 4 would also apply if the applicant is too close to the neighboring buiiding. Mr. Hardwick requested that the Board clarifies their findings 1 through 4. Ms. Morton noted that ]. This house could be replaced with a smaller house which would be more appropriate to the site than the proposed house with variances. 2. The plight of the land owner is ca�sed by the land owner and his desire to build a large house on the parcel. 3. The house is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. 4. The grading that the applicant has done is destroying [he property and is causing problems for the next door neighbor. Mr. Kleindl seconded the mofion, which passed on a rotl calt vote of 5-2 (Courmey, Duckstad). Submitted by: 7ohn Hardwick Approved by: Jon Duckstad, Secretan: LJ � 1� I ,.� AA-ADA-EEO Employer � �vt Page 1 of 1 d' _'i'1 Nancy Anderson - Public Hearing Notice. From: Nancy Anderson To: Johnson, Lucille; Moore, Shari Date: 9/26/2002 5:07 PM Subject: Public Hearing Notice. Shari/Lucille: I have sent the attached public hearing notice (for Lang Vu) to be published in the Legal Ledger. file://C:\WINDOWS\TBMP\GW}00O11.HTM 9/26/2002 t3 3 - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall- Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, MN, to consider the appeal of Lang Vu, to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying side yard setback variances in order to construct a new single family home at 1011 Burns Avenue. Dated: September 26, 2002 Nancy Anderson Assistant City Council Secretary � ' ,. a3.�� Approved council action minutes 44. Public hearing to consider the appeal of Lang Vu to a decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denying side yard setback variances in order to construct a new single fanuly home at 1011 Bums Avenue. 7ohn Hazdwick, LIEP-Zoning Administrator, gave a staff report. He said the appellant Mr. Win applied for two variances to construct a new single fanuly home. The variance was to reduce the side yazd setback on each side of the property by one foot which would allow him to build a 22 X 50 foot house. The Zoning Board held a public hearing on the matter. Staff recommends approval with two conditions. The board took testimony. They recommended denying the variance for the following reasons: 1) The property could be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code; 2) The plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to this property; they were created by the landowner; 3) The 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 Saint Paul; 4) the proposed variances will impair an adequate supply of light and air adjacent to the property and will alter the essential character of the surrounding area and may unreasonably diminish established property values in the surrounding area; 5) The variance would not pernut 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; 6) the request for variance is based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Mr. De Winn, representing his mother Lang Thi Vu, 1011 Burns Avenue, appeazed and stated the issue is not a smaller house. They would still be required to get a variance. The City of Saint Paul has a minimum width of 22 feet. That condition is not created by the owner, but a regulation of the City. The lot his mother bought was 30 feet. Zoning has on record the property Iine is 28 feet. They hired a survey company to survey the property. The property line width-wise is 29 feet and 3 inches. The variance they are requesUng is 4_ inches on each side. He can maintain the four feet minimum setback and take a feet off on the west side. They also considered the lighting. A 22 by 50 foot house was the original plan submitted based on the 30 foot lot width. The building inspection department has the current plans which is 22 feet. The existing house on the property right now is 22.6 feet wide and they would adding an additional six feet. The purchase was for his mother's retirement. A daughter of Ethel Thorne, 2417 Birch Street, White Bear Lake, appeazed to speak on behalf of her mother, Ms. Thorne, who lives at 1015 Burns Avenue. She said they oppose this variance. If a house this size is built next to hers, it will be too close. She questioned how Mr. Vu would get all the equipment onto the property. She expressed a lot of concern about the abuse that has already taken place on her property and how it would continue in the future. David Murphy, 1004 Bums Avenue, appeared. He lives east of the property and stated he is concerned about the City properiy. It has been sodded and there is no money to maintain it. There should be a variance on the size of the house, he said ....--> 0� -'1`l It was noted that eight addirional peopie were at the meeting to show their opposition to the appeal. Councilmember Lantry moved to close the public hearing. Yeas - 6 Nays - 0 Councilmember Lantry moved to deny the appeal noring that there are no errors in the Board of Zoning Appeals' resolution. Councilmember Coleman asked if Mr. Vu could build a different sized house. Councilmember Lantry responded the house was constructed in 1880. When someone bought this house, they were awaze this was a narrow lot and what the City codes are. 7ohn Hardwick said the City's zoning ordinance has a minimum width requirement of 22 feet for any house. The Boazd mentioned that a smaller house would be more appropriate for this site. Without the setback variance, the impact would be less. Councilmember Lantry responded there would be an encroachment on City pazk land to do this. Councilmember Coleman stated he does not want to take a piece of property and say it is no longer buildable. Councilmember Lantry responded he could rehab the existing home. Coleman asked if he would need to encroach. Lantry responded he could rehab the existing home. He would need to get a pernut from the City and perhaps he would need an encroachment pernut from the neighbor. Councilmember Benanav asked how close the house would be to the neighbor's house if he was allowed to build it. Mr. White responded his new house would be three feet from the property line. The neighbor's house is about 4_ feet between the two homes. Councilmember Harris asked if the existing house is encroaching on the city part right now. Mr. White responded that the property was surveyed and it encroaches on the city pazkway. Motion of Intent - Appeal denied Yeas - 6 Nays - 0