The URL can be used to link to this page

03-876Council Fffe # — O1 Green Sheet # 3005317 f:i�•Y1Ili11 Y [��►1 Presented B� Referred To 1 2 3 4 5 6 WHEREAS, Faezeh and Khalid Effendi made application to the Saint Paul Planning Commission (hereinafter "the Commission") for a Conditional Use Pemut and variances for a carriage house dwelling pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for property located at 449 Portland Avenue and legally described as set forth in Zoning File 03-252-326; and 7 WHEREAS, the Commission's zoning committee conducted a public hearing on February 20, 2003, and 8 again on Mazch 6, 2003, after having provided norice to affected property owners and submitted its 9 recommendation to the Commission. The Commission, by its Resolution No. 03-23, adopted Mazch 14, 2003, 10 granted the application based upon the following findings and conditions: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1. The applicant, Khalid Effendi, owns and resides at 449 Portland Avenue. The property is a duplex within a"common interest community" number 313 Cass Gilbert Condominiwn, Unit Number 2. In the rear of the yard is a two-caz gazage at the far western edge of the lot. The applicant proposes to build an additional two-car garage with a two-level carriage house above the four stalls. The exterior design is a unified one, including new exterior on the existing garage. 2. Variances of §62.106 requested for this as a detached, accessory building include: a. §62106(4) may not occupy more than 35% of the rear yard (proposed footprint of 1,165 square feet is 51 % of the rear yard area of 2,296 square feet.) b. §62.106(7) shall be located at least 6 feet from the principal structure (proposed shucture is 2' 6" from the principal structure) or shall be considered attached for the purposes of the zoning code. 3. A variance requested for the density allowed in an RT-2 Zone under §61101(e) for this lot size, 7 rooms are allowed, and 10 aze proposed for the entire parcel including the main house and carriage house dwellings. 4. Section 60.413(14) permits carriage house dwellings in the RT-2 zoning district, subject to the following conditions: a. The building planned for use as a carriage h,ouse dwelling had space originaZly built to house domestic employees. This condirion is not met. The two-caz gazage has been free-standing for many yeazs. However, the desigi of the carriage house is not dissimilaz from other carriage houses in the neighborhood, some of which were built for domestic employees. Requirements for modificafion of this condition are addressed in Finding 6. b. The applicant shall obtain a petition signed by two-thirds of the property owners within one hundred (100) feet of the applicant's property line consenting to the carrzage house dwellzng. This condirion is met. There are 17 eligible parcels. Eleven signatures are required, and 11 were submitted. CITY OF SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA ( Z �3� �llo 1 c. The applicant shall not reduce the number of existing off-street parking spaces on the property and 2 shall also provide additional off-street parking as required for the carriage house dwelling. This 3 condition is met. The proposal adds two off-street parking spaces for a total of four. 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 5. §60.534(1) requires that before the Planning Commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special condirions, the Commission shall find, in accord with �64300(d), that: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use wi11 be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans which were approved by the City Councl. T'his condirion is met. The Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City should "encourage innovarive development through regulatory reforms," including "amending the zoning code to allow for mare efficient use of e�sting lazger single-family owner-occupied homes and lots by allowing the establishment of accessory residenrial units or structures ..." (Page 19). The applicant lives in the main shucture of the properiy, and should be able to properly maintain the properiy. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traff c congestion in the public streets. This condirion is met. The new and existing gazages will have access directly to the alley north of the property. It is not expected to generate congestion on public streets. c. The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhaod or endanger the public health, safety, and general welfare. This condition is met. Other buildings fronting on the alley, besides the structure in quesrion, are rear lot detached garages of similar conshucrion type and quality. Some of those shuctures are also of comparable size and some were built to include carriage house dwellings. The review and approval of the Heritage Preservarion Commission in 2002 confirms the case that this structure will not alter the essential character of the surrounding azea. d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. This condition is met. The azea is fully developed and the new secondary dwelling should not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properiy. e. The use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. This condition is not met. Requirements for modification of this condition are addressed in Finding 6. Criteria for granting variances of applicable regulations of the district in which it is located are addressed in Finding 7. 6. §64.300(fj(1) allows for modification of any or all special conditions after public hearings provided that: a. The strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit orprevent otherwise Zawful use of a piece ofproperty or an existing structure and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner of such property or structure. This condirion is met. Other parcels in the neighborhood contain accessory buildings and garages of similar size. The Heritage Preservation Commission affirmed this notion with the approval of the use and design in 2002. b. Such modifications will not impair the intent and purpose ofsuch special conditions. This condition is met. The applicant states when he purchased the property in 1991, there were three units in the building and that he has since removed one of the units. A tnird dwelling unit is permitted in this zoning district. The project is fiuther constrained by the desire to incorporate the existing brick garage into the new building. c. Proposed use will be consistent with the health, morals and general welfare of the community. This condition is met. As stated above, the azea is fully developed and the new secondary dwelling should not impede the normal and arderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Page 2 of 4 03— �c� 1 Further, the Aousing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City should "encourage 2 innovarive development through regulatory reforms," including "amending the zoning code to allow 3 for more efficient use of exisring larger single-family owner-occupied homes and lots by allowing the 4 establishment of accessory residential units or structures. .." (Page 19). d. Proposed use is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. This condirion is met. As stated above, other buildings fronting on the alley, besides the structure in quesrion, aze rear lot detached garages of similar construction type and quality. §64300( fl(2) allows the Planning Commission to grant variances from the regulations of the code in accordance with §64.203(b), (c) and (d): a. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provision of the code. The intent of this condarion is met. The house on this property is currently being used as a duplex. The applicant states when he purchased the property in 1991, there were three units in the building and that he has since removed one of the units. He furtner states that the existing two-caz garage is not large enough to provide the needed parking. Since he needs to construct addirional gazage space, he would like to have a carriage house type sh that would fit in with the historic chazacter of the neighborhood. A carriage house is permitted as a third dwelling unit in this zoning district subject to special condifions. Aowever, the lot is not large enough to meet current setback standazds. The project is further constrained by the desire to incorporate the exisfing brick gazage into the new building. 24 b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances 25 were not crated by the landowner. This condirion is met. The size of the lot and the locafion of the 26 existing garage on the site limit the design options for providing additional garage space and aze 27 circumstances that were not created by the applicant. c. The variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and are consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the city. This condirion is met. The proposed variances will allow the applicant to provide additional off-street parldng which will ease the pazking congestion in the azea. The proposed variances will also allow for the property to be similar to many surrounding properties. d. The variances will not impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The intent of this condition is met. The proposed carriage house will incorporate the existing garage into the new stnzcture. The east side yard setback 11' 8" and the locafion of the house to the east is set back a similar distance. Some shading will occur in the summer months, late in the evenings, that may impact the patio of the house to the east. But such shading will not unreasonably diminish property values or alter the essential character of the surrounding area. The review and approval of the Aeritage Preservarion Commission in 2002 confirms the case that this structure will not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. e. The variances would not permit any use thaf is not permitted under fhe 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. This condifion is met. A multi-family dwelling is a pemutted use in this zoning district, as are carriage houses subject to special conditions. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the properry. £ The reguest is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. This condirion is met. The applicant states that he needs to provide addifional garage space and that he would like to provide a stnzcture that is compatible with the house and historic character of the neighborhood. Page 3 of 4 o3-s�� 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Leg.Code §64.206, Mazk Voerding, James Hirsh, 3 Thomas Dazling and William Sell on or about Mazch 17, 2003, duly filed an appeal (Zoning File 03-267-811) 4 from the determinarion made by the Commission and requested a hearing before the City Council for the 5 ptupose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and 6 7 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to I,eg.Code §§64206 - 64208, and upon norice to affected parties, a public 8 hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on Apri12, 2003, where all interested parties were given an 9 opportunity to be heard; and 10 11 12 li 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 WHEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolurion of the Zoning Committee and of the Planning Commission does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul affim�s the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter based upon the following findings by the Council: There aze numerous properties in this neighborhood that have similar sized structures which are used as gazages and carriage houses that were not previously used as carriage houses to house domestic employees. It would be an undue hardship to deny this property owner from making the same use of his or her properry wknch other nearby property owners have been permitted to do. The proposed carriage house would not be out of chazacter with the existing neighborhood and the size and appearance of the proposed carriage house has been approved by the Aeritage Preservation Commission. The appellants have not shown any error in the facts, findings or procedures of the Planning Commission and, accordingly, the Council adopts as its own the findings of the Planning Commission supporting the Effendi's special condition use permit applicarion. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Mark Voerding James Hirsh, Thomas Darling and Williani Sell is hereby denied; and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this Resolution to Faezeh and Khalid Effendi, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. Requested by Department of: Pla �l'n�- nd ECOnomi ye erit B "� -------------C Adopted by Council: Date _(�ctz�/�e: /� Adoption By: By: by Council Secretary I� Ma}'�or: ""- Laate � 4� L'✓ ✓(/I/ o Form Approved by City Attorney 3 s.,: � �✓��`c-- R- 11. 03 Mayor £or � Green Sheet Green Sheet 03 � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet ( � � Deparhnentfotficeleou�it: Date Initiated: v- I PE — planning&EconoirricDe..elopment 12-SEP-03 Green Sheet NO: 3005317 I Cor�taG Person & Phone• Deoarhnerrt SeM 7o Person InitiaVDate AI Lovejoy � 0 laouin¢ & Econum"sc Develuo _ AI Loveiav �/f6 � �2• 3 266-G576 qssign 1 lan � & Econo ic Develo De ar�ent D'uector Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date}: Number 2 � ttom , n rne �[i -�3 � For Routing 3 or•s �ce Ma odAssistant � O�der 4 000"�� 5 r,�.. ;^� m1 ��- a :- rr �• �'� :�i w�'" �, G h i) Lf� ' Total # of Signature Pages � (Clip All Loeations for Sigmature) �� ,�j �, �`,, �, �� Action Requested: Resolution memorializing City Council decision denying the appeal of Voerding et. al. SE � 1: 2�� § B i f' a��l�� Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: �_ Planning Commission � 1. Has this personlfinn ever worked under a contrect for this department? CIB Commitlee Yes No Civit Service Commission 2. Has this personlfirtn ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not normally possessed 6y arty curcent city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): On Apri12, 2003, after a public hearing, the G`ity Council voted to deny the appeal of Mazk Voerding, James Hirsh, Thomas Dazling and I Williain Sell from a decision of the Planniug Commission to approve .c condirional use permit and variances for a carriage house dwelling for property at 449 Portland Ave. owned by Faezeh and Khalid Effendi. Advantaqes If Approved: Comply with City Charter, wluch requires a resolurion. DisadvanWqes If Approved: None. DisadvantageslfNotApproved: Would not comply with City Charter. Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Trensaction: �ifJ11 �$?��PE� �� Fundins� Source: Activitv Number: Financial lnformation: �' 1 9 2��J (Explain) � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Martha G. Fu[ler, Director CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Rarzdy C. Ke11y, Mayor �� Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 �, I u Re: City Council File # 03-267-811 raoo c� xaua,� 25 West Fourth Saeet Sai�u Paul, MN 55102 03-8�� Telephane: 612466-6565 Facsimile: 6I2-228-33I4 Applicant: Mazk Voerding James Hirsh, Thomas Dazling, and William and Althea Sell, et. al. City Council Hearing: April 2, 2003, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Purpose: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a carriage house and Modifications of Condirion and Variances for properry at 449 Portland Avenue Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal Dear Ms. Anderson: This application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 2, 2003. Please notify Allen Lovejoy, 6-6576, if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, , Allen Lovejoy � City Planner cc: City Council members • AA-ADA-EEO Employer CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Se[[y, Mayor v3- �7� S� Sp1NT PA[JL � AAAA Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the C4ty Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOM[C DEVELOPMENT Martha G Fuller, Director 1900 Ciry Hall Annu ZS West Fourth Sneet Saint Pau1, MN SSIO2 Telephone: 672-26G6565 FacsimiZe: 612-22&3314 C��``�`�`� - _ _� r-C�C"'� :�`�r=�i�: _ . _.. Appc..\: Re: City Council File #03-267-811 � Mark Voerding, James Hirsh, Thomas Darling, William and Althea Sell, et. al. City Council Hearing: Apri12, 2003, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Purpose: Appeal of Planning Commission decision to approve a conditional use permit with variances for a carriage house at 449 Portland Avenue, St. Paul (Khalid Effendi) Staff Recommendation: Denial of the Appeal Dear Ms. Anderson: This application is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on Apri12, 2003. Please notify Allen Lovejoy, 6-6576, if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, � Allen Lovejoy � City Planner cc: City Council members AA-ADA-EEO Employer NOTICE OP' PUBLIC H�ARING� The 3aint Paul City Council wi11 con- duct a-gublic hearing og Wednesday April 2, 20Q3, at 5:30 p.m. i�n thF: Git3�� Council Chambers, Third Floor, dity F3all.CourEhouse,- 15 West Kellogg Boulevar@; - Saint Paul, MN, to consider the appeal of Nlark Voerding, James H'irsh, Thomas Darling, William and AI- thea 5e11,_et al. Eo a decision of the �aint .Paul Planning Commission approving a conditional use �permit;-with variances, for a carriage-house at 449 PArtland Av- enue. ^ Dated: Mazch 19, 2003 '- - NANCYANDERSON, " Assistant�City Council Secretary (Mazch S4) _' __— ST. PeIUL LEGRb I:EDGER=_____— 22062137 < � 03-4'7� SqINi rAUl � 41A APPL1CATi� Depann:Qnt o� Zoning Sectio I. f 00 Ci1y Ha! 25 West Four, Saint Paul, 1Y1 266-6589 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION Zoni�g Fite Name __K�L.<f) �f'F�it.FOt AddresslLocation ��/� �O��l�� ff/v�% �r«� 03 -�sa-�a� TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals �ity Ccuncif 'nder the provisions of Chapter 64, Section�06 , Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appea4 a decision made by the PLr4:Y/ii//�/6 G�o�'1�71SS/Oi✓ on /�7713PCf/ /G/ ,�.�a3 Filenumber. 03 (date of decisio�} GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or findiRg made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. 5�� .�r>'f3CH�.c�. RECEiVED MA& 1 7 2003 e l� �� 3 _ , -r -� � 330 ao additiona! sheet if Applicant's signature__��`j��I `�i�.c�rLa Date 3'/7 City 03 Statement of Appeai and Appeal from Action of the Planning � Commission to Grant Conditional Use Permit and Variances for 449 Portland Avenue. Planning Commission File # 03-252-326 Thomas Darling, William and Althea Sell, James Hirsh, Mark Voerding, Donovan McCain and JoAnn and Richard Enckson, together with other interested parties (the Appealing Parties) hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission (the Commission) granting a special conditional use Nc:�� a��d �ari��c�� io co�is#ruct a carriage house on �roperiy iocaied ai 449 Portland Avenue. The basis of tfiis appeal is, among other things, that the Commission's decision is contrary to the law governing such decisions, and is not supported by either the law or facts and is contrary #o, and in violation of, the Order of the Ramsey County District Court concerning the carriage house dwelling �roject. I. Introduction This Statement of Appeal is submitted to the St. Paul City Council as the appeal to that body of the Commission's grant of a Special Conditional .;.-.. __.Use Permit ("SCUP") a�d zoning variances (the "Variances°) ta permit construction ofi a carriage house dwelling on the alley behind the principal dwetling structure at 449 Portland Avenue (the °ProjecY'). The SCUP and the Variances were improperly and erroneously granted here because the Project does not, and cannot, meet necessary statutory standards, conditions and other prerequisites. The city staff ("Staff') submitted a report dated February 12, 2003, and thereafter amended, that recommended approval of the Project. The Staff position was adopted by the Commission. It is fatally flawed and the Commission's action is erroneous as a matter of law and fact. The Commission's action must be overturned by this body. � i Page 1 of 16 of Statement of Appeal and Appeal 03- Sr�L 11. Summarv � The reasons the Project cannot meet the applicable statutory standards, conditions and other prerequisites are discussed in detail below. A few of those reasons are summarized here. • The qaraqe that is souaht to be converted did not have �space oriqinally built to house domestic emplovees (See Zoning Code §so.4�s��4�a.�. No one disputes this fact. Thus, the Project does not meet the essential requirement for bui(ding a Carriage House Dwelling. 0 � � , ... � . , The staff rep�rt urged the elimination of this essential requirement under the guise of "modification" and ths Commission did so. The ability to modify does not legally extend to who{esale elimination of such an essential requirement. Moreover, a special condition may not be modified at all unless certain prerequisites are met. They are not met here. By way of example, one serious deficiency is that a special condition may not be modified if the modifiication wilf "impair the intent and purpose" of the special condition. �see zo��.,g coae §sa.soo�fl�>». The intent and purpase of the Carriage House Dwelling Special Use is to prevent a second unattached principaf structure (i.e. a second unattached dwelfing unit) on a sirtgle zoning iot tinless�fhe buifding was criginally buiit with space to house domestic employees. "Modifying"—by eliminating—the space-to-house-domestic-employees requirement is utterly contrary to this intent and purpose. The "modification° destroys the purpose of the special use. Under the rationale advanced by the Staff Report, and the Commission, two unattached principal structures are permitted on every zoning lot in an RT-2 district even thougfi the zoning code prohibits two unattached principal structures in an RT-2 district. This is the same rationale (albeit in disguise) that was total(y rejected by the District Court in the previous lawsuit over the Project. • Two-thirds of the propertv owners within one hundred feet of the • praaertv have not consented to the Proiect as reauired (See Zoning Code §so.a�s�r4�v.�. The Staff Report alleges, and the Commission has held, Page 2 of 16 of Statement of Appeal artd Appeal 03-87� that there are 17 property owners within 100 fieet of the Project, and fhat 11 of fhem have consented, and that this meets the two-thirds requirement. This is incorrect: 11 is less than two-thirds of 17. To meet the two-thirds requirement the appficants need 12 signatures. Furthermore, the Staff , and the Commission, has permitted the Applicants to vote twice including a vote on behalf of the land on which the Applicants hope to build the Project. In reality at mosf only 9 of the 11 consents are from neighbors of the proposed Project. The two-thirds requirement is not mef. � • The Project does not meet the General Standards that must be met by the Applicants before a SCUP may be issued. � a M _�, The Proiect cannot be a�proved unless there are affirmative findinas that the proiect "will not endanqer the c�ublic health satetV and qenera! welfare fl (See Zoning Code §64.300(fl(1)). TI12 SfBfF Report, and the Cemmission, totalfy fails to address this enormousiy important requirement. If they had done so they would have been forced to conclude that the ��biic safety is endangered by the fire hazards associated with the Project. This will be a two-story dwelling unit thousands of square feef in size above a garage on a narrow alley. It will be only two and one half feet from the other dweiling on the same tot �see sfat� ReportatPage2 and only four feet away from the adjoining structu�e o� the nezt lot. The Projecc is a cafastrophe waiting to happen and the StafF Report does not even mention the point nor did #he Commission even aeknowledge the omission. o The Commission cannot amend the zoninq code The iegislative branch alone can do so. Nevertheless, the Stafif Report acknowledges, and the Commission has held, implicitly that approval of this Projeet, is, in reality, amending the zoning COd@. (See Staff Repo�t at Pages 3, 4-5). • The Project does not meet the prerequisites for granting the Variances. State law permits variances "only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the [zoning] ordinance (Minnesota Sfatufes§462.357, subd. 6(2)). Th@ V8('la(1C@S meet neither the plain language of the zoning code nor its spirit or intent. � � � Page 3 of 16 of Statement of Appeal and Appeal � • o . ,-.:,.._ �.. ,�.._ _ ,�,. 03 - 8�� o The propertv in question can be put to a reasonable use if used under the terms of the ordinance. �see zoR�Ry code §sa.2os�b��r�. The property can be used for a garage. That is a perfectly reasonable use that is wholly consistent with the zoning code. I�deed, this whole unfiortunate train of events began because the Applicants wanted to build a garage_ Because this reasonable use is available the Variance may not be granted. o The pliqht of the Applicants is not due to circumstances unyue ta the propertv. (see zon;� coae §s4.2oa�b��z�J. The Proper#y is an ordinary city lot, without distincfion from other city lots in size or shape. It has no special limitations. Truly, the Applicants are in no �plightn whatsoever. Even though the Appficants contend that the Project is necessary to increase available parking, increased parking can be achieved by constructing a garage withouf an additiona! living space above it. Because this property is not unique the Variance may not be granted. The Variances are based primarilv on a desire to increase the value and income potential of the propertv (SeeZoningCode §s4.zo3�v��s». The Applicants have admitted that the reason for adding a living unit to their garage is to recover the costs of its constructBon and provide them with additional income. �seetne Sfipulafed Record irt f�ie laivsuifaf page 0027). B@CaUSe �h2 PfbJ@Ct IS motivated by economic gain the Variance may not be granted. • The arguments offered in support of the Project are unavailing. o This is not "affordable housinq". Tne Carriage House wiil have a value af between $400,400 and $500,000. l(I. Historv of the Prior Litiaation Over the Proiect and Exerpts from the Court's Order The Project is exactly the same project that was examined and rejected by the Ramsey County Distri�t Court. The Project seeks to place � a second dweliing structure on a single zoning lot in an RT-2 district. The history that led to the District Court lawsuit and the Court's decision shows Page 4 of 16 of Statement of Appeal and Appeal d3-�71 .��:..:� - the lengths to which the Staff were prepared to go to force this project through the variance procedure even though it was manifestly contrary to the zoning code. This history is instructive in this matter because the Staff Report , and the Commission's action, betrays fhaf this same determination is now being used here. In an attempt to force the Project through ihis Special Use procedure the Staff Report , and #he Commission, ignores the express language of the zoning code and of the Ramsey County Disfrict Court's order. In 2002, the Applicants applied for several variances for their Property so that they could construct a"carriage house" addition to the existing garage. The St. Paul Board of Zo�ing Appeals (the "BOZA") considered the variance request and heard testirnony both in favor and in opposition to the request. The city staff (�StafP') told BOZA that more than one principa# structure was permiffed on this property which is in an RT-2 D�strict. IVeighbors explained that fihis was incorrect but the Statf would not change it position. BOZA approved the varia�ces based on the repea#ed erroneous Staff representations. Neighbors appealed the decision of the BOZA to the City Council. At the public hearing on #he ap�ea! Staff again stated to the Council members that multiple, detached dwellings are permitted in an 14T-2 District. Neighbors again expfained thaf this was simply wrong. This caused the Council to question the StafF on this issue but the Staff repeated its incorrect assertion. Following these repeated Staff statements the Cauncil passed a�motion of intent" to deny the appeal and�affri�i�the BOZA's grant of varia�n�es. Then; the r�eighbors were forced to hire legal counsel who asked, in writing, the City Attorney to provide a citation to the zoning code that would justify the City's position that mu(tiQie, unattached principal structures are permitted in an RT-2 district. The City Attorney was unwilling or unable to provide a written response with a specific ci�ation #a a zoning code sec#ion in support of the Staff's interpretation_ On September 98, 2002, the Ci#y Council considered the matter and voted to lay over the reso(ution until September 25, 2002. In the meantime, the Applican#s applied for (and later received) the permits necessary to commence construction of the Project. As a result the Rarrisey Hill Association was forced to sue in Ramsey County District Court to enjoin the Project. The District Court foand that the Staff was guilty of seeking to impose its will, not exercising its judgment, in advancing one after another argument in an attempt to rationalize its support of the Project and its � �� Page 5 of 16 of Sfatement of Appeaf and Appeal 0 3 �� • unsupported claim that two separate unattached principal structures are permitted in an RT-2 district. "If anything, that late interpretafion [an 11�' hour court room rationale the City had not raised before and later abandonedj simpfy reinforced the court's opinion the staff was exercisina its will na# its iudqment....° Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (19/9/02; Judge BasSan)(emphasis adde� (hereinafter :ludge Bastian's Orde�. The Court confirmed that the neighbors' position had been correct all alc^y: ..� s�rara�e �^a�arh�d N.;^�:�,a! �#,;:et��es a�e r�t;��,�i�e� s� a^ RT-2 district. There can be no douat that if the StafF had honored the zoning code then and not recommended the Project for approval much travail would have been avoided. If the Staff had nofi sought to impose its wi11 to force the Project through; if it had read the zoning code as written, not as it wist�ed it had been written; if it had listened to the neighbors; much mischief wouid have bean avoided. The neighbors would 'nave been • spared.a great deal of expense and i!I-feeling. But, the Staff did not honor the zoning code then and, sadly, #he Commission is no# honoring the zoning cade now. By accepting the Staff Report and approving this Project as a speciai conditional use, the Commission has propelted us dowrt the _, same e_r.roneous anddestructive path. The Project does not, and cannot, meet the requirements for a Carriage Nouse Dwelling nor for the Variances. The Staff Report, and the Commission's action on if, demonstrates tha# the City is seeking to impose its will this time as it did iast time. The Staff Report makes passing reference to Judge Bastian's Order but does not even mention the most direetfy re{evant portions of that rufing. ?he Judge was clear. "The present accessorv structure at 449 could not meet the code YPf/11t�f�tYlGn4c +I� {'�e nnr�e��rle�re�i1 .� ...........�.� L""' x at page 4; Conclusion of Law #5. (emphasis added). �Likewise, his [City StafPs) conclusion ignores the express � limitation that is p{aced on carriage houses in ai( the residential districts at issue in this case—to be considered a carriage house, Page 6 of 96 of Statement of Appeal and Appeal o�- �� the accessory structure originaily had fo have been built to house servants and caretakers as a second residentiai dwelling on the platted lot.° Id. at page 9. "A city is bound passes." id. at page 90. by the promises it makes in the ordinances it There are many other portions of the Court's Order that are directly relevant to the mafters at issue here that have been ignored in t[�e Staff Qc�✓vii ai�4 iii2 vv�iiiii3$$iv^�S u'�i, T��y a;e d lSt�.U S JS�V iiii iiiiS Statement. IV. Detailed Analvsis A. The Project does not meet fhz legaf requirements that govern the Arantinq of a special conditiona! use permit (See qenerallV Zoninq Code 660 413(74)1 (1) It is legally impermissible to write a speciat condition out of the zoning code under the guise of "modifying° the special condition. Here the zon+ng code permits an accessory building to contain a carriage house dwelling only if the accessory building �had space originally built to house ,� .�,,,,�domesti�emploXees,�, �seezon��yc The.staff.report; and the Commission, purport to "modify" this special cor�dition by eliminating i# altogether. The effect of this position is to permit a use—a carriage house dwelling—that is otherwise completely prohibited by the zoning code without satisfying the special condition that is the only way it can be permiifed. {2) The use of a structure as a Carriage House Dwelling is a special condition that cannot be permitted unless tw�o thirds of the property owners within 100 feet of the property line consent_ The report erroneously concludes that this requirement is met because 91 consents were obtained out of 17 eligible properties. However, 11 is less than two-thirds of 17. Twelve consents are needed to satisfy this requirement. Moreover, as demonstrated on Attachment 1 to fhis Statement, the Staff Report, and the Commission, permitted the ap�licant to cas# finro cor�senting votes. One of these is for the Project itself. However, the project will not exist unless the � • s Page 7 of 16 of Statement of P,ppeal and Appeal 03-�7� SCUP is granted and the SCUP cannot be granted unless the vote for the � none�stent project is counted. The argument is circufar. It is also contrary ta both tha letter and the spirit of the code. So is allowing the App(icants to cast a vote for their own project. The intent of this provision is to poll the neighbors most directly affected by the project. That intent is not furthered by permitting the applicants opinion #o be counted. It wiil always be the case that the appl'scant wili favor 'sts awn project. !t is the neighbors' opinian that is sought by this provisio� of the zoning code not the applicant's.' 8. The Commission cannot grant approvaf to a principal use subject to conditions unless it a�rmatively finds that all of the general standards mandated by Section 64.300(d) of the �oning code are met. Here the proposed special conditional use—a carriage house dwelling—does not and cannot mee# those qenerai standards. General Standard Number 1. The extent, location and intensity of the use must be in compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan. �see Zoning code§sa.soo�d}�1��. This project is not in compliance with :he Plan. This � was ack�owfedged in #he S#ai# Report which seiies upon a section of the Plan that encouraged innovative development through "amendinq the zoning code° (emphasis added). 7hus the Plan (and Staff) recognize that the Plan does not permit this type of development unless the zoning code is amended to permit �t. There has bsen no amendment of.the zoning `-'� �' "�ocEe* Siarid�rd �V'umber 1 has not been met. � General Standard Number 2. The use must provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traifiic congestion on public streets_ �see zonrog coae §s4.sootd�(z}�.The Psoject is not in campliance vsiith this requirement. It will add an entirely new dweliing unit to the two dweilings aiready on the lot. Those two dwellings already do not have the parking the zoning code would require but for grandfathering and adding just two parking spaces whife at the same time adding a third dwelling will not bring the number of total parking spaces up to code. See Footnote 1. The third dwe(ling will ' The parking requirement of Section 60.413 contained at subsection (14)(c) is at best marginally and techniqtly met The property curren@y has a two car garage. But for grandfathering, the current parking requirement would be 3 parking spaces. Adding another � dwelling unit as the Project does would increase the parking requirement to 4.5. The Project calls #or a four car garage. Thus, the parking deficiencies associated with this property wi11 not be eliminated by the Project. Page 8 of 16 of Statement of Appeal and Appeal D3 - �7� also inevitably add to congestion on the pubiic streets as it adds additiona( • car traffic ort those streets. General Standard Number 3(first clause). The use must not be detrimental to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood. �see zor,�r,g code §s4.sootd��2��. The Project is not in compliance with this requir�ment. The Staff Report contends, and the Commission has held, that this standard is rrset for three reasons. First, 'tt claims that this project will not be detrimental because there are rear lot garages on the alley of similar construction type and quality. This begs the question. Those garages are just that_ garages. They are not dwelling units that hutk some 30 feet in the limited air space above a narrow al{ey and cover over 50% of the rear yards of their main properties. Second, ti�e S�aff Report apparently seeks to minimize the deficiencies of its first argument by asserting that same of the al}ey garages are of simi�ar size ta that of this project. This is at best misleading. This project wi!! bulk larger than any other garage on its end of this alley even ifi some of the other s#r:�ctures reach a similar height. Third, the Staff Report originally claimed that there are same "carriage house dwelfinQS OTt t�1iS aII8y_ (SeeStaffReportafPages3-4 �em,onas�s aaded�. This is wrong and the Staff fater acknowledged fhis. There � are no carriage hause dweNincas on the alley. Only a very few of the houses on the a!!ey have historic carriage houses or stables. None are used as dweilinc�s. Therefore this purported justification has been abandoned by the Commission. ., ..�.�.-- - >_-...r , , , , , , .. �� • .. Y r__ . ,. The report, and the Commission, seeks ta buttress these ciaims by asserting that the Historic Preservation Commission (¢HPC") decision [ast year means that that organization addressed this point and held that it was met. This is incorrect. The HPC expressly declined to consider the implications of this project as it reiated to deveiopmertt of the ai;ey or other al[eys within its jurisdietion. It restricted its consideration to whether the design, style, mass, construction mate�ials and the like were consistent with its guidelines. 2 That is not to say that the situation will remain that way if the Project is permitted. As noted tater in this Sfafement if fi�e rafionales advanced by the StafF, and the Commission, are accepted there is the very real Iikelihood thaY other applicants for other projects wi!! seek to tum the alley into a residential street. 3 The report does nof restricf its use of fhe HPC decision to bolster its assertions to this general � standard. ln at least two other areas ihe report, and now the Commission, abdicates its responsibiliiy to make findings by irnoking the FIPC decision. (See Statf Report atPages 4,6). Page 9 of 16 of Statement of Appeal and Appeal D3-�7� General Standard Number 3(second clause). The second clause demands a finding that the project "wiil not ... endanger the pubfic heatth, safety and general welfare." (See Zoning Code §64.300(d)(3)}. TF12 �@pOCt and the Commission, totaliy failed to address this enormously important requirement. If they had, they would have had to find that the Project fails this test. This is a principal dwelling of fwo full stories above a garage. It is just fieet firom a narrow afley, four fieet from its nearest neighboring structure and (by virtue of its rear yard coverage} far nearer (2'h feet) to the main house on the lot than the zoning code permits. The difficulties that the fire department would face when called to fight a fire in the dwelling are obvious. In reality the hazard is even more serious. If this project is perm's±�ed to procesd, there wi11 be no stopping the development of "Carriage House Dwellings" of the same height, the sarr►e mass, the same proximity to the aliey and to adjoining property in tha# same narrow al(ey. This fact makes the magnitude and severity of the danger frighteningly mani�est. Seyond the safe;y das►ger the ProSect fails this standard �ecauss it • paves the way for an alley canyon whose walls tower 30 or more #eet taf( mere feet on either side of a narrow poorly maintained alley. The map used by the Staff shows this as a 15 foot (with an 11 foot carriageway) a1ley that was never designed fior, �or ever used as., a street fronting a block of principal residences. This "AI1ey Canyon° endas�gers the general welfare of �-.�.�. <f: •:�.:�>:�:;.�.,., -: �.�� : ..-.,. ,_, �._: `t�i� p�'blic.� General Standard Number 4. The Project will impede the normal improvement ofi the surrounding property. �see zo�fr,9 code §s4.soo�d}�4��. The adjoining property to the East, 39 Arundel has its rear yard next to 449 Poriland. The Project will form a massive barricade of that rear yard preventing it firom taking advantage of normaf sunshine. As discussed below, the Praject will also be impermissively close to the window in tfie historic carriage house/stable ofi the property to the West and thus impede development of that property also. General Standard Number 5. The report acknowledges that this standard cannot be met without both: waiving the essence of the special • Each of those attempts is also unfounded because they similarly rest on the false premise that Yhe HPC considered broader issues than it did. Page 10 of 16 of 8tatement of Appeal and ApQeal 03 - �?� use (that the structure originatfy housed domestic servants); and granting substantial Variances. �see zo�r�g code §s4.soa�d��4� (See Sfaff Repod at Page 4). Neither the waiver nor the Variances are proper as demonstrated in the preceding and following sections of this 5tatement. Therefore, this standard is not met_ C. Even if it were permissibie to "modify" a special condition by writing it out of the code, such a"madifcation" cannot be made without meeting the requirements set out in Section 64.300(fl(1). These requirements for _ mod9fication o# the special use are not met here The sirict application of t�e special condition that the structure originally housed domestic servants wi(! not u�reasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawFul use of the proper�y. Nor will it impose °exceptionaf undue hardship" on the Applicants. �seezo��rx,� codegs4.soot�ll- There is no question that the special condition does not p� event this property from being used as a four car garage without a carriage house dwel(ing on top. A garage that meefs design criteria can te �auilt. The 5taf# Report, and the Commission, ignores this undis�uted facf. There is no hardship, let aione exceptiona! hardship here. Instead, they proceed fram the talse premise that two separate principle dwel[ings on a single (ot is an �otherwise lawfui" use of the �.�:.: ,..��.,. pr�pertji arid t�iaf'fhe`s�e�af�cond'�ion uneeasonably prevenfs �wo separate dwelling strucfures. Since this reasoning proceeds from a faulty premise it reaches an erroneous conciusion. Both the premise and the conclusion are dire�tly contrary to the Court Order a�d to the zoning code. The plain language of both is unequivocal: two separate dwellings on a single lot are not permitted in an RT-2 zoning district. The staff, and the.Commission, may wish that this were not the case but they must acknowledge that it is true because of the decision of the Ramsey County District Court in this matter. Since two separate dwel(ings on a single lot are not permitted in an RT-2 zoning district, the special condition that a Carriage House Dwe(ling must originally have housed domestic servants does not prevent an otherwise permitted use here_ Given that there is nothing about the special condition that prevents (unreasonably or reasonably) an otherwise lawfu) use, the first requirement for modification of a special condition is not met. � � • Page 11 of 16 of Statement of Appeal and Rppeal 03-57� The staff report's, and the Commission's, elimination of the special • use requirement that the structure original[y have housed domestic servants wili impair the intent and purpose of the speciai condition and thus modif+cation is not permissible. �seezon�nycoae§s4.soo�fl�. The staff report, and the Cammission, take the preposterous position that eliminati�g the sole substantive component of the special conditian will not impair the purpose of that special condition. Now can a special condition that seeks to limit the use of accessory buildings as dwellings to those accessory buildings that once housed domestic servants be unimpaired by expanding that use to afl accessory buildings? Eq�aiiy important, once again the staff report, and the Commission, filout the decision of the Ramsey County District Court. The report baldly proclaims that a third dwelling unit is permitted and this is no#hing more than a third dwelling unit. This is false. Tnis project vril! result in fir�o se�arate dwelling units on a single lot: The language of the code and the decision of the Court are clear: This is not permitted.' The staff �epo�t, and the Commission, concludes that the Project is consistent with the health, mnrals and general welfare of the community_ (SeeZoningCode§64.300(fl). TIIIS IS ftOt a ccurate. Moreover, it ignoees the Court • Order. The Project and the logic that is be.ing used by the Staff to justify its approval creates a threat to the generai weffare of the community. Under the logic of the Staff, and the Commission, every house on trie alley in question could build a carriage house dwelling equally as massive as this Project. This would #urn the alley into a 15 foot wide major street with two `°'� '°"�" fot3�setb"acks: Ev'�ri o7e vsrho`wouicf argue that the Prciject in is�lation does not create serious health and safety risks could nat say that an entire alley of such behemoths would not. Yet there is no principled reason that coufd prevent this future. Tt�e Court Order spoke a� iength �o the negative irnpac� o� �wo houses on a single lot. °The fow-density concept [embodied in RT-2 zoning] is a way of saying the more restrictive zones will have fewer people living in that zone which is a way for city's [srcjto look at allocating public services (police, fire, roads et al.) � " Here again the staff repott, and now the Commission, relies on the HPC proceedings to support its conclusion. Yet no one could plausibly argue that the HPC dealt with the notion that a carriage house dweiting need not originaily have housed domestic servants. Page 12 of 16 of Statement of Appea4 and Appeal �3- �?� No mat�er how ane views the development (in favor or opposed) if the development of garages continues, the area wil! become more densely populated. That means more cars, traffic and demand for public services. The intent of the building code would have the effect of preventing the overcrowding of land with buildings, avoid undue congestion of population, to lessen the congestion in the public streets by providing off-street parking, and to provide adequate public services. The proposal [the Project] would add traffic to a poorly maintain [sic] alleyway. In fac#, the alley may become the "road" for all the possible dwelling units whife the other principal unit on each parcel would be facing a city street. The development of second dwel(ing units would also impact the availability o# air and light and impacf the privacy of s�rrounding landowners_ ... Keep in rtiind the goal of ... RT-2 districts is to provide an environment of ... housing that has the amenities of single-family dwellings arranged in a low-density, multiple family pattern (RT-2).° Judge BasHan's Order at page l0. !n sum, the requirements for modifying the special condition are not present in this case. D. There are six separate conditions that must be mef before the ,_�..,,� _„„.. Varian�es rectuested maY 6e qranted The Proiect dees not meet them Since most of the defciencies in these conditions have been discussed in other contexts above, they are discussed only briefly here. The property can be put to a reasonable use. �seezoninycode §s4.zo�n��. It can be used as a garage. The Staff Report, and the Commission, simply ignores this undisputed faet. Instead they cite the fact that the Applicants wish to build a Carriage House Structure. The argument is whol(y circular and makes the condition a nullity. According to the Staff Report, and the Commission, a variance should be permitted not because the property cannot be put to a reasonabie use, but because the Applicant wants to put it to another use. Under this iogic this condition would be always be met provided the Applicant said he wanted a specific— but prohibited—use. � • � Page 13 of 16 of Statement of Appeal and Appeal b3- �7� This property is not unique. �see zon;n9 code §sa.2os�b��2». It is virtually � idenfical in size and shape to the fots on that afiey and throughout the neighborhood. Here the Staff Report, and the Commission, does not even bother to claim that the lot is unique. It mere{y says that design options are limited. Once again a satisfactorily designed garage can be bu'slt on th+s {ot. The variance is not consistent with the spirit of the code and will impair the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfiare af the city. {see zonr�g coae§s4.2os�b��s)�. This condition has been discussed above. It shouid be noted however, that the Projecf wou(d not be permitted even under #he new proposed amendment to the zoning code pertaining to Carriage Houses. Certainly it cannot be said to be consistent with the spirit cf the code. The variance will impair light and air and reduce the value of the adjoining property. �see zo��ny code §sa.2os�b��411. The te�timony of both +mmediate neighbors is contrary to the assertions in the Staff Report that have now been adopted by the Commission. in addition, the Projec: wilf block the window in the Historic Carriage House/Stabfe to the East because i# wi!{ be closer than the zoning code perm9#s. Ifi wa1ls of structure� • facing interior lot lines contain windows, or other openings, yards of not less than ten (10) feet shall be provided. �see zoRrn9 code §sl,zos�n��. Putting the wall of the Project 2.5 feet from the !ot line woul�l prevent enjoyment of the window of the neighboring historic carriage house/stable. This defec# was not even mentioned by the Staff in its list of Variances. The variance will permit a use that is not permitted in this district— two separate dwellings on a single lot. �see zo�;ny code§s4.2os�b��5». Once again, this is not permitted in an RT-2 district. Indeed, one of the major variances required here is an almost 50 percent increase in the density requirements of the zoning code. This (and the other variances as weii) represents an attempt to use a non-use variance to etiminate a use prohibition. This cannot be done. The District Court Osder is directly on point. �The City in this instance gave a use variance in the guise of non- use variances, somethina it is not nermitted to do." Judge Bastian's Order at page 10 (emphasis added). � 5 Once again the Project would not even meet the proposed revised guidelines for qrriage houses since they woutd require the wall of the Project to be at feast eight (8) feet from the fot line. Page 14 of 16 of Statement of Appeal and Appeal o3-�5�� The request is based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income producing potentia( of the property. �seezo� As noted above, the Applicants have admitted that the reason for adding a living unit to their garage is to recover the costs of its construction and providethem with additional income. �seetnest;,ouiaredR�ora;ntnerawsU�ratpage 002��. E. The arguments advanced by the proponents of this project do not wiihsiand scrutinv. This wil( not be "affordable housing". The Carriage House Dwelling applicart wishes to buiid wi(� be worth between $400,000 to $50Q,000. This projecf wiif no# revive a lost world in which carriage houses were the norm but have since been (ost. A review of historic insurance maps shows that historicaliy the aliey in question near the Project was not populated by historic carriage houses/stab(es. • The fact that the appiicanf is a good person who has rehabilitated his home is not a basis for ignoring the law. Throughout this matter much has been made of the fact that the Applicants are good neighbors and friends. :.�: =-� -That �tas�ever-b,een. in.t#ispu#e:: ,Etov�ever, i� is-not ancl shouid not be a basis for permitting a forbidden use. The approvals received last year do nof inean fhat the bodies that acted wou(d agree with this new application. As the Disfrict Court noted at least one City Council Member voted to approve the Project only after hearing the legally incorrect position taken by Staff. �see �ud9e east;ao Orderat aase s�frr,drr� ofFacr rs�. The Staff took the same incorreet position before the BOZA in response to similar specific questions. We may nof assume fhat the same results would have obtained if they had been given accurate iRformation. � Page 15 of 16 of StaYement of Appeal and Appeal a3-�� a v. con�i�s�o�, For all of the reasons noted above the Project should not be permitted to go forward. The SCUP should have been denied and the Variances should not have been granted. For these and other reasons to be developed and presented at the hearing on this appeal, the Appealing Pawies request that the decision of the Commission be reversed. � LJ +t v �t..-,rivlv��5.��'Y!J �.A'•. � . ... � � . . . .-. . , `- ^ � Page 16 of 16 of Statement of Appeai and Appeal o.� -87� � STATE OF MII�INESOTA COUNTY OF RAI�4SEY CIVIL DIVISION Case Type: Other CiviUDeclaratory Judgment DISTIZICT COURT SECOND NDICIAL DISTRICT District Court File No. Ramsey Hill Associarion, a ��V �� ZQ02 neighborhood association, (��, g Y-�4--�P�Y ll Plaiariffs, v, Judge Basiian F'INDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER City of Saint Paul, a municipal corQoration; and Khalid Effendi and Faezeh Effendi, Defendants. The above-captioned matter came on before The Honorable Gary W. Bastian, Ramsey County Dis�ict Court, Second Judicial District on October 1, 2002, upon the appiication of Plaintiff Ramsey Hill Association for a temporary restraining order. Thnmas H. Boyd, Esq., appeazed on behalf of PlaintiffRamsey Hill Association. Peter W. Warner, Esq., appeazed on behalf of Defeadant City of Saint Paul. BradIey Biesel, Esq. and Jack Hoeschler, Esq. appeazed on behalf of Defendants Khalid Effendi and Faezeh Effendi. Now, based upon the entire record, the Court makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT f� � �� Plaintiff Ramsey FIill Association is a neighborhood association of properry owners and residents in the City of Saint Paul. Defendant City of Saint Paul (hereinafter "Cit}�') is a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota. The City regulates land use within its corporate bonndaries through the provisions of its zoning ordinances that have been in effect since 1956. Defendants Khalid Effendi and Faezeh Effendi are the owners of property Iocated at 449 i u � o�-�� 5. Q 7 E:� 9. 10. • 11. Pordand Avenue jherinafter "449"] in the City of Saint Paul. This property is located in and subject to the City's RT-2 zoning dish regulations. The Code provides for ten (10) distinct classifications of residential zoning districts. On or about March I8, 2002, the Effendis appiied to the City of Saint Paul for severai variances for their property at 449 for the purpose of building an addition to their existing garage. 'This addition was referred to as a"cartiage house" because of the design features of the proposed construction that involved building a residential dwelling over a garage. The Effendis were told by city staff that they needed to request four v�*iances: A variance of 1,414 square feet from the required minimum lot size, a side yard setback of 6.2 feet, a rear yazd setback variance of 25 feet and a 4% (304 sq. ft.) variance from the 30% lot coverage masimum, in order construct the dwelling unit above their elcisting two-caz garage. City staff of the Department of License, Inspecrions, and Environmental Protection prepared a staff report for the City's Boaid of Zoning Appeals. The staff report concluded that a carriage house and multi-family dwellings are pernutted uses in the RT- 2 zoning district and recommended approval of the four non-use variances. On June 24, 2002, a public hearing to consider the Effendi's variance requests was conducted by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals.. The staff report before the Boazd indicated thaY anything petmitted in an R-4 district is also permitted in an RT-2 district, so a catriage house could ba built as a second principal structure. However, a cazriage house in the R-4 distdct would need a special use permit and meet the definirion of a carriage house set forth in the ordinance. T'he City's Boazd of Zoning Appeais granted the variances on 7une 24, 2002, as set forth in Boazd of Zoning Appeals Resolution No. 2-130178. Pursuant to t�e provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206(a) Plaintiff Ramsey Hill appealed the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision to the Saint Paul City Council. On 7uly 24, 2002, the Saint Paul City Council held a pubiic hearing on Ramsey Hill's 0 3 - �7� 12. 13. 14. IS M[� 17 � 19. 20. appeal. At the public hearing, City staff advised the City Council that the City's zoning code permitted more than one principle dwelling stnicture in an RT-2 zoning district. However, the staff went on to say the Effendi's could have done either a special use permit for a carriage house, or the variance procedure, and they chose the latter_ One council member supported the project only after hearing staff's explanation and others supported it because there aze many carriage homes in the neighborhood. At the conclusion or the public hearing, the Saint Faul City Cou.�cil passed a mofion of intent to deny the appeai of Ramsey Hill Association and to grant the variances requested by the Effendis. On Septembe: I8, 2002, the matter was placed on the City Council's Agenda for adoption of a resolution memorializing the City Conncil's Ju1y 24, 2002, motion. Upon the motion of Couricil member Benanav, the City Council laid the matter over until September 25, 2002. On September 20, 2002, Raznsey Hill served its Summons and Complaint on the City and on the Effendis seeking dectaratory and injunctive relief. On September 24, 2002, the City's Deparhnent of License, Inspections, and Environmentai Protection issued buiIding permits to the Effendis. On September 25, 2002, the resolution memorializing the City Council's July 24, 2002, motion was duly adopted. On October 1, 2002, a temporary restraining oxder was granted in favor of Ramsey Hii2 Associarion. The Court's temporary resiraining order was reduc.ed to writing on October Z ZOO2. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Ramsey HiIl has standing to bring this claim. As a non-profit corporation, their capacity to sue is established under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 317A. � r � D.� � � �� 2. • � L'! � 5. � A plain language reading of the Code establishes two clear principles: no more than one main buildiag is allowed on a residential 1ot in the RT-2 district; and, projects and proposals that meet the definition of a carriage house shall be subject to special conditions and Planning Commission review. The record indicates that botk the Effendis and City Staff have referred to the project repeatediy as a"carriage house." The project was represented as a"cazriage house addition" in the original variance application, the pubiic notice to neighboring property owners, the City's Staff Report to the BZA, the tesrimony provided at the BZA hearing, the Ciry Council hearing, and even in the final resolution adopted by the City Council. If it is a carriage house within the meaning of Section 60.413(14), the property owners aze required to seek a special use pemut and Planning Commission review for the permitted use. The present accessory structure at 449 could not meet the code requirements to be considered a carriage house. The non-use variance interpretation of the Code by the City Staff violates the underlying intent of the zoning ordinance. The ordinance e�cpressly states how carriage houses are to be treated so city staff and property owners cannot circumvent these requirements by sunply shifting to a non-use variance process. A plain language reading of the ordinance does not support the staff's conclusion that multiple, unattached principal structures are allowed in the RT-2 districts. ORDER Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of I.aw, it is hereby ordered: The conversion of an existing gazage into a residential unit, making the siructure a second • principal structure on a platted lot, is not a permitted use in the RT-2 district and no 03 -87� further work on the project shaIl proceed until it is approved through the administrative procedures laid out in SPO, Seciions 60.431 for special condition uses. 2. The pemzit issaed by the City to the Effendis on Sept 25, 2002 is therefore invalid and must be revoked by tiie ciry, 3. The attached Memorandum shall be made a part of this order. 4. 'T�e maiIing of ttus order by the Court to counsel of record shall be notice of its entry for all purposes. Let Judgment Be Entered Accordingly. Date: November 9,2002. Court-2� District �� & . F � L.J Tfie fioregoing s6ali constitute ihe jndgmsni oi the Cou�. fnle[�I: '�� FktCHAEIC�t�R!ARITY �. � �, � CourtAdmirnstra�or , � lJ u1�rn�r � ��Z�� di�yN.��/ � o� -�� MEMORDANDt7M; C7_02-9086 ZONIl\TG CODE I A11 the parties in ihis acrion have agreed that the issue before the court is—cau there he two principal structures on one lot in the City's RT-2 district? The court has been asked to interpret, make inferences, and consider language not included in secrions applicable to the question. It is clear that the scope of review is a legal question; and that the parties have asked for injunctive, declaratory, and damage relief. City zoning codes aze mazes belonging to professional planners. Planners draft and amend the codes, interpret the codes, and appiy the codes for their respective cities. In Perfonning their duties they also advise citizens, zoning boards, planning commissions and city councils on what is pemutted or not, what variance is necessary or not, the requirements for special �xses, and whether any proposal meets the requirements of the comprehensive land use P1an and zoning code. It is the interpretation by city planners of the City of St. Paul's zoning code, specificaily Section 60.431, which has brougnt this case to the co�.ut. The City of St. Paul's zoning code's most restrictive provisions are the residenfial Dishicts. They start with the RI,L district and progress upwazds throngh the RM-3 disirict. [See St. Paul Ordinances, Section 60.305]. In ati tliere aze ten residentiai districts, or zones. Each residential district has intent, principal use, and special con@itional use secrons. For non- use issues (e.g. relating to lot size, height, and setbacks) each zoning district refers to St. Paul � Oidinances [after this "SPO"], Chapter 61, without providing any details in the respective district's legislarive provisions. Generally, a permitted use is a use that can be conshucted in the district without any official action by the City Council, Board of Zoning Appeals [after ttus "BZA"j, and Planning Commission, as long as the proper setbacks, lot size, height, etc., are met and apgroved by the City's building o�cials. A"use permitted subject to special conditions," is also known as a conditional use or specia] use pemut. It means that a use can be made of the property, in the manner set forth in the ordinance, only after the matter is heard and approved by the planning commission. The City can set conditions on the use and those conditions follows the use for the period of time the special use is in effec� If not in one of these two categories, the use is not permitted. A use can be a tton-conforming use, but that use has different rules under the city's ordinances. This case is not about non-conforming uses. A RT-2 district is defined in SPO, Sections 60.431 to 60.434. Section 60.431 states that the district was designed for two-, three- and four-fanuly and townhouse structures. This zone is a transition zone between one- and two-family districts and multiple-family and business districts. Importautly the district provides for housing that "has many og the amenities of single-family dwellings arranged in low-density, multipie-family pattem." [Bmphasis added The city has recognized that there are certain azeas of the city, and Ramsey Hill is one of the , main ones, that have older residential homes capable of being converted into multi-family dwellings. It has done so to "extend the economic life of these structures and aliows the owners � to justify the expenditures for repairs and modemizarion." [Secrion 60.431 ] In these situarions, e city has allowed the structures that were once singIe-family homes to become the two-, three- o.� - �'�� and four-family homes under condominium laws. The same "economic" language is repeated in � Section 60.421, wlxich defines tlie RT-1. distdct, but is reshicted to one- and two-family units. The permitted uses in the RT-2 district include aI1 pernutted uses in the R-1 to R-4 and RT-1 districts as �vell as three- and four-famiiy dwelIings, townhouses, hospices and accessory buildings. There are minimum non-use standazds for tfie erection of one- and two-family detache@ dwellings in ttus district, [See: Section 60.431 j There aze special uses set £orth in SPO, Saction 60.433 that includes alI R-1 to R-4 and RT-1 special uses, and two other new uses specific to this disirict, [See Sec. 6Q,433(2} and (3)] Notwithstanding all the pe�mitted uses, nowhere in tke actuat langaage of the RT-Z disttict is a second principal building permitted or restricted. In this regard, the RT-2 district is just Iike the R-1 to R-4 districts, for the language of these other distdcts does not impose the restricrion of one principai home per platted lot either. The �ity's most restricave zone, the RLL, does recognize a parcel may have other buii3ings because of the nattue of the District So ths most reshictive district can have multiple buildiags. The City points to SPO, Section 6I.101, as tlie authority for allowing more than one pziucipal building on singie-fanuly platted Iots. This authority is in the non-use rsguiations (for - height, bulk, density and area) seetion of the zoning code and is found in footnote "d." The footttote reads "In ttie RT-2 District, when two. (2) or more buildings aze constructed on a single pazcel, there shatt be a dzstance of at least eigfiteen (18) feet between buildings." But this langsage is only a footaote on the m;.,;,r,� Iot size and minimum side yard setback provisions � as it relates to towntiouses, nof two-, three- or four-faznily structures. The restdction is on "buildiags" and not on "dwelling." A"building" is defined as "any permanent shucture having a roof supported by...wails." [SPO, Section 60202-B] The code defines "dwelling unit," as "a bui2ciing, or portion thereof, designed for occupancy by one family for residential purposes used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, and cooldug or eating purposes." [SPO, Section 60.204-D] Having defined tiie specific meanings, the Court must apply those meanings and cannot substztute "dweliing" for "building" to interpret the footnotes. There is another footnote that controls the total number of rooms in RT-2 districts and the computation of the lot area by using azi azea inciuding'/ the width of the alley. Section 61.101- footnote e goes on to say, "no multiple family dwelling unit sl�all be buiit, nor shall any e�sring stracture be converted to a muItiple-family dwelling on l�s than a ten thousand square foot lo�" This talks in the singulaz, not tfie plural; and is a non-use variance issue, not a permitted use issue. (SPO, Section 6I.10I foohiote e) There is no Ianguage in districts R-1 to R-4 that says only one principal building is pemutted per platted lot Maybe it is intuitive that these districts aze limited to one uni� but then the most restrictive district (the RLL) permits additional structures, The Ramsey Hill azea is a unic}ue biend of homes, most over 60 years old. Once they were single-family units, but many have been converted into condominiums housing two-, three- and four-famity units, with the blessing of the city [SPO, Sections 60.421 and 60.431� for economic reasons. However, there is an anomaly buiIt into the zoning code, that being a carriage house. The City's zoning � code recognizes a number of "accessory uses." One specific accessory use is "residenrial accommodations for servants or catetakers." [SPO, Section 60:201-A] Intesestiagly, the d 3 - 5�,� � carriage home is not defined in SPO, Section 60.2d3C. It is not a permitted use in the R-LL, the R-1 to R-4, RT-1 or RT-2 districts, but it is a special use in all the districts. So in all of these disiricts, a carriage house is a permitted special use, which by operation of the ordinance allows two principal residenriaI structures to e�st at the same time an the same lot. That would mean any of the districts could have caniage houses used as Iiving accommodations. However, to get a special use permit, the caniage house must have "had space originalty built to house domestic employees." The first time this language appeazs is in the special use provisions of section 60.4t3(14). The fact that they could have catriage houses in addition to a principal building provides a cleazer understanding of ineaning of Secrion 60.421, the RT-1 district. The Iatter section goes on to say, "cazriage house dwellings aze exceptions to one (1) main building per zoning lot requirements" which is the exception in all the most restrictive residenrial districts, not just the RT-1 district. The reference to caniage hames, as a pemutted special use, is picked up in a11 resi3ential zones through the RM-2 district. The intent sections use different terms in defining what use the district was designed for, with the R-1 to R-4 using "one-family dwellings" and the RT-1 and RT-2 intent provisions being applied to "structures." The defined meaning of "structure" in the zoning code is "anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires Iocation on the ground or attacbment to something having location on the ground." [SPO, Section 60.219-S] The RT-1 district is intended for two-family residences. "Residences" is not defined in the code, but a two-family dwelling is, and means "a building designed exclusively for or occupied exclusively by no more than two (2) families living independently of each other in two (2) sepazate dwelling units." [SPO, Section 60.204D] The meaning of the code is two units one building. The only way to get the second principal builcling in this district is again t}uough the carriage house special use process. John Hatdwick provided the City's inteipretation throughout the hearing process and in testimony before the Court. He was very direct and forthright and testified that the city's interpretarion was supported his reading of the intent of the ordinances. No other legislative intent was produced by the city, other than 1us interprefarion at the BZA and City Council hearings, and his staff inemoranda to the two bodies. In his opinion, Sections 60.421 and 61.101, foohmte d, provided ciear intent to allow more than one principal building in RT-2 disiricts, He testified that tlus interpretation had been applied hundreds of times, though there was no testimony when and where tha hundreds of interpretations had occurred. It is more likely the minutes of the I Preservation Commission from when the proposal for 449 Portland was discussed, are more on point when it was recorded that there had been two carriage homes added within a couple of b]ocks as "some recent precedent "[See: Stipulated records- page124) Hazdwick's interpretations were presented in his reports and when calied on at the BZA and Council meetings. Before the court he uutially testified that it was a permitted use by reading the two provisions (60.421 and 61.101), by and maldng an inference from the fact Secrion 60.431 did not have the same language of Section 60.421. However, he also tesrified • that the garage (an accessory use) was being remodeled, and once the remodeling was accomplished, it wouid be within 6 feet of the original 449 structure. Being that close to 449 v3-�"l� makes it an "attached" structure, so 449 would then be a three-family struct�tre, and as such � wouId faIl within the defined use of the RT-2 District. This attempt at the hearing to justify the city's interpretation simply points out the problem interprezing the ordinance provision at issue in tIus case. Hazdwick does not claim that SPO, Chapter 61, defines permitted uses. He stated the Chapter sunply regulates non-use issues in each district and is referenced in each residential distact. However, the specific sections {SPO Sections 6d.43I-60.434) say nothing about two principal buildings on single platted lots. Nothing pernutting or prohibiting them in the RT-2 zone is in the langvage of this district Further, the provisions related to the RT-2 zone where the footnote is placed is on townhouses, and there in nothing in the record that makes the Effendi's properiy a townhouse for the purposes of this case under the definitions in 60.204-D or b0.220-T. A"townhouse" is "a one-family dwelling unit...which is part of a structure whose dwelling units aze attacned horizonrially in a linear attangemant..." [SPO, Section 60.204-Dj According the records, 449 is already a three-family shucture, but the $ffendi's have taken to use two of the units as one, so it currently being us� � a hvo-family structure. In the records of the BZA and City Council meetings Hardwick stated the proposal couId be treated as a carriage ho��se or as a multiple-family development. [See: Stipulated records-pages 60 and 11 TJ His analysis said it was a pem�itted nse, but needed non-use variaaces. But the proposal was not for a townhouse structure (the non-use application of footuote d) nor was there any discussion of tne number of units that would pernut a decision on the application of footnote e, in . Section 61.101. Lilcewise, his conclvsion ignores �he express lunitarion that is placed on carriage honses in aIi tt2e residential districts at issue in this case--to be considered a carriage house, the accessory stracture originally had to have been built to house servants and caretakers as a second residential dwelling on the pIatted lot [See: Section 60.413(14)] There is no question that the existing structure is a two-caz gazage. It has no living quarters at the present time so it does not fit the code's defmi2ion of "carriage house." Even if fhe-City has approved 250 of these units in the past, tl�ere is no theory that pemiits the court to amend the plain meaning of the ordinance in question by a@verse administrarive interpretation. The Effendi's started out wanting to increase the size of their two-car garage, and ended up with plans for an addition that would look and act Iike a carriage house. Everyone calls it a carriage house, even the city planners. T12e city argues that a special use percnit is only needed for carriage homes in tha R-1 Yo R-4 or RT-1 distcicts. That is.simply not coaect because the special use sections (RL,L, R-1 to R-4, RT-1, and RT-2) aze picked up by the special use permit provisions code up to the RM-2 distdct. [Sp0 60.443] There is nothing in the record that deals with the application of the deasity standazds set forth in the Ciry's comprehensive Iand use plan [after this ` The comprehensive plan guides the city's development and the zoning code implements it, both aze legislarive issues. The City stated the proposaI is new construction with densities weIl witltin permitted densities in the RT-2 dishict. [City Memozandum in Support of Summary )udgment, at pg. 15] To decide the case on a density basis would mean the court would have to assume dettsities and there is no • basis to do so. The record indicaxes that many of the shuctures around 449 Portland are multiple-family buildings but some aze not. jSee: Stipulated record-pg. 57] Nothing in tha D3 • record establishes the uses or the density in this zoning disirict. It would only be safe to assume there are no RLL nses within the blocks contiguous to 449 Portland. Density is a factor from the CLUP and how the housing mix allocates population per disirict. In other words, the CLUP sets forth how many peopie per acre are allowed for the different residential dis�icts; and then how it is applied to the actual units in tt�e district. For example, single-family, one hedroom dweiling units have fewer people per acre than singIe- famiiy four-bedroom units or units in reside�irial districts lease reshictive than the distaicts RT-2 and below (e.g. RLL and R-1 to R-4). T`he low-density concept is a way of saying tlie more reshicrive zones will have fewer people living in that yone wtaich is a way for city's to Ioak at allocafang public services (police, fire, roads et al.) No matter how one views the development (in favor or opposed) if the development of garages continues, #he area wi11 become more densely populated. That means more cars, firaffic and demand for public services. The intant of the building code wouid have the effect of preventing the overerowding of land with buildings, avoid undue congestion of population, to lessen the congesrion in the public streets by providing off-street parking, and to provide adequate public services. _ The proposal woul� add traffic to a poorly maintain atieyway. In fact, the alley may become the "rozd" for ali the possible dwelling units while the other principal unit on each parcel would be facing a city street The developnent of second dwelling units would also impact the availability of air and light and impact the privacy of sunouncling Iandowners. [See: Section 50.101 ] Keep in mind the goal of the R-1 to R-4 and RT-2 districts is to provide • an environment of predominately low-density dwellings (R-1 to R-4) or housing that has the ameniries of single-family dwellings arranged in a low-density, mulriple-family pattern (12T-2). [Section 60.411 and 60.43 i] RT-1 districts do not have this limiting "low-density" language in any of its provisions. A city is bound by the promises it makes in the ordinances it passes. Based on the foregoing analysis of the ordinance at issue in tlus case, the court finds the plaiu meaning not to include authorization for any second principal buildings on RT-21ots unless the second building is a carriage house as defined in Section 60.413(14). The City in this instance gave a use variance in the guise of non-use variances, something it is not permitted to do. [3ee:1��N, STAT., Section 462.57, Subd. 6] REVIEW OF PROCEDURES USED BY CITy. The Effendi's in their memorandum raised the issue of the covrt allowing an axpansion of the issue in controversy to include whether or not the City followed its procedures in approving the plans. The City presented testimony in this case by the person who guided the Effendi's Uuough the variance process. The same person responded to BZA and council members' questions about the proposed carriage house. The assurances, consistent at ali times relevant to this case, gained approval for the four non-use variances. Further, the record and testimony before the court shows that the plainriffs have exhausted alI administrative appeals permitted by the ordinance. With the decision on the permitted uses in the RT-2 zone, the proposal must proceed by � special use permit. To do so, the planning commission must review any new proposal. Whether or not the record supports the findings necessary for issuing a special use pernut is not before the 10 O 3 - 87(,� court at this time. Therefore, the court will not make any findings or order in that regard. , Further, the Court did not use the city staff's offered interpretation (that the Effendi's project could be viewed as an attached dwelling after the granting of the vari.ances} in arriving at its decision. If anything, tiiat late interpretation simply reinforced the court's opinion the staff was exercising its will and not its judgnent in maldng use and non-use variance decisions in the RT-2 zone in the Ramsey Hill area of St. Paul. A plain reading of all the specific sections, the applicable definitions, and the Iimitations set forth in the non-use variance section found the staff to be incorrect in its appiication of the law. Where the ordinanca is cleaz, applying inferences or omissions is not necessary. STANDING. In the Effendi's Memorandum dated October 16, they raised the issue of whether or not the plaintiff in this case had standing to challenge the variaace and building permit grocesses. An improper interpretation of a city's or@inances hurts everyone. Ramsey Hill Associarion, as a group of residents organized in and around the area affected by the pzoposal, has stauding to seek judicial review of the ordinance at the heart of the case. As articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Hunt v Washinaton State ADDIe advertising Comm'n, an association has standing to bring a claim on behalf of its membPrs when 1) an association wonld oikenuise have standing to sue in their own right; 2) the interests sought to be protected are germane to the association's purpose; and 3) the relief sought seeks a d�ciazation, inj anction, or other prospective re?ief L'�at will inure to the benefit of the association . members actually injured. 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S. Ct. 2434, 2441 (1977). Because Ramsey Hill has met the three abava stated standards, they have standing to bring tlus controversy before the court. REMEDIES. The Effendi's aze definitely impacted by the Court's decision. They had no culpability in the process that got them to this point. They simply sought to develop their properiy and were told they could, if four non-use variances were grantecl. They relied on city officials to provide them with a way through the zoning "maze." At a12 times they were assured that their proposal was a pemutted use in the RT-2 district. However, as the City points its Memorandum, there can be no finding of negligence against the City for its fauity interpretation. Since there is no negligence, there is no basis for an awazd of damages to the Effendi's The parties sought the court's inYerpretation of Yhe ordinance at question. Having found against Yhe city aad the Effendi's, the court grants summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this action. An injunction against further proceedings under the City's inteipretation wilI issue It is also appropriate that any fiuther activity under the building permit issued for work at 449 be.enjoined The City is hereby directed to revoke the building permit issued to the Effendi's for the garage expansion. No damages are awazded. � � .� 2 �' • �l� �� D3 __ � city of saint paul planning commission resolution fi(e number 03-23 date March 14 2003 VVHEREAS, Kha4id EfFendi, File #03-252-326, has applied for a Conditional Use Permif under the provisions of §64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code, for a carriage house dwelling with modificafion of condition for space originally built to house domesfic employees, and with variances in 1) lot coverage by an accessory buiiding, 2) setback from principal structure by accessory struciure, and 3) density (7 rooms allowed, 10 rooms proposed) on property located at 449 Portland Avenue, Parcel Ide�tification Number (PIfV) p legaliy described as COMMON 1NTEREST COMMUNfTY NUMgER 313 CASS GILBERT CONDOMfNIUM, UNIT NO2; and WHEREAS,-the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on Maroh 6, 2003, held a" pubfrc hearing at which al! persans preserrt were given an opportunity to be heasd pursuant to said appiication in accordance with the requirements of §64.300 of the Sainf Paul Legisiative Code; and � WFiEREAS, the Saint Pau( Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its o�ing Committee at the public hearing as substanfially ref(ected in the minutes, made fhe o((owing findings of fact: �• The appiicant, Khalid EfFendi, owns and resides at 449 Portland Avenue. The property is a duplex within a"common i�terest community° number 313 Cass Gilbert Condominium, Unit Number 2. tn the rear of the yard is a two-car garage at the far wes#ern edge of the lot. The applicant proposes to build an additiona! two-car garage wifh a two-levei carriage tiouse above the four stalls. The exterior design is a unified orte, inc(uding new exterior on the existing garage. 2� Variances of §62.106 requested for this as a detached, accessory bui(ding inc(ude: a• §62.106(4) may not occupy more than 35% of the rear yard (proposed footprint of 1, 985 square feet is 51 % of fhe rear yard area of 2,2g6 square feet) b• §s2.106(7) shall be located at least 6 feet from fhe principal structure (proposed sYructure is 2' 6" from the principal stcucture) or shall be considered attached for moved by Rramer seconded by � in favor 13 (1 abstentioa - Lonetti) gainst 1 (Mejia) 03-�7� Zoning File #03-252-326 F'�a��n°o C�IDAllSS10Il ReSpjl2C10II Page 2 of 6 the purposes o� the zoning code. 3 � A varia�ces requested for the density aliowed in an RT-2 Zone under §61. � p9 (e� for this (of size, 7 rooms allowed are atlowed, and 10 are proposed for the entire parcel including {he main house and carriage fiouse dwellings. 4 � Section 60.413(14) permifs carriage house dweltings in the RT-2 zoning district, subject to the followinq conditions: a) The building p/anned for usz as.a carriage house dwelling had space o�iqiRa/!y built fo house domestic employees. This condifion 'rs rtot met. The two-ear garage has been free-standing for many years. However, the design of the carriage house is not dissimi(ar from other carriage houses in tf�e neighborhood, some of which were bui{t for domesfic ematoyees. Requirements for mod;fication of this condition are addressed in �'inaing 6. a) The appJicant shal/ obtain a petition signed by twathirds of the property o� within one hundred (100J f�et of the app/icanfs propeity Iine consenting to the carriage house dwe!lrng. This condition is met. There are 97 eligible parcets. Eleven signafures are required, and 11 were submitted. �• Ti�e applicant shal! not reduce the number of existing off-street parking spaces on the.proper(y and shall a/so provide additional off-street parking as required for the carriage house dwellrng. This condition is met. The proposal adds two off-street parking spaces for a fotal of four. 5 � §60.534(1} requires that before fhe planrting commission may granf approval of a principal use subject to specia! conditions, the comFnission shall find, in accord with §64.300(d), that: aJ The'extent, locafion and intensity of the use ivi0 be irl substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Pfan and any applicable subarea plans which. were approved by the city councrl. This condition is met. The Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive plan sfates that the Cify should "encourage innovative development through regulatory reforrrts,^ irtcluding "amending the zoning code to atlow for more efficienf use of existing iarger single-family owner-occ�pied homes and lofs by afiQwing the estabiishment of accessory residential units or structures.. '• {page '!9). 7he aAP��ant lives in fhe main sYructure of fhe property, and should be able to . � • 03 � Zoning File #03-2�2-326 Planning Commission ResoluYion Page 3 of 6 ProPerly maintain the property. b) The use wil/ provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize tra�c congestion in the public streets. This condition is met. The new and existing garages will have access directiy to fhe a11ey north of the property, If is no{ expec#ed to generate congestion on public streets. c) The use will not be detrimental to the existing chatacter of fhe development in the immediafe neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety, and general welfare. This candition is met. Other buildings fronfing on the alley, besides fhe structure in quesEion, are rear !ot detached garages of simiiar consfruction type and quality. Some of those sfructures are also of comparable size and some were * builf to include carriags house dwellings. � confirms the case ha�t this sth c uee�wge ot alter the essent a character�of the surrounding area. d) The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properly for uses permiffed in fhe district. This condition is met. The area is fu]ly developed and the.new secondary dwelling shouid not impede the norma! and,orderly deve{opment and improvement of the surrounding property. e) The use sha/f, in a!f ofher respects, conform to the app(icabfe regulafions of the district in which it is located. This condition is not met. Requirements for modification of this condition are addressed in Finding 6. Criteria for granfing variances of applicable regulafions of the district in wf�ich it is lacated are addressed in Finding 7. . 6 • §64.300(�(1) ailows for modification of any or ali special conditions after public hearings provided that: a. The strict app/ication of such specia! conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent othenvise fawful use of a piece of p�operty or an existing structure and would result in excepfiona( undue hardship to the owner of such p�oper(y or • . strucfure. 03- �"7� Zonzng Fiie #03-252-326 Planning Commission Reso2ution Page 4 of 6 � c. This condiTion is met. Other parcels in fhe neighborhood contain accessoiy buildings and garages of simi(ar size. The Heritage Preservation Commission afftrmed fhis notion with the approval of the use and design in 2002. Such modifrcations will not �mpair fhe intent and purpose of such specia! conditions. This condifion is met. 7he applicant states when he purchased the property in 1991, there were threa units in tf�e building and that he has since removed one of tne unifs. A third dweiling unit is permi#ed in this zoning disfricf. The project is further constrained by the desire to irtcorporafe ffie existing brick garage into the new building. Proposed use wiU be consistent with the health, morals and genera! welfare of the community. This condition is met. As stated above, the area is fulty devetoped and ffie new secondary dwelling should noY impede the no!mal and orderly davelopment and improvement of the surrounding property. fiurther, tha Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Ptan sfafes that the Ciiy should "encourage innovative development through regulatory reforms;' inctuding "amending tf�e zoning code to alfow for more e�cient use of exisfing Iarger sing(e-family owner-occupied homes and (ots by aliowing the estabiishment of accessory residential units or strucfures..." (page 19). d• Proposed use is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. This condition is met As stated above, other buildings fronting �on the atiey, besides the structure in quesfion, are rear lot detachsd garages of similar construction fype and quality. §64.300(fl(2} alfows the planning commission to grant variances from the regulations of the code in accordar�ce evith §64.203(b), (c} and (d): a) The property in cjuestion cannot be put to a reasona6le use under the sfrict provision_of the code. The intent of fhis condition is met. The house on this property is currently being used as a duplex. The appiicant states when he purchased the property in 9gg1, there were three units in the buitding and that he has since removed one of the urtits. He further sfafes �(�at the existing twacar garage is rtof large enougfi to provide tiie needed parking. Since he needs to constri�cf additiona! garage space, he would like to have a cartiage house type structure that would fit in w€th the historic character of fhe neighborhood. A carriage house is permitted as a � � � 03 - �7� Zoning Fi1e #03-252-326 PIanning Commission Resolution Page 5 of 6 third dweiiing unit in this zoning district subject fo special condifions. However, the lof is not large enough to meet currenf setback standards. The projecf is further constrained by the desire to incorporafs fhe exisfing brick garage into the new buitding. b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. This condifion is met. The size of the (ot and the lacation of the existing garage on the site limit the design opfions for providing additional garage space and are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. c) The va�iances are in keeping with the spirit and infent of the code, and are consistent with the health, safety, comfort; morals and we(fare of the inhabitants of the city. Tfiis condition is met. The proposed variances will allow the applicant to provide additional_o.ff-street parking whicn wil{ ease fhe parking congesYion in the area. � The proposed variances wfll also ailow for fhe property to be simifar to many surrounding properties. d) TAe variances witi not impair an adequate supply of lighf and air to adjacent propetty, nor will it alter the essentia! character of the s�rrounding area or unreasonably diminish established properiy values wifhin the surrounding area. The i�fent of fhis condifion is met. The proposed carriage house will incorporate the existing garage into the new structure. The east side yard setback 11' 8" and the iocatian of the house to the east is set back a similar distance. Some shading will occur in the summer months, late in the evenings, that may impact the pafio of the house to the easf. But such shading wi{{ not unreasonably diminish Qroperty values or alter the essentiai character of the surrounding area. The review and app�oval of the Herifage Preservation Commission in 2002, confirms the case that this structure wiil not alter the essenfia! character of the surrounding area. e) The varrances would not permit any use tirat is not permitted under fhe provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected lartd is located, nor would it aiter or change the zoning district classifrcation of fhe property. • This condition is met. A multi-family dwslfing is a permitted use in this zoning district, as are carriage fiouses subject to special conditions: The proposed variances, ff granted, wouid not change or alter the zoning cfassifcatiort of the v3- �� Zonix�g Fi�e �03-252-326 pianning Commission Resolution Page 6 of 6 properfy_ The requesf is not kased prrmari/y on a desire to increase the ualue or iacome potential af the parcel of (and. This condition is met. The applpcarit states thaf he needs to provide additional ' garage space and that he woutd tike to provide a structure fhat is compatible witfi the house and historic character of the neighborhood. �1�W, THEQFFORE, 8E 17 RESOLVED, by the Sainf Pauf Pfanniag Commission, under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, that the applicafion of Khatid Effendi for a Conditionat Use Permit for a carriage house dwet(ing wi;h modficatien of condition for space originally built to house domestic emptoyees, and with variances in 9)!ot coverage by an accessory building, 2) setback from principaf structure by accessory structure, and 3j density (7 rooms.allowed, 10 rooms proposed) at 449 PorEland Avenue is hereby approved. � C� � D3- 8�6 M4A(UTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE � Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 3:30 p.m. City Counci! Ghambers, 3rd Floor City Hafl and Court House 15 West Kellogg Bou(evard PRESENT: Anfang, Alfon, Field, Kramer, Mejia, and Morton EXCUSED: Faricy and Gordon STAFF: Alien Lovejoy, Carof Ma�tineau, Allan Torstenson and Peter Warner The meeiing was chaired by Commissioner Field. Faezeh 8� Khalid Effendi - 03-252-326 - Conditional Use Permit for a carriage house dwefling with modification of co�dition for space originally built to hause rlomestic empioyees, and with variances in 1) lot coverage by an accessory building, 2) setback from principa! structnre by an accessory structure and, 3) density (7 rooms allowed, 10 rooms proposed). Allen Lovejoy presented the stafE report with a recommendation for approvai. He stated there were seven fetters in support and one in opposition. He also explained that District 8 knew by deferring their review of the project until their March meeting it could be after deliberations of ihe Planning Commission. District 8 did make a recommenclation in support of the original project in June, 2002, and the project is the same as it was then. At the q��estion of Commissioner Alton, Mf. Lovejoy expiained the signaiures of the property wners on the petition and stated the petition has been determined to be sufficient using standard rocedures. AppGcant's Statement: Mr. Khalid EfFendi, the applicant, stated tfiey have been at 449 Portland for 11 years and are doing the best fhey can to restore the house. The have had a lot of support from their neighbors for the work they have done and are proposing to do. He afso explained that a prior carriage house did not exist on the property. He explained that the carriage house woufd create a home for his mother when she arrives from Pakistan. He stated District 8 was in favor of the plans. The Ramsey Hiif Association voted 90 to 3 in favor of the carriage house but the Ramsey Hill Association Board has been against the project. He said that the Ramsey Hill Association Board stated there are more people against this project than in favor, but he doesn't know how they arrived at that conclusion. He expiained that it has been fhe Ramsey Hill Association's stafed intention to be open and listen to feedback. fiowever, when he asked for Ramsey Hi0's policies and procedures, he was told that they had �one. The Ramsey Hill Association Board refused to meet with them prior to the land use meeting. Consequently all that was received from the Ramsey Hi1{ Association was a letter of opposition from the president. In support: Mervin Hugh, 436 Portland Ave., stated in the fast 30 years Ramsey Hill has had 30 years of improvements with the exception of the aileys, which are in worse condition, and a lot of inediocre garage structures have been built. Investments are important. Development of carriage houses aiong the aileys wiil encourage the City and anyone involued to do a betterjob at maintenance, and will heip to just+fy fhe expense of maintaining the cobbiestone alleys. � harlotte Prentice, 436 Holly, stated ait 12 famil+es of their condominium association, which is one use away, are in #avor of the carsiage house. The carriage house wiil make their view more eautifui. Sarah Kenney, 78 Arundel, stated the carriage house wouid be an asset to the neighborhood. Leatte Houghdinnette, 370 Summit, attested to the beauty and fiigh quality work that the D3 - �7� Zoning File # 03-252-326 February 20, 2003 Page 2 of 5 applicants have atready done on their house, and she has confidence they will do tfie same on the carriage house. Brigette 8achmeier, 459 Portfand Ave., stated that the Effendis have done an exceflent job in restoring the property, which had been fhe worst on the block, and that she was in favor of the carriage house. In Opposition: Mr. Tom Darling, 445 5ummit Ave., stated he was opposeci fo fhe project. He stated the City has decided that the carriage house should be buift no matter what. He went on to say the City attempted to force fhe carriage house through by granti�g variartces in 2002, even though many individuals pointed out why it was iilegal. He s!ated t�af tne City has steadfastly denied those statemenis, ignored the iaw, and pusfied fhe variances through. Two houses on one lot is not permissibfe. Neighbors t�fred a lawyer to send a letter to the City exptaining why ffie project was iltegal. The Ramsey Hili Association initiated a tawsuit because fhe City was exercising its wil! and not its judgement. The Ramsey Hiil Association position was susTained by the judge's ruling. He also stated the staff report was wrong in stating that work coe�id continue on this property because Pase 4 of ihe judges order states "no iurther work on the project shall proceed until it is approved..." through the administrative procedures for special condition uses. The present sfructure coutd not meef fhe code requirements for a carriage house. He f�els the Zoning Commiffee is being used as an instrument to violate the iaw un(ess the zoning code is changed. He requested deniai of the application because fhe conditions have been ignored: the two-thirds petition requirement; evidence suggesting {hat the dwelling was never a tripiex; and fhe fact that the Effendis voted twice for their own property on the petition. Even though there are the three property ident�cation numbers associated wifh fhe parcel at 449 portland, the owner should rtot be allowed to stuff the battet box. He stated sufficient parkiRg is lackirtg for the duplex buf it is grandfathered in. With the addition of a large carriage house and fwo stalls there will be an additional parking problem. lie also voiced objecfion to the mailing date because 10 days is rtot enough rtotfication for the district council to have a meeting. Ne stated the carriage house would cause more congestion to the neigh6orhood causirtg detrtment to the neighborhood. The Heritage Preservation Commission only considered the buifding's appearance and stated it was outside of the Heritage Preservation Commission's purview to decide if the carriage hause was good for the neighborhood. He went on to quoYe several statemertts in the staff report relating to the conditions and stated that if the conditions are going to be eliminated then the zoning code shoutd be revised. He noted that the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states the City sfiould encourage innovative development through regulatory reforms including amending the zoning codes to allow for more efficienY use of existing large owner occupied homes and lots. However, instead of changing the zoning code the City is trying to shoehom the carriage house through tfiis process. He stated that the staff report should respond to the size of tof and the location of the existing garage, and fhat the parcel is not unique, as there are several lots in the neighborhood that are similar. After atl, the appficant can 6uild an additional 2-car garage. At the question of Commissioner Anfang, Mr. Lovejoy stated finding F should read "the conversion of an existing garage info a residential unit, making the structure a second principal structure on the platted lot is not permitted use in the RT-2 district and no further work on the project shall proceed until it is approved through adminisfrative procedures laid out in Section 60.431 for Special Condition Uses. At the question of Commissioner Anfang, Mr. Darling stated that "this is art exampie of fhe City wanting this project to happen because of the Mayor's initiative to creafe 5,000 units. And this way is easier than changing fhe zoning laws. The stafF is on tf�e knife's edge of technicality on anything that woutd favor peopie tfiat are opposed to it and very broad on peopie who are for if. u � • 03- 87(. Zoning File # 03-252-326 • February 20, 2003 Page 3 of 5 He also explained that he did not fauft anyone for making the applicafion, or for fhe staff for investigafing it, and didn't mean to suggest that. Commissioner Anfang stated that the appiicanYs are doing exactfy what Judge Bastian ordered. They need to go through the administrative procedure for special condition uses. Mr. DaHing counfered that fhe statement in the judge's ruiing cannot be read in isofation because the court also said the present accessory structure could not meef the code r�equirements for a. carriage house. It never housed domestic servants — an essentiaf precondition. However, the stafiF and the City are saying to ignore fhat fact. Commissioner Kramer expiained that the language relating to Speciaf Gondition Use Permits allows the Planning Commission to make modifications. Mr. Darling explained that the word modification cannot fairly be read to say "elimination". The Effendis do not have two-thirds for the petition because they need more than 11 signatures and they only have 11 signatures. A modification would be that the signatures could be rounded down. ft is perverse to say that it +s a modification to eliminate the essence of the special use and the code says " it has to have been a space for domestic servants originaily" ar.d that is why there is an exemption. To take that out is to say that two dwelfings on one lot is permitted. At the question of Commissioner Fie1d, Mr. Dar!ing stated "the City owes sn obliga±ion to its � citizens to abide by its own rules". The neighborhood needs fo rely on the rules and the City hooses to ignore those rules. It is not a good idea to have two structures on one lot. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Darling stated if the garage had been built in 1900, and if two years later there had been domestic help tiving there, it woufd be reasonable to say it is a modificafion not to hotd it strictly to the day it was buift. However, the word modify cannot legaily inciude eliminate, tie betieves that some conditions may not be modified. [NOTE: During Mr. Darling's testimony, Assistant City Attomey Peter Warner asked to be excused for a family emergency.} Bill Sell, 452 Holly Ave., had questions concerning the petition in regards to the facf that the first two signafures are by the owners of the property, which gives the app(icant two votes to approve the project. This is counter to the one vote per property ID. There are only two property ID's associated with 449 Portland Ave. One is for Unit 2(the Effendis}, and the other is for Unit 1 (Scott and Melissa Duce). The address of 457 Portland is on the petition twice and has one property ID. He also questioned as to whether 462 Ho11y is within 10�' of 449 Portland. At the question of CommissionerAlton, Mr. Seli stated the applicants signature shouid not be counted, and if it does count it should only be counfed as one. Donovan McCain, 453 Portland Ave., stated he was opposed to the project based on the proximatefy to the westem iot line and the size and scale of the project. He submitted handouts depicting the layout of the surrounding land and how the carriage house would affect the neighborhood. He also stated a four car garage could be built and would not affect the view from his property. At the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. McCain sfated fhe height of the carriage house is his � ain objection. y Samuels, 39 Arundei St., stated he opposes the carriage house because it would block the sunlight to his patio and yard, the wali of the carriage house would loom over his property, and his property value would go down. He afso explained the congestion of cars woutd be a probiem. Mark Voerding, 113 Farcington St., stated the Ramsey Hill Association opposes the project . 03 - �710 Zoning File # 03-252-326 February 20, 2003 Page4of5 because of the process used, and the staff's interpretation regarding two principa! buildings on a single lot. He also stated the Ramsey Nili Association did not receive notice of this hearing, and that the Association has not taken a position relafive fo the Special Condition Use Permit. Tfierefore, he was making his own personal comments -- aside from his relationship to the Ramsey Hiil Association. When the City adopfed the carriage house ordinance it was clear fhaf the intent was to protect existing structures, but not to aliow new ones. The Carriage House ordinance is very specific and had a specific purpose. If the Zoning Code is amended to permit carriage houses, then there is a process to do thaY which involves public input and a final legislative action by the City Council. By State Statute and Charter fhe P(anning Commission does not have the authority to modify a use provisio� of the Zoning Code, Creating a housing unit where one did not exist previously is a use mod�cation and that can only be changed by the legislative body. He reiteraYed Judge Sastian's statement #hat "the City is bound by the promises it makes in the ordinances it passes". At the question of Commissioner Aiton, Mr. Voerding stated under Section 64.300(fl(1) the condition cannot be mod�ed 6ecause it is a use modification permitting a residential unit where one wou(d not normally be permitted and one did not previously exist. At the question Commissioner Fietd, Ms. Martineau s�ated she had foliowed the regular notification procedure, and the Ramsey Hili Association was on Yhe eariy notification list to which she maiied notices. � Applicants rebuttal: . Faezeh Effendi, the applicant, reiterated that the Ramsey Hill Association Board did not inform its membership of the law suit u�ti! after it was done. The Board has been censured for fhat action in a meeting where the membership passed a mofion ff�at tfiis organization shall not in the future participate in a law suit without informing its membership. They have no rules in that regard. He also exptained that the property at 449 Portland does have three property codes, otherwise it would not be feasible to buitd the structure on his own because fhe other property owner in Unit 1 would be a partner in the project, which they are not. This is a condominium and was put together as a landlair unit. It has been accepted as such by the County and +t does have a separate PiN. The code states two-thirds of the property owners; it does not say one vote per househoid. Mr. Effendi stated the property, if built on, had to be assigned a value for bonding purposes. The Nistoric Preservation Commission does fook at height and massing. The Ramsey Hill Association passed up ffieir cfiance to talk to the Heritage Preservation Commission about design. The carriage house to the west has the same foundation size and same massing as that proposed for this carriage house. According to Mr. Dariing's statements the City has no right to grant variances, the zoning Iaw should stand as it was written and ail zoning discretion shouid be abolished; and there should be no variances, or modifications. Mr. Effendi also went on to say large structures exist on sither side of his property and there has been no inconvenience and the sun(ight is not obstructed. The carriage house to the west will be in line within a foot of the proposed carriage house so no Iight will be lost. To the east, if a garage were builY, a 95 foot tail structure would be allowed three feet from the property line. This theoretical garage would have fhe same shadowing atfect as the proposed carriage house. � 03-�� • Zoning File ri 03-252-326 February 20, 2Q03 Page 5 of 5 The pubiic hearing remained open fior Mr. WarnePs retum. Commissioner 4Gramer moved to lay the case over untii March 6, 2003. CommissionerAlton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote 6-0. Adopted Drafted by: Yeas - 7 Nays - 0 Submitted by: Approved by: Carof Martineau Recording Secretary � Allen lovejoy Zoning Section Litton Field Chair � 03 -� MINU7ES OF THE ZONiNG COMMITTEE Thursday, March 6, 2003 - 3:30 p.m. City Counci! Chambers, 3rd Fioor City Hati and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: STAFF: Alton, Kramer, Mejia, and Morton Anfang, Gordon, Faricy, and Field Allen Lovejoy, Carol Martineau, ANan Torstenson, Pefer Wamer The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Kramer. Fa�zeh & Khal�d Ei fendi - 03-252-326 - Conditional Use Permit for a carriage house dwefting wifh modification of condition for space originafly builY to house tlomestic empioyees, and with variances �n 1) Iot coverage by an accessory building, 2) setback from principal stru�fure by accessory sfructure and, 3) density (7 rooms allowed, 10 rooms proposed.} 449 Portland Ave., between Arundel & Mackubin. A((an Torstenson responded to the questions raised at the February 20, 2003, Zoning Committee meeting by explaining the procedure for tfie determination of su�ciency of consent petitions, and tne text amendmenf in 1982 that gives the Planning Commission the authority to modify "any or all speciai conditions." He also pointed out two correcfions in the staff report: 1. Page two of the sta�f report finding 4a shoutd read, "The buiiding planed for use as a carriage house dwefiing � �ii�i�g had s4ace originally built to house domestic emptoyees". 2. Page four, finding 6-a should read, "The strict apptication of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property or an existina structure and would rec��t in exce�fional undo hardship to the owner of such pro�ertv or struct�,rP. Mr. Torstenson said that the Planning Commisson has the authority fo modify any or ali speciai conditions if the modifica6on meets the requirements in section 64.300(fl(9) inGuding "exceptionat undue hardship" and not impairing the intent and purpose ot the special condi6on. The key issue for the Planning Commission to consider is whether the requiremenfs for modification are met in this case, Allen Lovejoy stated the Ianguage on page three, paragraph 5-c was changed to read "Some of those structures are also of comparable size and some i�elt�de were builf to house carriage house dwellings" In support: Linda Salway, 467 Portland Ave., stated that the carriage house would be wefl built and fit in with the aesthetics of the neighborhood, thereby enhancing the neighborhood. Caroi Sfoddart, 505 Hoily Ave., stated the carriage house would not be detrimental to the neighborhood's density. Paf Gavan-Gordon, 492 Holly Ave., stated the carriage house wou(d be a lovely structure and would conYribute to the neighborhood. In opposition: Jim Moar, 495 Summit Ave., voiced objections to the determinafion of sufficiency of the consent pefition, � � � 03- k`7� Zoning file # 03-252-326 March 6, 2003, Zoning Committee Minutes Page 2 Peter Cartson, 482 Dayton Ave., explained why the variances would not work to affow a carriage house to be built, and that extending the 2 foot sideyard setback vertically for fwo-stories would make the exist+ng nonconformify worse. The properly already can be put to a reasonable use under the code. He said the applicant "wa�ts" to buiid the carriage house, but doesn't "need" to build it, and the lot is simply not large enough for the proposed carriage house. He a(so exptained that sefback and lot coverage regu{ations are in p{ace for health, safety, and general welfare reasons. He is particuiarly concemed about issues related to fire suppression. The carriage house would affect the character and aesthetics of the alley. Mosf garages are 1'/z stories, but this proposal is 2 '/2 stories. He is afso concemed that graniing the variances would set a dangerous precedent, and referred to the judge's cautionary notes about circumventing the intent of the Zoning Code. Jim Keane, 496 Portland Ave., stated there is concern regarding the carriage house approvai, the precedent it would set for approving more carriage houses, and the damage that would do to the neighborhood. He presented pictures depicting tfie afiey if a number of carriage houses were buiit. He said the fire marshal is concemed about the lack of accessibility for fire fighting if a number of carriage houses were built. He also stated the intent of the ordinance is to protect historic structures and no where does it mention new structures. Finaliy, he is concemed that the appiicant is allowed to sign the petition for an unbuilt carriage house. Jim tiirsch, 403 Portiand Av2., stated the alieys where carriage houses would be �ocated would not sustain a lot of automobile traffic that the carriage houses would generate. He stated that some of the carriage houses in the neighborhood get access from the front of the fot. He afso stated that the aileys are in deplorable condition. Applicarrt Rebuttal: Khalid EfFendi, the app4icant, stated the height of the carriage house was never an issue in zoning. The Heritage Preservation Commission looked at the total picture of how the carriage house wouid fit in the neighborhood. The historicai nature of the neighborhood is that buildings are in ciose proximify; neighbors houses are 8 feet apart. The structure is going to be set back 5 feet from the alley, and the ailey is 20 feet wide making it a 30 foot wide ailey, wide enough for fire trucks to get through. In fact, targe trucks such as garbage trucks already use the al4ey. With both an af4ey and the street there are two service roads from which to fight a fire; other neighborhoods don't have even have alleys. The court ruling was limifed to consideration of two primary structures on a single RT-2 {ot, whereas this proposal is for consideration of a carriage house as an accessory building. He said that carriage house belong on Ramsey Hill and this is being built to house an elderly parent. At the question of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Effendi stated he converted the principal structure from a 3-unit house to a 2-unit condominium. The public hearing was closed. At the question of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Wamer explained that the commissioners have the . authoriiy to modify special conditions, but have to Iook at the specific appiication and appiy the clear language providing for such modifications set out in Chapter 64 of the Zoning Code. The information in the staff repoR (findings) has to be considered and then the Planning Commission should appiy the Ianguage from Chapter 64 that expiains how you can modify special conditions. The code is ciear that a carriage house is permitted in the RT-2 District subject to special conditions 0 3 �'l� Zoning file # 03-252-326 March 6, 2003, Zoning Committee Minutes Page 3 as set out in the R-1 fhrougf� R-4 districts. Chapter 60.413(14) sets out three special conditions for a carriage house dwe!ling in an accessory building. The language irt 64.300(fl(9), which atlows modification of condifions, is c�ear on the analyses to be used in order to modify the special conditions set out in 60.4'13{14). Condition "a" states,'The bu+lding planned for use as a carriage house dwelling had space originally built to house domestic empioyees." The intent of fhe language is that if you want to put a carriage house into a RT-2 zoning district, it has to be in a building that exists and was designed to hoid domestic employees. Chapter 64.300(�(1 } sets out the anaiyses to be used to modify the conditions. It states, "The Pianning Commission, after public hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonab(y limit or prevent ofherwise [awful use of a piece of property or an existing structure and would result in exceptionai undue hardship to the owner of such property or structure..." in order to modify a special condifion there has to be not just undue hardship, b�t "excepfional" undue hardship. ' Af the question of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Torstenson explained that the parcel identification number (PIN) is used for signatures, not the address of a property, because there can be more fhar, one parcef and difFerent owners af a single address.. Commissioner Mejia moved denial of the Conditional Use Permit. Tfie motion died for a lack of second. Commissioner Morton moved approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Alton seconded the motion. Commissioner Aiton said this is a difficult case, but he thinks the proposed carriage house is consisfenf wifh the intenf of the code. Commissioner Mejia said he understands why fhe appiicanfs would want to buifd fhe carriage house, but he thinks there is reasonable use of the property withouY the carriage house. The motion passed by a vote of 3-1. Adopted Drafted by: Carol Martineau Recording Secretary Yeas - 3 Nays -1 (Mejia) Submitted by; Ailen Lovejoy Zoning Section Approved by: Richard Kramer Chair • � � u 03 - B�CP � From: "McNellis, Susan" <smcnellis@co.scott.mn.us> To: "'Allen Lovejoy"' <allen.iovejoy@ci.stpaul.mn.us> D ate: 3124/03 I :16Pivt Subject: FW: 449 Portland Good aftemoon. I reside in the Cathedral Hill azea of St. Paul and am a member of the Ramsey Hill Association. I defuutely support construction of a cartiage house at 449 Portland Avenue and am g,reatly angered that the RHA continues to oppose this conshuction. It appeazed to me, from the last meeting that I attended, that the majoriry of the membership is not in favor of continuing to oppose the project, both for monetary and esthetic reasons. The Effendi's have always done beautiful reconstruction �+ork and the cazziage house will blend in with all of the houses and carriage houses. I am an assistant county attorney that advises the county's planning � commission and board of commissioners and I do not see that the Effendi's project would violate city ordinances. Thank you. Susan K. McNellis 141 Arundel St St. Paul, MN 55102 � a� �� From: "Holman, Marna" <MHolman@CBBLJRNET.COM> To: <a1len.lovejoy@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 3/24/03 4:28PM Subject: 449 Portland Avenne I have lived, worked, and have owned a home ia the Rauisey Hill area of St. Paul for 18 yeats; I wish to register as a strong supporter for the building of the proposed carriage house at 449 Portland Avenue. Mama Holman � � � 03-�� • From: To: Date: Subject: Sarah Stonich <sarah@e-zone.com> <allen.lovej oy@ci. stp aul.mn.us> 3/24/03 6:09PM Kal Effendi 4-- Portland file � 03-267-811 Allen L,ovejoy, As one of the neighbors most si�ifigantly affected by the carriage house at 449 Portland, please submit this letter SUPPORTII�G Ka1 Effendi to acquire any variances he needs to build Uis lovely structure. Thank you, Sarah Stonich • u From: "Sharon Lund" <s.lund@fallsagency.com> To: <a1len.lovejoy@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 3I25/03 8:47AM Subject: 449 Portland Ave Carriage House/File 03-267$11 I wish to let you imow that I am in support of the proposed Carriage House Project at 449 Porfland Ave. Sincerely, Sharon Luad 3 21 Trvine Ave St Paul Ivl� 55102 651-290-7290 D 3 -�7� � � � U3 -S�L ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT � FILE # 03-252-326 1. APPLICANT: Khalid Effendi HEARING DATE: 2/20l03 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Gondifional Use Permit fos a carriage house and Modification of Condi#ion and Variances 3, LOCATION: 449 Portland Avenue (north side, wesf of Arundel) 4. PIN 8� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 01-28-23-24-0255, GOMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY NUMBER 313 CASS GILBERT CONDOMINIUM, UN{T NO. 2 5. P'u4NNiNG DiSiRiC7: 8 P4ESENT ZONING: RT-2 6. ZONWG CODE REFERENCE: §60.413(14); §64.300(d); §64.300(fl(1); §64.300(fl(2) 7. STAFF REPORT DATE: 2/12/03 (Amended 2/26J03) (Amended 3/6103) BY: Aflen Lovejoy 8. DATE RECEIVED: 1/21/03 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 3/21/03 A. PURPOSE: Condi;;onal Use Permit far a carriage house dweiling with modification of � condition for space originally buiit to house domestic emptoyees, and with variances in 1) lot coverage by an accessory buiiding, 2) setback from principal structure by accessory structure, and 3) density (7 rooms allowed, 10 rooms proposed). B. PARCEL SIZE: 8,586 square feet C. EXISTING LAND USE: Existing 2-unit home and a detached two-car garage D. SURROUNDING LAND USE: Predominantly singie family and dupiex in larger homes. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: §60.413(14) permits carriage house dwefiings in resideritiai districts sub}ect to conditions detailed in Finding 4 of this report. §64.300(d) provides generai standards for a conditional use permit. §84.300(fl(1) allows for modification of any . or afl special conditions after public hearings. §64.300(fl(2) provides for variances from regulations of the code in accordance with §64203(bj, (c) and (d). F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: On .lune 7, 2002, the appVicant filed an application with LiEP for variances in order.to construct a carriage house addition as a second primary structure within a RT-2 Zone. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted the variances on June 24, 2002 (resolution attached), which was subsequently appealed by the Ramsey Hill Association to the City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on July 24, 2Q02 and denied the appeat on September 25, 2002. Meanwhile, the applicant also sought review from the Heritage Preservation Commission on • the buiiding permit. The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the application on August 22, 2002, with a condition related to a specific design detail. (This approval is valid for one year.) 03 �� Zoning File �03-252-326 Febraazy 12, 2003 Page 2 of 6 Subsequent to the City Council's deniaf of the appeaf, the Ramsey Hill Association appealed to disfrict court. On October 1, 2002, a temporary restraining order was granted in favor of Ramsey Hill Association. On November 9, 2002, Judge Gary W. Bastian of District Court - 2" DistricY, issued an Order finding that the City erred in granting fhe variance fo construct a carriage house at 449 Portland. Specificatly, Judge Bastian ruled that: 1) conversion of an existing garage into a second principal structure is not permitted in the RT-2 district but that no further work on the project shall proceed unti! it is approved through the administrafive procedures laid out in §60.439 for special condition uses; and 2) the permit issued by the Cify is invalid, Subsequently, tne appiicant has submitted an app!ication for a Conditional Us� Dermit as described ;7 Part A above. G. DiSTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION; None received at the time of this writing. H. FINDINGS: • The applicant, Khalid Effendi, owns and resides at 449 Portland Avenue. The property is a duplex within a°common interest community" number 313 Cass Gitbert Condominium, lJnit Number 2. Irt the rear of the yard is a fwacar garage at t!�e far westem edge of tfie lof. Tfie app(icani proposes to build an additional two-car garage � witfi a two-levei carriage house above the four statis. The e�cterior design is a unified one, including new exterior on Yhe existing garage. The carriage house is being treated as an "accessory bu+ldirtg' rafher than a"principle structure° as a result of Judge 8astian's ruting. 2. Variances of §62.106 requested for this as a detached, accessory buitding include: a. §62.106(4) may nof occupy more than 35% of the rear yard (proposed footprint of 1,165 square feet is 51% of the rear yard area of 2,296 square feet) b. §62.106(7) shall be located at least 6 feet from fhe principa( structure (proposed structure is 2' 6" from the principaf structure) or shall be considered aYtached for the purposes of the zoning code. The applicant might have asked to have his proposat for the dwelling unit to be reviewed as part of the principal structure under this provision, and fhus have avoided fhe need for a conditional use permit, but Judge 8astian's ruiing seems to discourage fhis. 3. A variances requested tor the density allowed in an RT-2 Zone under §61.101(e) for this lot size, 7 rooms allowed are allowed, and 10 are proposed for the entire parcel inciuding the main house and carriage house dweifings. 4. Section 60.413(14) permits carriage ho�se dwelfings in the RT-2 zoning district, subject to the following conditions: a) The building pfanned for use as a carriage house dwe/ling had space originally built � to house domestic employees. l�3- �� Zoning File #03-2>2-326 � Febrnary 12, 2003 Paje 3 of 6 This condition is not met. The two-car garage has been free-standing for many yeass. However, the design of the carriage house is not dissimilar from other carriage houses in the neighborhood, some of which were built for domesfic employees. Requirements for modificafion of this condition are addressed in Finding 6. B) The applicant sha!l obta�n a petition signsd by fwo-fhirds of the property owners within one hundred (100) feef of the applicants propeity line consenting to the carriage house dwelling. This condition is met. There are 17 eligible parcels. Eleven signatures are required, and 11 were submitted. c) The applicant shaf/ not reduce the number of exisfing off-street parking spaces on Phe property and sha// a/so provide additiona! off-street parking as required for the camiage house dwef�ing. This condition is met. The proposal adds two off-street parking spaces for a total of four. u 5. §60.534(1) requires that before the planning commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find, in accord with §64.300(d), that: a) The extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantia! compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans which were approved 6y the city counci/. This condition is met. The Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City should "encourage innovative development through regulatory reforsns," including "amending the zoning code to allow for more efficient use of exisfing farger single-family owner-occupied homes and {ots by alfowing the establishment of accessory residential units or structures..." (page 19). The applicant lives in the main structure of the property, and should be able to properly maintain the property. b) The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize fra�c congesfion in the public streets. This condition is met. The new and exisfing garages will have access directiy to the ailey north of the property. It is not expected to generate congestion on pubtic streeYs. • c) The use wil! nof be detrimenfal fo the existing character of the deve%pment in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety, and general welfare. This condition is met. Other buildings fronting on the ailey, besides the structure in question, are rear lot detached garages of simi{ar construction type and qualiiy. Some of those structures are also of comparabie size and some were built to include o� �� Zoning File #03-252-326 Pebi�uary 12, 2003 Page 4 0£6 carriage house dwellings. The review and approval of the Heritage Preservation Commission in 2002, confirms the case that this structure will not atter the essenfiia( character of the surrounding area. d) The use will not impede the normal and orderly devefopment and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permifted in the district. Tfiis condition is met. The area is fuily developed and fhe neK� secondary d�veiling shouid not impede the norma! and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. e) The use shall, in alf other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. This condition is not met. Requirements for modifica&on of this condifion are addressed in Finding 6. Criteria for granting variances of applicable regulations of the district in which it is located are addressed in Finding 7. 6. §64.300(fl(1) allows for modifica6on of any or ai! speciat eonditions after pub(fc hearings provided fhat: a) Tf�e strict application of such special conditions �vould unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property or an existing structure and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner of such property or sfructure. This condition is met. Other parcels in the neighborhood contain accessory 6uildings and garages of similar size. The Herifage Preservation Commission aifirmed this notion with the approva( of the use and design in 2002. b) Such mod�cations will not impair the rntent arrd purpose of sucf� specia! conditions. This condition is met. The applicant states when he purchased the property in 4999, there were three units in the building and that he has sirtce removed one of the units. A third dwelling unit is permitted in this zoning disfricf. The project is further constrained by the desire to incorporate the existing brick garage into the new buiiding. c) Proposed use wil! be consistent w'rfh the health, morals and general welfare of the communify. This condi6on is met. As stated above, the area is fui(y developed and the new seco�daty dwelling should nof impede tf�e normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Further, the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states that fhe Cify shoutd "encourage innovative development through regulatory reforms," including "amending fhe zoning code to allow for more � � i n3- �� Zo nina Fiie �03-252-326 � Fehruary 12, 2003 Page 5 of 6 efficient use of exisfing larger single-family owner-occupied homes and iots by allowing the establishment of accessory residential uniis or structures..:' (page 19). d) Proposed use is co�sistenf with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. This condifion is met. As stated above, other buildings fronting on the alley, besides the structure in question, are rear lot detached garages of similar construction type and quality. 7. §64.300{�(2) aAows the planning commission to g� an. variances from tha regulations o� the code in accordance with §64.203(b}, (c} and (d): a) The property in guestion cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provision of the code. The intent of this condition is met. The house on this properfy is currently being used as a duplex. The applicant states when he purchased the property in 1991, there were three units in the building and that he has since removed one of the units. He further states that the existing two-car oarage is not laroe enough to provide the • needed parking. Since he needs to consiruct additio�al garage space, he wouid like to have a carriage house type structure that would fit in with the historic character of the neighborhood. A carriage house is perm+tted as a third dwe4ling unit in this zoning district subject to speciai conditions. However, the lot is not large enough to meet current setback standards. The project is further constrained by the desire to incorporate the existing brick garage into the new buiiding. b) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were nof created by the landowne� This condition is met. The size of the lot and the location of the existing garage on the site limit the design options for providing additional garage space attd are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. c) The variances are in keeping with the spirif and infent of fhe code, and are consistenf with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the city. This condition is met. The proposed variances will allow the applicant to provide additional off-street parking which will ease the parking congestion in the area. The proposed variances will also allow for the property to be similar to many surrounding properties. • d) The variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alfer the essential characfer of fhe surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within fhe surrounding area. The intent of this condition is met. The proposed carriage house wiil incorporate the � 3-�`7� Zoning File #03-252-326 February 12, 2003 Page 6 of 6 existing garage into the new structure. The east side yard setback 11' 8" and the location of the house to the east is set back a similar distance. Some shading will occur in the summer months, late in the evenings, that may impacY the patio of the house to the east. 8ut such shading will not unreasonably dimirtish property vaiues or alfer the essenfia( character of the surrounding area. The review and approval of the Heritage Areservation Commission in 2002, confirms the case that this structure will not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. e) The variances would not permit any use fhaf is nof permiffed under the provisions of the code for the property in fhe disfrict where the affecfed (and is locafed, nor would it alter or change the zoning disfrict class�cafion of fhe properfy. This condition is met. A multi-family dwelling is a permiYted use in This zoning district, as are carriage houses subject to special conditions. The proc>osed variances, if granted, woutd not change or a{ter the zoning classifrcation of the propefij. • fl The request is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income • potential of the parcel of land. This condi5on is met. The appiicant states that he needs to provide additional garage space and that he wou[d (ike to provide a shucture fhaf is compatible with the house and historic character of the neighborhood. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATlON: Based on the findings above, staff recommends approvai of the Conditional llse Permd for a carriage house with mod�cation of the condition that the building was originally built to house domestic empioyees, and with variances to ailow 51 °/a rear yard coverage by an accessory buitding, a 2.5 foot setback from the principal structure, and 10 zoning rooms. � 03 -��b SPECiAt CONDITION USE PERMIT APpL�CATION Dep¢rhnent of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Sectinn Z400 Ciry HaIZAnnex 23 West Fourth Streel Saint Pau� MN 55102-I634 (657)266-6589 APPLiCANT PROPERTY LOCATION Contact Person (if difierent) Phone Address / �ocation Legai Description , � (attach additional sheet if necessary) Current �oning R�- � L '.'YPE OF PERfN.IT: Appiication �s � e� y made under provisiuns of Chapter Q� . Paragraph� of the Zoning Cqde for a; Section �Speciai Condition Use Permit ❑ Modification of River Corridor Standards � River Corridor Conditional Use Permit SUPPORTING lNFORMATiON; Suppiy the iRformation that is applicabie to you� type of permit, . SPECIAL CONDITfON SE hExpiain how the u e w II meet each of the special cooditions. . RIVER CORRIDOR CONDITIONAL USE: Described how the use will meet the applicable conditions. . MODIF{CATION OF RIVER CORRIpOR STANDARDS: Exp�ain why mod'rfications are needed. � 'R- �u�_""�",� c� •� Required site plan is attached P�ppficant's Date�� p G��, jl�S 7 �y� "� 1=�-63 � -ai-c� -°_ —• .. �•.�•�- az. Mn ZiP $ r/o � Da ytime Phone(GS/ y .�_ a$•4�n� Name of Owner (if different) _ 03 - �7� Pro osal to build a Carria e House at 449 Portland Ave St Pant MN. � Cuaently at this properiy we have a twacaz gazage offthe atley. We are proposing to build additional two garages aud buiId an aparhnent above them. We fiaue been committed to building garages for some time but wattt to buiid a shvcture that would be complementary to the �isting house and neighborhood. Af{er some consideration we feel tlzat a stxucture that is similaz to a carriage house would meet this objective. This is the third and finai phase of the project that we started in 1991. In ] 991 when we purchased this property it had three sepazate living units in it, one uuit per floor. Tlus building had three units in it for appmximately b0 years prior to our purcfiase. LVe have reduced the number of units to two ia the main house. The physical characteristic of the properEy at tfiis time has a two-caz garage, which restricts design options for a carriage house, and these conditions were not a resalt of our aat�ons. VJe are lacated with in a historic disfrict where carriage houses are common place and this design while not meeting normal zoning requirements, is in keeping with the iurn of the century design concepts and practices, TFris cazritage house provides iwo more off street parking spaces in a neighborhood where the streets are already congested �vith parked cars due to a lack of off sh�eet parking, This proposal has been reviewed by Heritage Preservation Commission, District 8 Planning Council, and xt the Ramsey Hill Land use communitp ltearing (The ItHA Bc»ard overfumed the approval of t'nis p?an against the wishes ef the pazticipauts of the land use � hearing). .At all of these hearings Yhe plan was approved. This plan has been sfiazed with the residence of Ranvsey I�"ill an@ has garnered over fiRy signatures of residents approving this p1an; there were oniy nineteen signatures on an opposing petitioa Further tlus plan has been approved by iwo thirds of property owners within � ppi{ of the proposed location of this planned structure. In the last 40 years the alleys of Ramsey Hill have lost many carriage houses due to decay aud demofition. These structures haue contnbuted to much of the chazm o£the alleys and aze an important part of the historic visnat fabric of the neighborhood. In the past 30 yeazs the Ramsey Hill area has gone through a remarkable process of renovation, at the same time the alleys have continued to decay. With few �ceptions the alleys have not been a part of this renaissauce. We believe tflis carria,ge house Iike structure yvill make a positive eontribufion to restoring the vitaliTy aud visuat integrity of our alleys. Thaak-you for your considera�on. Faezeh and K�lid Effendi. • b3-�� r , �J CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZO�NG FTLE l�TU'VIBER: OZ-130178 DATE: June 24, 2002 WI�REAS, Khalid Effendi has agplied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61.101 of the Saint Paul Leo slative Code pertaining to 1.) Minimus lat size; 2.) The east side yard setback; 3.) The reaz yard setback; 4.) I,ot coverage; of a new carriage house addition to an existing gazage in ttie RT-2 zoning district at 449 Portland Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on 7une 24, 2002 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the Legislative Code; and W�iEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as subsia�t;ally reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in auestion cannot be put to a re¢sonable use un.der the strictprovisions o�'the code. The house on this properiy is currently being used as a duplex. The applicant states that when he purchased the property in 1991, there were three units in the building and that he has since removed one of the units. He further states that the existing two-cyr garage is not lazge enough to provide the needed parking. Since he needs to consisuct additional garage space, he would like to have a caniage house.type shuciure that would fit in wit.h the historic chazacter of the neighborhood. A third dwelling unit is permitted in tt�is zoning district, however, the lot is not large enough to meet the current standazds. The proj ect is fuather constrained by the desire to incoiporate the existing brick garage into the new buiiding. �. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstcznces unique to this properiy, ¢nd these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The size of the lat and the location of the existing garage on the site limit the design options for providing additional garage space and aze circumstances that were not created by tha applicant. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of'the code, and is consistent with the heaZth, safeiy, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The proposed varian,ces wi11 allow the agplicant ta provide additionai off street parking � wl�ich will ease the pazking congestion in the area. The proposed one-bedroom carriage house will aiso provide an additional, modest priced dwelling unit in the area. This progerty Page 1 of 3 �3 03 - File #02-130178 Resolution is Iocated in the Historic Fii11 Heritage Preservation District. Provided that the applicant obtains design approval from the Heritage preservation Cominission (F�C), the proposed project will be in keeging with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of Iight ancZ air to adjacent proper-ry, nor wi11 it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding ¢rea. The proposed carriage house will incorporate the exzsting gazage into the new structure and will maintaui the sazne side yard setback on fhe west side and the north side. The buii@ing will be set back about 8 feet from fhe east property 1ine, The increase in height and the slightly reduced setbacic or, the east side wi11 not signi$candy affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. There aze several other cairiage house type structures and la;ge garages in the unmediate area on similaz sized lots. Tbe F3PC review wilt ensure thaf the proposed building is compatible with the character of the house a.*td ;he neigfiborhood. There will be adequate off-street pariang for the new dwelling unit as well as the e�sTing dwelling units. The requested variances should not have a negative impaet on surrounding properties. � .i. The variance, ifgranted, wouid not permit any use rhat is not permitted under the provisions � of the code for the property in the district ivhere the affected Zand is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district class�cation of the property. A catriage house and a multi-family dwelling aze permitted uses in this zoning distzict. The proposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the ProPerty. . 6. The request for variance is not bared primarily on ¢ desire zo increase the vaZue or income poteniiad of rhe parcel of land. The applicant states that he needs to provide additiona2 garage space and that he would like to provide a structure that is compatible with the house and the historic character of the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals t��at the provisions of Section 61.101 are hereby waived to atlow: 1.) A minimum lot si.ze of 8,SSb square feet for a variance of 1,414 sq. ft; 2.) An east side yard setback of 8.8 feef for a variance of 6.2 feet; 3.) A reaz yazd setback of 5.9 feet for a variance of i9. i feef; 4.} Lot coverage of 34% for a variance of 4%; subject to the condition that the appiicant obtains design approval from tha Heritage Presezvation Commission. .In order to consiruct a carriage house addition to the existing gatage on properiy located at 449 Portland Avenue; and iegally described as GOMMON INTERES�' COMMUNITy NUMgER 313 CASS GILBERT CONDOMIl�'NM UNTT I+F0.2; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on fi2e with the Zoning Administrator. Page 2 of 3 � "("i v 3 - ��6 Fi1e #.02-130178 Resolution � MOVED BY: Morton SECONDED BY : Duckstad IN FAVOR: AGA.INST: z MAILED: June 25, 2002 'PIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning AppeaIs 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 obfained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuantto the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the GYty Council may grant an eatension not to ezceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearina. • APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeais are final subjecf to appeal tc the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permifs shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If permifs 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 determinarion of the appeal. CER'TTFICATIO�: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Paui, Nlinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and carrect copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved' minutes of the Saiat Paut Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on June 24, 2002 and on record in the OFfice of License Inspection and Environmental Protecfion, 350 St. Peter Street, Sainf Paul, itinnesofa. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS a �� Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board \ J Page 3 of 3 � � � � ✓ .(�O'1o'!9 `(V /sra.93 0 - �i � 2 � d ? � � � � . � � o � �� a : � 1 + P e � ' ;;':s" ^ ry =g:�= _—� e�gg �T � �� Ro � �� , ':o� : - v w � �� °K� �� _ r �,�, _ . ``-- _ �;�_ .� ��_� �� 3 c 3 � � -.m i i �G r .., - � s �� =0m �,�a� P a$o€a� O Zi .� F�:��i £� •�n. ��o�� ' §°�€�� v�£_'s�m � Ex,sn.t& s sr.�r sn.�� Net/SE /43.79 uo'� �s t o Q j u � � A`=^� � S��Ba m.�$og��' �F��a 6T o�Rn� fo£sm v��: �3�o�aSm ��q: $�8g��g �P�e� ��oa�so g �" = s' ' ;��; �e"=� do `�°'��` rfi�� g . 8�: . �� F# 9 03- �'7�, "��e � ,. a ;� � �a� > �` � `<� « �'�.� ':"r !4 x � ° v � , � ^ c na '� . p �� j rA m 0 p ♦ m [F � T \ � E i " : u r b i� o �� a �� x iL C a a o� e C � �?z�° � ��2 � g�' ` �"_.'€.�'. a?�& 9�90`2 �� 3 ^e`F.� y�S$� �:�g� ¢��R �£i y� ; "',°sa g€.. S i:� =�5$ �L PS°a 'Q�� ia' ��oit ��£ �iaa � m �� ",�"��4 � pe�$¢�� e = ' 4 g8"sa �8 a £� a: ig �� u a F � � • � D3—k"1� � GAR4fE L£1�EL FLOOR PL.6N ec.ia w•. ro. u EXIBTRL CsARAGE /•REA UIffXCAVATFD 'T � +� nsaemuaswi�to� ra��renoauce�oam +en w cv mems rrm+era. caiuiw+c. wdsw cF uut � roenr WT6: SCR�ucT `Mt._ F-wbuE.E.n. +tAS wS�c� YN6 EnSrfr . GAhA66 E3.t # fowe f1iE fiaA..� y.o � aoEa�..wt£ ro6 Tl1E �biatF4 A79�� FWNDATION t'1./aN ..f. w•.ro• N)�-0� s'�ucvcc< G ] YfET (qt tGYNmliF] CODt�lilYf OGQPCB �r t rac aue v�a.orovuc. ISigXG4VASFD UNEXGAVATID �. � �+e � e+rov � i i 1 1 g� -� � e� � z 4 p n � � : Y ; s+�rmmoem� ro ruwc�m im�. o avm�waoe b'O' 03 - �7� �� 4� Q..�. so� �na � Q � - aaTu T • � 1 6LGCf O — 1— #_r _ 3-0 3C G O 3 � p `� _ .��+ �z) �s/v� n�v _ xr n €� '_ '___"__ iverm.-� ' - �Aai _"_ � Y+3r gEDROpry p� ' 'P � P 'd -- -------`---- - =- -- --- ----- - ^ G/ . ar.y.wiYar[ ' ax¢vax�ow �eattY aaxma 3'E' �iC' 9 � Q 'MlfiDfLGtlR •.<�aJZi �_;::;; �o > �.ppg ° i3<- ' ?<�" � � noorxxax i�:�_: �� af��o' ��•.rd• i��y�`� �m {'. _. =:; =z.�`^ o � �) a�§ oi am�3 > A .. i I6'o` �-�,�`�'i am I°P°z°o �'� ��'nC. o _o o � �s`'.`:s,�_! x�no � ^E > o� _ '� �'x� �'6 p iTY _ _ .�oa z �� '� K�' 7-186' , e . $ . : � 6 ' A ' s iIa �,uma W � DMMC �OOt� u u 4 i� KRG�V � i� u � ' ! 4 " 4 � � �� 9ECGtII�iL 'CVR fLOOR - PL4N $�� t� .� Co i • +V f �G 2{'-0' � �C.00' BEDROOH r��1 _ ro_�nw sy/^ F ' � ny A . � � � � ti" T X� O R � .aswCfl�l = �K� � N�L � �� S!E 'sq $a 6'-0� 3�-0 Pas1 • � �<-�„ �?_:'_; � Q �°^�� 4 f'=:'a _ : ��?� S �z x �_=:. � �-- i ro sJ� N � Yb6T01aTA1L1b1�Y1N O12Cf1RIl.CYl:�¢ PV0vY6 3�' � ��e3�Y�aMOb4�n.a nceet�sO�eGM9�eauYxwYM¢ wpM�lona�Otl@IMaCUyA ypb[tl PNl�tlet E V10C9yM5alYrt �V I A " >� Me �yyv qN-Mi. ��c �o :, � .� a > � • �n m :w = m 6',n 0 � �a; � ��$� a n33e i I � Sgyo u a l.�.eej : � E m g�=� „ ��- a �� , A <� �� j f 4' ot° § �. a D �� l� � � � _... f �� _ b� p �� rr � 3 I�D � '> � 91'-0' 9�-0' T 0 D3�k�� 6��T� �� bD'�j;g� ��H� �� $`� �� {�� . � �� $ �_�� g� � �� .� s aa�$�v �� : a 6 �� 9 ��i� 3 �� - � s � � s a Z ; qaF9 � ��Y� '�: F .."-•.` -. Qatig � 6= �F�I � "" � s c . ;b oc= 0 } � �c � � E � Q + $' ,y � � � � � € Y � t h � � � �� p F 9 03� 61b Page 1 of 1 Allen Lovejoy - Fite #03-252-326 �rom: <Dgriifion@aoi.com> To: <Allen.Lovejoy@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 2/20/2003 3:13 PM Subjecf: File#03-252-326 To Whom It May Concern, David and ! are neighbors of the subject property, residing at 466 Portland Ave. We have known the Effendis for many yeats and find them fo be good neighbors and conscienfious property owners. W� have no con;,erns rega;ding this variance appiicaiion other than our concern about the continued poor maintainance of the alleys by the city. 1 would hope that ±his addition to the fax roles might help the City of St Paul to properly restore and maintain these historic alleys. Thank you, Katherine and David Griffith � � d3-8�� Board ojDirectors Pruident Gail Graham Treasurer Bar6ara Pappenfus Secretary Kay Rnutson Vice Chair Rev. Darry1 Spence Manuel ylelendez, Jr. Cammunity Improvement And SafeTy Theraa Cuuningham Neighborhaod Development David Petersoa / Mary Gardner ou��n . Steve Wikoa, Hal]ie Q. Brown Julia Cruz Summit U W eed & Seed Harry Oda University iJMTED s�� Executive Director James J. McDonoagh Jr., Ph.D. Commauity Crime Preveution Coordinator OfStt Mauager Jean Doyle Summit University Planning Council Building a Better Communiry 627 Selby Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 February 19, 2003 Attn.: Allen Lovejoy City District Planner City of St. Paul PED Zoning Department 1400 City Hall Annex 25 West 4� Street Saint Pau1, MN 55102 Phone:651-228-I855 Fax: 651-2251108 disttict8(alci.stnaW.mn.us RE: 449 Porttand Avenue Conditional Use Pexmit Deaz Mr. L,ovejoy: The following is a report regazding the application for a"Conditional Use Permit" for the property at 449 Portland Avenue in Saint Pau1. • Theresa Cunningham, Chair of the Summit-C7niversity Planning Council — DistricYs Neighborhood Development Committee, contacted NIr. Kl�alid Effendi, Owner and applicant for the above noted conditional use pernut for the property located at 449 Portland Avenue in Saint Pa�al. It was exp2ained to Mr. Effendi that the Council was willing to schedule a community discussion • regazding his application for the conditional use pernut at its February 18, 2003 Neighborhood Development Committee Meeting. Our office was notified on February 11, 2003 that Mr. Effendi had indicated that he prefened being on the Committee's agenda for its Mazch 18, 2003. His request was accommodated and his application request will be included on the March 18, 2003 meeting agenda. The Summit-University Planning Council — District 8 had approved sendiug the results indicating that a majoriiy of those attending the Community Issues Meetings held in 7une 2002 "supported the requests being made to ttie city" for original carriage house renovation plans at 449 Portland Avenue on June 25, 2002. The Planning Council has not reconsidered its decision of June 25, 20v2. The Conditional Use Permit application for 449 Portland Avenue wiil be on the Mazch 18, 2003 Neighborhood Development Committee's agenda as requested by the applicant. The results of that meeting wiil be forwazded to you. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If Summit-University Planning Council — District 8 can provide any further information and / or assistance in regazd to this conditional use permit matter, please contact our office. rely, C e � James . cDonough Jr., PhD. Executive irector � U 63- Page i of 1 AI►en Love}oy - 449 Portland Ave. •om: "C Thomas" <carrieethomas@hotmail.com> jo: �ailen.lovejoy@ci.stpaui.mn.us> Date: 2/19/2003 11:52 AM Subjecf; �49 PoRland Ave. i am emailing to express my support for the proposed carriage house/garage project at 449 Portiand. I live in fhe neighborhood (1 streef over) and think that fhe proposed project is in line with the character of the neighborhood and beiieve thaf the proposal is a reasonab(e use of the properfy. My only concem regarding fhis project is the process (or lack thereo� that has confronted the Effendis as they have soughi approval for the project. There appears to be a smail grcup of people opposir,g this project and they are using their positions of leadership in a neighborhood association to create roadblocks. They do not speak for the members of the association. Carrie Shomas 429 Holfy Ave. w your messages witn C� d.� -�'I � Page 1 of 2 Alfen Lovejoy - variance petitior for 449 Portland / Etfendi From: "Stan Berger" <winterhiil@mmmpcc.org> � To: <a(len.iovejoy@ci.sfpau(.mn.us> Dafe: 2/16/20031:11 PM Subject: variance petitior for 449 Portland / Effendi Sir, i'm wriTing this note to voice my support for the variance requesf of the Effendi's (449 Portland). ! currerttly live 4 homes to the wesf of fhe Effendi's. 1 first moved into this neighborhood in 1976. Since that time 1've seen the results of many renovatiort and restora5on projects. The work that the Effendi's have done to daYe certainly ranks among the most successful o€ these. I've got full confrdettc� fhat any additionaf work that they do will continue their excellent track record and wiii be an assei to our neighborhood. i've also discussed t'iei; plans w;th many of my neighbors and found the majority of them very favorabte disposed and encouraging towards their effor4s. ! hope that your authority wii( review their variance request and rule favorabty toward it at the upcoming February 20 meeYing. Sincerely, Stanley Berger 475 Portland Rve � \ I 03 --�� Page 1 of 1 Alien Lovejoy - 449 Portland Ave., St. Pa �om: "Holman, Mama" <MHolman@CBBURNET.COM> To: <allen.lovejoy@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 2/14/2003 12:05 PM Subject: 449 Portland Ave., St. Aau1 As a residenf and home owner in the Ramsey Hil( area forthe past fwenty years, and as a realtor who has activefy sold homes +n the area and watched the area improve by ieaps and bonds, 1 wish to go on record as supporting fhe project to add a carriage house at 449 Portland Avenue. Mama Holman, 701 Oa[Qand Ave., St. Paul • • �3 - � ?� February 18, 2003 To the Zoning Committee and the Planning Commission f tive at 436 Portfand Avenue #12, in the next biock east of Khalid el Effendi and his family. Our family whoieheartedfy supporEs their plan to build an apartment over their garage. Fhey are very good neighbors. 1 am deeply offended by the RHA crusade to dictate policy and drive people like the Effendis ouf of our neighborhood. We count the Effendis as good neighbors, our sons are fiends and we all admire what thsyve done to their home. We compieteiy trust fheir very good taste and their stewardship of the treasure that is 449 Portland. Further, we do not doubt their devotion and investment in the neighborhood, either. The Ramsey Nifl Associafion is running roughshod over our communify shouid no*, be allowed to dictate as if they own it. Supporters of fhe Effendis and defenders of tneir plans are legicn and many new ones were gamered afEer the RHA annuai meeting on Jan. 8fh showed the organization for whaf it has become: captured by an anti-demecratic clique. 1 feet the association is not represenfative of fhis community and i cannot believe that the majority of their board nor RHA members are happy with their crusade against "density." The real densifij problem exists within the IitEle minds of the leadership of RHA as they assume for fhemse(ves the right to dictate to the city and to fheir neighborhood according to their own agenda. Some within fhese elite numbers have enriched themseives at the expense of the entire cify by under-paying their property taxes after they have made expensive improvemenYS to their homes. Our city needs those tax dollars now more than ever. The so-called "keepers of fhe neighborhood" do not pay their fair share. After ali, taxes are fhe price of civilization. Qo nat reward this crowd with your favor. But I think the worse thing is how much they have tried fo hurt the EfFendis, both personaliy and financiaily. Suffice it to say that they are decidediy un-civilized. Thank you for your consideration, call me 'rf you have any questions. Sincerefy, Kris Jacobs 436 Portland Avenue St. Paul, MN 55902 I live at 436 Porttaad Avenue Created oa 2/I9/03 3:48 PM d3-q�� J Telephone:651-290-0240 • 65'I 2221126 I I i� � I live at 436 Portland Avenue Creazed on 2/19/03 3:48 PM 1�3 � I � From: "Lynda Salway° <lyndasaiway@msn.com> To: <Iovejoy@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 2/18/03 8:59AM Subjecf: file�`,r 03-252326 Dear Sirs: I am a neighborhood of Faezeh and Kltalid Effendi's and would like to express my support for their obtaining a conditional use pemut for a caniage house at 449 Portland Avenue. I axn confident that Khalid and Faezeh will build an attractive and well-conshucted carriage house which will be an assef to the neigbborhood, especially compared with the other garages which have been built in the last eight years in the a11ey behind our properties - I currently Iook out at 46 feet of roof shingle and would infinitely prefer to Iook at a two-storey attractve carriage house! Sincerely, Lynda Salway 467 Portland Avenue St. Paul, iVIN 55102 651-247-0467Get more from the Web. kREE MSN Explorer download : htlp:/i explorer.msn. com � C� � �3 � From: "Kinney, Sarah" �SKinney@CBBURNET.COM> To: <a11en.Iovejoy@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Dafe: 2/17/03 1 L�6AM Subject: 449 Portland Avenue DearlVlr, Lovejoy, I received the notice of the public hearing regazding the proposed carriage house project at 449 Portland Avenue. I live one-haIfblock from this proper[y and can see the Effendi's house from my house. I have reviewed the plans and drawings for the proposed project and I find them to be quite appropiate for the site. I believe that the carriage house would be a welcome addition to our neighborheod. I have laiown the Effendis for 15 yeazs and I know what a wonderful, high quality job they did on the home at 449 Portland which was in a very run down condition when they purchased it. They did the neighborhood a huge fauor when they restored the house. Sincerely, Sarah Kinney 78 Arundel St. Saint Paal, l�Sn 55IO2 � 651-282-9621 � o3-��b Page 1 of I Allen Lovejoy - File 03 252326 From: "Mary Dees" <MaryL39@msn.com> � To: <allen.lovejoy@ci.sYpaul.mn.us> Date: 2l19/2003 9:32 PM Subject: File 03-252-326 Dear Mc Lovejoy, I support the pertnit for the carriage house project at 449 Portland. I live at 438 Portland . I have seen the plans and think the strucfure will enhance the urban environmenf. The lanes in this area are a valuable and interesting asset. I do not in any way feel crowded nor do I think that marginal in creases in density will diminish the ambience. if 1 could afford it, f�voWd love to live on Park Avenue in NYC. D�nsity is certaiNy not a detriment to rea! estate values in that neighborhood. Mary L. Dees � � � � � D 3 -�� . ., - Pefition for Carriage Honse at 4%19 PortIand Ave We the undersigned I�ave reviewed the Carriage House proposai at 449 Portland Ave and believe it is an appropriate an d sensifive addition to our neighborhood We believe it has properly dealt wiUx our concerns about pazking and the historic environment in which it is sited. Name R�� .�,1�. �y.v,c1F1 �A�urry ��-�� °�j� �;c � y�'� �/ / l _G� i�ii1'1"'vo`''/l� � � I� � �� s� , . —� ..ou�s � �/�iPi��a Ad3ress `1b ��'e c�'� �.n�e , s� . P ru � s s 1 a�. �r-6� Por�va.d A.rc �E �..a� n•v ,� �c� `�b �— �°�f-�a.,.'Qc �1/.e � � P�,�..l, n,.�, ss,a� , `t��e �e �w�cr�.0 � � � t� �/GC� �,a�Gr�--�i�"�-L �. `•l'� S S � !�_ �� .s �� GL�.c�—.�v4�� ,� ��_ � 6'/6 aZ 4�4- � � Q-�-2 �-; �,.. � S��LC�Z. r�� a/ �/�e , �J. P�.2 ,s� y.-,� � ��`�-�-�' (�, s�`� �`� /a,� ��,T,r�l��'. ��/��/�I/� 55�0. '�° r �-�-r,��(� �� i� ��c s��/� 5to �U.�t c�Q �l Z�i', �a-� �d A1 �S/D Z yS7 �d-��an� �r. �< ��/� /Y�� Ss/�Z �s� �-�L�Q ��- t �� Q Vv,r.� 551� � . �35 � � S�. � s3�� s�.� �b�- t lA•v� �'1 ve .��- �f7a � S-s�o�. °��1 �Vl�u��'tJ ��7 �� • � SS �°Z 5 G(� r �,�.dt.�, �fi%� �� 5! G'a,cc�, M �SIo � 4� 5 /�6 �'G�rp st pa-� MNS S�a Z L ��.�l �'�t.��, _ � `-_ 03 - 8�� ,� � Pefition for Cazria¢e $ouse a� 449 Poctland Ave We the undersigned have reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Portland Ave and believe it is an appropriate and sensitive addition to our neighborhood. We believe it has properiy deah with our concerns abont pazking and the tustoric environment in which it is sited. Name �/��'� � �� `�� '1,�, � � �� -- . �. ' , � �� . � � . � �� N � �� ,��;�,� o.�,rf�� Address � s� � r�,� � � �� # �� s" �G�tlll�i � � - �g �� i -�.�.�� . � � �3� �ov-�I�,�,.c� �1;, -4�� „�� - ��o � �a ��.�.�� _. s�� ` � � , � � �� ► �� , t � y�, ,�o � y ��: � �� y�� Pa� � 5i�9 �o.Gi �,�•✓g ! � � � g��c�. �' �� -�.L 03-�6�5� � � Petition for Carriase Honse at 449 Portland Ave We the undersigned have reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Porfland Ave and believe iY is an appropriate and sensirive addition to our neighborhood. We believe it has properly dealt with our concerns about pazking and the historic environment in wluch it is sited_ l�ame 9� ____-- /� 7� ..� � Address 7� �i � Yz� ffe 1 y � �-Z�l -F-�o I (� A-�e - �{-1 ya3 ��_.,� ,. •4=-c �.�Z `�°�� 5�= P,�,� s�- �� -��t-- ss� ss�a ssr (�z .�.3 aa� � 03 -87� Petition for Carria�e $ouse at 449 Portland Ave We the uudersigned have reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Portl9nd Ave and believe it is an appropriate and sensidve addirion to our neigfiborhood. We believe it has properly deait with our concems about pazldng and the historic environment in which it is siTed. Name �C�i`��c�xJ � � �� ? 7 � Address 3 g� �"�� C� 39�( I� � �� ,�s- ��f� ,�- �� - � r�� 03 -��lo • • � Petition for Carria¢e House at 449 Porfland Ave We the undexsigned fiave reviewed the Cazriage House pmposat at 449 Portland Ave and befieve it is an appropriate and sensitive addition W our neighborhood We believe it has properly dealt with our concems about parking and the historic environmenf in which it is sited. Nathe V `''� k � ��`k.,��.-� Address �z3 �t t��.[-c ��'� b� 7c� r Sf-- � Cl��kr�� . SS tU� ��' i ��iv � s svo? 03-�� Petition for Carria e House at 449 Portland Ave. We the undersigned have reviewed the Carriage House proposal at 449 Portland Ave and beIieve it is an appropriate and sensiti� addition to our neighborhood. We believe it has properly dealt w2th °ur °°n°ems about Paz'lan8 and tlze fiistoric environment in which it is sited. Name �K_.�v'��,�� J / Address ,�� - �� ;� � �� - � � � LJ 03-�6"�� Pefition for Ca 'aoe gonse at 449 Portland Ave We the undersigned have reviewed the Caniage IIouse proposal at -049 Portland Ave and believe it is an appropriaze and seasitive addition to our neighborhood. VJe believe it has properly dealt with out concerns about parldng and the historic environment in wluch it is sited. Name ��c✓l✓liS ! �� ^'��C Address �S1 A-�N-�r�.�d �� . 03 - �'J� Petition for Carriaee House at 449 Portland Ave. We the undersigted have reviewed the Cazriage House proposal at 449 Portland Ave and believe it is an appropriate and sensitive addition to our neighborhood. We believe it has properly dealt with our concerns about pazldng and the historic environment in wluch it is sited. Name ` �h s � iYZ �--- 6 1'' , ,� c �.� ��% Address �� =� � i � - . • �� • D3-8"I� u • � Re: 449 Port7and Ave. Zoning Committee City of SY. Paul Planning and Econouuc Developmern 1400 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street St Pau;, A�155102-1634 Attenticn; Allen Lovejoy �-. .. �• ..�.� �h 6; Zoa3 On March 4th a Stateme� of Objections to the proposed Pmject at 449 Portiand was submitted to yo�s committee. In t:�e cover letter that accompanied this Statemern several concerned neighbors who oppose this project � listed and share the positions set forth in tbat Statemeni of Objectio�s. Tbis Stat�meuY of Objectioas has now been discussed with other concerned neighbors who aLso �vish to wice their opposition to tfie Project. Please include consideration of their views in yoiu dek'berations. Their names ate listed below. Woody and 3oAnn Erickson Tom and Mazy Fitzgerald Bill aaa r�acy Gray James and Debra Hush Peter Malmstrom David Pizzuto Dr. Jay Samuels and 1Vancy Schermer En1ca Zetty and Phil Martin .. �.7� l / � � / / Bill Sell 21 Arundei 458 Holly 4&8 Holly 403 Portland 4�6 Holly 496 Port3and 39 Anmde2 485 Portiand 03 - �?l My name is Lynda Salway, and I live at 467 Portland Avenue, 3 houses west of the � disputed project. It seems to me that this project has become a crusade for some members of the Ramsey Hi11 neighborhood with Khalid and Faezeh Effendi becoming, as Khal suggested at the last Ramsey Hill Association boazd meeting, collateral damage. Many ofthe people who oppose the project are concerned about density in the neighborflood and have openly said that tfiey would prefer tfie homes in tIus histozic district to be occupied by sinaie families, with no renters and no condominiums, and they aze living in their homes in this manner. However, there aze those of us in the neighborhood who rent out parts of their houses or have tumed them into condomiums. P�d just as I would r.ot escpect to tetl those who are opposing this groject how they should live; equally well, I would hope that they would not expec± to tell those in favor oi the project how to live. I have been asked if it is because we are foreia ers that density is not an issue to us. And perhaps this is true. However, I prefer to think of our opia:on on density to be more a case of realism than ethnicity. I think of a city as a dense and crowded place by definition and my concem is more about urban sprawl than density. As someone who lives in the immediate vicinity of this proposed projecY rather than a � block or two away, I am more concemed that the carriage house is well built and fits into the neighborhood. It's not as if the other structures in this particulaz alley aze things of beaety. I am at a?oss to undersYand why there has never been any outcry about the suburban gazages which should be attached to ramblers in woodbury and which have been built in the last ten years. To conclude, I would re-affirm my previous testimony before other committees — I am totally confident that Khal and Faezeh will build a structure will fits into and enhances the neighborhood. Thank you. � D3 -8�1� Donovan and Darfene McCain Jr. 453 Portlar.d Avenue • St. Paul, MN 55102 p�c^� (651) 699-7{3�3 F� (o3i j o99-3061 fi!l�t� 3, 2GvJ3 St. Paui Pianning Cflrntr;ission Alien Lo�Y 25 West 4th Stree# S#. Paud, MN 554fl2 Subjeet: Fifa #fl3-252-3�6 Conditiona! Use Permi# #or proposed carriage house a# 449 Portiand Avenue, St. Paui. Dear (V{r. �flvejoy, My name is Donovan McCain, Pm a life long St. Pau1 resident. I and my yvife paFfene own the home k>eated�at 453 Ro�land Avenue. Our home Fs adjaeent to Mr. Effendi's R� QPosed carriage ho�rse projact. 1 and rtty family strongiy oppose this project for the foflowing reasons: � 1) The size or seale o€ the proposed buildirtg, the above ground be�ffdinc� is over 2604 square feet. 2} The height of the bui4ding from the a}}ey ts 31 feet, that is the height of a three story building. 3} The proposed str�eture wi4f be appsaxirnatefy 4 feet fror�t oe�r garage/historie carriage house. Also we have winc}Qws �oc��ed on the east sicfe of our carriage house and the new pr�jeet wi1! effective}y block any sun ligh#. 4) �'tje view#rorri ritir backyard wilt be of a large blank wall 32 fee# wide and 39 fee# in �eigh# is no# an appeafs;�r prcjsp�ec;..• �Jlftjat i�Ar. �ffendi is f�flP�� r� reais#y , is t� add a� � trer �630 squat� #IIOt ttc�se irrcfudirrg a four car garaye an t�is 8xistirtg 56 foo# {ot Wi12T2 3 �"f'�@ Fi�tiS2 3If02(�ji 2xists. Sy approvistg this pra��ct ttr eity of St. �avf r�viil Se settirig a dargarous Arecedent. �s ttte a�t,rcter� of �53 Pns�land �;�enue, i and my #ami�y ar2 as�ing ;or you; su�ort in �niai af i1i�. E�`,F2rtdi's proposai. �� -`�l� C� b�bv�fi �� D��`i87t� 1VI��i�1 Jr. I Mar-03-03 11:27A JAMES KEANE O � ' � • �� , 651 222 0910 p_O2 �urtes Kea¢ae qq6 Pwrtl:netd Avenuie 3aiuut Yaul, NLixace�ta 55r� Mardi 3, 2UO3 Mr. Allen Lcvejoy Ciry c! St Paul Piarming ar�d Ecorwmic Developr,ent 140Q Qty Hall Mneu zs wa� st St PaW, MN. 55102 Re: Planning Comrr�ssion Meeting March Q 2i103 F7e Na 43252-326 Dear Mc Lovejoy Piease add my name to those opposed to the proposed new consirudion ai 449 poRland qve, St Paut. i live in the same biock and have read the findings of Judge 6astien in ihe tawsuit brought against the �Y• As a taxpayer 1'm concsmed thai buiiding and zoning codes be upheld; and ag2e wiih the (awsud findings that this sde and this propased conslruction do not mee[the requirements of the wde on many levels. Sinc'erely, � �� ' am Keane � � � / , I u \ 03-�6'�� Page 1 of 1 Allen Lovejoy - Carriage house additions From: °Katy Gray" <katy@BECHAMP2.COM> Tu= <a11en.Iovejoy@ci.sipaul.mn.us> Date: 2126/2003 3:47 PM Subject: Carriage house additions I would like to ask that you consider strongly the Ramsey Hill Association's stauce on not adding second principal residences to one 1ot in our neighbozhood. It is my understanding that it is very hard on the sewer access issues; I know that the alleys are dangerously overused and rutted and I know that there has been a ruling from the courts against allowing this practice. I thiuk zoning codes should be followed. Thauk you for your considerarion. Katy Gray 488 Holly Avenue St. Paul, MN 55102 651-225-1686 . • 03 - �� , . ...�. ��m _ _��►_ Ramsey Hill Association 400 SEIBY 11VENUE, SU1TF Y, SA1NT TAUL, NN SSIO2-6500 TELEPXONE: 65 1.221.02p0 Mazch 6, 2003 Mr. Litton Field, Chair Saint Paul Zoning Committee 25 West 4�' Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 Chaiz Field and Members of the Committee, During testimony on the application for a speciat condition use perniit for a carriage house at 449 Portland some statements were made by the applicant that appeared to cause quesfions by the Committee. In an effort to provide clazity I want to comment on some of those sTatements. First, the applicant stated that the Ramsey Hill Association has no written policies or procedures which is not a true statement. Because the Association does not have employees it has not adopted a set of operating rules but is instead guided by its adopted by-laws and by N(innesota State Statutes. ITowever, when land use issues are brought forward the Association has a set of practices that it has used for a number of yeazs and seem to be effective in informing the community of pending issues, providing opportunity for cotnmunity input and giving applicants a fair opportuniTy to present proposais. T'hese practices are similaz to those used by most District Councils and a survey done two years ago indicated the community is satisfied with this process. Once the Association receives notice from the city, be it a request for a change in zoning, a SCUP, a request for variances or a licensing matter, a community issues meeting is held and every property within at least 1 block is noTified by flyer. If time permits the meeting notice also appears in the Association's monthly newsletter. At the meeting, information is presented, quesrions raised and sometimes a vote is taken. Even though the Association is memberslup-based, every citizen, be they property ow�ei;_renter, business owner or affected individuai is encouraged to attend and commeri�=If'f�zng zs a problem, the matter is dealt witfi at a regulaz boazd meeting. '�=` �''� -: -. � , s ��yw r:.:, -�°��.=f=;; - ti �=�. ;�.=,�;:_ Any zecommendation from the com�ii3%i,i}r�ues �xee�i°" is ailvi�o� �o �e ggA Board - wiuch then considers the proposa�; rewre�scu�e��a�� , -, wide impacts aa�a�so considets' lo�g �€ if ;- �� prudent based on all bf the t�or�nattotk�s cpu�}d'� �,�$ �--�-�� q�� for denial, a re est #or ' '�` t � � � ` � ��_ 1 �Fe ixest := 9� rt�o�sou�,bf#heeTe�entsof�'� posa�or� �, , �«v��r� , � 3 "-..�a�� r . . y .�. � v.� .. � � �%� . � ec z ry�..-_�... t '�. �� PA Y .'. �. .� . � 9 � y �c.. �.c °�-` . . , ".-^ "D't N^ ' "°�, ' l i.>. .�t ti' ` ,+' 'R`.u. -"° > i. f � + -"'e ^` +�' - �.!� rs x � Y ".v:Xk.^`z4t zn:'+e"',r' _ "r n�i t �.,. — ! �-'r`.. ,^ v�. .. ' . -. ... . �'��. �� r '�. :� .�y .:�. �;.:. - 03- �"l� � recommendation at all. Any action taken by the Boazd is then forwazded to the appropriate city entiYy oz stated as a part of the public testimony on that issue. Secondly, the applicant raised questions about the Ramsey Hill Association's position during review by the Heritage Freservation Commission. Because of problems in the past, the Association has requested that the HPC give its review after all other matters have been resolved. As you know, the HPC only deals with elements of design and using this approach means that the applicant need only appear before the HPC once. If an applicant needs setback variances, for instance, and they aze denied or reduced by the BZA, altered plans and another review would be necessary if the app]icant had previousiy been before ihe HPC. This is duplicative and sometimes frustrates those who want to comment. The Association is also concerned that HPC desia approval is used as an indication of support for or approval of requested variances even though ihey are not discussed. Third, the applicant stated that his request to appeaz before the RHA Boazd was denied. On occasion, property owners inquire about appearing before the Board to review their proposals in addition to community issues meerings. The Boazd has always been wiiling to accommodate such a request but the propezty owner is informed that any presentation is for informational purposes and no action is taken untal after an application is made to the city. The decision to appeaz is l�ft with the person making the request. i understand that tne applicant in this instance did not follow up with a formal request to appeaz at a . regulaz Boazd meeting. Finally, Mr. Bffendi stated that the RHA Board was sanctioned at its annual meeting and prohibited from taking future legal action. It is not clear what he meant by the term "sanctioned" but it is cleaz that the Association and its Boazd of Directors is unencumbered in its abilities to cazry out its mission. Part of that mission is assuring the community that city codes aze enforced fairly and eguitably and taking the steps it deems necessazy to achieve that goal. Respectfully, 9�� U.��,�,�. Mazk Voerding Vice-President � 03 -��(� � ..: � �fitn�T ��I � Ramsey Hi11 Association 400 S�I,gy 0 .VENUE, SUITE V, 5111NT Pp�L, MN 55302.4500 7ELEPNONE; 631.221,0200 Febmary 20, 2003 Mr. Litton Field, Chair Zoning Committee 25 West 4`� Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 Chair and Members of the Zoning Committee, It has come to our attention that questions have been :aised about the notification process regarding the public hearing on the application for a carriage house at 449 Portland Avenue. It is our understanding that at least one neighboring property owner received a notice of the hearing tha± was dated Febriary 13 which does not cornply wiLh 10 day notice requirement. Another property owner, immediately adjacent to the property and likely to be highly impacted, did not receive any notice. The Ramsey Hill Association, which represents over 300 property owners in this neighborhood, also di@ not receive notice. It is also our understanding from District 8 Planning Council staff that the applicant requesYed that the matter be heazd by the District Council at its March 18 Neighborhood Development Committee meeting. As a resulf of this request the Planning CounciI then notified the community of this schedule via e-mail and handouts. Because of the staff's interpretation and recommendation for approvaI, this issue couid have significant impacts both within Planning District 8 as well as city-wide. As such it demands a full review by the enYire cornmunity. Therefore, we request that the public hearing on the application be postponed until after March 18. Respectfnlly, �� v� Mark Voerding, __ '' ' �`�•� j s , Vice-President� � -" '" ' = - r , . �. : �, �..r; - �- � �° .�. `";�—�• �� - -�--__:� - —.->==�' __,;,� r w a �-^_� , .�:_ s� " �- � � . � �� _; �.>„ ' . k � � �, � � z }��s:��r�;��KK:��- :> _ � � z T - --�3 ,> ,�-� � � �: > .,.-.s�. . � , _�' _ ` ' 1'' � � �- � .�'`w`w' xS..R ' '^j _'--` 9 .y 1 j +� c / c �� J " JT . - YD4 _.__ _ � - . �t . Y � V� K' — _ _ � V �'4`.r..._�;_ ^ .. .. . y ' � . �. . � _' / .�.�=f.�.�.. � � 03-�� FE$RItARY 17, 2Q�3 ST.RAL1t PLA}VNt(�1G CQM14(f8S{4N Z4i�ItiVf CCSMM€TTEE FELE �03-252-328 {449 pQRTLp,f�� AVE.} R CQlVDCTlQIVAL USE PFR3uliT F4R A CARRIA�E fiOl1SE 1N[TH MODtFICATtC3NS QF ep�y��p� FOR SPACE QRt�ltVALLY BU[LT TO HOUSE DOMESTlC EMPLOYEES-- IN OUR RESEARCH AT "fHE MtNNESUTA NISTORY CENTER WE USE� THE SAN84RiV MAPS. THESE P�7APS ARE #<NpWN pg q F�E��qSLE 9C?l1RCE O� iNFpRt�IATCC3N. ENCLOSED ARE C�PiES OF SANBORN tvIAPS SHpWii�lG �€49 PORTiANf? [N 1885, i9Q3 A�lD 3927. TiiESE MAPS SHO4N NQ GARRtAGE HOUSE. A GARAGE TYPE $TRl,3CTURE (ONE STC�RY) APREARS tN 1927. WHEfV IVO CARRiA�E ! �R pTi-►ER tiUPviAtU HABtTAT WAS PRESFNT IV DpES 1UQT S�Et�A POSSIBLE. THE OVilIVEf? OF 449 RORTLPttdD SHQUL� S}iQ4N AUTi AND RcLtABLE PR�OF � DWELL N� SU! ABLE FOR HL3AflAN �Bli'ATIQN. WE UR�E THAT A PERN1iT �40T 8E GRANTED. JO Ai�1N AND RiCt-IARD ERlCKSON �d �� :z��., � 21 Af�lSiVt?EL ST. /��^�� . ui.�� a�� .�-,� : �`r1'f :: .�: t�;' �� F �-3 i� I e == . - iI �.., ,,. � i � : f' � i , . i � ,� i � , . . ,', ; r , ri.: I `�: � � 'i ? f . . � � �, j i ':� ;.� ' •.� � y ` �fi ; ' �_ 'I, i .di �� . •t �.''. � Y : ,I h j - � . ., �'" � 1 � " ' -i: l. i • f"f'� e :1 . �. t. i ^ � t �{ ;�.:_ .1;� : I, � ..i f}! � � �: '� f'; � -'; "+ • a � . ( � i ' � � ' t' ? � ! �'. . j. •� a:;: ;:'ri ' 7 J 7 � � i `. � �. � � � ..� k � � . . . �' T { • ; _ :...� i � .S�i' , �' ! {°- I. � e 1 f '''��. .' {: �� { i' �.' i7 :�;�` : 7 y �� . ��'f . , �: :_-,: `�: ;�:' f��.: i�(' ''. 1.�� ° �' I 1 a� si� �i. ri �. � I � /NG:� �r �'��., i i ' i 'I ' ' i � . .i �� i. � �� t �',� . .�:' l.'.'.,�I/i� _�IPNME �" .h i� � �i�7.: -� r � / ._ '' i. � � . �' I �' : ' al L' ' : � . � . i . . .. . _ ; i � �. -� : . I r . :! :. L'H l �. . a�' ,I � 1I ` � � ... .i:c �( • '' ,_ l[ � i.r I '� . Ip ' e' 1 ' �. .,t �-.� :_�;�,�:. i�� ' ;�f, ��I� p `� .I '�t �':. ; i t. � '� �;� -" N : lION�.' r' l li ��'� ± :I� �.� �' � ' '� � q °'�: . '3 , {��8.'� ' t , � �]' '.. I.` `FH ME. DE I�' � i r i ` , i �'�:: �, '� j i , . �. _ }:.�: � .:'�� . ! i� � .I .. _; !� � � - ' `.^s�� .:C � `.` :'� ' ''SA� p ` ��.� . �'Z�'.. ��.�-�� "�� ._.��',^ �f� ?. . : �'.il��.i .i t i.�_.: � '�� !' �•; ' � - ! q�p � ��_ ;F { L y '�: �, - , ; �T � ,� ` SI q� � _ - �� ' . �.-:a-- 3. , P B �/:" •�.i. . .1'd"� -,. . ' ': � ' ' ' 'A'O � { �_ �� i � �' ' :' .. :,. G:ll ; :} , �' � ; . { - �4 ` i t . ; .. . '' � ! 2� N 'f`��_-"' _�!�[:� '�.'(- ' �.: _ `��. �: ��; f s' ' "..� ' ':i: � �' f �r•,._ : '�- �.• :; p _ _ �,. :- ��, �. �"); :� I:: . . ; , � r. '�� : � :': ` �. � ; i 1�: : 11::.j: ��. . , �t . t' . f , ,�OP :TH jf r i �,..�,.�. M : -�$r-' a �i. �. � ., _ �l: - i : � � .�' ' � �.-. y: ':u*y7pJy..iPF�' ' :i.fi '�. _. .4�.�{ •�i f.� 'c�.1. �JQ = ,� � �'t� ..�.:.I`'::� J[�:��. f : � 'll"�' I::f. ,�t � �' r 1. � .i �p ' i i ctS:»�uvF.� �. .:I . a:�, i�i_:�� .i . Z. .I�'C, 1 l:i -s � � ''7 - 1 [C- P' `.7'' ' .i�%Z': L� � .. J '��2 : : � S � �i�^ i�K7 - ^ f � i ' t t ,�i�. i �.�;,�..�; ,�`�.:7 t. '�_�_ ��: ��'if 2:�1�;• _ > ; _ ' .._:. ' �-y..� J j : ,�;, ,k �f �;+. .I�i 'l_:¢�;_� I'1�.:.:� � . ; : '°:��: :�:; �: ,� ., :f � ��.;; .� � ;., , , :.-_ a_ � �� . : a�� i:�' : i �. . � � .� ,.: �I � ; � ° _ ¢_ J: - n.�. . � i �O' � rr .�,. �; c � � ' • j . � �.i" i.: i �,-}-- `#" , , :., ,.: ,:. , . = . ;{;:!nr� . o �?' :�' . � i,:I: : ,- " ', � Pi' .Tll�� ` �`r� � ' �� ': ; I• �� . ; } I : �I �.� : , � J � �. j :.� ` _ � ; ja ` ia : . '.��: �I . ;'{� � '� � ��,-. � � '. i ��':!�_: ,, Ri : � i .� 1.� ' . ii 1 t 1 _ �_ ':: ;. ` - f .i. � P i �{�: ` �1 � � � : . �� v t � i `..�:� �_ }( ¢� . �; :.�� : I � '. a ' i '..' ,i_� ��'-` _I�.. � : I: � ..: �'{', `�`�Ii;' .� �;� '{'.� I .:�:- .,' .: `-'�"' "-,� '<°`l�� ; �� _ -`•' ; ' � � � " : , ; � �;: : , ; � I €�� '� - J. y ii _ I � �.:I'u 'I: , I s .. = , � r.:"_ =. � e C:. ..{��I ,��'.. _��.��' �'�! '� � 3 �' ; � ; i � .i �� :: f �� C�..:i � � � 4 � � �`/ � ' (.,} {' �.ii..� . :{ '�''.: ° ii.�: !" �^ � � '' . C :�:t = � :�!�iCH/ /V �i � .,j, S ;.i •i�' I -t � ,..: �....; ,� ,�{�=, I.: + �.:�� ,4 - -, , '��.�;� � f' �.�,� ,� 5 :. ; � �. {� ; ':'... �_i. s" -il' - �I: '! i i�' `1.�' . !:`�;.�• '� ��= :i -, F� ��, _ ; ;' , ��i .L.- ': : . ..: . '.i :f 1I[ � "1 _ ° , :',>}�. � . .a : r ;. :{ ,; , �,� •it �� ; ��. - ��_;.. :r. 1` � r. .,�t': .<. , j A , a � ,. � :. if � ; , �; ; � ; :_ .� ;. �;;s :.�.t I ,Y'�..i� : �. ( � '7 � -�� ._ •'•,' � ' �` � . 1 <; '�:: � � �; � , r {�/ ,. :. ` <.. :cf i ' �: ,. .. . :�i // , �� {�� - 1., �� ,�-��'.'��.'?' g �L' I. f': i� : �? .1.�.: _ Q ,il !.^'-'. .'�:l tiY-?'� :.� .J:2 }� : :tl�.l=�`�_'��: it _ :f '�'� . � F'Z: 'p. ' ::�. :r:'11 �:•!�.[<e n -7l-„'t � - ._ _ �,.�i - ' � � � .�.' .' f �" ' ' ,� J � �i:� _ i::•h. ... ' { � � t !:' �,J� :f l� - . = ( ,i j _ : i � � �I.+ { ��'. :� ' ��'�.iL�)ii:`- tn �.. - :1._ '. + x '� � �. � 1" y :. _ �.� `. .1 = : p : � - � - t .� . F ' - � � s �' : 1; ; ; ':=� ` ;i j' r .��7.a,: :w°6 =7= �:' ?t - � � =�f�_ _ _ ��.,= ,� � :: �, ,� : ; .�: - � � . ,. � ;� � .�.. : �:: :�. .�.. i ;� : �i r - - �`� �r:ia ,�.:,t._�� I -1t ,� :l:� ,,. :r ;1 :;� i' � -�.. �t�' 11 " I - ,�. - L P i . `�'.::j� .'I :I. 9�� `.I� 'f y ; i .il'=n _� _ �i� �.+' : 'ri �.. (t :r� a:4. ,�:-�:. _:� - : ; K:::..: �_ �:: i _ ;��. - �:". ;:; , r ;, _ si :,�, � �. ' _ . ;:.. � � �l�" • ' .��1' _ .: ,;l ' - m � �- ; 1 ' _ �i. � : 'j�;, �. . tl . i "' �' �-'r .. �vF�= z _ - - ',if- �� :' �{. .`. _ •f - i� .I�l,.'�•�;;;ii:, '"::j,l��t�� i.-i' _ .� _ i ' - : � ,7 _ ;: E'j�_' " '.� �.1 t':i .ovR";F��. _ _ . il �' ' '�I!�: �� _ _ ' K�cv,`. . - - * h .:i .i - - -�; ,«-:- - - ,=:i' ¢ - - �_� ' i`7' .'��,' � - ' "�1 .. ; . -^ ,z: : � �" �.'��. - t - >. > g - '' ( '° __: :'Y; . �' � .;rtf;' ' �.�. ' •i t �l�-: T=�. y � • " :e' d :.d � • f' ' . ` =.� ' � .��1Ei ` , .�� - ' fi:l _ f- : '�� : _ � ' r#.'y _ -x:s: .,. �;.�"€'L-:. _ �t� c"rYt'�3- 9='.'_ '•� _ :-� :'r,. - - <if`r.— �i'>'u` y (. 'i3 .2. _ ' ' .'r. - _°�" _ -..n. - _ � i .:° . �_ t� ��T:'.�l{� .n:` i'.?:':��` v;�. ._3� 3.,�� m� �G' =FIIIk" 11..;:� ''f�i _<Ilsi ..i.�'.�' � ,r „� �� i D3—S1�v � I � ��,,� �' �!_�_�! - � � ��1�. _ J f�l ; �--`. I�t C�[ 'J II I 1 / l V 1� .� ;: , 4 � � � � �� 'f ,as �, , 9 �,� � . �:., ��. � I .. ,;. . I??�' . , ; --- = I ' �'f�_� iNOL�. � �, � I�j�; : i I _ .. � .� _ �,, ' �I I - ----- Y�- - � ==F-==--!' �J i��li;�tl�._'I.: �I . ' �� . SRn��. ' ��b� ! 4 I . � • s � ' � . . _ - _ _ =_-�--_� _-- .I I i ,�-; � � � i r; `I {� y � i�F�il.; :�,;_ _,_ _ �_ ___ � i - � ��1� ,. ,. f . I , . , : I �. . � � : a' � � __ � ,� � � /, � . I T . �.-- � i" w ; : 1 � �� 2 ' Z� . , ' _f I� ! ,_�' I I:;: , i.: �: \V � I I ( i f� � ' 7f" 1� . � � .c �S' � i�� ;��+ �_; Y I i ' i . '.�� ' i '� �f a - ' � ? � . ' � II' � � �.I i I. I; r�� . . . � �: I � - � . i , " � � .� I . . . /, . I � � ' � i�� I . � . I I I:. .; . 1 �:(�� r 1 �� 1 � R ' : . j � �. � ,�. � , . ;. ,, , . ; i. . . ' � `I i �� i'4�1i�-:i F:,�-. I �. �'�I � i � .t,.�� I - . I � � .� y ' �I !�� ' r � 'I ' � � � i� �' ,I � •.i _� n � ;� . '! �I� "� ll;;;l� i -� f { ��'. .� ';�� :. >f � .g� I. � II ,:� h I,' : - II -�� .,, � ' �. I' I� I I I, 1 .I. . , - ( �� '. - rr � �'I i�'`�� '� � �� I� 4I'' � �f �!. I � � � � ' _ � : . (� � ` j I �I � � ,, , .� , , �; i ��' � � �II��' , ' I�;,E;��Y �� , Z+.:t f� � �� ; � � � ' � � , ; �; � ; r� � �� : i; , !+' ; � � , I ;i , � � �;�. 1 ; , �, �� 1 �', {; i �,I� n� , ; �;,� , � : � i �;!;� � �, ;� a, �'.��,�a, � _ ��`��,i!11 `i �� ;� � � �� i �i��: �. , ' �i �� '� i�y�` ; ( � � _ _ .I�� :f?_QRT_�. _ _�` � `� 1' ; � � �� y � ; �. � ,. � i I � i � J _A_ D_ �. E. f ..�. �,:`�;.: ; } ; i 1, ';, f. i . .� . II , ! ;. � �;U:� 1;�.'s.:�w.l ! � � � �� '� i � ;� .� � 1 - � . . . ..._..,...�� : " � .i �. �� ( � `� �' ��t' � , ij= � �'!jI ��'�I � � i I�; ';' I{ I.� �o i.;: :� , A � ��i#Iii % ` ! ,. � �, � � . I . � '� I� : � i �� s, 4 4 : I • . ;.' ? i �'I.� 'f . , r.=-c� ;� � � ' :} i�� J ' g�F .i � . . . l I :� - '�f I' � f �; , 4 �j i � z 2C X a; "�;'.,� ` , I + -- ' i. ,� F ��, ;��" .�.. a ;� �;� :�<��'' Ili, �'�' � - --,� � . �r; ,� � {�, ; ,: .t _ � �, : :Y � r� :�:1-��°�� l ��Y -� �; : ; , , , 1 i i� :i � �'� ' ` ;i � i ;�. i ;' � i t ' I;4} ' x D� ` ` i ,lji ;,� ' " I` - o ! ': .I:� i,. . , { �:: :!j� ;� i�; ��I i! ,�' ;� ;I. ! ,�j � > �';�. ; .; ,: i � �' ` ' ' I I; , W:, � ��. � � � � � ;� ; �� > � � '; ? f ' � �� ,: : , } ; ; � �! :p; ; i�� iiI i,�y, .� �:i: }. � , ., y= i ��4 :� l i I r ��i i n� ; I: .. �;j ii �� , :,f, ..� a� �, � r, ��: �E � r � !� �, i� �� ; -., � - z��. i C �I I .� �i +� ��'"!. 7t ` �, �, , I I ' P �_ � ry ��:i': �.�. ' f2 � � �. _� S . ,U �.1.' � 3 1: '��;�. , s � .'�I. � ��x.�:. i � y � . , i '?.!` i � � i '.i " '� 4 `„ �i° � : �. � � , ! ��`� r � � � i �; � �. ;.� � ', .. � � F . ,� ��;; , i , _ i I .f n , :. 'i , �... ��' � �� j �. �� :� � � .-1 �.: . �' � � � : i � � J� � ��a , ,.�, #. ��,:. ,� E ; G � !�il�� a:,lEl�Is � :,�. r.i E� � ; �� `��; � i; ��:�� ;}'�� ' �� I �� { ` ��. ) � ��4`' , ��.'�' 4" � ��"�1'.� �I !�� I:.�.� �'is:� ��'4 �4��r ��-� '�.�.i i i 1'�.�. i. �'� 5�! � : '' � � j� �.',z7D i I j� i �I "s. 1 �'� � I ; � �'4 l r.:f :I� }� �.. ��r' _ •, � �� e�,. �. ) ` �[. :. . � �� 1, �(-;5.��;:I. .:;� '.)�.. - -. �i:�ii;i; ��7 t° j t..��'. �i j L 'I�F. � �; ,�I �..�'� ; � � i; . r � 1. �� i'� .�: :��.�'., fp�. �� i�:. �'�t � i�� ;t. Y��:�."�i i�� 1�� :i" � �. �� 1f � �. �:�� . .F, � � �:., , i...� ,� ��: ��. �I'':'WCI�i;,' ',• :�� I:}:: I.� ��'_ I� ; �: j l : ':I. ;;.�� : I. �: i. C':I _ ' �.I,' ' �.I �: _�� .�� = �„ '��- �. .y �. I i.� �:�. � , � , � .I � r�� ! k,. I� I' Irt, < �! �I ;' � rt� �` ?�� : , . ��. c � � � , � ;� r I ��il 1 ; 2h r i I�tp. S i I �..'� � � •I' ��!�{' II'I�' ':�..:�:I �. _ I'. � ,�'.'i 1 � 'f `3 �i . �.�:� � _ � p1 �� I t �� ..��1 ��-i! :i� � ji�� (1f� .�� fii .�'.j. ft'�...i. Zi .��?. �P1 i.: ' {� 1 '��' '�� ,�t'r .� .1 Lt7 1 I :�� i' 1� �� C - 'j t .�: .��ryq ��f i�I{ �� i' y '�� :`y� ,I'. �}:+",t{ �`,�' :r � r , "�� _�.,� �,�., " _�{IV. y . � 'i'��Y y..�� . •.1"i il�� 1��"� irv.�' }f , ,y' �� : _. �':�' :�I �r j:1; I , ,,. ;..;,,, ,: :, ' If.- ��; ,; I , � 'J�'�� _; ( .� t'} : 1� < ��s ;,', f, . .. � . ti � �'� ! b �I.., •.:r k;I.��;.� :; .'t�. : �i :: ' � ' 6 ' 6+ ' 1:� !� �. 1 �� el� �.�: )� 4 .y. � '�YY� , 'r�. n. L . �� . s3� � :�� fi - S`I'� �� ' �..' i�I.''.'� f� �. �"7 �i ��. ) .{j� S I�,;:.;.�,F�. �;� tt:. . I: r for ^ a . �,_ :�1.. '!��l"S �J9 �r4'['�� _�� f!i �_ �� I.L' �:' f jJ� �ee:'o �eeE:F { jr,( i; ,�..�! �� " �E�:� . .. .,��; � `:F . � � (�� E�1^X�:1�'�!: ..�:. J. :��,'e �'I�1.� : _ ' ja �� ,�,��.,�-r�.�:a,.� .. .. ��.'_.; ' �`.i� �Q1��f��' ,: �,: =1' .; ` :C i - � �f 1 I '�j' = ,�• 1 `C O I�r � ? �I � m i .� � �. ' .. \ ��1� _�— ; , �: �F��u��u�� `,_ . , r,i��llhq�� : . Jlh ��i�l�'+ S : : ��I�I _ ` : . v o : : $ � : -.q � \ \ \ \ � '�11 - � ,\\�� . �' �\ �\\ � �` _ \ �� \ \ \\ \ II�II�1�� - .\'` � . � � �4�� \:� � il�l�l � � . I.. � �..�� 1��. { II I I�j��Uj� � � � � . � � ��: j �I�U � � ' I;: � \.. ��o�r�J I� �71yv.pvrotJm�t�1 . � �� i .m..�, � �.�r. ; I„i� ��lo,� �. i ' � hIIGi�,fft�� ' ` �a,, �� ^�h��,`lir)�I�i4'i��"��i��ri�j; �i � iyyy$ ,. _. . � � _ r,-�i_ c d �7. � �_ -;'D"� i r— —�� . . � L � � F __� 'I.._*... _ .. _ , � � -Il , 2f' :: �' _ ` � � �s �� '2 p : "2. (� F � j' �! � l."'t' _+. '.' G"_ �'ai I i ..W ��"1?,' `'�"' mj{." � ' ' i '" . ' . � . � I 1 I I- i I. .) i _— 3 � . I . ' �i. 1 � 96/ .I 459 �. S] ., � Oa3 . 033 I Q� . �7� 19 W/3 4/3�' �� 00 (i I � � � Ild 1 r 1 + � . '. � i f + w '� , E i HOLLY AV. /' � { � I � `. � ' I r - , _ i.. � � r fi �l : ; i f � �7: 1 j i' f6 ' 9 58� � A54 � 496 ' i : N09 .: 9<� . " ' !• ' �'Y. G O e I : �� '� �� ; -. , � . � ; �i .� .��; �,, � -- 'i- { I ; ' ---- � F i , I � F ; --- re. ; � :I , � " � ;r �- z ��! z � >;� � z� Z s o D • D .D , ��• . I� D �� D', O I � I j c � 3 I ': �;� �I, �� C 3� �-i �'� f; � ! . i � , C I � "-- �N � � � i: ` ; H ' i 1 I � , ! ( , , I �_ � ,:, ;,, p ;;- ;; � , I o ; , , � L" z � e. •,.,...�„ �, �.r .., s p i . «t� I f q � i� I - �� . I ..� � . �i I . � Ia�� ;r '� . F ' F �� , J j # .. Ii � d: 1 i` �. r�- �" I. A � w ° " ' t 4 . �6 , r � : �?'' I'� �! i ;19 ` !I - � .� � . ; ; � . ;:120 ;p �; �� ,�, �� ° � 0� �) - �� ?; ( �"� : � " Q S ' � �� q ` ., 'i �� ' rt�, � R " � I ., ,". !� f I�� ' :+; I -• - � � � � s , � i � , �, 1 I � 'Yf{'I. /✓b /� � ( � `" . ( � i �� i ; � ' =' � -, i _� . ;• D ti �7 D D.i, D.{ �d-��.ai �� `�"_J' . ? I "'_"'' : .1 '�� '��!�' II ' �,�i' �� s�� `A I . ._,, � ; 59 f�• . •41I �i' 44� I >/3 ��Sf. f s:� a33 , a.?/ �Y2.7 4 � I. �II I'�� 1 r N . � _ ; i I ( 4� :; (; �! . � ''. :o � ._. _.._.. 'ORTLAND AV.; � . � �,I •;. � + �:. . 1. . r ' ' ;;�. ;� �E :, ��, I , � � a� , , � 4 J : '� , ' �! . : � q95 � a 6 : � ' �. �� j �i 'i� . . �. � i , I a ~ ' . __" �' �; . � . .. '� 6 �� -�L,`i�� E � `= �' � :. ; •• � � ? Gt � } 9 � �; , � . �� •, l � f ; j � } . �� . . 'f: f i � ' I ; . q �: , F i':• i,i.r; :� „ . _ ,', <I' i � ,�; � i � � a: � �r � ; ;. f_ , �; � , � I � �� ,' .i � �; � • + i�` ' i c , c � :1� I. t .3..:, � � � A.�� . .i ' '-� �. ..Q : Si_: i � �( 5:, i II . -� ,� Z' i� . 6. � i , i r � 'F i L�.i,:'`�, .r}'Z! ' I q . _ '`� � i i ' _ �� 'I:� � ' �I d/�,�. �� ;, P ! -� { . . � , - . � ; i i � � 1, ,y.. ' ._— I 1 . �� ' � � =,'.. 1 .�1. {� � ": �i � °�- ��.�'..i�_;:�� '� ' � D :� " ..�' +�-�; . ' �- .� I i:.ji?ia:. �� } �'� �' ' , �'��• i I . I t �i ' . . : iw�;-+ j 2� � . .�� 1 9 � ! � �.i� I'� .i I I� � i � � 't'i� ��NORTH � - n� . �",.._... �+. I I,': � I "l' t. �° �. . �, y ;',� + . � �:"; ;� ,. . �� j f � �x�" `i;g-..; r:.) : � �� ' ' i�� f . :.f fi :.f. hl �. � g�,_ i i�i• 5 ;T�. ��:' �:i� E.:��' � � { .� �� 'i'i � �. a „ I-`� .%-.. p� . ��., a �wY �'�(' If,".�" ` ,i �!� �•:': . ' ;�' ' _;_, � � �j • "'� .�.�. : k. �; a:..�...!if �i �l` '�'�.. :� �. 'i :,I �'��_.�, I :� . �+° $I; - s` �-. � :!, � i�` l `- � t — ::� , - ' ' � � i i .,y' � �fE �r;�: "�, I A �.�. �4 ;i.� 1��:<.:f :" Y,: �i � � i� �;: r i : � �(� `"�.` - i. .: � �. .(r; � , �f ` ( — - 1. �, - S , t ; . j'° .t' '� . � '�.Hieo:.ia�,r ,_ i i : (.:� � . .� �1�. .3�• .�aj"'a. ..�!' 'f � ;�,�,`_. � xa � I'}'` .j; { � �s] kl:` �' �S�' {? ,�'��i1�1� �l ' �li'. ' � ( � E f' L� �.I. � " .1. '�'. _ i ,��:`�_"� :.��C�7.e '�% �. .�;� � t. �� I �:1'� � G ..°_ "1afItf�Tr: i 1' ��: L ��' I� ^:.I, :I!'`.�] �. . }{', :�E.it :�.. �i � .. i l:' i �t '�i; 2..'_ - j. , � ;`�b� ..r` ��. :4: C��c_J's_`��i�`; i+l i '�;'+ `i S �I� - - - �'{I, r;wr. -.� ,' I �.I �J � - '1 � ,�i�� ..�.L i � 1 `-�' I : 4 I! " `,' - r. � �: `.. - �. , ,.; _;: , _ a .�. � y i �: `��.f�,, _ - I.:i I� — � L- ��- �l: � � :'. .'� t' �` • � 1 I� �� I � ;� _ I ,�. .3 �. - y -;% � '� `:`i ' i �,i � � , :, �� :" }: : I E -. _ �i;� r .(: .� � k` �, .� I: .. ��; � ,_ :� t �. :�== , ?� �- , I �.. � _ �'�` �, ° _�; _ . ;: ,�.:' k : � , ° �:. � ; i :, - ;.. :�: i � I � � �, .:�: _ �-��- � i : r� : ::r.�;: ,- :. � � � �. ' 'sa:= _: i =:� . i �: ;��.:?� �`. .) .,:; �, .,_�. � I� :�.��:�- �.� �.�:;"�; f � � I�� ;� �� . ;�:� - � , _ :� � p�. t �� , _ s �. _ ��. '' ;;.rx s,� _ � �.; :�`,: , _ � . . � C { � :- . , { �'` #7 � ! #��w�� lll �{(_�5e��el''��. ��'�,�ft.'.i r �� i�.�� r�.f`,i.lt °�� •"�� - ° �A' I z 1.tF 3'�:: . e� 0 156f� , � l t f.. • 1}t .a . i a_ � y ., �. 1- 1.1. ' q�y . I _ �I: _ .�I i� f i": (., 1 � � .i . :. } �. ` ; � f �. -'��7 n.,�° �r .4 I- .,�} :f::�� . y :��' �',�� . _� .I ��5�4?;�`7 � k: - 'i �nrsr,.. _t�. ":!`f'�'�� { :-�. �. `�: �4,. ,t..:�� I�i��. .�_� � ._i'I�:., r�r, ':�� f��r��i[...I�;r�';��: c � ` uc. ' a..:::: _; :�7� ., , ; � . hn , �; =M1 "; 'i��-�'li�M�Tr:< .i:� ='A � 3. a.... . i:: . . :�� i �i� �,.�,_. �. -�-. :-3>I�!: b3-�� . I�Torth �levation on L� 03-�'l� �J � � _- -_. �� . - � � , �: �� >' -.k .� . ._ . Y � - � � � -�` � __ . �-'�e4 . ._ �f� . • .k " � �... a . . _ - � `' _ . _ . - �, ..��,w '-, : .- � . ,-. . � ;...� .l.: � _ . r. �� • `�'� � r�� Y . ti« .: �' � `, ��1f � � ..�', � � s t Y.. ' �� - x . 4 . ��^'� k`Y�`-� i� ,� ` ? f , �.., v e'�v. 4 � . � y _ s .'2 � r ,. � ^"... ri l . � . �1:. � T� L }' . +'` • �� :^, ,f' .. • . - � �"S�_�� 4- "�'4. t k � ..ti`t �.� �..`�� ` Y • + � .r_. f' �-� '-; "i' �� \ r} � S � � i . r . ...�""^,-_._,a ' �_ ' _ . . . Y*..E . . --... � .._ � _. . . _ c � -.._ - . _ .. . . ��:'� . . ' ,�.. � - . _ � .. `-� '_ a � -?_�.. �'a � _ � - 3 . . . � . . . i 6. ry e-. _ . _.. . . _ ._.: . � . . _ .. .. . ' • , . .. • __�, .� . � [... �... 1 _ � ��' '�. � � , _:. .. _ _ . __ . � ...__...t . .� HI � ¢ w t �..... } '.� C�. � � X � r � • . - __ . _:. .. . --- t . . , .. , . .. -� ' _ _ __ � s �. � w ; _ E �� . ; - -' .� . �_ � - �, `- < �u�_ ;� � �� , - _ ; _ <,��,f._ ..� „ _ "` �'� T Z �- � r �/ , ' , � �',� h :� . �:a .'r1��'-YPV4��-.� �i�� %w "' :e �.: . .Ts..u..<,.�r� \ . .m_-.,._ .,�:�?,., .....�r.�.. >_._.,.,_... _ . _ . - � C� 03- 6�� 03-87� � � 03- �'1� � Ramsev Hill Association Land Use Committee Reoort Subject: File # #03-252-326 Conditional Use Permit for proposed carriage house at 449 Portland Avenue Date: February 2�, 2d�3 As requested in your maifing of 13 February 2003 on tfie above-referenced file, I do not recommend that a speciai conditional use pertnit be granted for construetion of a carsiage house_ Here are my comments. §60.413(14) permi±s carriage house d�ellings in residential districts subject to the following conditions: a. The buiiding planned for use as a carriage house dweliing had space originaily built to house dornestic employees. b. The applicant shall obtain a peti6on signed by hvo-thirds of the property owners within one hundred (� 00) feet of the applicanYs property line consenting to the carriage house building. � c. The appiicant shatl not reduce the number of existing off-street parking spaces on the property and sha11 provide additional off-street parking as required for the carriage house dwetling. ttems a. and b. above have not been met for the said property. Item a. Research has shown that the only structure located on the proposed site has been a tvuo-car garage that has been in place since the early part of the tast century. Prior to 1908, no stabie or garage existed on the subject lot. For about the past 20 years in Saint Paui, the requirement for the construction of a carriage house has been that a strueture must have been on the site previously that was used for living quarters. Changing the zoning code in a designated Historic Preservation District to permit new construction of an accessory building for residentiai purposes greatiy changes the historic character of the neighborhood. The City of Saint Paul has a covenant with each and every property owner that zoning codes wili be enforced and construction or buiiding renovations that essentialiy change the character of a neighborhood will not be permitted. In our neighborhood, reai estate prices has been steadily escalating for the past ten or fifteen years. Many proposals are appearing to construct a second primary buifding on iots that are min+maAy sized far even a single primary building. The current real estate markeY has made construction nf these "accessory" buiiding quite attractive financially. Permitting � construction of a new carriage house on every property where a garage or stable has been without regard to whether it has previously been used for housing domestic employees wouid greatly increase the popula6on , density of the Historic Preservation Distrct and destroy the historic character of the neighborhood. Item b. The applicant has furnished a petition signed by '11 individuals. This petition does not satisfy the requirement that 2/3 of the property owners within one hundred feet of the applicanYs property line conserrt to the carriage house. The reasons are: 1} The first two signatures on the petition are the appiicants themseives, When drafting the conditions for approval of the constructton, the authors wanted to insure fhat a satisfactory number of neighbors were in favor of the project. It is not reasonable to condude that the authors thought that ihe applicants themseives may be opposed to the project. Z) Two signatures are on the petition from 457 Portiand Avenue. 457 Poriland Avenue only has one property ID and thus one sei of property owner(s). " 3) 462 Holly Avenue lies outside the 100 foot fimit. O ..J _ U �KJ r . v.� � A drawing of the neighbarhood_ surrounding 449 Portland Avenue.is shown On the next page. The propeRy in question is outiined in black and the 100 foot limit is aiso shown in black. House numbers of the lots shown are • • given. Some of the p�operties are condominium propeRies and have multiple owners. A summary of the propeKies in the 100 foot area aiong with propecty iD's and voting preference of the owners is shown be►ow. A vote of "Yes" denotes that the owner is in favor of the conditional use perrnit One can see that there a2 a total of 14 ptoperties within the 100 foot limit. The seven "Yes" votes do not meet the tequired 2/3 majority. � Page 1 o 1 � Allen Lovejoy - Condifional Use Permit of Construction of Carriage House at 449 Portland Ave, St Paul From: °Tom Fitzgeraid" <tfitzgerald@carboaair.com> To: <�len.Lovejoy@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 2l12/2003 4:45 PM Subject: Conditional Use Permit of Construction of Carriage House at 449 Portland Ave, St Paul CC: "Mary FitzGerald" <ftzmry�c�msn.com> Deaz Mr. Lovejoy: My name is Tom FitzGerald. My family and I live at 458 Holly Ave, which is approximately 2 lots west and accross the alley from the subject property. I have already written your office, after a previous Public Aearing Notice, to express my opposirion to the conshucrion of this carriage house. I do not oppose the consfruction of a]arger garage as long as it met with the historic preservarion standazds of the neighborhood and applicable city zoning laws. However, many of my neighbors and I believe that our neighborhood already has too high a population density, which is a result of many of the lazge homes in the azea being cut up into apartments and condos and the construction of other apartment buildings. This neighborhood's in&astructure (pazking sh�eets, alleys) wasn't designed to support as high a population density as we currently have. This high population densiry causes pazking and noise problems, and in my opinion, diminishes the quality of life of those of us that live in the azea My belief is that this carriage house would increase population density and set a precedent for the approvai of similar projects that, if allowed to continue, will compromise the intergrity of this beauriful and historically sign�cant neighborhood. Please call me with any questions at 763 5121}933. �Tom FitzGerald • 03- 87� tc �. ,7 � �sreiwinai \ _ . i ` . �. :�R? P .�� I� . �'�amsev Hiil Assodacion •00 SEl6T LYENUE, SUITE Y, SAINi P�Ut. 0M 55102-1500 TELEINONE: 651.223.U20� February 2Q, 2003 Mr. Affen Lovejoy St Paul Zoning 350 St Peter St 3id F(oor St Paul, MN 55101 Dear Mr. Lovejoy Via Fax 65i 228 3314, copy via e-mait Urgent 4 pages total P{ease report the foilowing to Ptanning C�mmissicn members Re: 449 PorUand Avenue—Application fo� Conditional Use Permif to consVuct an addition to a 2 car garage to make a 4 car garage with 2 story living unit above. Thank you for sending the names of those in the 100 foot area requirementthat are in favor of this proposed construcfion. The Land Use Committee of the Ramsey Hill Associa6on is responsible for following up on neighbor concerns about our area. To date we have received several calls ftom neighbors to 449 Portland concerned thaf the 2l3 requirement has not been met. The Land Use Committee has prepared the following report; with a detailed area map. A Summary of the Report is as follows: 1_ The requirement that 2!3 of property owners within 1Q0 feet of the address (449 Portfand) are on record as agreeing with the proposed construction has not been met Using one'vote' per PID (propeRy identification number} the att�ached area map indicates that there are a total of l yes votes and 6 no votes; which is less than 213 in favor. Thaofc you. ��c�Y. ` � Y — � James Keane Land�lJse Committee Chair sey Hili Associatian 651 224 8865 direct jgkeane@msn.com v3 - �� a Ramsev Hitt Association Land Use Committee Recort Subject: File # #Q3-252-326 Conditional Use Permit for proposed camage house at 449 PoRland Avenue Date: February 2a, 2oQ3 As requested in your mailing of 13 February 2003 on the above-referenced file, i do not recommend that a special conditiona! use permit be granted for construction of a carriage house. Fiere are my comments. §60.413(14) permits carriage house dweBings in residentiai districts subjeci to the foilowing conditions: a. The buiiding planned for use as a carriage house dweliing had space originally built to house domestic employees. b. The applicant shall obtain a petition signed by two-thirds of the property owners with+n one hundred (100) feet of the applicanYs property tine consenting to the carriage house building. � c. The appticant shali not reduce tfie number of existing off-street parking spaces on the property and shail provide additional off-street parlcing as required fos the carriage house dwetCsng. Items a. and b. a6ove have not 6een met for the said property. #� Item a. Research has shown that the only structure located on the proposed site has been a two-car garage that has been in place since the early part of the last century. Prior to 1908, no stahie or garage existed on the subject Iot. For about the past 2G ysars in Saint Paul, the requirement for the construction of a carriage house has been that a structure must have been on the site previousiy that was used for living quarters. Changing the zoning code in a designated Historic Preservation District to permit new construction of an accessory 6uilding for residential purposes greatly changes the histaric character of the neighborhood. The City of Saint Paul has a covenant with each and every property owner that zoning codes will be enforced and construction or building renovat+ons that essentially change the character of a neighborhood will nof be perrnitted. In our neighborhood, reaf estate prices has been steadily escalating for the past ten or fifteen years. Many proposals are appearing to construct a second primary buiiding on lots that are minimaily sized for even a single primary building. The current real estate market has made construction of these "accessory" building quite attractive financially. Permitting construction of a new catriage house on every property where a garage or stable has been without regard to whether it has previously been used for housing domestic empioyees would greatty increase the population a3-g�� dens�ty of the His!oric Preservation DisVict and destroy the historic tharacter of the neighborhood. Item b. The appiicant has furnished a pe6tion signed by 11 individuals. This petition does nof satisfy the requirement that 2/3 of the property owners within one hundred feet of the applicant's property line consent to the carriage house. The reasons are: 1) The first two signatures on the petition are the app(icants themselves. When drafting the conditions for approval of the construction, the authors wanted to insure that a safisfactory number of neighbors were in favor of the project. It is not reasonabie to conclude that the authors thought that ihe appiicants themsefves may be opposed to the project. 2} Two signatures are on the petition from 457 Porttand Avenue. 457 Portland Ave�ue only has one property ID and thus one set of properry owner(s). 3) 462 Holly Avenue lies outside the 1Q0 foot fimit_ � A drawing af the neighborhood surrounding 449 Portland Avenue is shown On the next page. The propeRy in question is outiined in b(ack and the 10Q foot limit is aiso shown in btack. House numbers of the lots shown are � given. Some of the properties are condominium propeRies and have mulGple owners. A summary of the properties in the '100 foot area along with property 1D's and voting preference of the owners is shown beiow. A vote of "Yes" denotes that the owner is in favor of the conditional use permit One can see that there are a total of 14 properties within the 100 fooi limit. The seven "Yes" votes do not meet the required 2/3 majocity. • 03-�� tg�ire9: �Piapc�tfes wr'(hir+.lrJaRafsa3:PO�llairGRve,. • �raye�ty,tD's a�rd wofe r�n praposert corsstrucKon ��3..� 458'HW(y Ave �t3�.NotryArn !�6 Y flotfyAVa �t#8 7.Hp3Yp,dve � 8 Noli�rAVo +►�$t�NC�ty Avir 39�rn�et d34 2 iPeOttiaqdAvp #39:J:Far#llltf,AYe �1`J'' � P�.t'�»d Arp 4�3P�nQAV� � 1 Foitts»d Ava J6AF�etle�d Jive �ttPoltfxrrdAve Frots 1D• .A15T .tf�5&' .0369 .it37Q .4Y77 .o�sa .o�7s :0285 .025G .d� .�fT( .tS�Yd ,Of79 .IIfT$ �;({,�{ Fitrgara{d S+i±i�h StaritcA Pouison 3Y�alrnrhom na��t� $en:uels Q,9�hiti@tAr T? t�lbbslv�cech MoCa�n: Duce a°snauynneaxy Qt! ` A11 Pr�Ot�1'� 10's Iut+�s ths be9inniitg: Oi.2$,23.�d " Fiom EtFso�s � Eriefc�an`s peUdon • Vnte• lV� Y�� Yes Yas 1Vo � IMa �s ?? Yctsr �hto Yes �to NO .0 6 i'LL D U tt.� o t c c. �� , 4-s s Por-ti�� b3 ' �� • North Ele�ation � on � � �J 03 -�� 44°1 Po r-tl a Kc� � e s'� x�"�ac� _� a r�a � e � _�><== �- : � � z >�—°`" : �, , a z �� s�e:� �, _ � - :� : �. _ � � �`" K`= ;, �`- A � � � ^- „ i, `��a�«�+v� '" � ' � .. � .. , .� �... .' � ' ':^,: � .. r . .�.,... .c�' __ . ��x� _..v- - � �i'o.� . � ._. .-... . . ,� � f . . . ._ _.. � f» 'x.'�. . .. a' . . �rr A � � E "' , � 1 '• , _ : r�, - . v �.-e ' l � ij � �a a . j � � `�?x'i v " �' -r-:v°.. 97 .., e�..�la'w �" __ k��i � 82 fa�'� U : �., - � ._ ; ..,��--,. .� v �� r�;;x; 7 / ' w_ � '�°^ . �`-.�. _ � � ... _ . . x �+�� -_ . e .. _. _ . . . D3-g�lo � �, Y 6 44� PorticcK `-�_ �=� , r=°;r ,r . ._�,"� �.. ' .� .,, : `l . ^^�::a'W �F ... . . - "'•::._�.- . -. x i^�� .v�° ' ,. .-e,m' � ' _ .. -�.e`2�e �,>,:. . .. ,' ^k ' ..;-� . p ' $�^T'�ea " � '. X . ' y � � �j•= � "�i �a. � ;... ��.✓'^'. d TM =��4 .**�� "3r . _ . , - f �.3". �".✓b.� ' - ; �-��B+Ey? � : .a�fc:�tC�..'ru+_�.s ° . .. �...v ��.... ... __ �, ' � � ,. � p.�o� t� �'v "rkQ I/t� C S� • � D3 - 8 7� � P D f � u.�cl � C� �Cke �' Ga,vQ�.e o+1 �le�i �� .'�A�'`'# °��i��`�� ' �� .r��'�� A�, Y s � v 8d��r �f l� �f � w i ��.�5 ae�+F � �� .�S P �� i � • .�qa ��t. -,i<'QM�/�F �"� � r43i3 j�igjll. f 9? ` ��i � � �py � : 'i . !2` 4 � ! ` � � ` ' �i;s� � 1••� . � � �� w : � � � `. � 'Z � i� ,r,, . l�s - �_ a , . . , �. . � � ��Q �� ' . � �� f - �� i � t ��"� ... �". �v>v�. � � *� �`j `�'�+, .� s. `. .� � ' . �, a : 1 r l,pi�l� ��.i'f.. "w►, ;: ;� �t ` � � � . �' � � f: x �� k, � � � �— � � �� ., < � '"` � yv � l �% � �� a. . � . G s �� 'Sl �� . .. , y . k, .. � i _ , . . -=!` � �J.� . � _ ��. . .. ` .. . . �,. t. <�..4 �6` . ._ � �� , � _ r � �-�` <� s r �_ _ '�"— �°��`'-�. �� S�°`� -.:� s� _._— � •c; � � , �;,,.�-�.,-�.. � , ,�-- : ,. , = . r� . . y, ..�..- - '.,.. .. � .�.......' , . v.. -�a'�„ . � _,.��.".,_ v � �, fr �. � � . �� _ , . : � � . �� . :3 "',/ f . . . - .,: ' �g � �'+ � '� � ._. �� . . . � ^� _ . .. �3" f 1. � „ � � r; r �— ._ - � . . . �ti t � i "� � , ' `� ;- s " �' � � . _ + ,� � � 'i : r - �, r � � ' �� i° � . r, f� � �.-�k x�, � , r a ,- a�..�� e a; � . ��'� S ,, i ° � <.-` � � . ..i � . � "� � ., � � � =� . . �� . �� r,� 03-�5�� q-�9 por-�d r u d-tke � C, o��°ct� o�• �le Y � n L� 03-S��Cv 03 -�� 03 - ��1� , . � ,� - , � . -. _ ,� .��:�, b �...-.9 v� . ' . r � ! � { �� _y �.�.. t 'T' �e z? w ;.i f :� - ' � . . 7r f i� . ' a .W� . �:. F,�: f ; , ' ' ' '�/, f � J . , �-� �� ,� � . :. � .� , .� �� : � �� v .'. ..� , _ r t ,x , i` _ v�Y . L`� � � � .� �.. . J-. a.-��. ,..., µ ��, �k ��T � � Y ..-�=. �* � ' � v' �. , .i ....vt-. .�,,G v . . �\ . '� � � '�i �:._ -ti� w,`^,� - �� ` .� � � . .�-. � "..`' . �.� �'* -^,�. '— � ` �.. ,� i � :' � �*�. � - . — �., � �"`� � . '_� . � '.. `y. . . - Y �,. I"`_'..-�,.`.. _ "'. �., ': �. " .. - _ � m ' . _ � _. . . . �.. _.. .. _:- . .. _*.. ' � . . � :. � �.. �� _ _..__._ .__ -.�'~'� . - ., [._. � : . , ._ � . ° " -"-. �' :.. ` �� a �.: � � ` _ ` _" .. ' , _�� Y ____ � _ , .. � �� - _ -�.._ � � y - - - >� � � = , _ . . _, .-_ _ _ , � _ : p a4 -C _' . .�'� � . � . 3 � } � �� f f i- � � ..... 4'.- r � �"'. r� . '.. � � ? y . �. �,`:.� r'� a�. `�" <::.,`� " "'i x . Y . t.�� . �_ct� 'y xsc �� a.�°_`�� ._ ., � .. n� .,, .. _ ie,. , . . _ . . � - y'� � �•��.�•`��' aa�`�m� � -. "" ��' � 1 `�•��`�.yr. .� �^� "� �� .�,:- °� ,.� � , ��. �. � � 7 � �, _t�� _ ��_ � ,�r _ �:� f � _ . _ t �, � . : __�, _._ � �� a �� _ _, � , ,--_--- _ � _ _ _ a , � , 3 . '� _... _ . .� � . �. � s ^ S , � . . ' ' r , ` ___. ,.,.. ^ _ . ~� . . _. ._ �. . . •, W.__..... . � . � � \' _ . . .- _�' . _ . ..M y ....�; ,r.� .� : —_ " � �. � �� I��t'' e tF r . y'0� F i� r � ...._ '�'� � f'{ �� z! .��l �g� �� - ., � � � y q,€' �y�� laRitii� fe,�"'�5ta.?F1 .' � .d .. r "�::- ."�z � ±. . _ . . . � r � , ; q ��. -- � -.... �>, _ _, . . ' . � � ' ��a _� � � i J�M.fII� ` R * ` � �` i �� i � � 4 . ' �� .. ,� " d �v. ! �. �. �`��._'��..�� n.c- �""°"�• , a,,,._ B �' F ""'---."""".�-' 4 � �. ! �' � ' , '8.,t, _ - . • ' %�'�� . . . ,�� - �,s � 4 i.� � � . . . . . . �~�. i �--- ' .' . . ' . ' v . _ " � _ '� . :.- , . +['.. .., JQt?�' �. . ._ � 4 � � . . -.. ..- . i] � - n .. / ` A • _ " . . _ .5 � � � - ., t `� .. �. . . � e ` ". P _�... � � ' �� . - . .. fP . � � g �+ - - ' � __, . ":� l.' . . . �a�k�"��. v:3�3 k �� . �Y � i + ' .. . . :._: _._ a -- .�r' � . ...." .. �`' _ 4.tl . m . . &£`"�-s � '-•'!Sa Yl•;��"" e� � '� �! � d ,5 � r� ��F � � �ss y ��' � � � � i � � L � ri �. ,, r"'P � i. i �t � , ,. yV . �� i r� . ... � �,,.�,�,- �� . t � - .��::; �' P'- � ' ,~.. aa.�',�' -�-� ��y�e„ilyr�( t .�•-,.ns s�fys-�i�� .. , qi _ � - ... f -1.wWS � m .��q Y , � �lT� �,a s�''��Q . . N� � / �" fy.,. �.-�� 4 � • . � s �� .�'� �i�, . .. �� 2 C. � ��. �� . ._ t F � ' 7 ' �# ; i :. . . �{ � � � � �� ! 7 � � V'f�`� �� t � Y'�� p ^L # � � ; ^�i' "� b �, ° �, � t � �'` x t f .4 �T�'JF_��,.�P �3�� a��.`.. `' alA 3•7' e.�� • � �� S �� -y. � : . . ti �. , - � s". ��! �, � �c..ara.. _ — . �.,�. `� ' ^��_ ' , . , rf � x � 4 � i ' , . . . � � "�.� . � �1 . �� , '_ A ` t �� ---�,. _.. ; � v � - ..... . _ . _ _ �-----�., ,. s.._ „ -- ` , .. _.e ___ � , ; � � , . � — — � .= � � , i ,,. • . x , ^. ., �b . " . ' .. �. S. '. ' " ' • • 1 . � ' �'F�+�-n .SFT'ltT'�s�.2'1�p.iv'l�p.i] -- rsn . !..?i:>r.:/!l4tirft�t: }__»._ . .,�. . . . . . . .. i , ; v ..-- ... . .___.. a � - �� , 3 e >> .."'. `�\\�� i ^: i � � .. _,.. U'�\ \ 1 �.�91. �� \ �• .�` � . 'q!': �''.Yiw � � � r 3 -� ' ...=:2`' A�' n .^ TR�[:A:. � .___._. F:A t' .. , _ N�,_ ' ""` x ?4 ^1 i ] S ti i:. 2 � �^'rc� p3- �?� � CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO DIS RICTS m 5 rc MeGIM �.ai � „�� I' �MW� I �` E t 1� _ � 6 � a � r , J � � 2 .� .E ' � � � ' I .. � E 9 _ ��. K � _ . 5 � ' � _ � ` 11 7 ��s �s�s�.�%��11�� e a� �� . ,� _ CITFZEN PARTSCIPA7ION PLANNIN6 DISTRICTS 1.SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD - 2.GREATER EAST SIOE 3.WEST SIDE 4.DAYTON'S BLUFF • : 5.PAYNE-PHALEN � 6.NORTH €ND 7.THOMAS�DAL� �MIT-UNIVERSITY �"°�tJEST SEVENTH tO.COMO 11.HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12.ST. ANTHONY � • 14.6ROVE�NDKMACALESTERN HAM�INE �..Z��'` v�9 15.HI6HLAND (� �.� . 16.SUMMIT HILL 17.DOWNTOWN � 03 - �7� � � � SUrIMIT-UNIYERSITY a Dl$TRICT 8 � ° ' 0 "' � s000 .«o eso . sC1i= Ix fEET ��a�� —_ �p3 - 2S 2-3t;G � :�:. �; � AP?LICA*1T. PURPOSE_ FI�E G� ..... . 03- g7� ..-� -' � zon,ng districl tvund=_ry ATE I� � �� suS;e�t prop=_„y PAAP r a ��- o on. (zmily �� o .- ¢ t`.';0 (dfili(� . � A-�� mUllipl2(3mily n -� o � r \,_., ' A � COTT:::i?' P �< in;JusL'i3: 4' V?C2�: . ... _ .. ........ .. . ...:... . � - :n::; � . ::�:;. a . ..r .. -,.,..:`:d _ _ =X'o r A. t ..� s;;.: rs t :�