04-102Council File # � �' �� �
Green Sheet # �� � � °�" 1 /
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
2 WHEREAS, on or about June 6, 2003, Cazlsen & Frank Architects submitted a site plan
3 to the department of license, inspections and environmental inspections (hereinafter "LIEP"),
4 filed under LIEP site plan file no. 03-311299 for the purpose of reconfiguring an existing parking
5 lot located at 452 Selby Avenue; and
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
WHEREAS, in a letter dated July 28, 2003, to Carlsen & Frank Architects, LIEP denied
the site plan on the grounds that the proposed parking lot did not meet the conditions for ailey
access as required under I.eg. Code § 62.104(� and, further, that the proposed parking lot
configuration would eliminate four required pazking spaces; and
WHEREAS, on or about September 2, 2003, and pursuant to the Saint Paul L,egislative
Code, the Saint Paul Development Corporation (hereinafter, the "SPDC") duly filed an appeal
from the decision to deny the site plan; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2003, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Plannina
Commission (hereinafter, respectively, the "Zoning Committee" and the "Commission"),
pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislative Code, duly conducted a public hearing on SPDC's appeal
at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heazd; and
WHEREAS, at the close of the public hearing, based upon the testimony and the report
of staff, the Zoning Committee recommended that SPDC's appeal be denied; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2003, the Commission, by its Resolution No. 03-83
denied Saint Paul Development Corporation's appeal based upon the following reasons set forth
therein:
"1. In 1987 the City approved a site plan for a pazking lot behind the building
at 452 Selby. The 452 Selby pazking lot adjoins another parking lot which
serves the Blair Arcade building at Western and Seiby to the east, and also
a pazking lot to the west that serves the St. Paul Curling Club at 476 Selby.
Access from Selby Avenue to the 452 Selby pazking lot and to the adjacent
Curiing Club parking lot is across the Blair Arcade parking lot. The 1987
site plan was approved with a condition that the owner of 452 Selby obtain
an access easement across the adjacent pazking lot, a condition for
landscaping along the south side of the lot to separate and screen it from
the alley and adjacent residential property, and a condition for enclosing
the trash dumpster with a 6 foot obscuring fence.
�
a�- �oa
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
2. The existing pazking lot at 452 Selby was constructed according to the site
pian approved in 1987. Cars parking in the 452 Selby parkin� lot have
access from Selby Avenue across the Blair Arcade parking lot, as has been
the situation since 1987. However, there is no record that the owner of the
452 Selby parking lot followed throu�h and obtained an access easement
from the owner of the adjoining lot.
3. On August 27, 2003, Saint Paul Development Cocporation, the owner of
452 Selby, applied for the site plan review. The new site plan shows a
reconfiguration of the existing parkin� lot behind the buiidin� at 452 Selby
so that access to the parking lot would be from an adjacent alley and not
across the adjacent Blair Arcade parking lot. To achieve this, the new site
plan proposes removing the existing landscaping that screens the lot from
adjacent residential property. The site plan also proposes a new physical
bazrier (bollards with chain running between them) along the east property
line between the 452 Selby parking ]ot and the Blair Arcade puking lot
that would cut off access between the two lots, and from Selby to both the
452 Selby parking lot and the adjacent Curling Club parking lot. The
proposed new site plan makes no provision for a dumpster or dumpster
screening.
4. Alley access to parking lots is regulated by §62.104(fl of the zoning code.
LIEP staff denied the site plan in a letter dated July 28, 2003, finding that
the reconfigured parking lot does not meet requirements for alley access.
The requirements of §62.104(fl for allowing non-residentiai alley acces§
where there is residentially zoned property across the ailey, along with
findings regazding the ability to meet the requirements in this case, are
listed below.
Entrances and exits to and from all off-street parking facilities which are
located on Zand in nonresidential zoning districts and which abut
residentially zoned land across an alley shall be denied alley access
except where the applicant can establish, in the review of a site plan
application, that allowance of alley access would not create or aggravate
an unsafe condition and one (1) or more of the following conditions exist:
Allowance of alley access in this case would create or aggravate an unsafe
condition, and should be denied on that basis alone. The alley right-of-
way is narrow, only 15 feet wide, with a number of garages very close to
the right-of-way. In addition, because Arundel Street is vacated between
the alley and Selby, public access between the alley and Selby is about 1/4
mile apart via Western and Mackubin. Tra'ffic from this parking lot to
Selby wouid either travel an unusually long distance in a narrow ailey or
choose an even longer route via residential, streets.
a. Alternatives to alley access are unsafe due to traffic volumes,
traffic speeds, proximity to an intersection, steep slopes, a blind
pedestrian crossing, or some other unsafe condition;
A safe altemative to alley access can be provided by maintaining
the existing layout of the lot, which' was approved by the City and
D �-( /oa
2 has been in effect for a number of years. A condition of the
3 approval of the site plan for the existing lot was that the
4 owner "provide documentation of an access easement "
5 This condirion was never met. However, the owner of the
6 adjacent property to the east has recentiy stated that he is
7 willing to provide a cross easement for access.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
�
The location of existing structures on tke praperty prohibiTS access
to the street;
The location of existing structures does not prohibit access to
Selby. In fact, the existing layout of the pazking lot, approved and
constructed in 1987, has access to Selby. The proposed new site
plan would physically close off existing access with boliards and
chain.
A comprehensive plan or a neighborhood plan approved by the
city council recommends that new off-street parking facilities be
located in the rear of development sites or discourage additional
curb cuts or driveways across sidewalks;
The comprehensive plan for Selby Avenue calls for new buildings
to be built up to the front property line. This is the existing
condition here and it can be maintained with no change to the
existing pazking lot. ,
The number of parking spaces in the off-street parking facility is
seven (7) or less;
The number of pazking spaces exceeds 7 spaces. The site plan
shows 17 pazking spaces with access to the alley. In addition, if
the site plan was implemented the adjacent parking lot to the west
with approximately 16 parking spaces would lose the access it
cuirently has to Selby Avenue and would also require alley access.
The site pian approved in 1987 for the parking lot at 452 Selby was ciearly
conditioned on the owner obtaining an access easement across the Blair
Arcade lot. No access easement has been recorded and the owner at 452
Selby now asks the City to declare that an easement across the Biair
Arcade parking lot is in effect. The City does not have the power to grant
such an easement.
6. The owners of the parking lot serving Blair Arcade have advised City staff
that they aze willing to grant the owners of 452 Selby an access easement
across their property if the owners of 452 Selby will grant them an access
easement across their property in order to get to the pazking spaces at the
Curling Club parking lot to the west. An access easement to the 452 Selby
lot over the Blair Arcade lot can apparently be obtained as required under
the condition imposed in the 1987 site plan approval. This is an additional
reason to deny the proposed site plan as there as a reasonable alternative
for access.
2 7. Staff also denied the site plan because the reorganization of the parking lot
3 wouid reduce the total number of parking spaces in adjacent parking lots
4 owned by 452 Seiby, Blair Arcade and the Curling Club. All of the
5 parking spaces in the existing layout aze required parking under zoning.
6 The existing layout for the combined parking lots includes four parking
7 spaces that straddle the property line between 452 Selby and the property
8 to the east. These four spaces would be lost under the proposed
9 reconfiguration of the lot and result in a loss of required parking when
10 compared to the number of spaces provided by the current layout of the
11 combined parking lot. The proposed new site pian would require a
12 variance since it would reduce the number of pazking spaces below what is
13 required."
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
WtIEREA5, on or about October 15, 2003, SPDC duly filed an appeal from the
Commission's decision and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of
considering the actions taken by the Commission; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to L.eg. Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208 and upon notice to
affected parties, the City Council duly conducted a public hearing on 1Vovember 19, 2003, where
all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, having heazd the statements made and having considered the application,
the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Committee and of the Commission,
the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby;
RESOLVE, that the appeal of SPDC is denied for the following reasons:
The Council finds no eiror in the facts, finding or decision of the Commission;
and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the findings set forth in Commission Resolution No. 03-
83, supporting the denial of SPDC's site plan, are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by
reference as the Council's own; and be it
o�- /o�
�
2 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal by the SPDC is denied; and be it
3
4 F'INALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this Resolution to
5 SPDC, the Commission, and the Zoning Administrator.
Adopted by Council: Date �e� �
i+doption Certified by Council Secretary
- - - �-•- -
�
r, w �►�
�Il:� �1�..�,�1 �.
Form Approved by City Attorney
�.,
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCII.: DATE INTTIATED v7~,O
PED 1J14{04 GREEN SHEET No.: 3010297
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: ,( ,/� � m7TTA1✓DATE m7x7A�./DATE
Patricia James 6-6639 �� r ° °°
ia DEPARTMENT DIIL CITY COUNCII.
MUST BE ON COUNCII. AGENDA BY (DATE) �Si� — CITY ATTORNEY _ CITY CLERK
NUMBER FINANCIAL.SERVDIIL FINANCIALSERV/ACCTG
FOR MAYOR(ORASST.) _CIVII.SERVICECOMMISSION
ROUTING
ORDER
TOTAL # OF SIGNATORE PAGES I_(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACl'ION REQUESTED:
Approve resolurion memorializing City Council acfion denying Saint Paul Development Corporation's appeal of Planuing
Commission denial of site plan approval for alley access to parldng at 452 Selby Avenue. Public hearing held November 19,
2003
RECOMMENDAITONS: Apptove (A) or Reject (R) YERSONAL SEBVICE CON'1'RACCS MOST ANS WER THE FOLLO WA'G
QUESTIONS:
PLANNING COMMISSION l. Has this person/fitm ever worked under a contrac[ for ttiis department?
CIB COMMITTEE Yes No
CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION 2. Has this person/fitm ever been a ciry employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a slall noi normally possessed by any current city employee�
Yes Na
Explain aIl yes a�swers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNIT'Y (Who, What, When, Where, Why): .S'1tC j712ri LeV1eW SY3ff ClErileCl S1tC p18T1 3QpTOV31 fOT
alley access to a parking lot at 452 Selby, and the Planning Commission upheld the denial. The property owner appealed to
the City Council, which denied the appeal on November 19, 2003 after a public hearing
nvvnNTaGES iF nrrxovEn: Attached resolution will formalize City Council action
DISADVANTAGESTFAPPROVED:
none
nisanvnivTncES i� NoT nrrxovEn: City Council action will not be finalized
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION: WST/REVENUE BUDGETED:
Fi7NDING SOURCE: ACTIVI7'Y NUMBER:
FINANCIAL INFORMATION=
K�ZONINGUa grolh resot�tiw� wpd
C �i .�'^!� ��C��"s,!f!'.r �a?lc�
JAN 2 3 20D�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Ketty, Mayor
October 28, 2003
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Reseazch O�ce
Room 310 City hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
RE: Public hearing date
Dear Ms. Erickson:
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND � 1p ,
ENVIl20NMEN7'AL PROTEC170N
Janeen E Rosas, Directar O i L / ^
� O
LOWRYPROFESSIONALBUILDING Telephona, 651-266-9090
350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 F¢csimile: �51-266-9124
SainlPaul,Minnesota55702-ISIO Web: www.cislpaul.mnus/liep
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
November 19, 2003, on the following appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission .
Appellant:
File Nwnber:
Saint Paul Development Corporation
03-374311
Purpose: Appeai of the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Zoning
Administrator's denial of a site plan. The site plan would reorganize the
layout of an existing pazking lot and create an access from the parking lot to
an adjacent alley. -""
Address:
Legal Description
of Property:
452 Selby Avenue
Woodland Park Addition to Saint Paul Lot 3 Block 10
Previous Action: Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the
site plan on a unanimous vote on September 26, 2003
Zoning Committee recommended that the Zoning Admuustrator's decision to
deny the site pian be upheld on a vote of 3-2 vote on September 18, 2003
1VOTiCE OF PpBLIC HEARIIHG
I have confirmed this date with Councilmember Blakey. My understandi
noflce of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please cali me at 26
QUESt10I1S.
Sincerely,
,/�
Tom Beach
Zoning Specialist
cc: File 03-374311
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
The Saint `�aul City Council will eon-
duct a publit heariug on Wedneaday, No-
vember 19, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in the G�ty
Council Cl�ambers, Tlriid Floor, City Ha7l
—Court}iouse,l5VGest KelloggBoulevard,
Saint Paul, Minnesota, to consider the
appeal of Saint Paul Development
Corporation to a decision of the Planaing
Commissibn upholding the Zoning
Adxuini[strakoi's denial of a site plan to
reorganizc the layout of an e�sting
parldng lot and ca�eate an access from the
parking lot to an adjacent alley at 452
Selby Avenue. "
Dated: Nwember 5 2003 �. �
MARY ERICKSON,
tLssistant"City CouncFl Secretary
- (Novem6er 10)
81: PAiiL L6(`iAL IEDGER
22072279 ' � .
OFFICE OF LICEI��SE, INSPECTfONS AND
ENVIliONMENTAL PROTECTTON
Janeen fi Rosas, Director !/
�T —��
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
RandyC. Kel[y, Mayor
LOWRYPROFESSIONALBUILDLVG Telephone: 651-266-9090
350 St. Peter Street, Siute 300 Factimile: 657-266-9I24
SaintPaul,i�nnesotaiJ101-I570 Web: mvw.ci.stpauLmn.us/liep
�
�
November 12, 2003
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 Ciry Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
RE: Appeal of the Planning Comznission's denial of a site plan for a parking lot at 452 Selby
City Council Iiearing: November 19, 2003
PURPOSE: To consider an appeal by the Saint Paul Development Corporation of the Planning
Commission's decision to deny their site plan to rearrange the parking spaces in an existing park9ng lot
and provide access from the parking to the adjacent alley.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECON�MENDATION: DENIAL unanimous
ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENTAL 3-2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: pENIAL
SUPPORT: 2 people spoke in support
OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke anZ 11 letters/emails were received in opposition
Dear Ms. Erickson:
The property at 452 Selby is owned by Saint Paul Development Corpor-ation. There is a commercial
building at the front of the property and a parking lot behind it. There is no direct access from the
parking lot to Selby Avenue across the. property. However, there are parking lots on either side of 452
Selby and when the site plan for the existing parking lot was approved by the City in 1987 a condition of
the approval was that the property own�r get an easement so that cazs could drive across the parking lot
to the east and get to Selby. There is no evidence that the property owner ever obtained this easement but
for as long as the lot has been in existence cars have gotten access to it by driving across the lot to the
east.
In August 2003 the owner of 452 Selby submitted a site plan to reorganize his pazking lot. The pazking
spaces would be rearranged so that access would be from the adjacent alley. The site also shows a fence
along the east property line to separate the ]ot from the adjacent parking lot to the east. Cars would not
be able to drive across the parking lot to the east to get to the lot
Access from a commercial parking lot to an adjacent alley is prohibited when there is residential property
across Yhe alley unless it meets conditions related to the safety of using the alley for access and the
availability of access to street specified in Section 62.104.9.f of the Zoning Code. Staff denied the site
plan on July 28,2003, based on findings that alley access was possible since the owner of the parking
lot to the east indicated he was willing to provide a cross easement.
Saint Paul Development Corporation appealed staff's decision to deny the site plan.
6 � b�
The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the appeal on �
September 18, 2003. Staff recommended denial of the appeal.' At the close of the public hearing the
committee voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the appeal. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning
Committee's recommendarion to deny the appeal on a unanimous vote on September 26, 2003 based on
findings that alley access was unsafe and there were alternatives to alley access
On October 15, 2003, Saint Paul Development Corporadon apg'ealed the Pianning Commission's
decision. The appeal is scheduled to be heard by the Ciry Council on November 19, 2003.
Please cali me at 266-9086 if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
/ �s�
Tom Beach
Zoning Specialist
cc: File # 03-374311
Ciry Councilmembers
Attachments
- Appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's denial
- Letters in opposition to the appeal
- Planning Commission resolution
- Minates of ttte public hearing held at the Zoning Commsttee
- Staff report for the Zoning Committee
- Appeal to the Planning Commission of staff's denial
- Staff tetter denying site ptan
- Site plan
- Aerial photo and location map
H:\COMMONVSite Plan\Big projects\Se@y 452\cc cover Imer.wpd
�
�
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
� •-
�
�
�
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number 03-8
da�e September 26. 20�3
WHEREAS, Saint Pauf Development �orporation, File # 03-346-161, has filed an appeal, under the
provisions of §64.300 of the Legislative Code, of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a site plan
to reconfigure an existing parking lot (ccated at 452 Selby Avenue, legally described as Lot 3, Block 10,
Woodiand Park Addition to Saint Paul; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on September 18, 2003, held a puhiic
hearing at which ali persons present w�re given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said petition in
accordance with the requirements of §34.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, based on the evidence psesented to its Zoning Committee at
the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of facf:
1. ln 1987 the City approved a site p4an for a parking lot behind the building at 452 Seiby. The 452
Selby parking lot adjoins another parking lot which serves the Blair Arcade buiiding at Western and
Seiby to the east, and also a parking lot to the west that serves the St. Paul Gurling Club at 476
Selby. Access from Selby Avenue io the 452 Selby parking fot and to the adjacent Curiing Club
parking 1ot is across the Blair Arcacle parking lot. The 1987 site pian was approved with a condition
that the owner of 452 Selby obtain an access easement across the adjacent parking lot, a condition
for landscaping along the south sidz of the lot to separate and screen it from the alley and adjacent
residentia! property, and a condition for enclosing the trash d�mpster with a 6 foot obscuring fence.
2. The existing parking lot at �}52 Selby was constructed according to the site plan approved in 1987.
Cars parking in the 452 Se{by parking {ot have access from SeVby Avenue across the Biair Arcade
parking lot, as has been the situaticn since 1987. However, there is no record that the owner of
the 452 Selby parking lot foilowed';�rough and obtained an access easement from the owner of the
adjoining fot.
3. On August 27, 2003, Saint Paul De!✓elopme�t Corporation, the owner of 452 Selby, applied for site
plan review. The new site plan sho� �s a reconfiguration of the existing parking lot behind the
building at 452 Selby so that acces c to the parking lof would be from an adjacent alley and not
across the adjacent Biair Arcade perking iot. To achieve this the new site plan proposes removing
the existing Iandscaping that screers the lot from adjacent residential property. The site plan also
proposes a new physica{ barrier (bclfards with chain running between them) along the easf property
line between the 452 Selby parking lot and the Blair Arcade parking lot that wouid cut off access
betwee� the two iots, and from Sel��y to both the 452 Selby parking lot and the ad}'acent Curiing
Cfub parking lot. The proposed ne�+v site plan makes no provision for a dumpster or dumpster
screening.
moved by Fiel
seconded by
in favor unanimous
against
�_�
Zoning File #03-346-961
Planning Commission Resolufion
Page 2
4. Alley access to parking lots is regulated by §62.104(� of the zoning code. LIEP staff denied the sife
plan in a letter dated July 28, 2003, finding that the reconfigured parking lot does not meet
requiremenfs for afley access. The` requirements of §62.104(fl for allowing non-residential alley
access where there is residentially zoned properly across the aliey, along with findings regarding
the ability to meet the requirements in fhis case, are fisted betow.
Entrances and exits to and from all off-streef parking facilfties which are (ocated on land in
nonresidential zoning districts and which abut residentially zoned land across an alley shall be
denied alley access except where the applicant can establish, in the review of a site plan
application, that allowance of aNey access would not create or aggravate an unsafe condifion and
one (1) or more of the following conditions exist:
Allowance of alley access in this case would create or aggravate an unsaPe condition, and should
be denied on that basis alone. The aliey right-of-way is narrow, oniy 15 feet wide, with a number of
garages very close to the right-of-way. in addition, because Arundet Street is vacated befween the
aifey and Seiby, public access between the ailey and Selby is about 1/4 mile apart via Western and
Mackubin. Tra�c from this parking Iot to Selby would eithe:� travel an unusualiy long distance in a
narrow alley or choose and even longer route via residentia; streets.
a. Alfernatives to alley access are unsafe due to traffic volumes, tra�c speeds, proximity to an
intersection, steep slopes, a blind pedestrian crossing, or some other unsafe condition;
•
A safe aifernative to alley access can be provided by maintai�ing the existing layout of the iot,
which was approved by the City and has been in effect fc�r a number of years. A condition of the �
approval of the site plan for the existing lot was that the owner "provide documentation of an
access easement." This condition was never met. However, the owner of the adjacent property
to the east has recentiy sfated that he is willing to provide a cross easement for access.
b. The locatron of existing structure.s on the property prohibits access to the street;
The location of existing structures does not prohibit acce:�s to Selby. In fact, the existing Iayout
of the parking lot, approved and �onstructed in 1987, ha� access to Selby. The proposed new
site plan would physically close off existing access with ballards and chain.
c. A comprehensive plan or a neigh,borhood plan approved by fhe city council recommends that
new off-street parking facilities ka. locafed in fhe rear of development sifes or discourage
additional curb cuts or driveways across sidewatks;
The comprehensive pian for Seiby Avenue catls for new buifdings fo be buiff up to fhe front
property Iine. This is the existing condition here and it can be maintained with no change to the
existing parking lot.
d. The number of parking spaces ir, the off-sfreef parking facilify is seven (7) or less.
The number of parking spaces exceeds 7 spaces. The site plan shows 17 parking spaces with
access to the aliey. In addition, if the site pian was implemented the adjacent parking lot to the
west with approximately 16 parking spaces would fose the access it currently has to Selby
Avenue and wouid also require ailey access.
5. The site plan approved in 1987 for the parking lot at 452 Sel was clearly conditioned on the
owner obtai�ing an access easement across fhe Blair Arcads lot. No access easement has been
recorded and the owner af 452 Selby now asks the City io declare that an easement across the
8fair Arcade parking lot is in effect. The Ciry does not have the power to grant such an easement.
6. The owners of the parking lot servir;g Blair Arcade have advised City staff that they are willing to
grant the owners of 452 Selby an access easement across their property if the owners of 452
Seiby wiil grant them an access easement across their property in order to get to the parking
�
04� la�
Zoning File #03-346-161
Pianning Commission Resolution
Page 3
�
spaces at the Curling Club parkinc (ot to the west. An access easement to the 452 Selby lot over
the Blair Arcade lot can apparentfy be obtained as required under the condition imposed in the
1987 site plan approvai. This is an additional reason to deny the proposed site plan as there is a
reasonable alternative for access. .
7. Staff also denied the site pian because the reorganization of the parking lot would reduce fhe total
number of parking spaces in adjac�nt parking lots owned by 452 Selby, Blair Arcade and the
Curiing Club. All of the parking spa�es in the existing layout are required parking under zoning. The
existing layou# for the combined parking lots inciudes four parking spaces that straddle #he property
line between 452 Sefby and the prc�perty to the east. These four spaces would be lost under the
proposed reconfigurafion of the lot and result in a loss of required parking when compared to the
number of spaces provided by the vurrent fayout of the combined parking lot. The proposed new
sife plan would require a variance 3ince it would reduce the number of parking spaces below what
is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED, based on the findings above, that the Saint Pau1 Planning
Commission does hereby deny the appeal of Saint Paui Development Corporation and uphold the
Zoning Administrator's decision to denv the site p(an to reconfigure an existing parking lot located at
452 Selby Avenue. �
�
�
o� !oa
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Deparhneat of Planning and Econonzic Development
Zoning Section
I400 Cily Hall Annez
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN SSIO2-1634
(65I) 266-6589
APPLICANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Name St. Pau1 Development �orn - reor�sented bv Meyer & NSttG
Address ¢ Se1by Avenue
St. Paul 651-287-2002 �(An,
City �, MN �,jp 55102 payfimePhoner»_za�_�aaa ia+i
ZoningFlleName site vian 03-411299: 7.pnina F;_t �D3-�4a_a6�
Address/Location `�s� seib=� avenue
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
� Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council R PP+tnn:h� �' � y5g3j ��
Under the provision of Chapter 64, Section 64.206 Paragraph � t{�-�of the Zoning Code, to appeai a
decision made by the
on September 26 , 20 03 , File Number: 03-53
(date of decision�
service co pleted on Applicant's counsel on 10/3/03
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision
or refusal made by an administrative officiai, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
See Attachments.
(attach additionat sheet'rf necessary)
� ` c�
Applicant'sSignaturg, / _ „-��,y „DatR �� � U
o� �oz
r�
SITE PLAN UNDER REVIEW: 03-311299
Zoning File No: 03-346161
Planning Commission Resolution File No. 03-83
DECISION APPEALED•
Planning Commission Resolution (the "Resolution") dated September 26, 2003 which was
received by the Appellant's Counsel on October 3, 2003. The Resolution affirmed the 7uly 28,
2003 decision of a Zoning Specialist for the City of St. Paul who found that Appellant does not
have access to its parking lot across an adjacent parking lot and denied Appellant's proposal for
alley access to its parking lot behind 452 Seiby.
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
5T. PAUL DEVELOPMENT COPRORATION
OWNER OF 452 SELBY AVENiJE
SUMMARY OF ISSUE:
� It is undisputed that the only viabl� access to the parking lot which services 452 Selby is either
across the adjacent parking lot now owned by Bellaire Properties, Inc. ("Bellaire") and formerly
owned by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Paul, Minnesota ("FIItA")
or from the public aliey which abuts the rear of the subject property. It is Appellant's position
that its application for alley access meets the requirements of St. Paui Legislative Code §
62.104(fl and therefore must be granted. Failure to grant alley access would mean that the City
has landlocked 452 Selby (effectively inversely condemning the property by not allowing access
by the owners and tenants of 452 Selby to a public street).
FACTUAL BACKGRDUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
This issue arises only because the original Site Plan for parking for 452 Selby, which was
approved by the City Council approximately 15 years ago, was not followed by the HRA. The
original Site Plan required the HRA to provide an access easement for the benefit of 452 Selby
across the I3RA's property. However, when the F3RA conveyed its property to Bellaire in
November of 1992, it failed to reserve in its deed to Bellaire the access easement for the benefit
of 452 Selby.
The City has put Appellant in the g�sition where it must litigate to achieve that which it should
have as a matter of course. The Citd Council has the power to rectify this oversight by the HEtA
by granting aliey access.
1 1
U
o`f-ioa-
The relevant facts concerning this matter and the procedura( history aze clear from the record �
which was presented to the Pla.nning Commission. Appellant incorporates the record made
before the Plauning Commission in Yhis ?zppeal, including but not limited to, Appellant's prior
submissions to the Planning Comxnission. -
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant meets all of the conditions of St Paul Legislaf�ve Code � 62.104(� such that a curb
cut to allow access to 452 Selby's Pnrking Lot from the aldey must be granterl
It is undisputed that there is no recorded easement giving the property owner of 452 Selby
Avenue the right to access its pazking lot across the adjacent parking lot to the east which was
conveyed to its present owner, Bellaire, by the HRA in November of 1992. Without such an
easement, 452 Setby's parking lot is Iand-locked, and the only viable access to the lot would be
by virtue of a curb cut off the alley at the rear of the property as set forth in Appellant's proposed
Site Plan.
The decision of the Zoning Administrator which was affirmed by Yhe Plannuzg Commission
reaches the clearly untenable position of land-locking and effectively inversely condemning 452
Selby Avenue.
In examining whether the Appellant is entitled to have its proposal for a curb cut off the alley
approved, the City of St. Paul is obligated to fottow its o��n ordinances and rules. See Amoco �
Oil Co. v City of Minnea�olis, 395 N.W.2d 115 (Minn.'. App. 19g6) (yVhere applicant fully
complied with the standards for a conditional use permit, denial of the pernut by the city was
arbitrary as a matter of law.). Ttee City is precluded from supporting its decision with other
factors which are not set forth in the ordinance. Id. In this matter, the City of St. Paul is
obligated to follow Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.104(fl which provides (italicized words
represent the te�rt of § 62.104(�):
Entrances and exits to and from ald off-street parking fctcilities which are located on dand
in nonresidential zoning districts and which abut residentiadly zoned land across an alley shall
be denied alley access except where the applicant can esuzblish, in the review of a site plan
applieation, that aflowanee of aldey access would not create or aggravate an unsafe eondition
and one (1) or more of the foJlorving conditions exist:
' The Zoning Specialist did noi make a finding tUat alley access aould either "create or aggravate an unsafe
condition." Without such a finding of an unsafe condition by ihe Zoning Specialist, this issue was not properly
before the Planning Commission. Neverthetess, the Ptanning Commission cites tlus notion in an apparent pretext
for aHirming the decision of the Zoning Specialist even though there was no substantiat or competent testimony or
recor@ esiabGshed [hat altowing aliey access wouid create an nnsafe wndition. Safery was not a factor in the
Zoning Specialist's decision and was not a significant issue brought to the attention of or raised by the Plauning
Commission at public hearings. Any simple objecuons of neighbors made at tfie public hearing were not cited by �
the Planning Commission and on their own could not form a legally sufficient mason 2o deny an application for use
of property. See Amoco Oil Co. v Ciry of Minneanolis 395 N.W2d 115 (Mimi. App. 1986). Thus, the puiported
justifica6on for ihe Planning Commission's decision has no fach�al basis in the record
2
o�-�o�.
1. Alternatives to alley access are unsafe due to traffic volumes, traffic speeds, proximity
� to an intersection, steep slopes, a bZind pedestrian crossing, or some other unsafe
condition;
This factor is met by the Appellant because no other alternatives e�st except by
allowing alley access. If alley access is not granted, the parking lot for 452 Selby is
completely inaccessible from the public streets.
It is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious to find that an alternative to alley access
e�sts where there is an undisputed finding that no access easement to the 452 Selby
Pazking Lot erasts. For the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission to
effectively require that the owner of 452 Selby Avenue provide consideration to
adjacent property owners to obtain an easement, which easement the FIRA should
have provided in 1988 and reserved in its deed to Bellaire in November of 1992, is
arbitrary and unreasonable. The City cannot and should not abdicate its duties to
examine the facts as they exist and apply those facts to the requirements of §
62.104(fl. To suggest, as the decisions of the Zoning Specialist and the Planning
Commission do, that ttie Appellant should provide consideration to adjacent property
owners to obtain an access easement is not a factor that is cited in § 61.104(fl and
therefore is an impermissible consideration. See Amoco Oil Co v. City of
Minneapolis, 395 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. App. 1986) (To consider factors not
enumerated in the law constituted a legaliy insufficient basis to deny a conditionai use
permit.)
� 2. The location of existing structures on the property prohibits access to the street;
The building and structures on 452 Selby Avenue prohibit access to Selby Avenue.
Again, this factor is met by and supports the proposed curb cut in the ailey. The
Planning Commission's reasoning that e�cisting structures (the building) do not
prevent access to Seiby Avenue is contrary to the facts. To conclude that the
structures/buildings at 452 Selby do not prohibit access to Selby Avenue would mean
that the owner of 452 Selby would either have to tear down the building for this to be
the case or build a tu�ulel under or through the building. Obviously, such
requirements are absurd and cleazly indicate the erroneous nature of the Planning
Commission's findings.
3. A comprehensive plan or neighborhood plan approved by the city council
recommends that new off-street parking facidities be located in the rear of
development sites or discourages additional curb cuts or driveways across sidewalks;
or
According to the Zoning Administrator, the comprehensive plan for Selby Avenue
calls for buildings to be built up to the street thus suggesting that off-street parking be
created behind buiidings. The parking for 452 Selby is behind the building.
Appellant's Site Plan rneets this condition. The oniy viable means to access the
� parking area presently is by granting Appellant's application for alley access.
3
ey-�oa-
4. The trumber of parkireg spaces in the off-street parking facility is seven (7) or Zess. �
This is the only condition not met 6y the AppetIant as the Site Plan is for 18 spaces.
However, § 62.104(� does not require that all four conditions be met, it only requires
that one condition be met. Appellant cleady satisfies one of the four enumerated
conditions and that alone compels approval of AppellanYs Site Plan.
The above factors which are specifically enumerated in § 62.104(� are the onty factors which the
City may rightfully consider in evaluating Appellant's proposed site plan. See Amoco Oil Co. v.
City of Minneapolis 395 N.W.2d I15 (Minn. App. 1986} (Consideration of other factors not
enumerated in the ordinance concerning a special use pernut could not form a legally sufficient
basis for the pemut application). Consequently, the Zoning SpecialisYs and the PIanuing
Commission's consideration of factors such as loss of overall pazking are not appropriate or
sustainable considerations.
Appellant accepts the finding of the Planning Commission that the issue of whether or not
Appetlant has the iegaI right to access its parking lot across the neighboring property is one that
may only be resolved by the courts. Appellant also agrees that should it be successful in
obtaining access across $ellaire's property that it will then utilize that access and close access to
its lot from the alley.
However, in ihe interim, as Appellant clearly meets at least one of the conditions of 62.104(fl, �
the City of St. Paul must permit Appellant alley access to its parking area.
Respectfully submitted,
ST. PAUL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Meyer & Njus, P.A.
�� r�E
ames M. Njus, Esq.
Stephen M. Harris
i 100 Pitlsbury Center
200 South 6th Street
Mim�eapolis, MN 55402
(612) 341-2181
` Any alleged loss of parking spaces to the property adjacent to the east as a result of the Site Plan is simply not a
relevant factor set forth in § 62.104(fl. Furthermore, any purported loss in pazking spaces for Bellaire's property to
the east is caused by Bellaire's own vnwillingness to admit that 452 Selby dces have access across Bellaire's lots
consisteni with the conditions upon wMch it purchased the property from the City fn 1992, and the conditions which
would be seff-evident from an examination of the property. Consequently, even though this is a factor which cannot
properly be considered, Bellaire cannot be heard to cqmp2ain of a loss of parldng where Bellaire's own actions have �
created the purported loss.
0
Page 1 of 1
O� /D �.
Tom Beach - 452 Selby Ave. site plan denial review
� From: "Liz Shieids Keating" <lizshieldskeating@hotmaiLcom>
To: <tom.beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 11/10/20D3 10:19 PM
Subject: 452 Selby Ave. site plan denial review
Mr. Beach:
Our house is right across the alley from 452 Selby Avenue.
We strongiy urge the wuncii to affirm the Planning Commission's deniat of
alley access from the 452 Selby Avenue parking lot. It is already very
difficuit to get in and out of our garage because of tra�c and the
position of our garage with respect to the aliey (which is the same as all
garages on our block). To add traffic coming from another direction to the
mix would make it downright hazardous.
Thank you-
Liz Shields & John Keating
143 Arundel St.
MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays! Snappier product search...
http //sho� i�nq.msn com
u
�
file:l/C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\beachtom\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW } 00010.... 11l11 /2003
o�}-1 o�
Richard P. McDermott
484 La�ret Ave.
Saint Paui; MN 55102
November8,2003
Councilman Jerry Blakey
Room 390A City Hall
15 W. Kellogg Blvd., Room 310A
St. Paul, MN 55102-1634
Dear Councilman Blakey,
The entrance to my back door and to my garage is adjacent to the alley at the rear of LaGrolla restaurant.
understand fhat fhe St. Paul �eve(opment Corp. whose CEO is John McCarty is appealing the denial by the
St. Paul Planning Commission of his request for alley access to his property at 452 Selby Ave. (This
property houses LaGrolta Reshaurant.)
I noie thai the Planrting Commission's actian in denying the previou;> request was by unanimous vote. f am
repuesting that you and other members of the City Council reject the appeal of Mr. McCarty through his St.
Pau) Development Corporafion for the following reasons:
�
. The increased alley traffc of both passenger vehiGes and delivery trucks would provide a hazard
for all residents and especially for the children of many of our residents. This hazard appiies not
only to residents o� foot but to those of us who have garages at the rear of our homes.
. The quality of our lives would also be degraded by the additionaV noise and air pollution created by
increased a�ley traffic.
• An alley access would increase the flow of traffic down the alley thereby creating excess wear and
maintenance costs on our already somewhat fragile alfey. The tra�c thereby enabled through the
alley would, no doubt, include heavy delivery trucks. �
. The residential homes in our block on Laurel Avenue (between Mackubin and Arundel) already get
heavy affey traffic due to the bbcking off (vacation) of Arundel Street jusf north of Laurel Ave. a
number of years ago. Motorists trying to proceed north on Arundel from Laurel Ave. find
themsetves fac'rng the barrier where Arundet St. has been blocked and therefore turn wesf to drive
down our alley. (The alley to the east is a dead end and so we get all the diverted traffic.) (Even
the very rough and undulating surface o{ the a!!ey does not seem limit the speed w'rth which many
drivers proceed down the ailey.) Granting alley access would certainly exacerbate this situation.
Piease do not support this appeai, which, if granted, would turn our alley into a thoroughfare.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Richard P. McDermott
�
Alley Access Page 1 of 2
�
�
�
Tom Beach - Alley Access DSL_���
From: <Todd.S.Smith@Healthf�artners.Com>
To: <Tom.beach@ci.stpauJ.mn.us> .
Date: 11/5/2003 6:09 AM
Subject: AAey Access
Tom;
I am emailing you today to let you know I support the Pianning Commission's decision to deny alley access to La
Grolla's parking lot at 452 Seiby. As a resident that owns property on that alley I do not want to see increased
traffic that would be adding wear and tear to an already decaying alley surface. If access is granted is the city
prepared to resurface the alley? I also oppose it as it would give more people access to park on Laurel Ave. It
is already difficult on weekends for people visiting us to find parking at night when the bars and restaurants are at
capacity on Selby. We over the last two years have had a drug problem going op in the alley. Our property was
very secluded since we are directly behind the Curling Club. After noting the drug traffc, numerous times of trash
being dumped, and vandalism occurring at our property we chose to have a wrought iron fence installed to make
the area more open as the privacy fence in piace before did just that it offered the perpetrators privacy. 7he
installation of this fence in 2002 has mana�ed to move all problems mentioned away from our property. I think
giving La Grolia aliey access wiil bring this problem back and it is not a good solution. If La Grolla feels this is the
only issue they face to improve their business they should then consider moving their restaurant as access to the
parking lot is not the problem. The residents on this alley should not be subjected to increased trafhc and
expense because La Groffa is not able to run their restaurant efficientiy. Pfease share my comments with the
other members of the Pianning Commission and do not repeal the decisio� to deny the restaurant's request.
Thank you,
Todd S Smith
Data Quality Systems Specialist
Regions Hospitaf
HIM Department 11501E
640 Jackson Streef
St Paul MN 55101
(651) 254-2466
todd.s. smith@health partners.com
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are con£inential and are
�ntended solely for tne use cf the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual
xesponsible for delivering che e-mail to the intended recipient, please
be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any
use, dissemination, forwaxding, printing, or copying of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-maii in error, please im�nediately notify
the AealthPartners Support Center by telephone at (952) 96'7-6600.
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\beachtom\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW } 00008.... 11 /5/2003
by-/a �.
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITfEE
Thursday, September 18, 2003 - 3:30 p.m,
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulev�rd
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
STAFF:
Faricy, Field, Kramer, Mejia, and Morton
Alton, Anfang, and Gordon
Tom Beach Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, and Peter Wamer
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Kramer.
�
LaGrolia - 03-346-161 - Appeal of zoning administrator's decision denying a site plan for a parking lot
with alley access. 452 Seiby Ave.
Tom Beach presented the staff report with a recommendation of denial for the appeal. He also stated there
were 11 e-mails opposing the parking lot with alley access and District 8 recommends denial, and a letter from
the Curling Club stating they wouid be willing to grant cross easements.
Upon the question of Commissioner Morton, Mr. Beach stated the Curling Club has a limited amount of
parking spaces on the east side of the building and the majority of their parking is on the west side of the
building.
James IVjus, representative of the appellant, explained that the proceedings are underway because of the �
tenant LaGrolla, which operates the restaurant thaYs on the first floor of the building at 452 Selby filed an
application for a liquor license and Bef Air Properties, an adjacent property owner, objected to the issuance of
the license upon the grounds that there was no access to the parking lot behind 452 Selby. A curb cut in the
alley is not the desirable resolution and that LaGrolla's does have access across lots 1 and 2 which is Bel Air's
properry. He went on to explain the history of the development of the parking fot which they believe cannot be
disputed because it was a development that took place with the joint efforts of John McQuillan, the City of St.
Paul, and the HRA. The iiRA owned (ots 1 and 2 and with John M<:Quilfan devefoped fhe parking lot and the
HRA was to provide an access easement to 452 Selby. Whether or not the easement was prepared and
signed is not known. He gave a history of the development and how the easement progressed. He stated the
commissioners have the facts of the law to determine that fhere is an access to 452 Selby across lots 1 and 2.
In the alternative if it is determined there is no legal access for 452 Selby then there would have to be an alley
cut so the building would have access to the streef.
At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Njus clarified that the two courses of action would be 1. To
grant the alley access. 2. To deny the application and uphold the finding of stafF and fo determine that There is
access to 452 Selby on the basis of the historical record that HRA, the previous owriers of the property,
agreed to give 452 Selby an access easement. The City of St Paul Staff (PED} required as a condition of
granting the permit and approving the site plan that such access be in place. The records of the City of St.
Paul are signed off on June 29, 1988, saying that everything has been fulfilled and completed and may have
been neglected to be placed on record.
Commissioner Field stated the only thing to be dealt with is the application only and the commissioners do not
have fhe ability to make a decision on the hisfory of the easement.
James Njus stated that the reference was made because City Staff denied the appiication for an alley cut on
the basis of access being available across the adjoining property. If access is not available there is an
entitlement to the alley cuY as a matter of !aw in order to have access to the parking lot.
�
John McCarty, fhe appelfant, stated he was requesting a curb cut in the alfey so they can fiave access to the
d� i��
Zoning Fife #03-346-161
September 18, 2003, Zoning Committee Minutes
Page 2
�
property at 452 Selby Avenue. May 16, 2003, Michael C. Flemming, Attorney for Bel Air Properties made the
claim that " LaGrolfa's did not have the right of access to the parking focated at 452 Selby Avenue" and that is
when the curb cut in the ailey was appiied for and denied by City staff. According to Section 62.104f of the
City Zoning Code, city staff has made a sfatement fhat is not clear in the staff report, section 5b which states
that the location of the existing structures do not prohibit access. The way the property lines are set up
LaGrolla's does not have access to the street so the location of the existing structure on the property prohibits
access to the street which meets the requirements of Section 62.104f, therefore, a curb cut in the a{{ey should
be allowed.
At the question of Commissioner Field, Mr: Beach explained that in 1987 when the lot was developed the
parties to the easement were the previous;owner of 452 Selby and the owners of the Blair Arcade/Hill Plaza
Development. The approval for the site p(an stated that the owner of 452 Selby needed to get an easement
across the BlaidArcade property and it did not mention the Curling Club and that parking lot could have been
developed later.
At the question of Commissioner Mejia relating to an access easement on Mr. Flemmings property, Mr. Njus
stated he would stick to the topic and stated they are asking for a curb cut so that there is access to the
property. As it relates to an easement is not why they are here to get a curb cut in back. On May 16, 2003,
Michae{ F4emming, attorney for Bela+r Properties made the claim that LaGrolla's did not have {egal right to
access the parking which is O.K. as long as there is access to the LaGrolia's property.
� Peter Carlsen, 482 Dayton Ave., stated he drew the site plans because access has been denied across the
property lines and it meets afl the criteria of the zoning ordinance. LaGrolla's does not have access to the
street so they should be allowed the curb cut to the alley with the same amount of parking spaces behind the
building.
Jeff Gardner, 428 Dayton Ave., stated he was in favor of the alley access being granted.
Geraldine McQuillan, previous owner of the building at 452 Selby Ave., stated the City developed a plan with a
parking lot and would like to see the curb cut from the alley granted.
Tom Harlan, representative of the applicant, stated the issue is looking at a curb cut to afford access to a
parking lot in order for LaGrolla's to get a strong fiquor ficense. A reflection of the overall proceedings is an
easement should have been in place according to the history of the property.
Michae[ C. Flemming, Generaf Gounsel for Bef-Air Properties, exp(ained that the 6e1-Air Properties acquired
the parking lot adjacent to 452 Selby in 19532 from the HRA. At the time it was acquired there was no
easement over the property that benefitted anyone else. l"here were no cross easements at that time. The
parties have used the parking area as a common parking area since 1992 and there weren't any difficulties
until 2003, when St. Paul Development acquired their property and informed Bel-Air property manager that
they were going to charge for crossing over their lot. At that point access became an issue and it has been
asserted that there is an access problem in crossing over the property and Bel-Air properties would like to see
the problem resolved by entering a cross easement that would be beneficia{ to alf three owners of the parking
lot, (St. Paul Curling Club, St. Paul Development, and Bel-Air properties). If a curb cut is aliowed for St. Paul
� Developmeni, the Curling Cfub takes a position that they would also like to have a curb cut.
At the question of Commissioner Kramer, PAr. Flemming stated it would be nice if everyone had their own
parking lot and access but it is not good planning. All parties are 6enefitted by having a common access
because the traffic flow works better with tt;e common design of the current parking lot. Beyond that they
don't have a position because it wouid resuit in other probfems and St. Pauf Curfing C1ub would be entitled to
o� !oa-
Zoning File #03-346-161
September 18, 2003, Zoning Committee Minutes
Page 3
the same rights and it is a poor pian.
Jim McCarthy, 479 Laurel Ave., stafed it wouid cause probiems having a curb cuf info the al(en behind Laurei
Ave. The traffic coming from the businesses would cause a problem for the neighborhood.
Tim Dougherty, 438 Laurel Ave., reiterated the tra�c from the businesses would cause a problem in the
neighborhood. The plan that is in place works and changes would be detrimental to the neighborhood.
James Njus stated St. Paul Development meets the criteria for the curb cut because it is the only access Yhat
they can achieve to its parking lot. The arrangement that existed for 15 years was in writing in the leases it
was not an informal arrangement it was a crontractuat arrangement invotving the City of St. Paul, NftA, the
McQuillans, Bel-Air and the Curiing Club.
The pubiic hearing was closed.
�
Upon question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Warner explained fhat the November 10,1987, site p(an approvaf
required the applicants to obtain documentation of an access easement. That has never been done. The
application today is for a site plan approval which has a curb cut lorated in the alley-way beiween Selby and
Laurel. The staff has made a recommendation that staff's decision be upheld and, in esse�ce, deny St. Paul
DevelopmenYs application for appeal. You must decide whether the information submitted by all parties is
sufficient anecdotal evidence either to support or overtum staff's decision. The problem is in the past
someone did not follow the conditions that the City laid out. 7he fact that the easement has not been resolved
isn't despositive as to what the decision is today regarding the appeal. That can be resolved in a different
forum. Today the decision is whether to grant St. Pauf Development's appeal of the staff decision to deny the '
site plan approval. The evidence to do that is both in the form of spoken testimony and the written submissions
that staff has provided. Section 62.104(fl establishes a two part test with language that provides that the
types of entrances that the applicant is requesting shall be denied unless The ailey access would not create or
aggravate an unsafe condition and that one or more of the conditio�is which have to be applied here have
been met.
At the question of Commissioner Fiefd, Mr. Warner stated that one of the problems is that neither of the
parties provided easement information for the committee Yo address. The only information submitted is a site
plan requirement from 1987 that stated the documents were to be obtained. Nobody has brought forth either
the documents or the history as to whaf might have happened with ffie easement.
Commissioner Morton moved to lay the case over for two weeks so the parties an opportunity to come to an
agreement conceming the easement. Commissioner Far+cy seconded the motion.
Commissioner Field stated he would vote to support the motion so the parties can meet and resolve the issue.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
Tom Beach stated the appeal was received on August 27, 2003, and there is a provision in the code that
establishes a 30 day deadline for appeals of staff decisions before the state 60 day rule went into affect which
makes the deadline date September 26, 2003.
Mr. Wamer advised that the motion couid be wifhdrawn and fhen m�ve fo confirm or deny the staff
recommendation. Mr. Wamer also advised that the hearing could also be reopened to ask the appellant to
consent to a continuance beyond the 30 days in order to come to an understanding concerning the parking lot
or to provide additionaf information to the city with respect to the 1987 agreements.
Commissioner Faricy made a motion to reopen the public hearing to confer with the appeliant. Commissioner
C7S� /oa
Zoning File #03-346-161
September 18, 20a3, Zoning Commitfee Minutes
Page 4
� Kramer seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
James Njus stated on June 6, 20D3, $280.00 was paid to file a site plan. In 1987 the documents were not filed
and the process didn't work and they would like a decision today and not have the case laid over.
Commissioner Morton withdrew her motiori. Commiss+oner Faricy seconded the motion.
Commissioner Kramer moved approval of the site plan based on Condition 5b which is the location of existing
structures on the property prohibits access to the street. Commissioner Mejia seconded the motion.
Commissioner Kramer stated the findings under 5 c and d are not applicable, c talks about the comprehensive
plan for th� neighborhood and the comprehensive plan for Selby talks about new buildings being built up to
the front property line and this isn't a new f�uilding but it is an existing condition. The staff report goes into
talking about if an access easement is obtained it does not quote or address any issues in the site plan in
regards to additional curb cuts or driveways across sidewalks similarly to Condition d applies only to parking
lots that are seven or fewer. Cond'+tion a ta{ks about alternatives to alley access are unsafe, there was no
testimony or documentation and they are proposing an afternative to alley access. 5b the location of the
existing structures on the property prohibit access to the street and that has not been disputed. If the
easement issue was applica6le it would be difficult to hold a new owner of the property subject to an easement
that when the property was purchased didn't show up.
� Commissioner Morton stated she would vote against the motion on the grounds that the code clearly states
that access to commercial property from an alley near residential propeRy is prohibited.
Commissioner Mejia stated he would support the motion stated there is no proof that an easement does exist
and there is no access to there property without an alley access.
Commission Faricy stated she would vote against the motion because of the aliey access is the wrong
approach.
The motion failed by a vote 3-2 with Commissioner Morton, Faricy, and Field voting against.
Commissioner Morton moved denial of the appeal. Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 3-2 with Commissioner Kramer, and Mejia voting against.
Adopted Yeas - 3 Nays - 2
Drafted by:
��,o--f �n�,��
Caroi Martineau
Recording Secretary
�
Submitted by:
�ov�l .�.s�.c.l,��
Tom Beach
Zoning Section
Approved _b��.•�-�.--�
= ' �--� ..._, �-`� "'
�' i i
E ;
��:
Litton Fiel
Chair `
,..-;-; :::a;•
� - � O�-/bo2.
ZONI►�[G COMM(TTEE STAi=F REPORT
FiLE # 03-34616'1
' 1. APPLICANT: Saint Paul_Devetopment Gorporation t{EAi21NG DATE: 09-18-03
2. TYPE OF APPLICATfON: Appeal of the denial of a sife plan
3. LOCATION: 452 Selby Avenue
4. P1N & LEGAL DESCRtP'ftON: Lot 3, 8(ock 10 Woodfand Park Addifion to Saint Paul
5. PLANN{NG DISTRICT: 8 PRESENT ZONING: B-2
6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: Sectians 62.104_f (criteria for alley access for parking lots)
and 64.300 (appeals to the P(anning Commission)
7. STAFF t2EPORT DATE: 09-10-03
BY: Tom Beach
8. DATE RECEiVED: OS-27-03 DEADL(NE FOR ACTION: �-26-03
1�-ct s^
A. PURPOSE: Appeat of the Zoning Administrato�'s decision denying a site plan to
reconfigure an existing parking :ot so that access to the Iof is from Yhe adjacent ailey.
6. PARCEL SIZE: 8,28Q square teef
C. EXISTING LAND USE: Commercial building with parking in the rear.
D. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
North: Multi-family residential (RT-2)
East: Parking lot and mixed commerciat/residential deveiopmenf (B-2}
South: Singie-famify and multi *amily residential (RM-2)
West: 5aint Paul Curling Club !S-2)
E. ZONIIVG CODE CITATION: Gection 62.104.f establishes the condifions under which
commercial parking lots can have alley access when there is residential property across the
alley.
Section 64.300 states that a decision by staff to approve or deny a site plan can he
appealed to the Piannirtg Comrtaissiort.
F. DiSTRICT COUNCiL RECOMMIENDA710N: No District Councii recommendation was
received at the time this staf� regort was submitted.
G. FINDINGS:
In 1987 the Cify approved a site plan for a parking lot behind the truilding af 452 Selby.
The 452 Selby parking lot adjoins anofher parking lot which serves the Biair Arcade
b�iiding at Western and Selby to the east. Access from Seiby Avenue fo the 452 Se1by
parking lof was gained by driving across fhe Blair Arcade parking lot. The 1987 site ptan
was approved with a conditiUn that the owner of 452 Selby obtain an access easemenf
across the ad}acent parking lot. (See aftached site plan artd 1987 stte plan approvai
fetter.)
�
�
�
a�
p`� /D�.; .:..:
�
2. There is no record that the owner of ffie 452 Se(by parking lot foflowed through and
obtained an access easen�ent from the owner of the adjoining lot.
�
3. Apparently, cars parking ir; the 4S2 Sefby parking lot have gained access across the
8lairArcade parking (ot since 1987.
4. On August 27, 2003, Sain± Paul Development Corporation, the owner of 452 Selby,
applied for site pian review. The new site plan shows a reconfiguration of the existing
parking tot behind the building at 452 Selby so that access to the parking lof wouid be
from an adjacent ailey and not across the adjacent Blair Arcade parking lot. The sife
ptan also shows a physicat barrier (bollards with chain running between them) atong the
east property line befween the 452 Selby parking lot and the Blair Arcade parking fot.
(See attached site plan.) '
5. Alley access fo parking lots is regutated by Section 62.104(fl of the zoning code. LfEP
sfaff denied the site plan in a letter dated July 28, 2003, finding that the reconfigured
parking !of did not meet requirements for alley access. (See attached lefter.)
The requirements of Sect+on fi2.104{fl and sYaff's findings denying the site plan are
6sted below. ;
Entrances and exits to and from all off-street parking facilities which are located on land
in nonresidenfial zoning districfs and which abut residentially zoned land across an alley
shall be denied alley access except where the applicant can establish, in the review of a
site �/an application, t,hat a/lowance of alley access would not create or aggravate an
unsafe condition and one (1) ormore of the following conditions exist:
a. Alternatives to. alley access are unsafe due to tra�c volumes, tra�c speeds,
proximity to an intersection, steep slopes, a blind pedestrian c�ossing, or
some other unsafe condition;
A safe aiternative to alley access can be provided by mainfaining the existing
layout of fhe lot, which was approved by the City and has been in effect for a
number of years. A condit+on of the approval of the site p(an for the existing
Iot was that the own=_r "provide documentation of an access easement."
This condition was r,ever met. tiowever, the owner of the ad}acent property
to the east has rece!�tiy stated that he is willing to provide a cross easement
for access. ,
b. The /ocafion of exist;ng structures on fhe property prohibits access to the
street,�
The location of existing structures do not prohibit access to the street if an
easement for access across the adjacent property to the east is obtained so
that the existing layout of the parking lot can be maintained.
a A comprehensive plan or a �eighborhood plan approved by the city council
�ecommends that new off-street parking facilities be located rn the rear of
deveiopment sites or discourage additional curb cuts or driveways across
sidewalks
s
The comprehensive �lan for Selby Avenue calls #or new buildings to be buift
up to the front property line. This is the existing condition here and if can be
maintained without aiiey access if an access easemenf is obtained.
d. Th� number of parking spaces in the off-street parking faci(ity is seven (7) or
: ���y / o�
/ess.
The number of parking spaces exceeds 7 spaces. The site plan shows 18 �
parking spaces wifh access to fhe alley. In addifioh, if the site pian was
impiemented the adjacent parking !ot to fhe west wiTh approximately i6
parking spaces wo41d lose tfie access it cu.=rentty has to Selby Avenue and
would require alley access.
8. StafF atso denied the sife ptan hecause the reorganization of tfie parking lot wouid
reduce the tofal number of parking spaces in adjacenf parking lots owned by 452 Seiby,
Biair Arcade and the Curling Club. A!I of the parking s�aces in the existing fayout are
required parking under zoning. The existing layout for the combined parking lots
includes four parking spacE�s that straddle fhe property line between 452 Seiby and the
property to the east. These four spaces would be lost under the proposed
reconfiguration of the lot arid result in a loss of required patking when compared to fhe
number of spaces provided by the current fayout of the combined parking (ot.
9. The site pfan approved in 1987 for the parking lot �t 452 Selby was ctearly conditioned
on the owner obtaining an ;�ccess easement across the Bfair Arcade lot. No access
easement been recorded and the owner at 452 SeFby now asks the City to declare that
an easement across the Blair Arcade parking !ot is in effect. The City does not have the
power to grant such an easement.
10. The owners of the parking tot serving Blair Arcade have advised City staff that they are
willing to grant the owners o€ 452 Setby an access �asement across fheir property if fhe
owners of 452 Selby wili grant them an access easement acrass iheir property in order
to get fo the parking spaces af tfie Curling Club parking lot to the west. Access fo ihe �
452 Selby lof over the Biair Arcade fot can apparently be obtaineci as required under the
condition imposed in the 1987 site plan approval. This is an additional reason fo deny
the proposed site plan as there is a reasonable aftemative for access.
The new site plan would also require a variartce since it would reduce the number of
parkirtg spaces befow what is required for uses served by the lot.
I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphoid
the decision by sfaff to deny fi�e site pan to reconfigure the existing parking lot af 452 Selby
based on findings 1-10.
Attachments:
Site pian su6mitfed in 2003 #or the 452 Selby paricing iot
Lefter from LfEP denying fhe site plan
Appeal by Sainf Paul Development Corporation including:
Letter of appeal -
Site plan showing Iayouf of parl:ing lots approved in 1987
Letter from City approving 1987 site plan
Deed transferring Biair Arcade parking lot firom the HRA to the current owner
Aerial photos and map of the area
s
�
iVIICHAEL C. FLEMING
�
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4525 HIGHK'AY 61
WFIITE BEAR LAKE, bIINNESOT.� 55110-3492
(651) 429-3323
FA7L (65;) 429-2357
E-Maii: miketteming@qwesLnet
September 15, 2003
St. Paul Planning Commission Zcning Committee
Dept. of Planning and Economic ?�evelopment
Zoning Section
1400 City Hall Annex
25 W. Fourth St.
St. Paul, MN 55102-1634
RE: Site Plan: 03-311299
o� ioa
Reconfiguration of existing parking lot and request for alley access
� Address/Location: 452Se1byAvenue
Applicant: St. Paul Development Corporation
Hearing Date: Thursday September 18, 2003 3:30 p.m.
My Client: Bellaire Properties, Inc.
SY. Paul Planning Commission Zc,ning Committee:
I represent Bellaire Properties, Inc., {"Bellaire") the owner of the property ]ocated east of,
and adjacent to 452 Selby Avenue. My clienY owns the buildings known as Hill Plaza
and Blair Arcade together with the parking lot abutting the property located at 452 Selby
Avenue and owned by Applicant St. Paul Development Corporation ("SPD"). The
position of my client is as follows:
The alley access reqaested by SPD is not necessary because SPD has the
abiliTy to obtain an alternate access by entering into a cross access easement with the
owners of the adjacent parking �ots.
BACKGROUND
Bellaixe {owner of Lots 1� 2), SPD (owner of Lot 3) and the St. Paul Curling
Club ("SPCC" owner of I,ot 4) each own portions of a parcel used far parking purposes
along Selby Avenue including Lots I through 4, Block 10, Woodland Park Addition.
�
d �-iDa
The McQuillan family originaily developed a parking 1ot on Lot 3 in 1987. In
�eviewing the McQuillan plan, the St. Paul De�artment of Planning and Economic
�evelopmenT ("PED") commented that "tke proposed plan wouid join the new parking
lot to the existing city pazking lot and make one continuous parking loP'. See PED
comment, September 9, 1987 and'attached as Exhibit A. Hecause of the configurarion of
the building on the pazcel, there wras no access from the parl�ng 1ot to Selby Avenue.
Therefore, as a specific requirement for approval of the parking lot, the St. Paul PED
required ttiaf McQuilIan obtain an access easement. In a letter dated November 10, 1987,
a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, McQuillan was advised
"The Applicant must provide docuxnentation of an Access Easement and
and Easement for the proppsed stormwater connection to the existing
catch basin in the adjacent lot " (emphasis added).
The access easement was never obtained.
BelIaira purchased the parking loY located on Lots 2 and 2 from tha HRA in
November 1992. The deed from the HRA contains standard language limiting the use of
the Iots to "vehicular surface pazk:ng". The deed was not subject to an access easement
for the benefit of adjacent pazcels.
Between 1992 and December 31, 2001, Bellaire Ieased parking spaces from
McQuillan to meet its pazking needs. These leased spaces were located on I,ot 3 and on
Lot 4, the pazcel owned by SPCC. McQuillan was able to sublease the spaces located on
the SPCC parcel as a result of a lease between McQuillan and the SPCC. The lease
between McQixillan and Bellaire expired on December 31, 2001. Commencing January
1, 2002, Bellaire was able to enter into a direct lease with SPCC to meet its parldng needs
and no longer required the spaces located on the McQuiilan parcel.
McQuillan, upset that they were no longer collecting rent for their spaces, wrote a
letter Yo Bellaire ProperYies on December 30�`, 2001, demanding a new lease and stating:
"If this is not acceptable, the lot will be closed off on February 1, 2002". The threat by
McQuillan prompted Bellaire to remind 1VIcQuillan that they did not have a legal right of
access over the Bellaire parcels. As a result of discussions between Bellaire and
McQuillan, the parties reached a general agreement in 7une, 2002, Yo enter into a cross
access agreement which would be beneficial to Bellaire, McQuiltan and the SPCC; an
agreement which should have been in place in 1987. Unfortunately, before Yhis
agreement could be completed, M;,Quillan sold its property to SPD.
Thereafter, during the winter of 2003, Mr. McCariy, the owner of SPD, advised
Ken Dallman, properiy manager for Bellaire, that Beliaire would no longer be allowed to
cross over the SPD parcel without payment of monthly consideration, In response,
Beilaire advised SPD that it would also assert its right to deny SPD access over its parcel.
Since that time Bellaire has made it clear that it would he wiiling to negotiate a cross
access easemenY. SPD has made no effort to discuss a cross easement as a solution to this
dispute.
�
�
�
'.ti':li.l:::uq'l"TJ,f::1:
_+_
CONCLUSIOI�'
SPD has no legal right o�' access over the Bellaire parcei, however, Bellaire has
indicated its willingness to enter into a cross access agreement. It is unfortunate that a
cross easement was not obtained, as required, at the time Yhe parlffng lot was developed
by McQuillan in I987. Certainly, if an easement had been negotiated ai that time, the
easement would have been prep.�red in a manner to a11ow cross access among the three
parcels for the benefit of all owners. This is only reasonable and it is consistent with the
original plan to create one continuous parking lot.
The claim by SPD that tr;e 1992 HRA deed to Bellaire created an easement for the
benefit of the SPD parcel is withaut any basis in law. The deed limited the use of the
Bellaire parcel to "vehicular surface parking use" and does not contain any language
granting an easement as required by established principles of real estate law.
It appears that the motivation for SPD may be economic. SPD wishes to have
free access over the Bellaire parcel while at the same time chazging Bellaire for crossing
its parcel for access to parking spots located on the SPCC parcel. That would be a good
result for SPD, but it is not consistent with the legal rights of the parties.
� Granting of alley access tb SPD would open a Pandora's box which may result in
multiple requests for alley access. Certainly, if SPD is granted alley access and disputes
continue regarding the ability of the SPCC and Bellaire to cross the SPD parcel, the
SPCC (and Bellaire as its tenant), would be entitled to alley access as well.
The solution to this probiem is for the parties owning this parking lot to enter into
a mutually beneficial access agreement.
Yourg {ruly
C�
Michael C. Fleming �
k
Cc: Tom Beach
Cc: St. Paul Curling Club
MCF:wf
Enc1.
pSl-/o �.
�
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Department of Plannirzg and Economic Development
Zoning Sectiorz
I400 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Snint Pau1, MN SSIO2-I634
(651) 266-6589
Name st_&auz Develonmen Co g- rP� Pr�A h�T y p � p n
AAA!lCANT � C�t st.Pauz
rr�mN Z�p 55102 Daytime
PROPERTY Zoning File Natt7e Site Plan 03-317299 - Recon£i ation of existina pazkinq lo
LOCATION a52 seib
Address / tocafion y avenue
TYPE OF APPEAL: Applicatiori is hereby made for an appeal to tfiE:
❑ 8oard of Zorting Appeats ❑ Cify Councii Q�.anning Commission
Under the provision of Chapter 64, Section 30o Paragraph i of the Zoning Code, to appeal a
decision made by the
on Julv 28 , 20 03 . Fiie Number:_site P1an o3-3t t 299
(date of decision)
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
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeats or the Planning Commission.
See Attachments.
(attach additionat sheet if necessary)
c�
James M. Njus/Stephen M. Harris J ZS n
MEYER sw ,-& NJU p.A. , ATTO� YS FOR APPLICANT
ApplicanYSSignature �pir�� �C�^� p ,� � `�-.�'-'�/
i ;c�_._^ �. '7.�� "7 � _ , 6 CityAgenf /K
..� _,,._e _
o � �oa
:,��
o� �oa
SITE PLAN UNDER REVIEW; 03-312299
DECISION APPEALED: 7ULY 28, 2003 DECISION OF ZONING SPECIAI,IST
DETERMINING T'HAT APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE
ACCESS TO ITS PARKLNG LOT ACROSS 1'HE
AD7ACENT LOT AND DENYING APPLICANT ALLEY
ACCESS TO ITS PARICiDiC� LOT BEHIND 452 SELBY
AVENUE.
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
SUMMARY OF ISSITE:
ST. PAUL DEVELOPMEIVT COPRORATION,
OWNER OF 452 SELBY AVEIVUE
It is undisputed that the only viable access to the pazking lot which services 452 Selby is either
� across the adjacent parking lot now owned by BeIlaire Properties, Inc. ("Bellaire") or from the
public alley which abuts the rear of the subject property.
PROCEDURAL, HISTORY:
452 Selby (legally known as Lot 3, Block 10, Woodland Pazk Addition to the City o£ St. Paul)
was acquired by John E. McQuill<m ("McQuillan") on 7uly 15, 1985. At the time McQuillan
acquired 452 Selby, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Paul,
Minnesota (HRA) was the owner of the two lots lying immediately to the east of 452 Selby,
namely Lots 1 and 2, Block 10, Woodland Puk Addition. A sketch of the properties is attached
as E�ibit "A".
�'
Commencing in eariy 1987, McQuillan began the process of submitting for site plan review his
proposal to develop the parking lot behind 452 Selby. The devetopment of this parking lot was
also in con}unction with the vacation of Aiundel Street. One of the express conditions precedent
to the consent and approval of the site plan review for the 452 Selby lot was the vacation of
Arundel Street. Please see B�ibit "B".
On Piovember 10, 1987, the Depari°nent of Planning and Economic Development sent a letter to
John McQuillan approving the commercial rehab and the parking lot at 452 Selby. At the same
time, McQuillan and the HRA ente:ed into the "McQuillan Parking Lot Loan Agreement". On
November 18, 1987, John McQuiliwn pulled a building permit to impiement the construction of
the parking lot as agreed to by the parties. On 3une 24, i988, the City of St. Paul certified that
the work was compieted. See EachiEit "B".
o� �aa
It is c2ear from atl of the documentation in P.E.D.'s file that the HRA cooperated with and
contracted with McQuillan:to develop the pazking lot behind 452 Selby. It is also clear that the
HRA intended that 452 Selby would have access to its parking tot across the public pazking lot
being developed by the HRA on Lots 1 and 2 and on the vacated Arundel Street. In fact, one of
the requirements of the site plan review was that an access easement to McQuillan's parking lot
be placed of record.
Whether or not an access easement was prepared and sitlpIy failed to be placed of record in
unknown. What is lmown is that when the HItA conveyed Lots 1 and Z and the westerly one-
hatf of AnuideI Street to Bellaire Properties, Inc. on November 12, 1992, tke HRA was careful to
include the following language in the deed:
"The redeveloper, its successors or assigns, shail devote the Property jLoYs 1 and
2 and the west one-half of Arundel Street] to vehicular surface parking use;
provided that in the event the redeveloper, its successors or assigns, propose a
change in use of the Property, such proposal together with construction p2ans for
any improvements to be constructed in connection with the proposed use change
shall be submitted to the HRA for its approvat and the redeveloper, its successors
or assigns, agree that no change in the use of the property or construction of
improvements in connection therewith, shall be made or undertaken without
the prior written approvad of the HRA Board of Commissioners" (Emphasis
addea)
Piease see E�ibit "C".
It is nndisputed that from 1988 to November 11, 1992, McQuillan and the tenants of 452 Seiby
were using the HRA's Iot to gain access to the lot behind 452 Selby. It is aiso undisputed that
this was the intent of the parties and that the HRA intendee: to grant McQuillan an easement of
record.
Finally, there was, in fact, a written lease between McQuiltan and the HRA (and subsequentiy
Bellaire) for permission to use a number of parking spaces' in the McQuillan parking lot. The
initial Iease between McQuillan and the FIItA is dated November 13, 1987 and continued until
Becember 32, I997. Therea#ter the lease was renewed on an annual basis until December'31,
2001.
On Jannary 31, 2002, the McQuillan children received a letter from the attorneys for "Ted
Giasnid Associates, Inc. and its sister corporation, Bellaire Properties, Inc." stating, in part,
there is currendy no access to the alley south of the property (452 Selby) which means that any
vehicle going to the McQuillan groperty must first cross the Bellaire Property....While all
owners have pemutted such usage for several yeazs, there are no recorded easements assuring
ttus access to ... McQuillan ...."
2
�.
Y"." ..,
.*
�`.
�
�
�
o� iv2
� This letter was sent at the time that Bellaire elected and refused to continue to pay rent to John
McQuillan's widow. In addition, the letter pro�ised to visit various legal unpleasantries upon
i�Irs. McQuillan unless Ivlrs. McQuillan g;anted an easement to Beliaire.
One month later, on iVlarch 12, 2002, Ted Glasrud Associates, Inc. sent a letter direcfly to Mrs.
McQuiIlan's children offering to pc.rchase the properry from Mrs. McMillan for $260,000 cash.
This offer was rejected. On July 7, 2002, less than four months later, the property was sold by
Mrs. McQuillan to St. Paul Development Corporation for $480,000 cash. The transaction closed
October 1. 2002.
In May, 2003, when LaGrolla, a tenant of 452 Selby, made application for a change in its
business license, Bellaire took the action threatened in its letter of January 31, 2002, and objected
to the issuance of the license upon'the ground that 452 does not have legai right of access to its
pazking lot.
In response to Bellaire's position that St. Paul Development Corporation has no access to its
parking lot, St. Paul Development Corporation filed an application for a curb cut, the outcome of
which is the subject of this appeal.
ISSUE ON APPEAL:
� Does 452 Seiby have access to its parking lot across Lots 1 and 2
and the va cated one-haif of Arundel Street?
St. Paul Development Corporations submits that the answer to this question is undoubtedly
°yes". At the time the pazking lot was created, the I-IRt1, the owner of the ad}oining lots, stated
that it was a precondition to approval of the site plan that an access easement be provided. The
only entity that could provide that access easement was the FIItA. For whatever reason, the zight
of access was never pIaced of record in the form of an easement. It is clear that the operation of
the parkittg lot was consistent with the agreements of the various parties for many years and that
452 Selby's rigi�t of access to its parking lot was cleazly intended to be across the HI2A's
property. The deed to Bellaire Properties, Inc. explicidy states that there can be no change in use
of the property Bellaire was acqui<ing without the written approval of the HRA. Moreover,
Bellaire made no objecrion untit January, 2002.
Denying Applicant access to its �°,arking lot behind 452 Seiby is cleuly a change in use.
Accordingly, it is the position of A}%plicant that the decision by the Zoning Specialist should be
upheld, but his findings should be corrected to state that fhe applicafion for a curb cut is denied
as 452 Selby has access across the Beliaire properry by virtue of the undisputed facts and by
virtue of the restriction in Bellaire`s �eed.
� In the alternative, if the Planning i ommission determines, as a matter of fact, that St. Paul
Development Corporarion does not have access across the Bellaire property, then the St. Paul
PIanning Commission must reverse the decision of the Zoning Specialist and grant St. Paul
o y !oa
Development Corporation the right to access its parking lot off-the public ailey. Failure to adopt �
either position denies the property owner access to its ptoperty, Denial of access is not a
permitted result under the laws, ordinances; or rules of the City of St�Pau1, the F�RA or P.E.D.
Respectfully submitted,
ST. PAUL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
By 1Vleyer & Njixs, P.A.
� K�
es M. Njus, Bsq.
1100 Pillsbuty Center
200 South 6th Street
Minneapolis, NL�I 55402
(612) 341-2181
�
�
4
.�
�
�
�
��
/j
i
�
�
- QUIT CLAiY. DE,'
Corpozation to Cosporation
Insina �i --t-�-�-� -
Fi�itlg faY ---�---
Rac c�Y
hyl�ilk
o5�ao�
RECORbER�
FEB 2 31993
A A6stract Torrens
Address 442-444 Selby 6 ve.
Distr�ct $, Sv�it-IIniversity
� r.
� TEIS INPEI3TURE, tazde this �day o� �"i�l Z{�_, 19 42 , between the
� � HOIISING AND R�iDE9ELOP.'QENT AUTHORITY OF_ �HE CITY OF S2SNT YAUL, MZ2tNBSOTA, a
�r publ3c body corporate and pol3tic, oiganized and eXisting under the laws of
� State o£ Minnesota (Party o£ the First Pari) hereis�fter called �he °HRA", and
(� } BELleSIl2E PROYHFtTSES INC. a Mi.nnesota comoration
:�
(Party of the Second Part) hereinafter called the °&edevelopes°).
NCi� ::'.EELEP^E£, i^ cor<ide*_ati.en nf �the stw
to it iri haFdd paid by the 8e6eVelopeT, the reCeSpt oI wh1e� is hereby
aclrnowledged, ttte HRA does heseby Grant, Bargain, Qultclaim and convey to the
Redeveloper, 1.ts successors and assigns, forever, the tracts or parce2s of land
lying and being in the City o£ Saint Paul, County of Ramsey, and State o£
Minnesota, de:;cribed as follows, re'serving therefYom in favor of the State of
Minnesota 3n �zust by the taicing districts concerned the minerals and minexal
rights in tho::e�portioxvs of the property the title to vhich may have £ot£eited
to the�State af Minnesota: - �� ,�
I�ts�-;1.-,�nd..2., Block 20, W,00dlaad Pazk Addisian to Saint Paul, together
with th:; Westerly 1%2 of Aximdel Street, vacated, which acexved to said
Lot 1 bp reason o£ the vacation thereof, according to the plat thereof on
£ile and o£ recaxd in the o£fice o£ the County Recorder, in and foZ Ramsey
County, Minnesota.
/The Seller ce�:tifies that the Sellex does'not know any wells on the described
real prnperty. . - .
� No. 31730
State Deee Tax due hereon• �330.00 �HAMSEY COUNTY
MtNNESOTk.�
DEEDTAXAMOUNT � 30 � 04 �
Hereinafter called the "PSOpesty".
Thi:s conveyance is subject to and encumberad by the following covenants,
expressly staved to be covenaats running with and burdening the above Property:
a
�
1. The &edevelaper, its successors or assigns� shall pot disexi.minate
upon Lhe bas3s o£ race, coloY, creed, xeligion, sex,. or sexual or
a�fectional orientation, national origin, age, os disability,
m:xrital status, os status vith segazd to public assistance in tha
� sa1e, rental, or advertising of the Pzopexty, or any dwelling
tlxerein, and in its use or occupancy.
2. The Redeveloper, its successors or assigns, shall devote the �
p°operty to vehicular svr£ace parking use; pzovided that in the
e�renC the Redeveloper, its successors or assigns, propose a change
i;z use oF t5e Pzopext�j, =uch �:opo�al togethe: ai�� corstn:c:ic:.
p`aans £ox any impxovemeats to be conscructed in connection vith the
p::ogosed ssse chaage shall be submitted to HRA for its approval and
t�ae Redeveloper, 3ts successors or assigns, agee that no change in
ure o£ tha Property or construction o£ improvements in coivaection
tk�eYewith, shall be made or undertatcen without the prior'written
approval o£ the HRA Board of Commissioners.
,, � �
[3s-ag- a3-a.i,- (�a(na
� oa{o3-d ��T.c:���:,�.�;:�:;:s�ti;�,;�
D `��-Jr � �n n,A�f^.�/1
-1Jr�-�OJ�"� �"t�..L.�r,._ r
ryp Vd{NtWSSiT Z��
AND TRANSFER EtiSE�p
FEg pA i9.3
LW M� ����'�u�lw
sm, e"-w�!�n ,. �� A 1n
c�
FROM :
� ::
GEORGE UTIMER
MAYOR
Z�'aVem�Er j0� Zj87
John lfcQuillan
452 Selby Avettue
SainL Paul, MN 55Z02
()`F`/O� �,� ,:7,A
PHONE N0. : 6129779242 Jun. 17 2903 11:47RM P3.
`:_
�_
3�
C(TY �F SAINT PAI�_
DEPARTMENT OF PLANh11NG AND ECOhlOM1C DEVELOPMENT �
DfVi5101Y OF PLANNING `
2i M'rA Fvur(h Streel, $aini Paul, Minnesela 55102
. . 612•Z28•327q
R,E: Site Ylan &eview #1421 - Cammercial zehab and parking�lot at �52 Selby
(Plans zevised 10/15/87)
Dear SSr. McQuillan:
We hezeby appYOVe the above referenced plaxt subject to Lhe folloving
condi;tions :
1. The applicant must provide doeumentation of an access easement aitd an
easemsnt for the proposed ;;tarmwsLer eenneetion Lo zhe existing catch
basin in the adjacenL lot ca the east bePoze Yublic Wazks aoill issue a
sewer�cotuiectian peYmiL, '
2. Stormwater management £acilities must be insral2ed as shown on the plan
apprwed by Pub2ic Wozks. ,
3_ Curbing must be installed azound the peYimetez o� parking Iot, Curbing
must match style used in existing sdjacent 2ot to the east.
4. The south side af the lot unsst be Zazidscaped u segarate and screen the
Iot f=om the public a11ey and adjacent res3dential property_ This area
must be planted mieh Amur Maples (4'- 6' tall, s�a�Ie sterq�ed) spaced ta
match existing ylsnLing aloag a11ey. The wi,dch p£ Lhis Iendscaped azea
shall aot be less thatt tlis= of the existing landscapad area along zhe
alley_
5. The gsrking 20� must be pa��ed with ssphals. Vehic2e spaces must be
delineated with pa3nted Iines, The parking spaces along zhe Frest and
sautli pragerry.iines must be designated wizh signs as compact spaces.
6. The trash dumpster mv.sz be enclosed wizh a 6£oot wood obseuzring £ence
3 ' This fence must be at least 808 opague.
�
�
FROM :
:-� . .
r
�
Mr. McQuillan
Navember 10, 1987
Page 2
pHONE N0. : 6129779242
��-ia a
Sun. 17 2603 11:47RM P4
' If you have any questions, ple:ase call Larzy Zaags at 228-3342_
• Siztcerely,
Z.awrence Sodezholm
Principal Ylanner - Zoning
N
ZS:m�m
� TIHE LSHZT: Approval o£ the s3te pian becomes void within one year of
the date of this appraval 2atz,ez uniess a building parmic has been iss�xed attd
vork is proceeding under the tezms o£ the building permit. Aa extansion not
to excead oae yesz may be graated bq the Planning Administratoz upon request.
ec: nave Conley
Bob Hamilton
Wendy Laae "
Shexi Pembexton
Jim Zdoa �
P
�
!
������ �������
��� �� �.,�� s ..
..� f t.f. � �y , � .,��.�.- i� �f�.;- : � �� _�.,1
`j�;cs��
,
• �,/ � �./�i
�.�. � �"/��la� +��,�,
, �
PNpNE N0. : 6125779242
p� /oa
Jun. 17 2003 11:46AM P2
sPPLI�p►�`�Ohi �OR SITE PLAN RE�/lEW
CiTY OF SAINT PAUl.
: -. : , : .. _. .:. .:..._ _-,,. - SI7E PLAN� RfVIEW #�_
_ � .. ^ . n:: �
PAOJECT NAME
DESCRiP7I0N OF PROJECT
PROpERTV ADDRE55/LOCATI
ZIP)� �c��/.
�
PROJECT GOST ESTIMATE
(ZIPTSSIC
; � .— —
SI7E IMPROVEM<NTS(utilities, drainage facilitie �jA�av ����l l ighting)
k�'PIIGAN7'S SIGNA?URE
FEE PAID
�
50 � Zd
��'�.e=C'�-r�, DATE J� '_ � "'
CT7Y AGENT c�[-
OFFICz USE ONL '
PLANNING llSE MAP �� ZONING `�
NISTORY
PLRNS �TSTP,IBUTED ���-���' RE7U;tN BY
REVIEWED 8Y COMMEN75
0
�
� �
J
AFRF'DRMANCE 80N�/LETTER
SFT�N APPROVED BY
1 E7E0 WORK �PPRRv
�GOfit
�
�
�
.
a //
g SJ
--.---
ESCROW $
� DATE__��
,s ., . - -- ., i�� �.
�
Se���aio2x 9, i�.�7
6�i�3�3
452 Se1b� �,ye3roue - parkznq �cr a naut b���iness in gemod�led f3rst gloor
of existi�?q bui3ding.
Re�rie�r o_ za�rise� plan aated 7-21-9; fr4�s Sc��t 3s ink o� Mi1nEr W,
car?ey & Assdo<�tes, �na.
The pro�as�d p2ar woui� join �he ne�t parking lot to th� �r.ist�nq Czty
pazkin� lo� a.-�d make one continuous parking iot.
mna raew 1ot �iiS z£rain to a neu catah �asin which wi11 be eonneateci
wi�Y: a 4'f storm sewar pipe ta the exis�ir_g c�tch basin in tise City
lot.
The continuaas pa;kirq lat r�i's2 �ave two afiors� �ater gondincy areas
with a�:otai oapacity of �g� 42�0 cubic £ee� and discharge
ta a City stor,ir sewer at agprox��teky 0.7o CF3 �eeting #.he storm water
m�nagemen� requires�ents.
The revisad plan ahows a curb segaxatinc� thc� proposed and the exi�ting
City parking lot. In a pi�one aoa2ver�ataon on 9-9�87, John McS�uillen
said `ho curb is �o be s�z€scveci and a new our� will be pZaced alonq the
edges o€ 'che rasw 10�. 7ha nacr cL,rb w311 lae af tli� same type amd
continuasss wi#�i the existf�ag curb o� the C3ty 3ot, This shonld be
noted an a reeised g7.2n,
Docum�nzation af eocess a�d drainaga easemer�t� mnst be proQrided to
this division beEore a se��rer canneetion permit c�ii1 b� issued.
�
�
�
\
��
..�
� '�
��
rn "
� ��
�v �
r-
T;
i
�
0
0
w
N
>
w
�
C T �
O =
� 9 �
� � �
m m i
n_ ^
N
rr
@ m �
a
� „ \
u'
� �
m n (�
R „ .
w m \
� n � & o
P��� �' = n E � �
(. z ` , `o o ¢
�+ - + a c � p � 1?
d p� a � p N ��
�"� . „�, v - d
." ':t ' ` (' �
`n t
� r � m
i � 0
; $ m �
� 4 °�
�[ wc
�;s
�^O� �
G �'
L �
�
O N
» �
3m�
c�
. � o 0
r'S
am �.,
t D o�
_n�
z
o .
F o .
� N
� d
Q C
� C .
Y �
s � - '
u Q `
aa �
m '
Q o
Z V
Q
M J T
0 N
0
`O o
0 •
:L
�
� (
W
' W ^
y/ ��
�
}
a
�
Z
4
i 'n' �
V i : .� I
�� �9
�+ �q �
N
�N
O r � , p s
j � � {Y
II E 6 :
Y y �
3 • � w o N
d
� o �': i i� �
L � i; i '�" � �`1
� v ,
�. a "
� � d „ �
, ,� � , ^a� .
} ''so � N ��
� `
N f1 � Q � ��
} 1 Q � A
J ��f��n
Q a c s a � �
aC � ��c,
� � � � g \ (
l(� O� dl Q l/ I
Cd�31 ^ : "
_--�-- S S
r � 7-- �' — '_ '-�--_
b3/ - 35 Wzt�
� � - --- ---- � � L�1 S _
s� �
' C \ (� - --- ---- ---
�c£ \ �S � r �-- �� ---'------
p � � I _.. ._
� -� !,
�
I r LL
. .—�--� N
9 I
�
W
Q
I '"
�I ' � i
r.
' � � .
z
`4r �
� 1
i ����
` ''. �v�
I �'##
�� .
�..`�
e �'c°��� �.
i , �,� .
u f
�O
( . Q
J <. O. �'
�
�
m
V J
r„�.—�, . ..
i
� � ' ) Ub
o:. _
�` V
oe �
[ � g S
n�.o / y 3
0
. �
e. �� �
.�
m
r .�
J
�
F.7
_�_:�
/ Z
0
.
�.��;
� �
I AH�
t �
Ilil�� :
n
_ �
_ ..,.. _ . o�--/oa �•�
� �
���t�ILLAN �,�
Since 1883 •
_./��llll>l�l� ll/1l� /(('ll!l�l� V(?:
e
�
November 18, I987
Historic Preservation Cammission
City Hall Annex
St. Paul, MN 55102
A1Ien T'hozstensan
Re: SeLby Avenue Parking
Dear AL1en,
P2ease sabmit mp plans znd drawing for the upgradiug of the
paiking behind my building at 452 Selby Ave. to the Commission
for appzoval.
This area has been used for parking €or 45 years, that I
remembez, but I believe paving and dressing it up as per my
p2an wi12 oastly improve the area.
Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this
matter.
y Sincerely Yours, ,
��"� �%� Q � ' �f
���� - ✓ � " t
Jo'hn E. McQuillan
JEM/ma
: �
�
�
�.
�
�
__._�� _.�._�� .�..
�
�::
�
�
/ �
I t �'
\� , �
\`�
1
/l f �
( t- ,
0
�
A�
�
.j
.y
t� L
G itl
G1 �3a
:3
4"1 '.{
r-+
�Z ,� .
' ¢ �
V Q �'.J' .
V' S � U
�w �
� �
a � � s
O U >
A __
'
� �.$ vt
� y� Cv
Fi� �
L� # �
�,`' � gy W a"f .^.
� � �+ Q � � ' n
� � n T � -J R .0
m .'il J C`F ..1 C .f'.
F$ {"�i � � � 4� n .' : 6C
— mJ �� UJ Q L C ..a
� �� ��a p Y � �
�.fa F^ a S' •.+ ^^
d 2 re
�¢ �'� Q • m ct
I � � s � :� �,
0
N �p E
� ~ � w
} � � � .
�
� o
�
9
�
�
M
h
e
s.
O
u
v 2y
C
r y
N
c c
u �
o s:
w co
� �
U G
,^'. •.i
m m
�. �
L ¢
' �
'� V
'� L
M'
'O U `r3
G Q;
�1 .� GE
� u
�^ cJ eU
O L w
iJ 2
W
- : H (C
J V
U 47 n
� {-+ • G:
ia P S+ G
u .0 ..a
C x� r ^
� .�i G1 •.�
v r� m �.
�
� �
� �
1
.�
�
.�
�
05�-/Da,
--- -- ..__ ��--�--.<���
���
� '\,
�
+
;p �I
�
Q
U
�
�
�
�
��
- _� _ _ � . � .�,�� . ___. .��_
Dec. 17, 1987
Re: 3ohn E. McQuillan Parking Lot
Enc2osed are copies of bi1ls and eapenses invoived for the
McQuiilan Parking lot. Below is a list of those expenses:
F.M. Frat[alone, Inc. 20,800.00
Milner W Carley 5 Assoc., Znc. 1,852.25
McQuillan Bros. PLbg. 5 gtg. Co.,Inc. 3,500.00
Site Plan Review (Citp of St. Pau2) 65.00
Plaas 35.00
Permit 70.00
Total Expenses: 26,322.25
0
o�--�o�
:��.�,
� L
�
a�io a.
_ OFFICE OF LICE�'SE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIILONMENTAI. PRQTECTION
JaneenE. Rasas, D"vector
� ___ ' _ _ _ - sa:= , :.� _. __ "°_;�,v.r '' — _
�
CITk' _OF_�ALNT PAL'L '
Rarrdy C. Ke11y, Mayor .
LOl?RYPROFESSZONALBUILDI.�JG TttepBaxt"65'Y-266-9090
� - 3)OSt.P2terSvee;Suite300 F¢rsimile: 6�1-266-91?4 .
SaintPmsl,M_irmesotz55703-ISIO YYeb: www.ci.stpauLmnur/liep
July 28, 2003
Peter Cazlsen
Carlsen & Frank Architects
482 Dayton Avenue
St PauI, MN 55102
RE: Site Plan 03 -321299
Rewnfigurat3on of existing parking lof at 452 Seiby Avenue
�
Deaz Mr. Carlsen:
On June 6 you submitted the site pIar. referenced above to the City for review. This site plan is
denied based on the following findin;s:
Alley access The proposed parking ]ot raquires access to the ad}acent public alley. Howerver, it
does not meeT the conditions for alley access requued by Sectzon 62.104.f of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code:
Enirances and exits to and from a!i off-street parking facilities r�hich cme located on land in
nonresidential zaning districts and which abut residentially zoned land across an a11ey shall be
denied alley access ezcept where t32e applicant can establish, in fhe revisw of p site plan application, _
that allowance of a11ey access wouFd not create or aggravale an unsafe condition and one (1) or
more of the fo(lowing conditions exisr:
1. Alternatives to alley access are unsafe due to traffic volumes, tra�c speeds, prozimity to an
intersection, steep slopes, a blfnd pedestrian crossing, ar some ather unsafe candition;
A safe altemative to alley access can be provided by maintaining the existing layout of the lot,
which was approved by the City and has been in effect for a number of years. A condition of
the approvai of the sits plan for the exisYing Iot was that the owner "provide documentation of an
access easement" (See attached letter.) This condirion was never met. However, the owner of
the adjacent property to the east has recently stated that he is wiliing to provide a cross easement
for access. (See attached lette��.)
�
Z. The location of existing structures on the property prohibizs access to the srieet;
The location of eYistiag strucri;�es do not prolubit access to the street if an easement for access
across the adjacent property to the east is obtained so that the exisring layout of the pazking lot
can be maintained.
3. A comprehensive plan or a netohborhood plan approved by the city council recommends that
new aff-street parking facilities be located in the rear of development sites or discoza�age
tidditional curb cz±; o; drivewrys across sidewalks; or
� o�-!aa
._ _
�.. :�.��
, - _��_ . ,
�.� � _, � _ �_�,
� The compreheasive plan for SeIby Avenue ca3Is for new b�ildings to be buiIt up to the front •
property Iine. This is the e�sting condition �here and it can be maintained without aIIey access if
an access easement is obtained.
4. The nurnber ofpm-Imzg spaces in zhe off-street parking faciliry is seven (7) or Zess.
The numbar of parking spac.s exceeds 7 spaces. The site pIan shows I8 pazking spaces with
access to The ailey. In addition, if the site ptan was implemented the adjacent parking lot to the
west with approrcimatety I6 parking spaces would Iose tfie access it currently has to Selby
Avenue and would require aIley access.
2. Loss of existing parking spaces The existing Iayout of the parking behind 452 Selby is part of a
larger combined pazking Iot that includes the property to the east and wes� The existing layout
includes four pazking spaces that straddle property line hetween 452 Selby and the property to the
east. These four spaces wou?d b�� lost under the proposed reconfiguration ofthe ]ot, resulting in a
loss of required pazking compared with t(ie number of spaces being provided by the current layout of
the combined parking lot.
The decision to deny this site plan may be appeaIed to tfie Saint Paul PIanning Commission where a public
hearing wouid be held. AppeaIs must be filed with ttus o�ce no Iater thzn 30 days from the date of this
letter. Or you may apply to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals for a variance from the reguirements of Section
62.104.f. �
Tf you have any questions, you can reach me at 651-266-9086 or toat.beacH@ci.stpaul.mn.us.
Sincerely,
-- I �C f/�"L�
Tom $each - -
Zoning Specialist
cc: Tohn McCarry, Saint Paul Deve2oQacent Corporation
7ames Njus, Meyer and Njus
Michael F2eming
Z' n•• 4
�
��
py-�v�
�,�,�03 s, t�
� ��� h _ _ _
� 71'standard soaces 90 deg. �
4 pacallel �arking spaces ''
7 accessib(e parallel space i
1 stac�ed floating space �
1�� bicycfe parking credit
t 9 spaces tota!
�
Selby Avenue
; � , � ;
�
_--_�-- ;_.
1 b spot bike .
rack —
23 ,_��� : � $,
..---� ' �
� CB
f/ff
�
I , ,_ 23 ' -0 �� � 9 ,_���
�—
� �
I '
�P��
1
���
I
I °� f
I� {
_ I
OI __ '_
� 1
s
u � �
oI �
�
v � �
U
Q i Existing
�surface
�.,
I �
i
I �
I '
� �
.. �
Alley ,�—
� = _ _ _ _ _
_24'
�
� - - �
- stacked space will �
--' mov.e as req'd to "�
`-, aUow car exiting ^
�' I
N
- Paint parking strip�
4'P•
Stee! piPe boflards �
4-0 high im m�crete {
with chain between �
h
bo(lards typ (
��
c
Q
b
Accessiblelvan i°
parking, w/
req'd graphics Y
R�
n.
�
�
a
ci
Remove curb '
1
instal! new curb, �
taper curb to grade
,�.�a� 'i�F} �
ea side .-
— P�P - ;
Remove existing
- landscape, instal(
new 3" asphalt on 6"
compacted dass 5
- - — agregate in driveway
;-
� �
:J
CS I
U �
= �a �
`1J �= G
O � J
��
>-
J ^3 Q G
��� I
'=U�"�
ro c� �
C J � I
�
w
U
N
"--
s
V �
� o
Q +n
v "'
�
� � o
u � _�
�<��
� ° �N
���vN
`_'� � m
L � C
C($ N � O
U ��o.
ihis plan,
specification or
re(1prt wa5
-- - Fr�Nared by me <
under my direci
supervision and
that t am a du{y
egistered archite�
under the laws o
I�tE $Cdt2 Of
Minnesota
Peter Cadsen
I Date
�
M �
° o -
N C
, o
N
C I I
� °
W��
¢�¢
�� � �
' �.
o�aWi�g �
Sheet no. � �
A-2 �
�.�:�� �
�m ,
$
�
�._ ` , t��'�' �
�� 5 ' T � � � .� .. .
� x l f� 4 ' � t��
F � �:. ,y'll ` ��a"
� ^,` � �. ,y .
� " �¢�.
.. . . � �..:. �-^. A . .. _ . . .
^a.��, � � _
� N
����` � � �
��
�
� �
� ��
� ,� �''� fi �
� �� �
;* '�� u
_ �
�
�' �
"✓�.F:.. #..��`° .
�ii�s
. � F� .pan .. � .
_� �s =s
.:.< ¢,"`�.
�
� �
�
-
° ;�
�--Ibd
�
> f; , .
_�_.___ _ t n
� � ��t�
����% ;
�` ':�'�_ #
�
�`
�
��
� :_ -
�
-- � �
: �- t.
� �-
MapQuest: Maps: print
.v., .._.._. _ _.. � � __ "- - _ .. _ �^.
• �_ �x.:,��':'�. .. __ .�__ '- ' .
8 Send To Printer Back to Ma�
452 Selby Ave
Saint Paul MN
55102-1727 US
Notes:
�
��{ �aa
Page 1 of 1
�;.._ ... - � . _.._ ..�._._. ' _..:;...�'_'�"�.� - , _ . _.a -� - ---�:.�
` - ' ' -- -...._.�,�.._.�.� . , ..
800k a Hutei:
S2t�8 U(J CO i�°,fi pR
t�rt�itr Savers Atatinns+ride!
gar,k Rto�xi
� Thi5 maP i5 infortnational Only. No fePresentation i5 made or warranty given a5 to its tontent. User a55ume5 all isk of u
MaoQuest and its supptiers assume no re5pon5ibiiity for any 1055 or defay reSUiGng from such use. �
Privacv Poi� & Leoal Notices �O 2003 MapQuest.com, Inc. AII rights reserved. � L � `
'L�V�
htt p ://wc w v .mapquest.com/maps/print.adp?mapdata=afbX8DbyAof2cOWc9nyQu9kldXo... 9/i l/2003
AII nphYS reserved Use Sub'ecf to Ccense/COOV aht �..—�3
�
���e
ORME�
ASSOCIATES,LrD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VIICHdEi J. OR�.Ii
Jea� E. Boos
DAVA K. hYQUIST
All Members of the St. Paul Ciry Council
November 17, 2003
Re: November 19, 2003 Council Meeting
452 Selby Ave.
Site Plan 03-311299
o s�-ioa
OF COJSSEL:
LOli1S W. BRESVEA, SR
)ox� J. To�D
Zoning File #03-346-161
Dear Counciimembers Blakey, Coleman, Harris, Benanav, Helgen, Bostrom and Lantry:
Development Corporation, and Lots 1 and 2, owned by Bellaire Properties.
Our law firm represents the St. Paul Curling Club in connection with issues related to the parking
sihxatlon on Lots 1 through 4, Block 10, Woodland Parlc Addition to St. Paul. As you know, this includes
a common parking lot covering Lot 4, owned by the Curling Club, Lot 3, owned by the St. Paul
We believe that the besC solution would be a cross access easement arrangement, allowing a11 parties to
continue the current access situation. It appears clear that the infent of all parhes aT the rime in creating a
common pazlting lot, closing off access to the alley and creating access to Selby Avenue through vacated
Arundel Street was that each properry owner would have access to its property from Selby Avenue,
rhrough vacated Arundel Street. For the Curling Club, this means that access over vacated .'v Street
and Lots 1, 2 and 3 is necessary. Bellaire Properties, as a tenant of the Curling Club, requires access over
Lot 3.
The Curling Club purchased its lot from the St. Paui Housing & Redevelopment Autharity. As part of
Mr. McQuillan's development of the parking lot on the Curl�ng Club's and his lots in 1987, it is obvious
that the Curling Club lot required access, and an access easement for Lots 3 and 4 should have been
prepazed. Since it was not done Chen, it should be done now.
Obviously, the cross access easement would be the best arrangement for all parties involved. This would
avoid ailey access through the adjacen¢ neignUori�ooa. Hcwcver, :.-� t;e event �he cowzcil 3�c:des to gra:,Y
the request of St. Paul Development Cotporation for alley access, and the cross access easement
arrangement is not completed, it is clear that the St. Paul Curling Club will require similar alley access to
Lot 4.
Thank you for your rime and consideration.
Sincerely, �
�" G� ,
Michael J. Orme
MJO j lf
Cc: St. Paul Curling Club
3 S 4 O N E 1 L A R M 5 T R O] G B L V D. S O L T° 2 O 3 E A G 4 N, M I N N E 5 O T A S S S 2 I
reLerHONe �esi) sss-�e45 Fax (a51) eas-�45�
From: <Todd.S.Smith@HeaithPartners.Com>
To: <Tom.beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 1 V5J03 6:09AM
Subject: Alley Access
Tom;
I am emailing you today fo let you know I support the Planning Commission's
decision to deny alley access to La Grolla's parking lot at 452 Selby. As a
resident that owns property on that aliey I do not want to see increased
traffic that would be adding wear and tear to an already decaying alley
surface. If access is granted is the city prepared to resurtace the alley?
I also oppose it as it would give more people access to park on Laurel Ave.
It is already diffcult on weekends for peopie visiting us to find parking
at night when the bars and restaurants are at capacity on Seiby. We over
the last fiuo years have had a drug problem going on in the ailey. Our
property was very secluded since we are directly behind the Curling Club.
After noting the drug traffic, numerous times of trash being dumped, and
vandalism occurring at our property we chose to have a wrought iron fence
installed to make the area more open as the privacy fence in place before
did just that it offered the perpetrators privacy. The installation of this
fence in 2002 has managed to move all problems mentioned away from our
property. I think giving La Grolla alley access will bring this probiem
back and it is not a good solution. If La Grolla feels this is the only
issue they face to improve their business they should then consider moving
their restaurant as access to the parkfng lot is not the problem. The
residents on this alley should not be subjected to increased traffic and
expense because La Grolla is not able to run their restaurant efficiently.
Please share my comments with the other members of the Planning Commission
and do not repeal the decision to deny the restauranYs request.
Thank you,
Todd S Smith
Data Quality Systems Specialist
Regions Hospital
HIM Department11501E
640 Jackson Street
St Paul MN 55�01
(651)254-2466
todd. s. sm ith @health partners. com
This e-maif and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the individuai or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual
responsibfe for delivering the e-maif to the intended recipient, piease
be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any
use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail
is strictly p�ohibited.
From: Dick McDermoft <mcder004@umn.edu>
To: Tom Beach <tom.beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 11 /8/03 4:31 PM
Subject: Urge Councii deniai of John McCarty appeai
Dear Mr. Beach,
Thank you for offering to present my request to the St. Paul City
Council that they vote to deny the apppeal of John McCarty, CEO of the
St. Paul Development Corporation, to overtum the previous denial of the
Planning Commission of his request for creating an alley access to his
property located at 452 Selby Avenue. I understand that his appeal is
to be heard by the Council on November 19, 2003. I add an attachment
explaining reaso�s for my request in the form of a Ietter that I wrote
to Counciiman 6lakey. Please let me know if you have any difficulty
processin my attachment. if you do have difficulty perhaps i could send
a copy to you via USPS.
Sincerely,
Richard McDermott, 481 Laurel Ave., St. Paul, MN 55102, Phone
(651)222-5189
From: "Liz Shieids Keating" <�9ZShieldskeating@hotmei{.com>
'fo: <tom.beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 11/10/03 10:19P M
Suhject_ 452 Selby Aye. site plan denial review
Mr. Beach:
Our house is rlght across the ailey from 452 Selby Avenue.
We strongly urge the council to affirm the Planning Commission's denial of
ailey access from t4�e 452 Selby Avenue parking lot. It is aiready very
difficult to get in and out of our garage because of traffic and the
position of our garage with respect to the alley (which is the same as all
garages on our block). To add traffic coming from another direction to the
mix would make it downright hazardous.
Thankyou-
tiz Shields & John Keating '
143 Arundel St.
MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays! Snappier product search...
http://shopping. msn. com
From: Susan Bonne <sbonne@emediagroup.com>
To: �,vardi@ci.sipaui.mn.us>, <tom.6each@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 11 /19/03 12:10 PM
Re: File No.: #03-374311
Appeal of Planning Commission's decision denying a site plan for a
parking fotwith afley access.
Dear Councilman Blakey,
As concerned residents who Iive on Laurel and share an alley with the
businesses that face out onto Selby, we ask for your support in
rejecting the proposal brought by the St. Paul Development Corporation.
The alley's historic surface is aleady much-used by residents and
service peopie. in addition, the cut-in would bring excessive traffic
to our alley. The Selpy Ave. entrance is adequate and the parties
involved should be able to work out another solution.
City staff have already moved against this proposal. Please support us
in keeping our alley from becoming a commercial zone.
Sincerely,
Susan and Terry Anderson
457 Laurel Avenue
CC: <wa�d2@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <Ward3@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <ward4@ci.stpaui.mn.us>,
<ward5@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <Ward6@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, <tirard7@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
From: "Jeanne Quan" <jwquan@mindspring.com>
To: "Lantry, Kathy" <ward7@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, "Bostrom, Dan" <v✓ard6@ci.stpaul.mn.us>,
"Benanav, Jay" <v✓ard4@ci.st.mn.us>, "Harris, PaC" <ward3@ci.st.paul.mn.us>, "Coleman, Chris"
�,vard2@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, "Biakey, Jerr�' c,vard1@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, "8each, Tom"
<tom.beach@cistpaul.mn. us>
Date: 11 /19/03 11:17AM
Subject: Fw: La Grolla RequestforAlleyAccess
Dear Mr. Bench, Ms. Bruton, and City Council Members
I understand that there wilt 6e a meeting this evening that addresses an appeal by the owner of LaGroita
Restaurant on Selby Avenue who request a curb cut access that wouid allow traffic flow in the alley in the
back of propeRies on the south side of Laurel Avenue.
You have addressed this issue before and voted unanimously to reject the petition. Most members of the
F.Scott Fitrgerald Condominium Association took the time to make their views know in preparation for the
earlier meeting. The reasons expressed were clearly stated and represented a wide variety of legitimate
concerns with safety and security issues as paramount. I am forwarding the letter I wrote earfier since I
see no reason to rephrase what was sincere and clearly stated eariier.
We ask that you deny the appeal.
Thank You,
Jeanne Quan, 477 Laurel Avenue, St. Pauf, 651-298-0864
---- Original Message --
From: Jeanne Quan
Ta: Bench, Tom
Cc: Linn Veltema
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 6:50 PM
Subject: La Grolla RequestforAlleyAccess
Dear Mr. Bench,
I am a homeowner at the F.Scott Fitzgerald Condominiums on Laurei Avenue behveen Arundel and
McKubin. It has been brought to our attention that LaGrolla restaurant is seeking permission to allow
public access to the alley behind our property.
I am strongly opposed for at least the following reasons:
The alley is in poor condifion and I understand that repairs are the fiscal responsibility of those whose
property joins it. With the increased traffic of public access the deterioration will acceferate. i am a small
business owner and this is not how I envision spending my hard-earned money. I know our property value
will suffer as well.
Secondly, i work outside in the garden quite a bit and cars do use the alley as a short cut....more often
than not they are speeding.
Third, and perhaps most important is security. I can think of at least (4) vandalism incidents in the past few
years in the parking area of our building alone. Please reference police records for verification. The
windows of my car were shattered as well as another neighbor in the condo association. Another resident
had their car stolen outright. Lastly, family came to visit one of the residents last Thanksgiving. Overnight
all four wheels of their car were taken off the vehicle parked in our private back space! You can imagine
the impression of St. Paul that family left with.
1 woufd appreciate your denying the petition.
If you would like to speak fo me I can be contacted at:
Jeanne Quan
477 Laurel Avenue, #3E
St. Paul, MN 55102
651-298-0864
jwq uan@m in dspring. com
Another resident of our condominium association is away from the country for business. We have spoken
about this issue and she has asked me to voice her concems as well. As you can see, I am copying her
on my message. If she has anything else to add she will forward her message as well.
Linn Veltema
477 Laurel Avenue, #1 E
St� Paul, MN. 551Q2
Ikveltema@mmm.com
CC: "McDermott, Dick" <mcder004@tc.umn.edu>, "Linn Veltema" <Ikveltema@mmm.com>,
"Bauer, Mark" <mark.bauer@metc.state.mn.us>, "Morris, Mary" <memorrisl@mmm.com>
From: "Jeanne Quan" <jWquan@mindspring.com>
To: "Beach, Fom" <tom.beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us>. "Lantry, Kathy"
<ward7@ci.stpaui.mn.us>, "Bostrom, Dan" <ward6@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, "Benanav, Jay'
�ward4@ci.st.mn.vs>, "Harris, PaY` <ward3@ci.st:paui.mn.us>, °Coleman, Chris"
<ward2@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, "6lakey, Jerry" <wa�d1@ci.stpaul.mn.us>, "Bruton, Mary"
<mary. bruton@ci.stpaul. mn. us>
Date: 11/19/03 1222PM
Subjecf: Fw: La Grolla Request for Aliey Access
Dear Mr. Beach, Ms. Bruton and St. Paui Cify Council,
Please add this letter to your considerations this evening.
Jeanne Quan (477 laurei Avenue, #3E) for Linn Veltema (477 Laurei Avenue,
#1E) who is out of the cAUntry on business.
Jeanne Quan
651-298-0864
---- Original Message ----
From: <Ikveltema@mmm.com>
To: <tom.bench@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Cc: "Jeanne Quan" �jwquan@mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 420 PM
Subject: La Grolia RequestforAlleyAccess
> Dear Mr. Bench,
> 1 wouid iike to voice my concerns over the request by La Grolla restaurant
> to have public access to the alley behind F. Scott Fitzgerald
Condominiums.
> To open the alfey to public access from La Gro11a Restaurani wilf create
> some serious safety problems. At present it is used on a daily basis by
> local homeowners because our garages open onto the alley. On at least
> three occasions I have been near(y hit by speeding cars in the alley as i
> backed out of my garage. in aii cases, the drivers were using the ailey
as
> a short cut and traveting at +25 mph. Visibility of a1{ey traffic from
> many of the garages is very limited at best and in many cases
non-existent.
> To allow La Grolla access to the ailey will also create a precedent for
> severai other businesses in the same block to make similar requests and
> expect approvai. Besides the safety concerns, there are also the security
> and quality of lite issues raised beiow. Alieys were historically
designed
> and intended for neighborhood/homeowner use - access to garages and back
> yards. As a result, the construction is not of the same level as a city
> street and unabie to bear the load of high traffic volumes.
>
> Based on the above concerns, I woufd like to request that public access to
> the alley be denied.
> Regards,
> Linn K. Veltema
>