04-480Council File # �� — 7 O d
Crreen Sheet # 3 � � S T � �
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
/ L{
Presented By
Referred To
Whereas, The BZA conducted a public hearing on January 26, 2004 after hauing provided
notice to affected properiy owners, and the BZA, in its Resolution for the said zoning file dated
January 26, 2004, decided to deny RRP's variance application based upon the following findings
and conclusions:
2 Whereas, Jeremy Shackle and River Run Properties, LLC (hereinafter, "RRP") made
3 application to the Boazd of Zoning Appeals (hereinaRer, the "BZA"), in zoning file no. 03-
4 403493, for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code
5 for property located at 478 Maryland Avenue West and legally described as set forth in zoning
6 file no. 03-403493; and
8 Whereas, The purpose of the application was to vary the standazds of the Zoning Code in
9 order to subdivide the lot located at 478 Maryland in order to create a new, buildable lot; and
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
The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict
provisions of the code.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide this parcel to create a new buildable lot.
The lot with the existing house would have a lot size of about 4,800 square feet
and the new lot would be about 4,000 square feet. The unequal division is
required in order to maintain a side yazd setback for the existing house. The lots
on this block were originally platted as much larger lots. Over the years the lots
facing Maryland and Norton streets were split into smaller lots to facilitate
construction of single family homes and duplexes. The properry in question is
the largest of the lots facing Maryland Avenue. It is not large enough to build a
multi-family dwelling but would be big enough for a duplex. However, the
existing house on the site was built in 1924 and the property has been used as a
single parcel since then. This would seem to be a reasonable use of the property.
There is no compelling reason to subdivide the pazcel and create two
nonconfornung lots.
Committee: Date
2. The plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to this property,
and these circumstances were created by the Zand owner.
The applicant was aware of the size of this parcel and the fact that it could not be
split without a variance when he purchased it. Any hardship incurred through the
denial of this variance request is self imposed.
Page 1 of 3
� �i.
3.
The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is
corrsistent with the heaZth, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants
of the City of St. Pau1.
If the existing house were removed, a side by side duplex or twin home could be
built on this property without the need for any variances. However, the size and
shape of the lot would not allow two detached dwellings on the properiy without
a variance. Consiructing new housing units while maintaining existing housing
stock is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The requested
variances aze in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
4. The proposed variance wilI not impair an adeguate supply of tight and air to
adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding
area or unreasonably diminish est¢blished property values within the
surrounding area.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
4b
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
If this lot split is approved, the new lot will be large enough to allow construcfion of
a single family home without the need for any variances. The existing house has a
deck on the west side that extends into the proposed new lot. This deck will have to
be removed before the parcel can be split. Once the deck is removed the exisring
house will meet all of the required setbacks, and if the new house meets all of the
setback requirements of the code, the requested variances will not affect the supply
of ]ight or air to adjacent properties.
The other lots that front on Maryland Avenue have single family homes. A new
single family home on this site would be consistent with these other properties and
would add stability to an area with a number of rentai properties. The duplexes
facing Norton Street were built circa 1965 and the single family homes facing
Maryland were built were built in the 1950s. A new single family would help
revitalize the neighborhood and should have a posifive impact on surrounding
properLy values.
S. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the
provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected Zand is
Zocated, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the
property.
A single family home is a permitted use in this zoning disri-ict. The proposed
variance, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning classification of the
property.
6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of Zand.
The applicant states that his primary desire is to fully utilize this property in a
manner consistent with the other properties along this block.
Whereas, RRP, pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 64.205, duly filed an appeal from
the BZA's determination and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of
considering the actions taken by the BZA; and
Page 2 of 3
O�-1�- �{ $D
Whereas, Acting pursuant to I,eg. Code §§ 64.205 - 64.208 and upon norice to affected
parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on Mazch 3, 2004 where all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
Whereas, The Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the
variance applicafion, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolurion of the BZA, does
hereby
Resolve, That the City Council upholds the decision of the BZA in this matter as there has
been no showing by RRP that the BZA erred in its facts, findings or conclusions and,
accordingly, the Council adopts as its own the facts, findings and conclusions of the BZA, as set
forth in the BZA's resolution contained in zoning file no. 04-04338; and
Be It Further Resolved, That the appeal of RRP is hereby denied; and,
Be It Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to RRP„ the
Zomng Administrator, the Planning Commission and the BZA.
o��-y8o
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet GreerLSheet.Greea-Sheet �
DepartrnenUoffice/wuneil: Date Initiated:
�p — License/Inspection/EavironProt �-�R-� Green Sheet NO: 3015417
Contad Person & Phone• ��N*^eM Sent To Person In' " �
PeterWamer � � 0 ice�nsnectio nv7 nYro I
2 ���� Assign 1 icense/Insoection/EnvironPro DeoartmeutDirector i(OU��
Must Be on Councii Agenda by (Date): Number 2 •p•Attornev 1 ��°`(
For I
1
Routing 3 a or's Otfice Ma odAssistavt
Order 4 00 �
5 " Clerk Ci Clerk
Total # of SignaW re Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
Council approval of a resolurion memorializing previous councIl ac6oa denying the appeal of River Run Properties (RRP) (Zoning FIle
03-403493) for a variance for property located at 478 Maryland Avenue West.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Rejed (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answerthe Pollowing Quesfions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm everworked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
� Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
� - 3. Does this perso�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
. current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
The BZA conducted a pnblic hearing on January 26, 2004 and denied RRP's request to subdivide a lot at 478 Maryland Avenue West.
RRP appealed the BZA's decision to the City Council which conducted a public hearing on Mazch 3, 2004. The City Council upheld the
decision of the BZA at that meering.
AdvantageslfApproved:
Disadvantaqes If Approved:
�aai�e,37�'? �nen�.„� F+„ r,by�.
�' , B
DisadvaMages If Not Approved:
ToWI Amount of CasURevenue Budgeted:
TransacGon:
Fundinq Source: Activitv Number:
Finaneia� Informafion:
(Facplain)
OFFLCE OF LICENSE, INSPECl'IONS AND �
ENVfRONMINCAL PROTECITON
Tmiezn $ Ro.s¢v, Dbector
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
RmidY C. Ke1ly, Mayor
Februazy 17, 2004
Ms. Mary Erickson
Coimcil Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Hall
Sa�t Paul, MN. 55102
Deaz Ms. Erickson:
LO{9RPPROFESSIONALBU/LD7NG Telephone: 657-266-9090
350 St PexerSY�eet, Srute 300 Faa6eile: 651-Z66AI24
,S�lPavl,Afvmerota55102-I510 Web: ww�v.cistpau7.�mtur/(iep
I would l�e to confirm that a public hearmg before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
March 3, 2004 for the followmg wnmg case:
Appellant:
Zonmg File #:
Pucpose:
Location:
StafF.
District 6:
Boazd:
Jeremy Shackle, River Rtm Properties
, ,_.r,�Fffzn
Appeal a decision of the Board of Zonmg Appeals denying two variances m
order to subdivide a pazcel to create a new buildable lot.
478 Maryland Ave West.
Recommended approvaL
Requested that the matter be laid over.
Denied on a 7-0 vote.
I haue confirmed tbis date with the oflice of Council Member Lee Helgen My imderstand'mg is
that this public heazmg request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at yo� earliest
convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearmg m the Sa.int Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks
S'II1CCi01Y�
John Hazdwick, Zoning Specialist
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
_ NOTICE OF PUSLIC AEARIPIG -
The Saint Paul City CouneIl R'+11 con-
duct a public he *�na on Wednesday, Mar-
ch 3, 2004, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Coun-
cIl Chambers, Third F'loor, City Hall to
consider the appeal of Jeremy Shackle,
River Run Properties, to a decision of the
Boanl of Zoning F,PI�ra1s de�'➢'°S two vari-
ances in order to subdivide a parcel at
478 Maryland Avenue West £o create a
new buildable lot. �
Dated: Febmary 18, 2004 � �' -
MARY ERICKSON,
Asstistant City �F 23)�
"'--= ST. PatUL iEGAi. r xnr�-r�'+ ___ "'
�.'
�
�
CITY OF $ � Pd i '_� -^.i7L
Rand}' C lielllc Lla� cr
F2�JLllHI"�' 17 ?Q��
Ms. Mary Erickson
Cotmcil Research OfFice
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul_ NPi I. �5102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
OFFICE OF LICENSE. 7NSPPCTlOVS A.�:D `
c�iV1RO�iME?JT:1L PR07c'CTION �_�v/\
Jaiiz=n E. Rosas. Drrector 0 V
LOI]iYyPRv`FESSIC4:�LBL'iLDLtG Tzfepko 65:-?66-9090
3:OSt.?erer5lree;Suite300 Facsimile: 6�Z-?Ef9111
SaintPaul,:tlinnesotaS�IG?-7�70 3Yeb: �n+aecistnaui.�un:u'frep
I�vould like to confirm tl�at a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for 1�,'ednesday,
March 3, 3004 for the followine zoning case:
Ap�;etlant_
Zouing File �:
Purpose:
Location:
Stuff:
D;sTrlct 5:
Board:
Jercmy Shackle, River Run Propei2ies
04-0�}3338
Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying two variances
in order to subdivide a parcel to create a new buildable lot.
478 Maryland Ave West.
Rzcommended approval.
Requested that the matter be laid over.
Denied on a 7-0 vote.
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Lee Helgen. 1�1y understanding is
that diis pubiic hearine request ��ll appear on ?he aQenda oi the City Council at your earliest
convenience and that you will publisb notice of ihe hearing in the Saint Patil Le=a1 Ledger.
Thanl:s !
.`��1�2cerEly, .'� ;� � - r
�r� , ,
— -1 �!. �^- .!�,'� � � /�
, �� _/
�� Juhn Har:iii•ick, Zonin� Specialist
.9.?-.yDA-tLO &i,plo;:*
�����
APPLICATlON �OR APPEAL
L'ap i:T.'Ittc'IlT Jf PLUU].R� liA[I �[p)]OliIFC D'tl'2IU(l➢J2Jlt
z�,�r,,, s«tfa„
1-;00 t'it�� Hall,dnner
35 li est Faiu�rfr Street
Suint Pntil, :iIN 55102-163�
(6il) 266-6i89
Zoning cffiee-ase only ~ �
File �' �i'' t a w C�,i',� �'' -.
�-
F� ���: . �-°'
� T �—�` _
Teniatiie Nes[ing Date_.; =>° :
�' Ca� ���:'
Name ��t�i��? ��•rJ r�'^ 1{ C i'S� "���- G' �-�---
4"' � i-t ZL � �C
APPLtCANT Address ' ��vtE�r r.:i�=i^^ F-{1� ti �;��
City I_1L"�iCtil �= St. (��ti t Zp SS114� DaytimePhone c`>j
PROPERTY
LOCATION Zoning File Name
Address / Location ' !1 �, 1�"iri`Z �j ! i-k��1�' �
r�\'r= #i.'L' t, 't-iT
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
� Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council
Under the provision of Chapter B4, 3ection Paregreph of ihe Zoning Code, to appeal a
ciecisionmadabythe �' �!i1CL� C't %t•:.ys s��"f nLi
on —.� lit l� `n'.�' l C-• . 20 C"j . File Number: ��%- �V C t ,'--i = '1 ;
(date cf decision)
GROLINDS FOR ^.PPEAL: Explain why you feel there has besn an error in any requiremant, permit decision
or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board ciZoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
1'l .L ti �:t. :L � rt i ! ��. } {E_L?
(attach additional shee# if necessar�
ApFlicant`;
�\
' _ .'�.� "%"
�.�,
' , i
� ���='- `1 City Agent �
. J.
�
��' ���
� G�OUND� FOR q�PEAL
I ha 8o�rd of �oning Appeals made an error ir its findings of fact pursuant to its denial
ef the v�riarce apoiication for ihis properfy. The Staff Report presented to the 3card af
the hearing on Januar,� 32 recommended approval oi the variance based on findings of
fact by city stafF. The 8oard denied the variance in respons� to opposition from four
individuals that spoke at the hearing, including a representative from the district
community council, which had not previousiy communicated with city staff regarding ihe
matfer. R2ccrds from the hearing will indicate thaf the motion to deny the variance
failawed discussion of the statements made by the opposing parties and concerns by
one 8oard member that we had not tried hard enough ta communicate with the district
community council. The basis on which to deny the variance by the Board merriber
making the motion is that a variance of 960 square fe2t, or approximately 20%, would
be too much. Additionally, item 1 in the revised findings of fact states, "There is no
compeiling reason io subdivide the parcel and create two nonconforming lots." In truth,
the City has approved variances of 20%, thereby aifowing lots of �',�DO square feet.
The remaining items in the Staff Report, which were not changed by the Board following
their denial, ciearly support the proposal as having a positive impact on the
ncighborhood and, equalfy significant, is consistent with the goals of the Citys
Comprehensive Plan.
We assert tha# the 8oard's findings are erroneous in that the proposal to subdivide the
� parce! and buiid a single-family hcme is, in fact, a reasonable use of the property.
Additionaily, we assert that the Board's re}ection of the stafE's finding of fact in item 1
was rnade to justify denial of the application when, in reality, the Board's denial was
infiuenced primarily by vocal opposiiion testimony at the hearing.
�Ne respectfuily request the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Board af Zoning
Appeals to the City Council.
�
1
D�1-�1`��
Bfl�RD OF ZO�IitiG APPE:�LS S 1�FF i'tE�ORT
Tl PE OF �PaLICAT3flN
3PPLIC�1�,"T:
HE:�RING D:1TE:
LflCATION:
Major Variance
7erzm;� Shackle
River Run Properties, LLC
January 12, 2004
478 MARYI,AND AVENUE WEST
ZOhTING CdDE REFEREIti"CE: 67304(4)
LEG:�L DESCRIPTION: WILIiIN & HEYWARDS OUT LOTS TO ST. Pr�UL EX PART
TAKEN FOR OPENING OF NORTON ST AND EX N 30 FT
FOR AVE THE E 120 FT OF THE W 320 FT OF LOT 60
PL�Ni�I�i� DISTRICT:
PP�ESE:OT ZONING
REPOTLT D?�TE:
DE.�DLINE :'dR �CTION:
�_?
December ��, �003
Jai�uary 24, 2004
FIL�: �03-Y03493
BY: John Hard�vick
DATE RECEI'VED: I�TOVember 2�, 2003
A. PL PPOSE: T���o lot size variances in order to subdivide a parcel and create a nelv bnildable lot.
A mininnm� lot size of �,000 square feet is required. 1.) The eYisting house will be lef[ with a lot
size of 4,848 square feet for a variance of 152 square feet. 2.) The new lot will Ue left with a lot
size of 4,0-�0 square feet for a variance of 960 square feet.
B. SITE ?,\'D .�RE�, C'p���Tlp�*S: Tl�is is an 87 by 101-foot Iot Iocated on tl�e southwest
comer of Maryland and Norton Streets. There is no alley access to the site.
Surrotmding Land Use: Duplexes to the south along Norton, single family homes Yo ihe west
along ibiaryland and commercial uses to the north and east.
C. BACIiGROliND: The applicant recently purchased this property and is proposine to split the
lot.
D. FI�'�DINGS:
1. The propern� in question cmviot be pzrt to a re�sonahle zrse under the srrict provisions ofthe
code.
�
�
�
Pa�e 1 of ?
�
V� r ���
<
�
File -U3--'.03 ^ 93
S�ari Repon
The applicant is proposin� to subdivide this parcel to create a new buildable lot. The lot �vith the
existing house would have a lot size of about 4,800 squaze feet and the new lot ��+ould be about
��,000 square feet. The unequal division is rec�uired in order to maintain a side yard setback for
the esistiag house. The lots on this block �vere originallyplatted as much larger lots. Over the
}zars ihe lots facine iVIaryland and Norton streets were split into smaller lots to facilitate
construction of sinele family homes and duplexes. The property in question is the largest of the
lots facin� :�•laryland Avemie. It is noY large enough to buiid a multi-family dwelling but would
be big enough for a duplex. Hawever, the existing house on the site was b�iiit in 1924 and is still
in good condition. Rather than tear down the house, it makes more sense to split the lot to allow
a ne��,� sin�le family home to be built on the unused portion of fhe site. This cannot be
accamplished under the strici provisions of the code.
�
�
�
2. T1se plight of tJre land oN�fser• is due to circunsstances zmique to t]sis property, and these
circr�ntstances ive�-e riot created b7� the land owner.
The size of this parcel and the lucarion of the existing hotiise o�7 the site limit the oprions for fully
utilizing the property. These arc circumstances fhat were not crea'ted by the applicant.
3. The proposed var is in keeping witla the spirit anrl i;�tent oj the co�le, a3rd is cor7sistent �vizh
tlse lzealth, safzry, coi��ort, n:orals a�zd tivelfar-e of the inhabifants of tlte Cit�� of St. Paaal.
If fl�e esisting house were reinoved, a side by side duplex or twin hon�e coLild be built on this
property �vithout the need for any variances. However, the size and shape of the lot woutd not
ailow two detached dwellin�s on tl�e property without a variance. Constnzcting new housing
units l��hile maintaining existing housing stock is consistent witl� the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan. The requested variances are in keepin� witl the spirit and inteut of the code.
4- The proposecl variance will not impair an n.deyuate suppty of 7ight alzd air to adjaceftt pf�operty,
nor wilt i1 alter the esseiztial character of the sur area or tntreasonably din:inish
establishecl pr�operty values rvithin tlte sunro¢tnding area.
If this lot spiit is approved, ttie new lot wiil be laz�e enough to ailow construction of a single
family home without the need for any variances. The existing house has a deck cn tl�z west side
that extends into the proposed new loi. This dec:� «�ill have to he removed before the parcel can
be split. Once the deck is remove3 the existing house will neeY all of the rec�uired setbacks and
if the r.ew house meets aIl oi the sefback requirements of the code, the rzquestefl variances tivill
not affect the supply of lighi or air to adjacent properties.
The other lots that front on Marylard Avenue have single far,7ily homes. A ne�v sinelz family
h�me on ihis s;te ,vculd �e ccnsistent r��ith fhese ot�,er proper�ies and wou]d add stability to an
Paee Z oi 3
��
b�t-4.g0
Filz �03-=403-?93
StufY Report
area �vith a number of rzntal properties. The duplexes facing Norton Street were built circa 1955
and the sin�le family homes facing Maryland were built in the 1950s. A ne�v single family
�vould help revitalize the neighborhood and should have a posirive impact on surrounding
propeny values.
S. The rarimice, ifgranted, wouZd not permit a�� use that is not perniittecl t{nder tTte provisions of
tlre corle for Yhe�roperh> in the disirici where the affected land is locatecl, nor wozrld it alter or
chmrge llze =o�rin,; distrzct classification of the propert��.
A sinale family home is a permitted use in this zoning district. The proposed variance, if
�ranted, ��-otild not chan�e or alter the zoning classification of the property.
6. Tlre �-erliresr for varicu�ce is nor based primcn•ih- oiz a:lesire to i�rcrsase tl:e val:te or inco�rze
pote,rtial oftlte par-cel ofland.
)
�
"The appiicant statzs that his primary desire is to fiilly utilize this property in a manner consistent
with the other properties along this block.
E. DISTRICT CfltiNC1L RECaDInIENDATION: As ofthe date ofthis re ort we ha �
p ve not
zeceived a iecommendation from Dish-iet 6. �
F. CORRESI�ONI?ENCE: Staff has received one phone cali from a property owner on Norton
Street in opposition to this request.
G. STAFF P.L�OAIZiENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staffrecommends approval of
the variances subject to the condition that tlie deck on the west side of the existing l�ouse is
removed prior to subdividing tlie parcel.
Paoe 3 of 3
i
�:
�
���r9���:�F3�� g��� ��3�d8�� ����a��9��
� �� GYi�7CEDFLiC�`rSE,P.YSPECTIGr�,.�ND
� � °s E:V'✓IXt3%l%'rt�:VT,4L PROTECTION
�� 3DOZowryP
35�? St Pe1er Stre�i
Saitiz Paul, .YP.N 55103-I510
(oSi) ?6o-9D08
APPLi^AiVT
�3�fla��R7Y
3��G���Yi�'�1
f
s
�
�����
Zflning a�itca use cnly
Fi:e � !fi � --- (� l , . 5 `°1' _� = i
i eni�iive liearing
CSty ag�
L•� >r
+ _ J R
!
6L2: i ���t-�C . Y
i
��j�1 -__
\ lf i�S��.,'-__._ -- .,.
�`�c7:18 -l�f��:.!`'1`t i�;�{-�'�C �.OiYt aTl .��-��Jl:;� �L' r i'j�"'>' C r'
P Y �-- �y `t�- �_,� t it� ,"Li_`
Addr<ss `�� � �IL°LY.`/ 1`'!L'.o`b:'..'�1: }-Iy'�}
City 14i�;�`r�l.�' �t.E`•=,��iZip-�tl� �Ja;riim�Pha���'`�°>;7-�i=i�
Pro�arty §ntar�st or Appficar.t (owner, can#ract purthaser, etc.) ��`svti�
i�lema ofi Ownar (ifi
�:ddr�ss/Locatit�n L-!�`? �tidi�`i�.r�i�4s;' t i,±
Legaluescription `%�-'� rti?siz.6i[::f` ��+--';��%t=
(aiiach adr}iifanal �heeY ii nece�sary}
�6t �6�� `e ). S ;� St: C. `,�` PPesant �oning 4=P'i-LPr�s�nt
�r�pr�s�d Use i-'+. i lz-T'. t-�'st_i� �t�a�-; t� rrt���ti.� iCe:��i t:��a i•t��
?. Varice�ce(s)reque�E�d: ��--� � ��- - ?i aj';'s��=� �v i �i�'i.l 1 � NL-I.-�: G�1[re�a'-� i
��.,rr, ���,�;L �_ � c_�:1�4�c � `, '= �t �;;; _�_t % e:yt�z.;�.;c
i(t r=,CL ._CG L?� ''--�, � _ r i- �� i L` , � S i. �t``
�
�=� it ;ti�Li_� ���k t:t��-��, ���=i:zs4. j. ��i�1t1��;�-L; �"� z'�_�; =����
� � � ,.
3. L�,'ha? �hy�"sca! char�c��risti�� a$ fh� �ro�erty �r�v�r# iis �eing u��d fior eny oi �f�����rrr�itQaci t;s�s in your
acnz? (ta�ogra�hy, �ize and s9�ape af Ioi, soil ;,�nditions, etc.) t�L j�y.t:`Ttr-� t_ i-t��•>�
Lc��4� r`=i �-t'[� C��1;��'�iL,{r�lC� t� Voc• GL.cs� ic= 9t C.
Li= l ti� !_o j 4� i`'3,�KE t Hc t'`1r��J i:'ttZ' �� ',l�i�G�i�' T i .�-t3t`1 �-Ic: Y 1;=�1.
3. �x�9ein hoYV the siricY a�plicafirn ofi the �ecvisivns �f the �on3a�g i3rdinance wauld rssult ie� �S�culiar or
ex�a�tiona! �raciicai rliffilculfi�s oe exLrptional undue herdships.
`jl ��L i l�e'i Ll£,'�ilLP-f G'r 't`.-t� S,ec_c ��t<_ ti ttCC�L;iZti��t.i�11 �.-c:t•yl:,,
1�'�LiGi i i 4���t�; L`F ik �:t%1L��t�IC. Y'�l=i`��1 ( �t-��
c�.�Si�c�"c�ci�k:>s= ti S�?cw �i+i�:t.� ��c Kc.c���_
�. �xc�iain nc4,sf ih� granting of a vatiance ,vili net br a�ubstsrstial z3et;iment
tn :he pubiie g�ts� �r a su�st�ntia4 i;�,�asrn��r,i af the in#�nfi �nd p�segao��
of th� ��,ning C)rtlinar:�r. s,;� ir{ ���v;` t 4 i �'t �� }irt
i' i :`-�_Tis,� � - 3 'L'1...0 �ts\L�
4� �:. , t*Yr;: � ra'' "t'ria' F�u:;Sc
sl'!:� �_:i,.y �-'ii !��k�t":1�! t,' t :ir:t.-ii'i�i� ;t� ;ef�L�:�
�`":` t* l �%'� , i�1:C�t� 117��V� !=' (i'iG
['si �;-;�:�,'H:��': . � .
{i.�J�;I�Brt'� �It�Tll`a2iif$
CASHlER� iJSE ONLY
,- .. ,.. - ��' : T:��2` .
._�c7
I g
R
i-
o '^a
i a �_
( 4�c
w � .e
O ___
W a E_
8 �b
�_
__ 3
-' - �`cs
a : _ '
';t 'a
o;"' -'�
y -3` _'o
US� ' �SF
p.'a'n = °
Q=°_ _ v
{�{I e r = O• �_�
J 3=.°_ �
W e�8= u'Ii
rn'.A: ' '
a _a'" ,.'-�
a
�'�e�a =°a5
a�..'a �_c:
§�
"s=
6 . �
W } }
O .=
O � n
� S 1
a
Fs i"
�� }F
= 3:
;� 3s
:i
s� p� �
f3 x'
gu ¢{ S
, 3 . �I
:C �f y �
j =` � i �� 1
W . r � � f�
O js� gj�i jc
z . :
Q - :< 5 i �. ,"eg
W ' z_g ; i gs� ;ES
Z ' i
E F? •• �' i � �`�Q
U' _ ..�Ti s . ... e o
� � � �
��. ��
� � `�=_��{��
� sµ
;,�.�.�-�� _- «_
��:,::v,����,..� w-�'�
s!xanns� �E�.i=AL'fiS4tN1
`���� �� �'�.�}c- ikdb�'`��i�".�'� �'+,.�'^ s � �.
� N
O W
> w
J Y
� � Q
_ � a
3 �
f_ �
� W
O ¢
m
3
Z ~
Q
a "'
Q Z
g�
y�
¢ Q
�a
�
v
C
y
°"�
x
_�=
Z •=a
o_,=
F �_'
as,�
U ��
LL ��a
w i's g
U=sa
I-
�$i
I��
1
�
I
I
I
i
�
1
r� �
� V L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _� _ � _ _ — _
� \ �
i � � + - e�
I ad `
� T�B o ��M. F s..
� .'�.Y3 �
X �
_ _ _ _ — a _ —L — — — — — — — — — — — — — z — _ _ � r — — _
' 9 0 � � —__ fi .
`S ' �i
' I'� n�!`.t\1/ln� g
� _l v s
� iS. ; y� °4
1 n ♦ � \. 1 q +'.
4 4 � � l ` , �; .: � ��._-/
_ I o �� � . '�._ "� s. . _s.� z �- i `k ��--�
x� `�.- °s seu�.,e =-;e�s . � _
T`�� ( L �� � `-Ce 4.
1 � I . _ � � . � - ' �. f
�
I F
I �,�
� '
b � _
� -- _
i -
i 'F
�_ � �" _
_- i ':'�.
�i ��
'6� ��:
•` �
� � .
� �
�
�m _--
� a
c*
I
_�,\ ; N
8� 9i K .�' � ,
• U �
!Q
a. �. a
g' s'�J 3 � i��/ ,�
$ aa __ 3 � :�
� " €3 a �i>i � : � � r
g �
�¢ � � j i �c L'l. ID
i33 i V
''"x e¢g f •r�� . 'A� C
€ee j
� �
��\������\
0
�-v ��
0
r
o � '
_ J
s
�
6
O
� � a
�
�g i �
s � x s
5 g . • y�o ,�
L€ 'qY j �i!
�" : k sa
ca yze
3 _6[,10.4 H
4 % 5
� �Y
S _
s _
g � s es
€ '_ i 9?L
' s_s
__' __-'_p $ 's e���
� ���jitF= _ ? §�,65�
w
— � a;; ^ �.
.u�:;vm.�;r_a_�"a
,�,; ..
�II
::y�� p � � ` E�
�E.
\ ' -$ja c,
�
�'�\"��\�`_ =�
�'i
�.,
h L
s �)
e i.7
�
e���
e�
�
\�
� 4 ,.
, �s��� 1 � `��� 1 �7�� .'��� s���� �� ������; ��$ �r��,�'�L�:�� }'�y,/����� �d�,����'.
- O�` � p�
, � ,
j! �
)RNE
! i —� I ,�'T39) i (AO)
i � � j/ 501 495
� ' / /(738)�, �� I
I
� .r sis
� '�'
�,
„� . _
�.__� ,wv___
�
(36)
1230
k No1 � (37) � \
�,�: 485 ( 4�7 I
���. � � �. �� �= �,�-,
��! I �
MARYL4ND
� c— ��- �,__ i
��' , � . ) A ���46 � ��
�
:� a �
�_ �;_ i z � �
� ���� I � � I � �
�. � _z, �� � �� �
�>� �i �o� �
_ ���°'�
<.- �
v =" . r• �^ . _
�� x�
..>-.�tz�_ .
_ ����•
�
�
�
�
��
I�
�
i�
�
�.�
i�
�
i�
� I
�
�u
�
�
�
� � �e � � -
���
C� ; �
! �
� '•
�. �
l.
�.
3.
4.
5.
G.
7.
S.
n
iC.
il.
12.
13.
14.
15.
10.
i7.
SUI�7RAY-BA'T'I'LECP�EEK-HIGH WOOD
I PARF:I HIiLCFEST
tiVEST SIDE _
DA'fTON'S BLUFF
PAYt`E-PH.AI.EN
NORTH END
THONSAS-DALE
SUMMIT-UNIVERStTY
1�'EST SEVEh'Tfi
C�R40
I�SMLIiti'E-MID�VAY �
ST. �iv'�:30N]' PARf:
tYiERRZGhf PARK_-LEXINGTON HAn4LINE-Si�'EL7..I?,TV I-LSP;SLI?��
J.4.=�CALES'�R GRO? �L^ NJ
IiiGHL= ND �
SUt�ib1lT �3ILL
DO't',7v i Ci �Vi\' �
�� � �_ d,s'- ��'E Er L''r� t`_i��1j7
�..���SR�� a 1...£..
� ri
�v
CI7I"LEN P�RTICIPATIOt�' PLANTv'IidG DISTRICIS
��,-�.$�
� � � c��� �� ����;� ���.�.
�� � � �� ���t�ZT� ����:��,� �s��,�,�����v
zag=�� ��.� �ti���?�. ���-�����3
Da�'E: 3anuary 25, ?�t34
R'HER.EAS, Jzrer,ry Shacklz, has applied for a variance from the sirict application of the provisior,s of
Section o7304(4) of the Saint Pau1 Legislarive Code penaining fo two variances in order to subdivide the
parcel and create a new buildable lot in the Rlbi-2 zoning district at
A781�Iaryland Avenue ��est; and
W HEREAS, the Saint Paul Boa.*d of Zoning Apoeals conducted a public hearing on January 26, 200a
pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of SecTion 64.203 of thz Legislative
Code_ and
WHLREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeais based upon evidence presented at the public
hearing, as substantially reflected in the mimrtes, made the following findings of fact:
1. The propert�� in question can be put to a reasonable use t�rider the sh ict proi�isions of the code.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide this parcel to ereate a new buildable ]ot. T1�e loi witli tlie
f existing house «�ould have a lot size of about 4,800 square feet and the new lot would be about 4,000
� square feet. The unequal division is required in order to maintain a side yard setback for the existing
house. The ]ots on this block were origmally platted as much larger lots. O�er the years the lats
facmg 1Ylaryland ai�d 13orton streets �vere split inYO sinaller lots to facilitate construction of single
family homes and duplexes. The properiy in question is the largest of the lots facing Maryland
Avenue. It is not large enough to build a multi-family dwelling but would be big enough for a
duplex. However, the zxisting house on the site was built tn 1924 and the property has been uszd as
a single parce] since then. This would seem to be a reasonable use of the property. There is no
coinpel7ing reason to subdivide the parcel and create two nonconforming lots.
2. The plig,'sz of the la�zd oivner is not clzee to circumstctaces mtique to tlais property, ai�rl these
circzmutmaces ivere cr�eated by tlze land owner.
The applicant �vas aware of the size of Tliis parcel and the fact that it could not be split without a
vanance when he purchased it. Any hardship incurred through the denial of This variance request is
self imposed.
3. The proposed varimrce is in keeping tivith t,'�e spif•ii anrl intent of the co�le, arad is consistent ivith the
health, safery, cotr,fort, i�zorals nlzd welfare ofihe inhnbitanis of t17e Cizy of St. Pa:tt.
If the existin? l�ouse were removed a side by side duplex or twzn home could be built on this
properry �s�ithout the need ior any variances. Hoevever the size and shape of the lot would not allow
n��o derached dweliings on the properiy �.i�ithoui a variance. Constructing new housing uniis whi?e
mair.tainina exisiin? hou;ing stock is consis�ent with the goals of t};e Comprehensice Plan. The
� requested 1�ariances are in keeping �.� i*h the spirit and intenY oi the code.
Paez i oi �
;
(�
p�-��o
Filz r03=l03493
Resolution
4. The proposed raria�rce will not impair an adequnte supply of light mzd air to adjaceriY property, nor
�rill i1 alter the essenrial cliaracter oflhe sz�rrom2di.zg ar•ea or senf•easo�i:.biy �fin:inisFe establislied
property� values wirhin the surroin:di�:g area.
If this lot split is appro� ed, the new lot will be ]arge enough to allow eonsiraction of a single family
home tcrithout the need for any variances. The exisring house has a deck on the west side that
extends inYO the proposed new lot. This deck will have to be removed before the parcel can be spliY.
Once the deck is removed Yhe existing house will meeT all of the required setbacks, and if the new
house meets all of the setback requirements of the code, the requested variances will not affect the
supply of Iight or air to adjacent properties.
The other lots that front on �Iaryland Avenue have single family homes. A ne��� single family home
on this site would be consistent with these other properties and would add stability to an area vazth a
number of rzncal propetties. The duplzxes facing Norton Street were built circa 1965 and the singte
famil}� homes facin� Maryland were buili were built in the l9�Os. A new single family �s�oald help
revitalize the neighborhood and should haae a positive impact on surrounding property value;.
�
5. The variance, ifgrmired, iroulrl riot pennit czn�� use thar is not penniited under thz pravisions of the
code jor the properh� in the disU�ict �vhere 1he affecred Imrd is located, nar t��a::ld it alter or• char:ge
the zoniitg district clnss:fica!io�: of the propert}�. �
A single family home is a permitted use in this zoning district. 1"l�e proposed vanance, if granted,
would not change or alter the zoning classificatian of the property.
� TIIP I'�lIt1PSl fGl' 1'c117C7)7C2 15' I701 FiQSBCI�7PI177(D'IIy o�a a desire to increase tke vatue or inco�ne pote�:tial
of tHe pcercel of lai:d.
The appt�cant states that his primary desire is to fully uiilize this property in a manner consistent �a�ith
tl�z other properties along thi; block
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board ofZoning Appeals that the requesi to
«�ai��e ihe provisions of Section 6730�(4) to allow: 1.) The existing house lot size of=1 square feet
for a vanance of 152 square feet, 2.) The new house lot size of 4,040 square feeT for a variance of 960
squaze feef, in order to subdivide the parcel and create a new buildable lot, on property located at 478
Maryland Avenue West; and legally dzscribed as Wilkin & Heywards Oat Lofs To St. Paul Es Part
Takzn For Opening Of Norton St And Ex N 3o Ft For Ave The E 12o Ft Of Thz W 32o Ft Of Lot b0; in
accor3ance with the application for variance and the site plan on filz �rith Yhe Zoning Administraior, is
Hereby Denied. _
Paoe?of i
�
7 �
.�
�,—� Dv
�;
�
�
File �03—^,03�'93
Rzsoin:ion
1`�Ifl�`TE� �Y: Otfesan
SE�-�i�1��+ � �Y: Courtnev
I�t ���T012: �
���I1�ST: o
�I4ILED: January 27, 2004
TIlIE LIil1IT: No or�er of the $aard of Zoning A�peals �ei•miiriag ttie e7•ection or
alferation oF a'�ziildi�g or off-street Pai•king facility s3ta77 be vaitd far a
perioc3 ionger than onz year, unlass a�uilding peimi# for si3cl� erection or
alteration is obtained ;vithin svch pzriod and sucli er�ction or alteration is
proceed;ng parsuan# to the terms of such parmit. The Board of Zo;�ing
Appeals or the City Council may grant :,n extensio� not ta exceed one year.
In branfing snch extension, #he Baard af Zoa:ug Appeal; may decide ra hold
a public hea�
�PPEAL: Decisions ot'ihe Boarcl oTZoi�6ng 1,ppeals ara finai snbject ta ap�ea] to the
City Councfil wiYliin IS days by anyo3ye af£ectad by ihe decision. I3uitcding
permits sha13 not be issued after an appeal I�as been ;ile�l. 3f �ermits l�ave
been issued before an a�p�eal has been iiled, #hen tlie permits are,aspended
and canstr�ectia� stiall cease untii Y3se City Council ha; made a finai
determination otthe appeal.
C�RTIFICATIfl'!: I, tlae undersigned Secrefary to the Board of Zoning Eippeals f'or the City oi'
Saint Paui, biinnesota, do hereby cei�tify that I have compared tha toregoing
copy rovith thz original rzcord in cny office; and find the sar,�e 4o be a true
aad corr2ct co�y cet said original anct of t3ae si�hole #laerzof, as based on
approve,� mfnu'xes of tha Saint Paul Baard oi Zan9ng �p�pea]s meefing lield
on danaary 26, 2604 and on r�cord imm the Office of License Inspection and
environm�n:al Protestfion, 3�0 St. Peter Streef, Saint Paul, i�Iiauesota.
sa�o�T pav�i, ��.� o� z�n�c a���.�,s
r ,
J ��,. `_- ;ii ��= .
� �, ,i�.:.i: -�._
',�r; , -,_ � .. � .
/
��
Deb�ie Cri�pan
Secretar}� ia the Board
Pxge 3 of 3
c�N-���
1IYvL'T=5 GF T=iE 11EETirvc= OF, iI�E E0.�1Z� OF ZOIvZ�+G y2PE4LS
CI i Y COUITCII. CH,�iI�iBERS 330 CITY H�LL
ST. PAIJL,- :V�L'VN�SOTr?, J�.�ZTr 12, 2004
PR�SE�IT: iYir,.es, l�Iaddox,l4iarton, and Ottesoa;111essrs. Courmz�, I`,uclstad, Faricy, and RJilson of
the Boazd oi Zor.ino aDFeals; D�r. �laner, Assistant Ciiy Attorney; ��Ir. I�ardwiek and
�1s. Crippea oi the Ofrice of Licensz, Inspecticns and L-nvironmenial Prciection.
ABSENT: Gregor;; KleindI*
*Excused
The mzeYing �vas chairad by Joyce I1�taddox, Chair.
.Jerem�� chac!cle - Aive: Run Pra erties LLC. (h03-�'0�493 4?3 Vian>land 3arenue
West: T1vo lot size variances in orde: io ,ubdicide a pazcel and create a new builciable lot. A minimum
]ot size of �,000 squa*e feet is required, l,) The existing house tiviii bz lefr with a lot size of 4,8^8 for a
aaraace oi 1�2 square feet, and 2.) The new lot 4rill bz ]efr with a lot size of=S square feet for a
variance of 960 squa:e feet.
P+Ir. Hard�vick showe3 slides of the site and reuiewed the siaff rep�rt with a recummendarion for
approval, subjeci to ihe condition that the dec:: on the west side ofthe e�istino hcuse is removed prior to
subd�viding thz parcei. `
No coiTes�ondence �., as received ooposing the variance request, ho�t�e�•er, one phor.e cail �3�as fren one
of ,he rzsidents on i�lonon Street.
tio corresponder,ce �r:,; recerved from District 6 reaarding the variance reyuest.
1'he applicant JEItF:�tY SHACIiLE - RtVER RUN PRGPERTIES LLC, 9?1 Sibley bScmorial H���Y.,
Lilydzle,- ��as �resent. Atr. Shackle correctzd ihe A�enda address Gvhich should have read 478 ivTaryiand.
He noted th•at in early Decemter he had contacted I emonia Brown of che Disuict 6 Council, aad was
iniormed t1�at ihey wouid no be meetine until January 2$, 2pp�. ,�t �vl�ich poinf he sznY a Ietter to Yhe
Land lise Task Force, Chair explaining what tt;ey were doing. He alc� requested ihat i�is. Brown
fon�-ard any eomment; or concems from ihe neiehbors to him. No one contaeied hnn abouT ffie project.
tZrver Run Properties feels that the ad3ition of a sinele-iamily home an this site will be good for tl
neighbor',7oud. The home on the lot is not on good candiuon an the inside and they aze putfing a lot of
wor;: inra the eYisting house. N1r. Shackle questioned i�-hether stairs could be placed tir�here the deck is
located so that the sliding glass doors could be used as a secondary enhy, r��ithout zncroachine on the
setback based r,n ihe proposed prop;ny �m�, �. gzr3�tric?c exgiaine3 that steps cun be bu;l�, however,
there canr,ot be any landings or platforms hieher than 24-inches, that conz closer than =�-feet to the side
proper[y line. r•fr. Shackle stated YhaY iheir intent ;s to bnitd a sinsie fami'ry home ty9th an attached
garaee on The properry facine biarytand Avenue. The single family home would meet the other zoning
rzquirzments of the araa, and their intent is to sell Lhe home as a owner occupied sinetz family r�sidence.
?'here �i�as oppositior. present at the hearir.g, ,
�I�. Ozz;e t? �8� �Ianland ",vz;�ue ���;st, stsczd she just purchased'ne: home anu buiidir_ ; ne•.a
r.��� �n tr. lor a-:13 biock her o:e:.-. Si:e ,t2ted tfiai sre h:� purcha_=ed the ncusz because s7e
�
�
�
?._?-.�D�-EEO p ,iaioyzr ��
�
D`�
P
�
�
�
�
�C '
_ ie =O�=U�-.'9=
;tinu:2s ?2r.u2n- i�, :upq
Pa�°TNo - -
bzcuu;e it oiiere 3i1 OP2II'v��Sb' Olii 1127 6VIIICOR'S� T}l ;he did noi j iatic Di°:^.OIIS] 7, li ih15 r011Se i5 01171T 32
wiil inm�ge on her prvacy.
ivir. Tcm Young, 1 i 89 Norton S7ee:, stated that th;s lot is 87 ieec by 101-feez if �hey cut it in half it -.ui71
be 1;.5 feet by 101-feeT and it a 22-foot minimum sized buildin� on the lot will aci leave much space
beriveen these homes. IYIs. tiVebster receatly purchaszd this loT, nct:mowing ihat someone would sptit
the lot, ihis new house will be r�ght or. top of her nouse and she w:il not get any moning light. This area
is already a;ii��h deasiry area wiih lots of multiple d��ellings, dup(exes, apartments and major compizxes.
There is a commercial area jusi across the sirzet. There is a lot oi saffic atready and it is hard to see
how tl�is person is eoing to get in and out of the driYeway witnout causir,o more tra2fic problems. Ae
esprzssed his concern that there are znoueh people ;n the area al:eady and that the lot size wil] be 20°'0
belotiv Yhe requir�3 lot size. He questioned why there are zonine rules ii they are not gc�mg to be
followed.
Mr. Malzk Hol�, 2 i 3 Front Streei, representing Gistrict 6. I��1r. Nlanin the Land Use chair for the District
briefed him about ihe case. The neibhbors in the area do not want another house m the area for reasons
a3ready mentioned. 1blr. Youn� czmz io the land use r.ieeTin� on the bYatrnolia StreeT hzarins, Tlie District
was wondering �.vhy this did not come up at the same time. The District would like to see ihis matter laid
over for the ne;t neazing so thaT thz District can hear the rzquest. He noied That there was a k�d killed in
this mtersection z year a�o and thz DistricT is concemed about this praject.
Mr. Courtney questioned when the Distnct hearmg �.uill be. Mr. Holt siated it rs January 28, 2004 at
7:30. Mr. Courtney r.oted t�at is a probiem. �Ir. Holt questioned why ihis is a problem. Mr. Couriney
stated that the deadline for action on this case is Jamiary 24, 200�^,.
I�Ir. Shackle szated he is not foo snre how to answer the concerns of tha first two speakers. V✓ith respeci
co h1s. WebsYzr's issue, that she bought the house without realizin� tbat sonebody would build a house
next door, and zhat sl�e tivantad that lot nezi door vacant mde5nitely. Other than tl�at to suggest tt�ai
lvhoever he(ped her purchase the house (her real esiate agent) should have adwsed her that �i�as a
possibility. Hopefiilly she can understand che need to buiid a home on tiie lot. As ior Vtr. Youne's
concerns about ±he densiry, this was a platted lot in the neighborhood, it is simply a matter of
circumstance that a house �a�as never built on the lot. Cerrtainly as fzr zs the Ciry is concerned there can
be a i�ouse built there. As stated ear?ier if the esistine house was iom down a dup]ex could be built on
the iot. So a sinele family house en the ?ot v�oul�i be The best option ior M:. Young'; ccncer,n regardin�
lot size. The proposed ]ot size would not be ,ubstantially different from the oiher s:nale-family houses
an that bloc:c The lot would not te split equally the esistina house would have 47.3 feet and the new lot
w'ould be -t0-feet �vide. The side yard setbacks aze only four feet on the sides, that allotivs for a ihir[y-
two-ioot struc�re, more than enoLgh to buiid a conpar2ble sin,le-f�ily home on the lot. In answer to
?�'fr. Holr's sia�:,,enis he had contacted the Plannine Council requcsting that they contact him directly ii
the;,� aad any c3;,c�ms. He did not hzar an�hing about the project. Rivzr Run Properties wouiu rathzr
nct con�ir,ue the m�a:�er ar.y n�nher, hou�eyer, ;f the Board ciecides thaT 4� have to, we :�:Il. He is
surur;c��y �n hear :h2t the:e is this nuch object;oa io ihis proposal and would like to he2* fror.� ihese
DcoGlz.
-'•-�- �� �-EEv nmploy°:
i
4 �
✓
�-�lg�
Fi�e =0�—'.0=-?93
Ai;nures January 1Z, 3004
PaJe Thre�
�
��Ir. Courmev srated he woLld also be inrerested to hear rovhat the othe: obj�ctions are. He questioned
��hethzr the applicant would waive the Janua.y 2?, dead line for action. Nofing that if he
�sere a real estate agent and he was vary conscious he might wam ivfs. Webster. However, it is his
endzrstanding that ;t is a 20°,o variaace on the ]ot thai is next to l�Is. Zx7ebster. Mr. Sl�ackle statzd 2hat is
conect. '�1r. Courmey contineed ihat it would not be that unre.sanable, for someane to believe that no
one is going to baild ihere in the near future. He also feeIs that if wouId be reasonable thaz she would
ha1�e ;ome say in evhat goes there, and you could work togeTher. lbu Shackle siate3 thaT from V1r.
Hardrvicl;', testimony the loi wa; originally platted for multi-fami]y use. There eauld be a laree mu3ti-
iamily duplex on the site. Mr. Wamer noted tha# the City does not plac land fcr mulri-family use_
�ccording to the zon;ne report the present zanine is R'yI-2 that is low rise, lotiv density, mulri-family �
housing, that is what the zonin� use is. Your concemed about area, you can ask Mr. Hardwic.l to ansti��er
�n area quescion, I think that is what tbtr. Cuurmey may be getting at, Ivlr. Shaci:ie replied that they are
aware that it is a 20% variance for lot size but a;ain Yhe parcel would be 40 feet wide by I Ofl feet deep
and wotild be comparable in size to what has be�n done in the area. This is similar to what we have done
before ���ith similar properties and ihis i� not altoge;her uncanunon or unre2sanable. The new house
a'outd easily fii within the;etbacks prcvided for a 40-foot ]ot, Mr. Shackle stated that addressina bls.
�i ebste:'s concems about bu}�inQ a property with the cxpectaiian that nothing would build next To it. he
does no[ Imo�� �a�hat to say to tl:at. Ce: tainly u•e �i outd 2ike to hear her input as to whai she like to see �
hzoper. to thz lot. $ut a nel�,inele-family house on the lot is a new single-family house. To ans�ver:.3r.
Cou; mey's qeestion about being �rilling to waive the dead line, if tl�at is The wiIl of ihe Board that they
appear bzfore Ihe Land Use Committee by ali means, wz will do that. NIs. Niaddox replied that would
dela�; the m�ecing beycnd our ne�t meeiing, she questioned b�Ir. Hadtirick what the appropriaie date
�.�'ould be. DIr. Hardw replied in order to accommodate the January Z8, 2044 meetine oi the Land Use
Committ�e it :vould be February 9, Z00�, !1�ir. Hardwiek statzd that he ;hinl;s that i\�Ir. Courtney was
about to say that this Board cannot order the applicant to waive the 6Q-day rule_ tt has to be cIear tI�at thz
applicaat is requrstin�� the waiver of the 60-day rule. A�Ir. Shackle staied that it is River Run Properties
strone pref�rence to hac�e the variance approved so that they can proceed �rith the lot split and the sale of
rhe current house and begin buildmg tl�e new nouse in the spring. If the feeline of the Bcard is that they
would rather nave us lay thz matter o�er in order to gain the approval of the Land LTse Committee, than
ves, I would re_quest that. IVTs. Maddox siated rhar the Board nnderstands the appticant's intent, but wili
defer co �Ir. Wamer. D•1r. �Vamer stated that the report before you is compieYe, you have a 6Q-day dead
line t have not hear3 anything that the Ciry would need additional from the applicant where the City
could zser;se its right unde: the 60-day rule, to impose an additional 6�-3ays.
Ms. Ottzson ques:ioned Ntr. Shack2e indicated thzt he had some dif$culdes coniacting the District
Council where did break down occured. �fr. Shackle stated he does not kno:v tha[ �here rvas a break
do�+�. He submit*.ed 1�e applicarion fur variance in the end ofNovember, afrer zhe most receat meetin�
oi rhe Land Use Task Forc,°, statine thut he can only specutaTe that because of the holi3ays they did not
hacz a De�ember mzecing. Fur that rea;on he ivas told by Lamona Brown that the nezt meetina of the
Plannir.n Council �voutd be Januar� ?8, �Qp.� aiTer This hearirg date. A; which point i�e senI a]e[ter to
Czrol Zenaric,L•(?), �vho z; of the la;t meet;r,e was thz Cha;r oi che Land Use Task Force, uuxiinine lvhat
�,: e:, erc �rope;ir.g i� do &ii j im:�tin� any q;:esiicrs or corce fi7i t0 bZ �77ZCl23 �77I]S�'.12� SG t?E COlilti {IS t0 �
�ns« er them. He did r:ot hear em2hinu.
� f
-'-i ='-DA-EEO Er„pioye- `�
����
�
�
Fiie -v?-?G=-'r93
Li;nec°s 1a;.�.:s:� ':2, ?G�-
Pa�z Four
ilr. i�';Isen quesiienzd i:ow n,.ar;y atie.�npes were �ade ?a contact ihe �isu o Councii a�out ;piiring
ti e loc. L-x ord� Lo �iit it, sonzos� ;:ad to have tume3 it from :svo lot; :nto ere Ict. It has c.-�e pin
nnnber so that r„esas they did it ior a purposz, a� maz rime they a�parenily u�anted :he space. Z1:e main
qnzsn.oa i<_ how many a«empts the applican# made :o cantuct ihe Dishict Council ar,d arz they aware oi
zhe Di;t� ici Councii ar,d wt;a� pa*� cne;� p:ay in t;�e cammun;ry, iYir. Shac�ie staied absolutely, ihat he had
apoeared before ihe Disn 6 Land lise Task Force for anofher natter, on 42 �Ianvolia, where he had
eotten approval before comine before tfie Board en that matter. He is iamiliar with ihe Task Ferce and
appreciates what they do and values iheir inptrt, he sent the chair person a personal letter in Decembzr.
He did mal:z nvo attempis, but did not repeate3ly call and try to get input from ihem. ivlr. Wilson
ques#iuned that he did no intend to Duild unti] spring. ,ldr. Shac3;;e replie3 because of �vinter buildin2
cor,ditions, very likely it �n�ould be aiter L�e road restrictions com� off and ihe iiost comes out of the
aronnd, April or ;naybe as 3atz as �ifay. S�oner than later.
�
DIr. Har�ivick statzd that ihis parcel of land and this entire block was orieinally platted as mucb ]arger
parcels. Poir.tim� out oa�e 63 of the packet, those hvo lar�e buildings that face Macl,�ubin, those are
aparment Uuildings. This enhre block �vas o; iginally piatted as large parcels like that. Over the years
ihe lot; along iYlaryland Avenue :vere spiit at least hvice before. The properties along Norton tivhere the
�uolzxes are cvere a11 replutted in the 1950s to accommodate these duplexes. The lot in quesTion here is a
s:ngle lot. it is not two lots of record. 3ust to ciarify the applicant scated that they were Two lots of
=ecord and ihey tivere not, accordine to our rec3rds it is a sineie lot. Finally if the apolicant wants �his
maiter iaid over he ;s going to have ro rzquest that tha Board cont�nue ihis marter to Febrt�ary 9, 200'l. Ii'
he dues not wani it la�d over than simply state tliat. P✓Ir. Shackle stated he dtd not want the marter
contmued.
Hearu,g no further testimony, Ms. Maddc�x c7osed the public porion of the meetmg.
M,. Ottesoe r,:oved to deny the vanance and ; esoluticn based on iindings i through o.
�.Ir. Courtney and thc Board discussed the fir.dings. Finding 1, thz properry is bc:n, p�;t to a reasonable
use end can contir.ue to be pu*. ro a reasonable use, the l�z was platted io have one house che;e. Findine
3, �t is noc wi?hin ihe spirit and intent of thQ code to build houses where you have a 20°io variance.
\�
Mr. Courmey szconded the motion, which passed on a rol] cail vote of 7-0.
S�vni� ed by: � � �
� .�� ��
,� f
�-j �
T �n Hz; dwlcic
(� /
Approved by:
'_ ✓
- : - ' r, .'.:,,,.:
7on Declstzd Szcretary
.-'. :`.D�,-E�C c^olo�er
�
�' i
� t