05-158LIEP 2-08-OS
�soLUTiorr
CITY OF
Presented By
Refeaed To
Comsnittee: Date
�
2 Whereas, Tom Holman, in Zoning File No. 04-120482 and pursuant to Leg. Code §§
3 61.301(c) and .701, duly filed an administrative appeal from a decision of the Zoning
4 Admnustrator regarding building permits issued to the owner of property commonly lrnown as
5 45-97 Langford and legally described as set forth in the said zoning file, for the purpose of
6 remodeling a 6 unit, nonconforming, multi-family dwelling; and
7
8 Whereas, the Board of Zoning Appeals (the `BZA"), in accordance with Leg. Code §
9 61303 duly conducted a public hearing on the said appeal and, at the close of the public hearing,
10 moved to affum the decisaon of the Zoning Administrator far the reasons set forth in BZA
ll Resolution No. Q4-120482, dated August 30, 2004, a copy of which is attached hezeto and
12 incorporated herein by reference; and
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
Whereas, Tom Holman, pursuant to I.eg. Code § 61.702(a) duly filed an appeal from
decision of the BZA and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of
reviewing the decision of the BZA in this matter; and
Whereas, pursuant to ihe provisions of the Leg. Code § 61702(b) a public hearing on the
said appeal was duly conducted by the Council of the City of Saint Paul on September 22, 2004
where all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and
Whereas, at the close of the said public hearing, the matter was laid over to October 6,
2004 for the purpose of allowing Mr. Holman and the owners of the said property to discuss their
differences and determine whether a compromise might be reached; and
Whereas, on October 6, 2004, the Council, understanding that no compromise had been
reached between the appellant and the owner of the property commonly known as 95-47
Langford and pursuant to its authority under Leg. Code § 61.704 made the following
deternunations; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator, and to the extent that the BZA upheld
the Zoning Admnustrator's decision, erred in approving building permits which allowed the
expansion of a nonconforming use by increasing the cubic content of the building at 95-97
Langford. It is clear that the zoning code permits the locafion of a nonconforming use to change
within a structure where a nonconforming use is located. It is also clear that the zoning code
provides that a structure in which a nonconforming use is located cannot be enlarged in order to
accommodate a change in the locafion of a nonconforming use within the subject structure
without first obtaining the permission of the planning commission. Accordingly, with regard to
PAUL, lYIIl�iNESOTA
Council File # Q� � S �
CsceenSheet# 3025140
os- � s8
2
the physical change in the subj ect building - raising a portion of the roofline and constructing a
4 larger "dormer" addition to the third floor of the building - Mr. Holman's appeal is granted and
5 the roof of the building must be retumed to its original height and the cubic content of the upper
6 floor returned to its original volume AND,
8 BE TT FITRTI�R RESOLVED, that in finding error in the Zoning Admuristrator's and
9 BZA's decision regazding building permits which pernutted the change in the roof height and
10 cubic content noted above, the owner of the property commonly I�own as 95-97 Langford need
11 not obtain new building permits; AND
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BE TT k'URTI�R RESOLVED, that the remaining appeal points raised by Mr. Holman,
including the number of residential units and garages as well as whether the nonconforming use
was discontinued or otherwise terminated, are hereby denied. The record shows that the sub}ect
building was permitted to have six residential units and that number will remain the same after
the building is remodeled into condominium units. It was aiso not demonstrated that the
nonconfornung use was discontinued or otherwise terminated. Finally, any issues regarding
variances previously granted by the BZA for the construction of gazages for the residential units
aze not properly part of ttus appeal regarding the issuance of building permits; AND
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be mailed by the City
Clerk to the appellant, the owner of the property commonly lrnown as 95-97 Langford, the BZA
and the Zoning Atiministrator.
DS- !S$
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
�
DepartmenVOffice/wuncil: Date Initiated:
LP - LicenseJlnspec6on/EnvironProt 09-FE&-05 Green Sheet NO: 3025190
Contact Person & Phone• ���ent Sent To Person {ndiaU e
PBter Wamer � 0 icen ns 'o u'ron Pr `: ��y����
266-87'10 �� 1 iceu e/In "o n'ron o De entDirector
Must Be on Council /�qenda by (Date): Number Z � 2-6 h -rf"
For
Routing 3 a o's ce odASSista t
Order 4 oun i
5 i Clerk Ierk
Total # of Signature Pages, (Clip All Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
Approval of a Resolurion memorializing previous Council action on October 6, 2004 wluch oveiturned a decision made by the BZA on
August 30, 2004 tbat allowed the expansion of existing dormers at 95-97 Langford. This action makes the owner of 95-97 Langford
remove the e�sting roof and retum the building to its original height and third floor cubic content.
RecommendaGons: Approve {A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Mswer the Following Questio�:
Planning Commission �, Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Givil Se�vice Commission 2. Has this personff+rm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not nortnaily possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Mr. Holmazi appealed the Zoning Admitustrator's decision to the BZA on August 30, 2004. The BZA upheld the Zoning
Administrator's decision and Mr. Holman appealed that decision to the City Council. On Octobez 6, 2004, the Council upheld Mr.
Hohnan's appeal in part and upheld the BZA in part.
Advantages IfApproved:
DisadvantagesltApproved:
A �
� p�. BY'J v{ArC+.t af v
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
�'EB 16 2495
Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted:
Transaction:
Funding Source: ActiviN Number:
Financiai Infortnation: .
(Explain)
os-�s8
OFFICE OF LiCEP]SE, INSYE(.1TONS AND
�vneo�vn�ntrnL rttot�ecriox
Jrme� E. Rosas, D'oedor
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Rmedy C. Kelly, May�r
September 9, 2004
Ms. Mary Erickson
Counc�7 Research Office
Roam 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN. 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
Suite 300
35Q S[ Peter SYreet
S�ot Pau� 7Lfimesata SSIO2-I SI D
TeIephone: 651-2669090
Poc:rnn$e: 657d66-9099
651-26b9714
Wrb: xuav.cis[parJauf/liep
I would I�1ce to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is schedulad for Wednesday,
5eptexnber 22, 2004 for the following wning case:
Appellant:
Zonmg File #:
Tom Hoknan, 85 Langford Park.
04-120482
Putpose: An appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeals decision which upheld the approval
of a building pernrit to remodel the sut unit apartment building at 95 - 97
Langford Park and denied the Admmistrative Review.
Location:
Staff:
I?istrict 12:
Board:
95 - 97 I.ang£ord Park.
Recommended denial of the Administrative Review.
No recommendation at the tune of the hearmg.
Denied the Admnustrative Review aud upheld the Zoning Administrator on a
43 vote.
I have confmned tivs date with the office of Coimcil Member 7ay Benana.v. My understauding is tUat
this pubfic hearu►g request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience
and that you will publish norice of the hearmg m the Samt Paul Lega1 I.edger. Thanks !
Smcerely,
7ohn Hardwick, Zoning Specialist
t�n-aDa-Eeo �ytoyer
� i��'
Based upon the record, move to GRAN'T that portion of the appeal regazding the
expansion of the nonconfornung use:
The zoning administrator ened in approving an application which allowed the expansion
of a legal noncomforming use by increasing the cubic content of the huilding. It is clear
that the code can allow the location of nonconforming uses to change inside a structure
but it is also clear that the structure must not get any bigger in order to accommodate such
a change without the permission of the Planning Commission.
Granting this portion of the appeal does NOT require the developer to apply for a new
building pernut to return the cubic content of the u�ner floor of the building to its original
condition. The pernuts issued remain valid for this purpose.
Move DENIAL with respect to the remainder of appellant's arguments regarding the
number of units and the garages. The record shows that the building was permitted to
have 6 units and that number will remain the same after the building is remodeled into
condominiums.
The appellant has also not shown that the nonconforming use was discontinued or ceased
to e�st. Regarding the garages: the BZA had previously issued a variance for tl�e
construction of the garages. The BZA's decision was not challenged and this appeal
regarding building pernuts is not the place to challenge a variance.
b5-�5g
OFFICE OF LICENSE. L\SPECTTONS A.�iD
E?v�ONNt£\"CAL PROTECTION
Jane^n E. Rosas Direcror
SA[NL
PAUL
�
AAAII
CITY' OF SAINT PAtiL
Randy C Kelly, :Yfayor
September 9, 2004
Ms. Mary Erickson
Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, NIlV. 55102
Deaz VIs. Erickson:
LCJWRY PROFESSIDN:IL BL'ILDIIv'G
Surte 300
370 SL Peter Street
Saint PauC .Llinnesota �JIO?-I.i10
Telephone: 657-266-9090
Facsimile: 6.i I -?66-9099
651-266-9124
Web� imvw.ctstpauln.us/liep
I would like to confirm that a public hearing be£ore the City Council is scheduled far Wednesday,
September 22, 2004 for the following zoning case:
Appellant:
�
Zoning File #:
Tom Holman, 85 Langford Park.
04-120482
Purpose: An appeal of a Board of Zoning Appeais decision which upheld the approvai
of a building permit to remodel the six unit apartment building at 95 - 97
Langford Park and denied the Administrative Review.
Location:
Staff.
Distriat 12:
Board:
95 - 97 Langford Park.
Recommended denial of the Administrative Review.
No recommendation at the time of the hearing.
Denied the Administrative Review and upheld the Zoning Administrator on a
4-3 vote.
I have co�rmed this date with the office of Council Member Jay Benanav. My understanding is that
this pubiic hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience
and that you wi11 publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal L,edger. Thanks !
Si ,ely, / t
, i '
i 3 hn Hardwick, Zoning Specialist
,
A.A-ADA-EEO Employer
t�5-15� � �
�
C
Zoning Appeal Application Form
�
��i�� A °�'
..;-- y
-.�-���`'�.
�
<�PL���: �
� �Name Tom Holman
Address_SS Langford Park
;City St. Pau1 St._M1V_Zip _SS1Q8_ Daytime phone_651-643-2121_
'Name of orvner (if different)
;---------- f- ----- — _ -- - --- -- __ __ - - - - --
-- - - -- — _ __:
,PROPERTY `
;LOCATTON �Address_95 Langford Pazk
; s
, ,
�Legal description: _Sect-20 Twp-029 Range-023 St. Anthony Park, Minnesota .18 Ac Nely 2 Ft Of `
; � Lot 10 And All Of Lot 9 Blk 38
's
�__--___-_--�- .... ---____._.,____._,_._.�- ------- -- --- ---__ _ _-__--- -- _
-TYPE OF iAppeal of the August 30 decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying our appeal for
{APPEAL iAdministrative Review of a decision by the Zoning Administrator to issue building permits to allow F
! �the enlargement of the nonconforming structure at 95 Lang£ord Park which adds significant content 4
� ;and footprint and allows the construction of 6 Condominiums on a site which only allows 1. 3
i ; E OF APPEAL: Appiicahon is hereby made for an appeai to the: �
�___ _ _ __ ____ _ _ _ _ _ — -- ----
� `
�_ Board of Zoning Appeals X_ City Council
�
i under the provisions of ChapTer 61, Section _b 1.702_, Paragraph _(a)_ of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision
made by the_Board of Zoning Appeals� on August 30, 2004. File number: #04-120482
- -. . . -
GROi3NDS FOR APPEAL: �
a; As a nonconforming use and structure the building cannot be enlarged or expanded. (Details on attached pages.)
3: Since the lot is less than 9000 square feet, the Zoning Code allows only one family unit on the lot rather than 6.
�ue to the history of this nonconforming use, up to 3 family units should be permitted but not the 6 that are planned. '.
Details on attachad pages.)
: Planning Commission approval far expansionlenlargements required by the Zoning Code was not obtained far
iy of the permits ar variances granted. (Details on attached pages.)
tachments: (4 pages of text, 3 pages of photos, letter from District 12 Community Council, and 13 letters from
ighbors anfl 3 letters from prior residents of the building)
��� ��� � � � �
�icanPs Signat �'� ° �' '`°-----'��"�� Date ' � � �� T`City Agent
��
�
��a�5�' �;� �_3:�;�
Attachments to Zanin� a��eal a�plication bv Toin Holman
A. EXPANSION IS NOT ALLOWED - The Zoning Code prohibits expansion of properties that aze •
nonconforming in nse and shuctnre as set ont below.
1) Under Setfion 62.104 "a nonconformine use shall not be eniareed to a greater height nar extended to
occup�areater azea of land." Here, the bui2ding is higher and it has a lazger footprint (a new rear entry
vestibule as well as 4 attached garages add over 1000 sq ft to the footprint). This section of the code
intezprets "enlarging a nonconforming use" to include physical dimensions such as height and footprint.
2) Under Section 62106(d} - a nonconforming use can only be extended to parts of a shucture that were
manffesflv des raned for tl�e use. Here, they are extending a family unit into an attic. In the 8/3Q Board of
Zoning Appeals meefing, the City Attorney pointed out that the members of the Board needed to determine
if the attic was desib ed for this use (occupancy). Pictures were shown of finished walls in a small part of
the attic, but the attic was not designed for occupancy. The attic conld never have been used for human
occupancy because it did not have proper access, ptumbing or a legal fre exit. Hence, the expansion
should be considered as an extension to an area not desia ed for the use, and, therefore not be allowed.
3) Section S2iU5(e), states ihat a nonconfurming use shali noi be enlar�ed uciless the planning eonunission
approves it under Secrion 62.109(d). The rooftop addirion is adding about 1600 sq. ft of living space, the
reaz vestibule enlarges the footprint by about 45 sq. ft, and the garages extend the footprint by another 960
sq. ft.
�� SEL'tT6:� �3�.iv�g�� ""v4�1C�i,S iil�'. vui`"'iC::C':Cii� iJF C:iiuL�� ii 1C"'LiiiG'J u"' iv\iti ai��:i
/ i"J Y� J Y c N `i Yt'
receipt of a petitian from 213 of the neighborhood.
5) Seetion b2.106(i) makes it ciear that work may be done only on ordinary repairs on existing structures and•
iitilitjac �rCtnrla{„i tilat t}Ia riihir rpnferlt ryf a nnn�nnfprmjnb �,iy:lyljn� c};gij nnf }ja in�r�agP�7_ ThP �iµi�jr�
cantent of this building is being increased by about 8000 cubic feet.
6) Sec6on 66.231 onlv allows 3 stories in this zone, and this building is being enlarged from 3 to 4 stories.
Priar to constraction the buil:ling was 3 stories plus an sttic. Pians ar� to �onz�ert The aTMic to � 4 sto�;�.
One must consicler both the basement and the attic.
a. Section 60.203B includes topography of the grade in defining whether or not the first story is a
basement. Since the plan eIevations show that this bottom leveI is MORE than halfway above
ground, it is a story, not a basement per Code (see 4th page of these attachments for details).
b. It has been argued that tiie top level has always been a story and thus even if the bottom levei was a
siary, a Code violation of �} stories would be ;randiafhered in. However, Section G6.i0�A defines
an attic as an unfinished space immediately below the roof of the main building. The larae center
section of the attic was always unfinished (1300 sq ft) —(see 3 attached letters from residents}. This
is the se�tier, t}:at ;x�zs re.^.:eved ar.d replaae� by a r.��a� 4 �Ioe: u�hic'.: �its enti�l; abave t?�e ol�
�i3lllluiu�. i11EiC aIe ik2t12 �.�i� SCj. ft�7FSi1ZCi IOvIiiS Oil ZwCri 2iiu Of i.�'ic a«iC ttiiiiC�i wc'ic ts52u i0i
starage, but these sections are not being altered. The fact that there were little finished storage
rooms on the ends of the attic doesn't change the fact that the `attic' is being torn out and replaced
by a new `story.'
B. ONLY 3 FAMILY [JNITS ARE ALLOWED ON THIS SITE vs. the 6 planned
7} �ectiaa fifi.231 only allows one family t�nit?n this 2one for a lot smaller tha?? 4009 s� ft, ancl th;c �ne ,�
approximatel7 80Q0 sq ft. Also, only a maximum of 4 units are allowed anywhere zn this zone. However, _
6 condos are pianned for this site. Due to the historical use ofthis building, The non-conformin� use of
mulTiple uniYs is �randfathered. The qnestion is, how many units aze `legaliy' non confotming? �
�
CY� ,��,.�;^j
�
8. T�?2 (�UL�1I?� 1�+25 CORStTtlCt2t� 3S fl a-plZ:f ?�l?d 8 �` UIl:t �*.�?S 3G�C�2� III YhP [L(�c £ep �hP CtR�rarmPn�
could rove into t:e bcttom 1ec21). In 197b, thzrz �v�r� still only 5�:ruts accvrd to t�eigizbo�s
• who mo� ed here tilen {letter attachedj. Section 62.i02 es�ablishes the legat nonconformance at �
units at this point smce there were onlv 5 units in the building at the time of Code adoption in 1975.
b. Then, foz multiple contiguous yeazs in the early 90s, Polk Directory data shows that only 3 of these
� units were used. Section 62.1Ofi{g) states that a nonconforming use is lost if discontinued for a
year. But does this discontinuance include a vacancy? YES. Minnesota Statute 2002, seetion
462.357 clarifies this stating that nonconformities can continue unless occupancy is discontinued
for more than a yeaz. Hence, at this point, the 1eQa1 non-conformance dropned to 3 units because
only 3 units were occupied through periods longer than a year.
c. In 1994, a 6 unit was built and all b units were then rented out. However, the neighbors say that
they were never part of a petition to estabiish ar re-establish the nonconforming use to 6 units
wluch is required'b�aection 6L.iUy(ej {a Ll3rds petition from the neighbors and 4 other items are
required).
8) The Zoning Administrator relied on a 6 unit �ertificate of Gccupancy. How�.�er.
a. Under Section 33.05.(e) a Certificate of Occupancy is issued after final inspection by the building
official. A Certificate of Occupancv doesn't prove zoni� code compliance. It's the other way
around.
b. Under Section bi.2fl1(c) of the Code the zoning administrator is to determine whether uses are
legally nonconforming bv consulting buildine records, citv directories and other pertinent evidence.
a The fact that a Certificate of Occupancy was issued based on an erroneous determination of the
Zoning Code's requirements does not now preclude compliance with t1;e Zoning Code. A lcn6
term continuation of a Zoning Code violation doesn't precliide a later challenee. Certificates of
• Occupancy must be granted every 2 years, so this zoning compliance must be re-established
continualiy by the Zoning Administrator.
C. THE CITY CODE REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL for enlargements, an�' this
approval was not obtained.
9) Per Section 62.i09(d) ofthe Code, onIy the PIamunP Commission can permit tne eniar�emenUexpansion
of a building when the site is non-conforming in use and structure. I3either the Zoning Administrator nor
the Board of Zoning Appeals is able to provide permits or variances to allow this enlargement.
a. In this case, the Zoning Administrator provided a permit to enlarge a non-conforming building,
which is not allowed by code.
b. In the 8130 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, the City Attorney stated that if it was determined
that the addition constituted an enlareeinenk the gernut to allow this enlaraement must ao to the
Plannin� Commission. The Board of Zoning Appeals denied our appeal without discussing this
consideration.
c. In t3us case, the Hoard of Zoning Appeals also allowed variances to eniarge the footprint of this
building with attached garages, which is not aliowed by Code.
10) Section 621a9(d) states that 8 findings must be met prior to Planning Commission approval of an
enlazgement, any one of which wouid disallow this expansion. In this case, 5 of the 8 are not met. Hence,
the enlargement cannot be allowed.
a. See#ion b2.109(d)(1) states that the Planning Commission can only allow an expansion if the
, number of dwelling units is not increased — based on tl�e argument of 3 legal dweiling units, this is
an increase from � units to 6 units.
�
�5-153'
� �-
�
�-_ 7 � k ;
� f�-�i �i �:� � �
--t-a -
b. Section 62,109(d}(2j states that yard, hezght, and lot covera;e requiremenis must be met to attow
an expansion — in this case, alt four propertv tines are not met, the lot coverage is over what is •
atiowed by cade, a�d the height is greater than 3 stories.
c. Section 62.109(d)(3) states that the appearance will be compatible with adjacenY properties. T3us
building was alreadq the largest in the area and the addition itself is lazger ttian many of the
neighbors' entire houses making it incompafible with these properties.
d. Section 62.109(d)(4) states that off-street parking meets Section 63.200 for new structures. In tlus
case, 9 off=street parking spaces aze raquired and 4 are provided.
e. Secrion 62.109(d)(8) states that a petition of 2/3s of the neighbors within 100 feet has been
submitted supporting the enlazgement. Every neighbor within 100 feet has voiced their opposition
to this expansion, and no petition was ever obtained.
11) The enlargement goes beyond just the building. Without Plantung Commission approval, variances and
pernuts were given to aTtach garages to the structure. These attached gazagas clearly expand the footprinT
of the building which is an enlazgemenT of the building, and shoald not be allowed.
12) To make matters worse, both the pians for the �ages as weli as theQlans for the bwldina were altered
AFTER the Board of Zoning Appeals �anted variances for this enlargement without review (see attached
statement by District 12 Community Council).
13} The Plannine Commission never reviewed this site. The Zoning Administrator stated that this task of
review was delegaTed To him and the team he assembled. However, in this case, based on the issues to
date, we feel the Plaruiing Commission should now zeview this entire site and all stxuctures therein and
assure ait aspects of the Code are met
Requests:
•
We aze asking that Yhe City Council finds in the favor of Tom Holman and the neighbors of St. Anthony Park and
do the following:
1) Revoke the permit for tl�e main building addition at 95-97 Langford Park.
2) Require the developers to restore the roofline of the main building to its pre-existing condition, and require
of future pemuts that the cubic content not be increased.
3) Disaliow the footprint to be increased which means that the vestibule and attached garages should not be
built.
4) Limit the project to tYie 3 units that are legally nonconfornung.
5) The entire site plan should be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public forum. This review should
include the final designs for all buildings on the site, including the variances previousIy granted for the
garages because they relate to the final design and illegal expansion.
Note: Both the Zoning Adrninistrato�• and Ciry Attor•ney found the building to be non�onforming in use and
nonconforming in structure in their reports. According to the ZoningAdministrator's report of 7/30/04, "The use
ofthe building is nonconforming because of the number of dwelling units... The structure itself is also
nozzconforming in that it does not nzeet the cur•rent setbaek requirements.
.�ccording to the City �4ttorney's reporr of 8/30/0�, °The building contains 6 apartment units. The maeimum
rumber of units permitted in a multi family building located in mz RT2 distr-ict is 4. Therefore the building is _
nanconforming as to its use. The building is also a nonconforming sYructure bQCause the building does not meet
the rear setbtack standard for RT2 districts. " ��
i_J�
i
Figures showin¢ elevafion of i storv
b5 � 5� -
�U—a�13 ���
� he F�Qures below, the first story elevation for each of four sides is shown. The current grade is represented by
line through the rectangle. The numbers such as 201.9 are from a topo�aphical map of the site which shows
only the corners of the buiiding. The dimensions of the sides are from a site plan. The grade mark is based on si2e
measurements. The grade mark is at least accurate enough to demonstrate that this level is more than half out of
the �ound. The average grade is calculated by taking the geometric azea.
Ceiling at Elev 210
201.9'
Figure 1, East Elevation, 1 story
209 9'
30 Peet
2062'
�
?09 9'
Floor ai E1ev 201
Figure 2, North Elevation, 1 S ` story
z�o'
12feet 206.2�
t l feec
� 210'
202 7'
Figure 3, West Elevarion, 1 story
203.7"
] i Peet
7' 2� 1 9
7 feet 23 feet
Figure 4, South Elevation, l story
.
50 feet
23 feat { 20L9�
average grade is calculated geometrically around the perimeter. Average srade is 204.86 which
is 514' below ceiling and 3.85' above floor, this story is clearly LESS than % below grade.
�
�---'
�5-15�'
�
��_ �,� �ti��
�
This building is on3y 15 feet from tke front property line and is right on Langford Park.
.
LJ
r
!
�
The e�ansion of tke footprint with attached garages (isehind the main building).
95-97 Lanaford Park - The building as o£the date of the appea7, Iuly 15, 2004
��.
� ��,. � _, � �
�`.�. '_ : t- ��
s '," 1`_
�_ .
'
� �'. �
�`
g �
x �
> r _ ;
�
� �
�`fi �� . ' {�:��.
��
'i,�� '�y . ,
i I 9 `3� .
'� � Y S�, „ � -.
� � ��� .
w ;�`' t
r��: z
� ¢:
`�� � ��;;r ���
e y� f �'�
�'� � �� ._ f ^� � f s�'
�
�? � : ^".., k �m .;.
' n � �
��� �~� �
m.
� � � �?
t
uF °'' -.
�� t � ,
; r —^—� �
�° -
�w.� ".3 �..." �
+4 $,`P3@ 4.�3 � _
+ �,�_3m� �"
a
s
�� � ��
� �
F � ; y� �;
ir
' „ �
� . .:� � :, � `,.. ..., , '
__ _ __ ..
�,
? � �� rr
_ ��-
�
��
� - <.
".�,� �-_-;.� _�
�
�� --
� �z �r �
�r
,K �.:
�` '�'��� � � �
x: x �.c+�>rc�'�� s
5 ,� "`�. �-. ".
�
^ ��.,� + _ �L'
� ,
�
��� �.
a: ,� (
� ' �' . e . aP, �,�."
� 3 �
q
. t t'� . ,
+ �� ;
�
ti � .
�. �
�?�_.�� ;, :..
d './
�
�
�
� ' S
�- °�' . . #� .n,.
� 1 a�
�� � x rTy�
�� a k��> . ry
� � ,
� .. a �.: " ..�. `�M` ' .
.
b5-15�
�
0
0
N
6C
�
i
C
O
u
�.
�
�
�
O
O
N
CO
�
r
�.
�
�
�
�
° o
N
�
w
3
�.
�
�
�
�
�
�
��-� 58
�
1'���'��
,t���t��
.��*��.#,
�����
St. Anthony Park Communit�t Cvuncil
August 13, 2044
John Hardwick
DfFice af License, Tnspecrians and Environmental Protecdon
3�0 Si. Peter Street — Suite 300
SaintPaut,MlV 55i02-1510
Re: BZA case #Q4-120482 (95-97 Langfard Park)
Dear Mr. Hardwick and $oard of Zoning Appeals:
On Thuxsday, August 12, 2004, the 5t. Anthony Park Communiry Council approved the
following resolutioa:
� _
��-��;�� �s'
� The 5t. Anthony Park Community Comacil's recammendaYion conceming the variances
for 95 Langfard was based on drawings, plans, and information about the development
that were not complete und did not accurately r8flect the projecT as it�s cutrently being
buiIt. The Council's recommendadon concerning the variances may have been different
if the Councii had received complete and accurate information about the prvject.
Thank you for yaur iame and attention to this matter. If yot� have any questions with regards to
the resolution, please call me.
Sincerely,
� � t� ^ �a.�
Me 'ssa Mathews �
Executive Director
C: City Councilmember 7ay Benanav
•
��
1
896 Cromwell.Ave�e, Safat Paw1, Miar�nn 55114 :� 651/544-5942 vaka 4 b5 S f649-5993 fsx
d5�t 5�'
�t}1C8 �"�8tlS373fltI
s��� �e�:����.��
.r� as, ?ao�
Zoning Administrator
Offrce of LIEP
350 Sf. Peter Street - Suite 300
St. Paut, MN 5� IO2
/i i�— f �,i J �s�( �
���es� •
��?��� €��
�e���nt��v�S
I am writin� in support of Yhe appeaI by Tam F3aIznan regarding the building at 45-9?
Langfora Park.
I am a resident of St. Anthony Park mysalf, aud I share the concern of my neight�ors and
constituenis abouT develapers cnming u� ar3d negatsVely inpacting the integrity o£the
neighborhoad. Severat of the neighbors that wrote letters in support oi Tom's appeal
have been residents here 34, 40, even SO years and aze very concerned about the historic
charm of tha neighborhood. Also, the local Community Council has alwavs worked hard
to mairztain che �2traciiveness of the uei�kborh3od, and at wouId tae a shame to iguore
their long and toyal efforts ia [hat respect.
IZ seems co me as if the addition at 95-97 Langford v�oiates a number oz� aspects af the
Zoning Code.
I
2}
�j
) Is the buiIding now four stories or three stories? We think it's four, thus too high.
• The Zoning Administraior siaTes ihat the bottam lavel of the building is a
`basemeni,' Basamenis are ciefiaed in Section 60.2�.i of ine Zoning Code.
Since this Ievel tess than ?�alfivay belolv groun� 2nd is a cemp:e,ed
structure, it is a`story,' and noE a`basemant.' iXence, the addition is a 4`
story and shouldn't be allflwed.
If the building is considered to be four stories, Ehe Zoning Administrator says the
expansion may be Iegal because the 4�' floor is "grandfathered." But, we don't
think you can expand a nonconiormance.
+ Sectian 62.101 states that you ean't make a nonconforanance more intense_
and the additiom m�st 6e found to be comparible with the surra
nefghborhood. Tius expansion is cieazly more iniense, and the neighbors
are w onposed to it.
• Section 62. i 06 (d) states that a noncanformance can only be extended in a
way it was manifestiy designed_ 3'his 4 IeveI was designed as an atric
and thereiore shouldn't be atlowed to be converted inta a condo, and
62.106 (e), states that a nonconforming use shai� noT be e�larged.
+ Ss a buiIdine thaE is nanconforming in height (4 sto*ies), Sec�ian 52.IC�5
(i) staies that the cubic content of a nonconiorming builrling shaIl not be
increased.
If the �uilding is consicered �o �e three siories, we stitl doa't tiuink you can IegallV
exp�:d t?:e iop tevel.
�
�
�
� ; �,
� �j
9:ate Cifice ��uiCina, ; 06 Coastrtuuar, Ave . St ,°su+ 'vt�nnase?a 5�� 5^-72°8 [6' �) 2=� ;.E2
TDQ tc" i2i [96-9A5E =.... (6 i91 29i-7523
U5-�5�'
�
4j
5)
•
� _
+ Even if deemad `conforming' in height, the building is still
`nonconforming' to code in.terms af setbacks and housing density.
Section G2:106 (i) states that the cubie content of a nonconfozmi�g
buiIding stiail not be increased.
We also don't think you can put 6 family units into this fittIe lot_
• At only ?Sfl0 sq ft, the Zoning Coda states that this lot is oniy big enough
for ane family. However, 6 condos were approved based an the "gI'3Ild
fathering" point ittat there used Yo be 6 apartment units in the buildiug.
• Section 62.Ifl6(g) states that the noncanfornvng use of a building is lost if
it was discontinued for a year. Fias the owner proven to the Planning
Commission that these 6 units were continually rented (per Sec. 62.102)?
Several neaghbors say one unit was o$en used for storage. FTence, only 5
condos should he allowed as a ma;cimum, and even then, witYzout
erilargin� the building {per Section 62.106{i}).
The planned garages violate code too — they are set back less than 2 feet from the
north property iine with no variance on that property line.
• The Zoning Administrator says this setback is grandfathered because the
main building is also set back only 2 feet from this prop�rty line.
However, Section 62.I04(b} says that a nonconfornung usa cannot be
eniazged to occupy a greater area of land. These garages clearly do.
• The garages are considered `accessory buildings.' Section 62.105 says
that accessory buildings musY comply wiih Seckion 53.5�1, which states
that on a corner lot, tisa structures shall be set back from the street a
distance equat to that required of the principal shucture. In our zone, the
Code rec�uires the front of principie shvctures To be set back ZS &om ihe
property line along a street.
With all of these issnes around nonconformance, this whole site plan should have gone
thraugh the Planning Commission according to Sectian 61.202 of the Zoning Code. In a
quick review of ihe agendas of the Planning Commission over the pasY 2 yeazs, we
couldn'i find where thls property was discussed. Sec 62.109(d)(8) requires a petition of
2; 3s of the neighbors in snpport of the expansion o#' a nonconfozming buiIding. T3�e
neighbors are uniformly opposed to tiris expansion.
I think that iYs pxetty clear from a legaI parspective that the building is in violation of
code and should not proceed as planned. I'm also concerned on another IeveI. If it is this
easy to breatc iha nzles, how� can we have canfidence in future decisions 9f the Zoning
Administration? If this permit is not overturned, I tiunk it will be difficult to explain how
`shrugging your shoulders' as an aeceptable soiurion To neip�bors who wou[d like to see
the Zoning Code anfozced.
Sincerely,
�
��,�v'� ��,v=—����n�.._
� al'zce Hausman
5tate Representa2ive
�`
r �
Jt�ly 19, 2t304
Board of Zoning Appeals
Citp of S#. Paui
350 St. Pater SEreet
Saini Paul, MN 55id2
To Whom ft May Concern:
,z>�,�
'�
We are residents of St Paul, in the neighbothood of St. Anthony Park. We are writing to you out
of deep concem regarding a canstcuction project on aur biock at 95 Langford Park. It is an
apartrnent building that is being expanded qaife beyond its existirtg sEructure. if is fhe onty targe
apartrnent buitding in the area and already was quite imposing. it is an obtrusnre structure, right
on the park, and not in keeping with tfie character of the neighborhood.
We oppose the expansion of this apartment building. This buikding is already non-conformfng on
a number of aspects of the zoning ordinance and should not be expanded at all, We support tfie
propased appeal of Tom Hulmart ob�ing to the construction of a fourth floor at 85 LangPord.
There have besn ihree variances have already been grar+ted to this property, and titey should
not hare be able to alsfl raise the roof to add another floor. If is aur understanding that the ciry
pianning department was led to bei"�eve that the bottom floor is a basement thus makir� the
addition only a 3` floor, Mowever this is not true, because in our famiiy's 35 years in this
neighborhoad, that hoiiom level has ahvays been complete and inhabited apar#ments rather
than basement. There is a compiete and formai enkrance #rom the fro� to those "garden levei"
apartments and were used as such.
The scarce amount of green space, and parking on this lot and the increasing number oi
inhabitants in the expanded apartmeni compiex wil! not work in this space ar�d in this
neighbo�haod. Already the trees and Iawn were removed to buitd a targe row of garages at
which our neighbors must now took. We believe you have been mislead in YMs nature of this
building and the currerd project and wish your assistance in stopping the expansion of this
building.
Sincerely,
Hans and Kristin W+ersma
2285 Gordon Avenue
St.Paut, MN 55iU8
651-659-2583
�
�
�
��
, � ,::.
. �
���� �i�'
� � 3�,,�� �� C� �--
/.J /' ���� �J'Y� -5 S J
` Y �,4�-�- ' �� / �Yj `� �� �
.�fl 1� ,G�,-, .r� Y�Jf��/ ��'Yl c'eti-y2 � .
f
��1�� �''�� � �.�"�i.�' �° �ztin-�
' % / �y�..CC t�z � V C"`z�L-.' P'� �i/j , ( � ?�
�. �t��C��i't GC�rC� =?�t l� �. �� . l . O"
G �`'�� P�l/dL
� ��`?��/ �--� ��°'.��-�--� �� -� ���.� Z`�� �
.�;�u��ic ���✓ � c� ��� � -� .�-� � �
� ; " ����-� � , �� �c� �'�� �-� �
� :...� iG�—rl <c%t- �
� � /��� , /}/ , �/ y _ � —A .�z- ..r�- a ..1� �.�v ��tif
.Zl�"U �(i y�' c�'�"L , ��G�GG�%�
� C_G� �7��C/��a� ..�L�`�- ```'--C� � r? `'��" - �� 2 L'
1 ,r ti '
l�{" :�$C-2 ��%> �, ,� �t2- �-��-E�� �'� Lc ./Jt�� ���_
� �-?�? ;�'t C'.`� - �t1��2 - t � C�-- , �el� , ,� ���_
�`'c.- -��'/l�JJ . � � f�.o'�--G��
�„Q �z �-�27 ✓-1-.� . �Y!!G lz- L-�z G � �������tJ
���L ,
q:� ���' ���� ' � �� ��G%��
l� Y � �� G �"2� - �
f i � � r � � �
' • � -�
�[.��� C . ; 1
��
a5a5�
Jaly 16, 2Q�4
Tf►e Board of Zoning Appeals
Office of LIEP
350 St Peter St. Snite 300
St. Paul MN 55102
Deaz sirs,
. �,
Phillip & 3anet Duff •
2197 Knapp Street Nort}i
St. Authony Pazk, MN 551U$
I am writing in reference to work being done on ihe property tocated at 9S Langford Park,
in here St. Anthony Park.
The btulding is being expanded faz beyond what is typical and appropriate of the
neighborhood and far beyond what Yhe lot size aad parking situation can bare. What was •
an interesting looking building before the reconstruction that is taking place is fast
becoming an monolithic eyesore.
This is has become a four-story strucYure which is not allowed in neighborhood. My
undeistanding is that tt►e contractor's position is that it is a three story building on a
basement. I know what basements are...they are underground; they have washing
machines and spiders...the main floor is obviously not a basement as it has always had
aparlrnents and is mostly uot underground.
This building is already non-conforming in multiple ways and absolutety should not be
atiowed to e�and in any way. Tf this was any empry lot and someone wanted to build a
single-famely house an it, there is no way that they would be granted the latitude that this
shucture been granted. Are contractors being granted leniency for some reason that I'm
notawaze aP?
I wou(d like to see alt construc6oa stopped immediate[y and a complete review of at1
plans to taice place during a con�munity meeting. Under no circumstances would I want
to see the causiruction pf the garages to fake ptace with out a community review of the
PI'oP�� Pians and an environmental impact study done on the additional parking
congestioII created. That is a very busy and dangerous corner tt�at the building is on and
the last thing it needs is more on-street parking to take piace. •
��
85-�58
-t�. ��
• IYs hard for me to believe that if a new p!an were brought to the zoniitg appeals board
Urat suggested that "in an arra of pricnarily singte family homes, we're going to use every
square inch of a lot to erect a Four story struchue and multigle gatages directty acrass
&om a pazk", that you wouid let them get away with that. Did you a�arfze them to
build an #his smatl lot whst is apparently being built7 I feel that the contractors are reaily
tryiag to pirt one over � our commemity and I hoge you are not supporting their effarts.
A prcxnpt review of this matter is calted for.
1 look forward to your response and appreciate your attention to this matter.
R c IIy
illip Duff & T ttff
� e�:
Counciimember Jqy Senanav
Wa�d 4
310D City HaU
IS West Kellagg Boulevasd
Saint Paui, MN 55102
,
,�
d5-t5g
3u2y 18, 2004
The Board of Zoning Appeals
Office of LiEP
35E3 SE. Peter St, suite 300
3t. Paul, MN 55102
r� c. � .�u�.� x. �
69 LnNGFUau Pr�tut �
Snnv�r Pnut., Muv�vESrrra 35188
{65�j659-9357 ,
RE: Permit for modiFications to progerty at 95 LangEord Park.
Dear Boazd Members,
We write to you today in aupport of #he Zoning Appeal for Administrative iZeview filed
by Tom I3o]man chaIlenging the decision made by the City Plan Iteview Staff to grant a
huilding permit for madifications to property at 95 Langford Park.
After review of the docvmentation prepared by Mr. Holman, after observing the
building modificatians as they take shape, and after considering ttte impact of Yhe
changes to the neighborhood we &nd the modifieations to the structure objectioaable.
As neighbors, we support and weicame improvements to t3us, and other, properties
that are undertaken in compliance with locai building and zoning codes and #hat do
not detract from the character of the neighborhood or diminish the value of properiy in
the area.lRzis pmject does not fit those criteria. As Tom's documentation paints out,
the modified struefure esncerbates an existing non-conforming sitdation that creaies
tao great a density on She parcel and is out of character and scale wvith the
neighborhood.
We respectful2y request that the Boazd of Zoning Appeals grant a review of tiie decision
made by the Plan Review Staff to issue a building pertnit for the madifications and
coasider reversing the Pian Revicw Staff decisioa on the follawing grounds:
The modificatiox►s create a 4-atory structure, which is not permitted by tlze
zaning ordinance.
3'he additional units will inerease the amount of occugants in the building when
the density for the parcel size is already in vio2ation of the aoning ordinance.
The modifiecl structure is obtrusive and inwnsistent with the character and
scale of the neighborhood.
We apprcciate gour careful attention to this issue and hope that yoez will support our
positioa.
RespectfuIlY,
G ����
Philip C Vogel, AIA
1 'e H. Vog
�
�
�
�
•
•
'
IVSRS. VILMAR K. BOSS
22�i1 HILLSIDE AVENUE
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 551fl8
j� � c� v� �v. ��._� �-��t S
��`�� � �.t��� ,��
�,--a �� PQ 1� �-@� &�-�
� � y - rU i�
s �-���
wGz, J �. 7'° °��
°� 1 -
a�-�5�
o-t
tz� � �� ��� �
� )'.rr °
�en.o : c{ �r,,na,,.� auv+� '� t �
��, � -fe� .x.nc� ut,o� � C Eri dc' ���-' � � �
��1 d oi—1 5.`'�'k�r' -�' -�re c-tDnti�"`c �'a `�wr �
� � � �. & �,�. �
� � � cta9.�e[c,�.d'/ a.n.0�� +» b.ce.�.� ��� ttic�S
'�"Q.s�- �°."`^�Y.e �tk� � � 4 � �},�'N'vCx � { �r"'
6-�.��'e1 �-'a.n !1 �� � `C �-' � �.�, ti�5� � t � . � a �� , �}
�M t�S.Cs�"'k-dr' Cr �{ � �� ` 1� N` !
� Q -l.c.� 1'-"' rs. � G�`S' '�'CO"�'^ 1� .!P J � �d
� C�ev a e1 {� �•--f�.F,G@+ �� � '1"j?-a"'
+c� � `� t �
�.�, ,� �u,'` � � �-+Y � ��.-l- ��
� �em�� � �� ��� . ��� �it�
� � S , � y.. qll�! �,�-' L � t'�-���� J � fi ,^-{----
� � � ����...- ��- �.�
� d �+�^ `
P ��� � ���.�.."�-'� "` �� ��`'", � � � �
� � .� � � � �
a��.� . w. 5�' Q „t/�
� i �� �� Q & U„ `.t'�``-� � � c c� g- � 4-a
�� � �.
�1 At� � � - ,fQ�,i., td,'�'j .
Ar> �
��;c�.tti�iec� '�� � .{-eC(�,:.�a..� s- �°�.. �
' ` :�Pi+' � � �
Q �,Q[D-�- �� 'ry'a ��j �,,, {�' �
q�, j �,t�' '�8-$ bt� fi"�./ r'�
�� � � � (_ �� �,a� .
CS'�`••
�"r��. �J � �`' �
�
t�5��5�
_ 3 �/`
����
����
� ��a,��s��
6�#•SE�3-tifi3
_�:: ,
':;<;;:;;:
:
�_, �>�:�
- „;
_- ;::,�.,��?..
`<, :,
`•,� �
Dt� �.ac�ua:
I� w� ia:sa�a�t.vf �e spped ���r Tom;Ho�a r� tt�e
P������- ��-����sss��.��
��_ �����.���.���
��.� � l�tdd�,��sii �er.ta��is b�g fwt�r.+�so�ates she
P�
}an� si�aqW � be �p�de��i� a[£ 1'here�il� 6e v�d�tty ne �
� �#��svr�re
raa�ua a£�owr�srag+ea,� was m�€�bout
�E'�IfK��iC PJ[i9� �. .
t�f�}` �"�.+.6,"'^�.`�'�.�6.l�C.�x �(3k1C ffi ��[1L. T
1 Z �bOE iEE4 �IS i�V9i1}F6 ���2� SV���;. �•
�L.f�fC �L�t��C.�t�l7lg.
t Of i1 �'�OOF� i!'i Of #�i8 a1f77tCC iV�ti� �SO �1ii11t��E�t6C Of
861�'.W ��� ��i j1C��0E1C.
I�pe �e cihy w� �vo tosl��� � cst't� b�iin,g.
S�eeelq,
�S�u`
�.:�„�.._..,.
�:��
��. �
�
•
f��.� a���-� ��,�,�, _
x� , r-.H--��... f r ».�."�`,�'�-� x
4. .w �r � z-k �.n+.�+� K Y ^. C�.cn v.2�d, a - " /�
. C f } ya.. 3 �+ s� � - � � {
��� rrv ��J�'��. .^i.�, yn, tn, ��vp�•y9�w,�1.`�'rJ?izs;"�#.���i`� • • • • a ♦ � • ♦ • • • • � s • � ♦ • ♦ •� s w-
"iS^ k f.,. �
r y. %��Ye, �� � �..i.. R ' M •" G .n.F.
> i...n.L«- „ r _.._z...H- . r :... ..s- ..
�ofTs�g'�Is
a�
�g.t�� P�I.
35� Sf. �atec Sl�eet,.st� 3fl0
S� �ts S5itY1
�5-� 5 �
E�_���
,'
. July i8, 2004
To: Board af Zoning Cammittee
City of Sz. Paul
From: Alice Magnuson, 2231 Knspp St.
3t. Paul, MN SS i 4$
Sharon Nelson, 2231 Knapp St
St. Pau3, MN SS108
lte: 95 and <YI Langford
St. Pau!„ MN 55108
T�iis letter is ta e�rpress concern abaut the remodeling praject at 95 and 97 Langford Park.
The proposed remodeling to make five apartment units into six aondominium units is
grogressing diffaently from the proposal that was preseated to the St. Anthony Park
neighborhood. The concems inctude;
• • The building and proposed four garage units cover a greater perr.entage of the
land than is aHpwed. The garage foundatipn, as poured, is attached to a neighboc's
garage.
• The original proposal did not inciude raising the fou�th floor roof to a height
greater than aliowed. The height of the roof line needs to be reduced.
• The buiiding, before 1975, contained Svs apartment units. Naw the proposal is
for six condominium nnits. This formula puts more individuals in a structure tt�an
the code allows.
• Work begins on the project at b: IS AM each day and continued�unti14:30 PM or
later. One night the work continued untii 10;20PM. This ss disrupted to neighbors
who have smal{ children, the elderly and the working popalation. Phane catls
were made three times ta the city about this concern
• The wortc that has occurred to date has destroyed and altered the originai integrity
of the buiiding. That cannot be replaced.
Tha proposai o£ changing the building &om apartments to condominiums is a sound one
but the process for this projsct is not compatible with ihe eacisting neighborhood.
'
� G�
05�5�
18 July, 2(it44
The Board of Zoning Agpeats
OfTice of LIEP
3S4 St Pet� Strest Suite 304
Saint Paul, Minnesota SSt02
t;:
I am writing to support the FroPosed aP�i by Tom Hotman objecting to tlre construction
of a fovrth story io �e building at 95 L�ngforci Park. I oppose arty eJtpan9ion of the
buitding siace $te developer's initial gtsas shown to the neighbac3eood preseated a four-
pl� with muenides in the gimund floar. T'he only additions shown wese an elevawr on
the west side of ilse buiiding ancE four gazages for which a variancc was rrquested.
Having received the above variance, tbe greed driven devetoper 6as secured two vUier
variances. Oae which allows the fugt ftoor allowed to be cait� a bssemetrt even ttmugh
it has eatries at the street tevel in front aud a hedf 9oor e�try at the xear aud d�pitc this
"nev�' basement contained two living units that had been ir� use since the buitding's
i�epiion. 'This variaace altows t}ze addition of a fourth floor. Samekow the dereioper
21(TTII3WO�ICd 30t1100i1@ lII CtC� H&II perhaps thC �uiiding insp�trns, to sllow llving �
units in the "basemenY' as well. ATeither of these devions deveiugmcants were brought to
the attention of the neighborhood since it would have upset the developer's pians,
�th variances ia hand, the developer si�ideniy adcl�d a large crew working 15 ta 16 hout
days ta put in pi�ce the waIIs and fiamework in the roof apeuings wfiich were in place a
week and a haif ahead of time. If comp2eted, the once handsome Dutch Coloniel huiiding
will out-scale other buildings in the neighiwrhood and wiIt Iook like it has growri a big
wart on iYs roof sincc the developer conld care leas :f tEus raitraaded addition ma#che� in
any way the original bui2ding.
tn my oginion, since the gmun@ floor is itt place, I sugges# you allow ane ar two vnits in
it anci require t3ie buitding developer to repiace ths roof and a#ia in their originaE
conditian.
•����
A. Kailer
2252 Knapp Sireet
Saint Paut, Minnesota SStQ8-29U9
�� -
�,5 , Zt�t�4-
o °
�-! 5Q
;t
�`�� � � �
')'►M, l'1,,�,',�,-Nan.c�w�el� �� �QotiN.���t � � -� �3�2
(!'
�
•
/��r�- -� �?��-
�3���F' eP � 5t�� �i�t�{�'�.r..,ll M'�^^^.°��, �"5"trrz
GrIL �e. �u �� � ,�t�. �is -vJ��� o�c�.
t� y�' � �'
��,�,�t K�;,.� � ���� ��
l t,,r�.,�,.e., c� 1� 97 r�9�v,, c' f�n� �• �� a.1�.�..����
h� �� �� � ���� �� � �
� �t � �a �r� 9u.� � C� .� o-r.r�vt�u�,,
¢�+.��..,vu��� I�`1 �, �+� , �e.t� �w� �' �✓ �`J�
Nri1! � a� w.v ; °i'�iuv �.�e Y/a�c�i. �c � avc.e.,
/'tY ` ^'�Gd''t`��I"�/l[� • JL/(H.t.) TVZ�cc�1>bt/2g•t.yuf�t LO
�.(.c(/,�Gu ��i¢ ✓(.tJ`it , p -Ft`1�Idt,� Q �`
..�,� y. � � ��� � ���"
y ���X��� �
��� �. � ���� �Q ��� � � t��'�
��f �� f�� ��r� �� 1�� i��P� �
�e �-u.��� � �tl� � �� �-�,
� �"
���. � �c����� � � �� �,.
��,.�.��, �� ,
I � �.
/�.Pzr�LC lv � �,Ylr.ir �t t���pYJ-t,�
�,�,� �� ��,�.V�-,. � �,�,�,`�,�
� �� � � � -� �v�� d�,�P�� �,�. �`
c�, c�� tl t� .�e�� Y1 o C�',� ����`�.
Y
�h��, �. ��� � ��,��. �'��.
�
��
b515�
�
�
July 19, 2004 �
219i Knapp St
St, Paul, MtV 551{T8
The Board of Zoning Appeats
Office of LIEP
35Q St. PeYer Street Svite 30EJ
Si. Paul, MN 55102
Greetings:
We are writing this tetYer to support the proposed appeat of Tom Holman objecting to the
construction of a fwrth floor at 95 Langford Park.
We understand that the city planning departrnent feels that the bottom floor is a
basement, making the addition only a 3'� #Toor. V�e disagree with this assessment,
because the bottom ievel is pretty much out of the ground on at least two sides and it has
atways been rented as complete apariments. This shoutd be cansiderecl the ground or
first of three fioors. Raising the roof would make the building fotu storias. �
We also understand that this building is atzeady non-conforming on a number of aspects
of the zaning ordinance and feei very sttongly that ihe building should not be expanded.
tiVe understand that three variances have already been graated, but the mof shautd not be
raise� above it's present levei.
Tlvs is an obin�sive structure that is not in keeping with the character of the
neighbarhood.
$est regards,
Roger and Carol tlpAam
� 0 �
(� _
05�t5�'
�
�
flffice of LEIP
350 St. PeYer St. suite 300
St. Pau3, MN 55102
I�ear Sir or Madam,
In the matter of the Zoning apQeat brought by Tom and Holenaci for the property 95
I.gngford , I would like to reiterate what has already been stated by Mr. Ho3man and
�i�¢ported by fellow neighbars.
"f'lie buitding project is non -conforming on the issues 1: nuanber of units avaiiable per
laiid parcet 2: the addition of a fourth floor to the structuse 3: vatiances grartted far the
giiipose of maximixing personal profit and 4:other issues raised by Mr. Holcnan.
I support the 2oning appeal broaght hy Tom Halman.
�
2207 p St.
. aui, MN 55108
651-644-8810
�
�
a5�5�
t 3 -�
�
�u�,� i, Zaaa
To whom it may concern,
I have lived at 2231 Knapp StreeE since 197b. AY that Yime there were five apardnent units
in the apartment building at 95 and 97 Lang#'ord Fark. Two units were on eaah of the first
and second floors of the building and one uaii in the south corner an the street tevel of the
build'zng.
Sincer �
(
�
� _
�
rrcm:
Seat:
To:
Subject:
Hi T�m-
caroime conms (caropena95Lyahoo.com}
Thursday, Septemker 02, 20a4.8:Ofi PM
thh(a�comcasknet
Attic at 95-97 Langfiord Park
Sorry to h�ar things axe still unsect2ed with the
condo project.
I,lived af 95 Lar.gford Park from September 1997 until
F�bruary 2004. To my knowledge no one li•zed in the
a�tic duting that time period, except squirrels :).
T�ie spaee appeared to me to be unfinished and was used
for storacje.
fiEncerely,
C3rolin� Collins
651/�61-8178
pb"you Ya�zba!?
Win 1 of Q}000 £ree domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
httpi!%promotions.yahoo.com/goidrush
•
u
�.5 -1 ��
��
1
v5�15�'
� ld- C�'`� - f
� C'--d ` �
, ��-��� �
���
�.���- �.�-��,�,e.�,..�-,� �:� ,
i'�
��� �---1
�:�� _
�' .�� � -�-a-- � -�-= �
��-�,-��� ��'�..�--�' .�=��-��.
1 � � .�.�.�����
-��..�--
.-� �� ��:�. �--.� �,��-,���� �
�� _ .
��`�� �
�����
��m� �
��
�--
05 - l S�
~1 ��
• 3nhn and Anita Sluck
35I5 Spain Plaee NE
MinneapoIis, MN 55418-1237
August 8, 2DQ4
fio whom it may concern:
We resided at a 4-plex apartment at 97 Langford Park, St. Pau1, MN 5510$ from 7une I,
1955 to 7une 1 1477.
We utilized the attic portion of the 4-plex for storage purposes as did the other 3 tenants
who occupied the other spaces in the apartrnent buitding. There was never a period when
�ny thought was directed toward expanding the attic as additional living spaoe, and no
o�e was ever a resident in that portian of the apartment.
To get to the attic, you had to climb the back stairs and go across a landing and thraugh a
Ii"ttle door. There wasn't even a floor in the attic, onIy a sub-floor. There was no living
�pace there, only storage, and the rafters were exposed.
We would be willing to appeaz as a witness at any proceeding to testify to these facts.
� �incerely,
� �'�` (���u�
Jack Sluck
Attorney at Law
1 �
�
�� � : �. _ �� �__ _ _, ��_
BfJt11?I3 flF �(31�Il\TG 4PPEtiLS S'TAI+F REPQR�' �� :� •
'TXP� flF APl'LICAiI�I�:
�rrLZCArrr;
HEARING DATE:
LflCA'TION:
LEGAL DESCRIPI'IOlY:
PLA.NNING DISTRICT:
PRESENT ZOIVING:
REPORT DA7CE:
DEADLINE F(DR A�CTION:
Ad�inistrative Review
�ro� xo��
August lb, 2Q04
95 LANGFORD PA.RK
ST. AN'I`FIONY P ARK, MINNESOTA NELY 2 FT OF LOT
10 AND ALL O� LOT 9 BLK 38
12
RT-2
Jnly 30, 2004
August 28, 2004
FIL2? #04-i2d4�2
BY: John Hardwick
DATE RECEIVED: July 19, �
2004
A. PURPOSE: An appeal of a decision by the Zoning Administrator regazding the height of the
building at 95 Langford Pazk.
B. SITE AND AItEA CONDITIONS: This is au irreb laz shaped lot of abaut 8,000 squaze
feet. There is no alley access to the site. The properry slopes fram the rear down to the street
and also from the Knapp 5treat side dorvn to the south.
Surrounding Land Use: 1VIiYed residential uses.
C. BACKGROUND: In Februuy of this yeu the Boazd of Zoning Appeals granted three
vatiances in order to build new attachec3 gata�es for this six-unit apartment buildiag.
D. ZONIlVG CODE CTTATIONS:
61.701 (a) Tha Board af Zoning Appeals shall hava the power to hear and decide appeals
where it is alleged thaf there is an enor in any order, requirement, pemsit, deczsion or refusaI
made by the Zaning Administrator in carrying out or enforcing any provision of the coda.
Pa�e 1 of 3
�
�
�
�
.
File #04-i2Q482
Staff Report
c�5
�, ; cJ�3.��.
62.106 {cn A nonconforsning use may be extended throughcut any parts of a structure tfiat
were manifesdy arranged or designed for the use, but sha21 not be extended to occupy any
land or a iazger azea of land outside the structure.
66.231 (a) In an RT-2 zoning district the height of a building may not exceed 4Q feet or 3
stories.
(b) In an RT-2 zoning dishict a riinimum lot size of 2,500 square per dwelTing unit is
required.
E. FINDINGS:
The apartment building at 95 - 97 Langford Park was built in 1914 and has a current
Certiftcate of Occupancy for 6(six) dwelling units. The Certificate of Qccupancy also
certifies zoning compliance. The use of the building is nonconfarming because of the
number of dwel3ing units; four urrits are pernutted in an RT-2 zaning district. The
structure itseLf is also nonconfornung in that it does not meet the current setback
requirements, although a variance was granted for the rear setback as weil as lot coverage
for the new garages that are being constructed. Both the use and the structure are legaily
nonconforming. The properiy owner is in the middle of remodeling the building with the
intent of converting the apartment units Jnto condominium uruts. The room arrangement
within the building will be changed but the number of dwelling units will remain the
same. The project also includes replacing the existing dormers on the upper floor with a
new dormer.
2. The appellant is basing his appeal on two points. First he alleges that by replacing two of
the existing dormers by a singie larger dormer, the building exceeds the number of stories
allowed in an RT-2 zaning district.
The hei2„�T of a building is measured from the midpoint between the peak and eave
down to the average grade around the building. With the new dormers, the height of
the building will be inereased by 3 feet. Staff does not consider this as adding another
stary to the building. There has aiways been living space on al1 four Ievels of the
building and this has not changed. What the appellant refers to as the "attic" was in
fact finished living space. The question of the lower level being considered a
basement or a story makas no difference since #he ntunber of stories has not changed.
�
3. In the second part of his appeal, the appellanf alleges that tttere are too many dwelling
uniYs in the building and that the number of rooms exceeds That allowed lay code.
Pa�e 2 oi 3
��
c�5 -t5� , ., _,
�zt� �Q�-��Q4sa
Staff Report
, � ��. .»�,
�
As stated eazliez, this building has a Certificate of Qccupancy for si� dwelling units
and tl�is also ceriifies zonina compSiauce. The zonuzg code does nat dif#'erentiate
beiween apartment units or condominiwn units. The appellaxtt f€trther sEaies tfiat ane
af the apartment units was unoccupied for a period of tune. Periodic vacancy is to be
expected with any apartment building. For zoning puiposes, a residetttial vacancy
does not constitute a discontinuance of a residential use and only the pfiysacal removal
of the dwel2ing unit �ronld resuit in loss of nonconforuzing status.
The current zoning code regulates the density of residentially zoned property on the
basis of miuimum Iot size per dwelIing unit versas the previaus way of regu3ating
through lot size per zonittg rooms. Therefore, the room count wiYhin the buiIding may
change as long as the number of dwelling units doesn't increase.
4. In the final part of his appeai, the appellant mentions bui2ding setbacks and a pattern of
problems with the project.
The only change zo tlze setbacks of the buildiag are those involved witk the
eonstruction of the garage wluch were covered by Yhe variances �anted for that
goz of the project. There have been some problems with one of the contractors
involved with this project, but those problems are being addressed by the district
building inspector and have no bearing on this zoning appeal.
E. DISTRICT COUNCIL I2ECO1VIiV'VtENDATION; As of the date of this report, we hava
not received a recommendation from District 12.
F. CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has received several letters opposed to this project and in
support of this appea2.
G. STAFF It�COMNtE1Y➢ATTON: Based on findings 1 through 4, staff finds that
remodeling of the bnitding does not canstitute an expansion of a noneor�foz use aad
ti�erefare the Zaning Adu�izzistrator c3id uot err in issuing tile building permit. Staff
recommends denial ofthe appeal.
�
_
Page 3 oF 3
��
��-t 5�
_�
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CI'TY OF SAIN'L' PAUL
DATE: August 30, 2004
TO: Soard of Zoning Appeals
FROM° Peter W. Wamer
RE: Administrative Review Request by Tom Holman RE: property at 4a-97 Langford Park
Backb�6und
This is an appeal fram an inteipretation of the zoning code by the Zoning Adminisirator [ZA]
regaiding work on an existing multi-family apartment building.' The appeilant is a neighbor to the
• building. The zoning code grovides that any person affected by a decision of the ZA may appeal
a d`ecis"ion of the ZA to the BZA �
The buildin� is located in an RT2 zoning district. The building contains 6 agartment units. The
maxizil`m number of units permitted in a multi-family buildin� located in an RT2 distzict is 4.
Therefore, the buildin� is nonconforming as to tts a�se. The building is also a nonconforming
structure because the buildang does nat meet the rear setback standard for RT2 districts.
Ap�
The written grounds for appea] state two errors on the pait of the ZA. First, the written appeal
alieges enor by allowing the conversion of space in what had been an attic into habitabie space. It
is alleged that creating habitable space in the former attic converted what had beea a permitted 3-
story building into a 4-story building which is not permitied in an RT2 district This theory is
premised upon the appeIlant's interpretation of ihe zflning coc�e regardina the zoning code's
i I.eg. Code § 65.116 generally describes a multi-family buildine as a building desib ed
for occupancy by three (3) or more families.
� Leg. Code �§ 51.7�1(a) and (d).
3 I,eg. Code § 66?? 1.
`I,eg. Code � 5b231.
�,�-.�fl.�-�ro sm
��
��=r� � . _
BZA Memo: Langford Park
�ugust 3II, 2Q04
Page two
���
definition of a basemeni based npon the grade elevations sunround;n� che bui?dina and the presence
of habitable sgacs in ihaY portinn of the building.
At the public hearing on August I6, Zfl04 two other graunds Por appeat were noted in a handoui
distributed by the appe3lant. Tttere, the appellant fvrtker ai�e�ed that the zonin� code didnot pennit
an intensification or exgansion of a non-confomung use so that the conversion of the attic spaee ta
habitable space, the attic's new dormer and raised roofline, and a covered entry area constituted an
impernvssible intensification and expansion of the nonconforming use an@ buiFding. In addititin,
the appellant a�leged that the building hadiost its nonconforming use status becaasethe buiIding Iess
than 6 units of the building had been occupied for more than 1 yeaz. It was atso mentioned that this
appIication should have gone through site plan review and that the building's Certificate of
Occupancy was defective and therefore unreliable.
AnalYSis of Appeal aad Staff Recammendation
The BZA must determir_e �vhether there was any error in the facts, findin�s or procedures undertaken
by the ZA in apgroving the buitding permit.
1. Staff found that because the number of dwelling units, after the conversion of the buildin� from
apartment uniPS to condominium units, will remain at 6, the nonconfornun� "ase" did not change.
This is a reasonable interpretaiion. The nonconfornung use is the aumber of dwellin� units. It does
not matter whethex the dwelling units are rentaI units or condominium units. The nonconfomuty is
simply the number of such units and the building project witl not change the number of units
available.
2. Staff found that the buiiding remained a 3-story structure despite the addition of a new dormer
to the attic space. Staff based this conclusion on calculations of the buildin�'s hei�ht wittt The new
dormer asd the presence of livin� space on all 4 levels of the buildina. Staff dismissed the
appellant's argument that the buiIding's basemeni also is caunted as a story.� The 5taff finding with
respect to the number of stories is reasonable. The zoning code's definition of a story specifically
states that "a basement shall not be counted as a story_" The zoning code's definition of a basement
is writ2en in a manner that aliows a portion of the substmcture or foundation of a building io project
above arade and still ba considerad a oasement. The definition takes into consideration that the
topoaraphical contours of some Iots rnight have a lar�e portion of a huilding's basement exposed.
A home with a"walkouf basemenL" is an example. It would make no difference w�hether 2/3's of the
home's foundation znight be exposed based ugon the adjacent contours of the a ade. Under the
definition of a basement, the varying cantours of tand surronnding a building wouid nat make that
aspecT of the buiIdina aay less a basement - so ton� as some aspect of the foundation is beiow �rade.
5 L.ee. Code § 60.203.B defines a"basement" a��d I.eg. Cade § 60?Z�.S defines a
. <story.'>
AA-ADA-EEO Emp)oye:
�
—
�� �
C�5=�i5g
.� ;
� 3,��
BZA Memo: Lanaford Paz'�
• August 30, 2004
Pa�e three
•
I
The exact de�ee of exposed foundation would obviously be decided an a case by case basis. Here,
staff concluded tiiat the basement of this buildinp was, in fact, a basement. That conclusion appears
to be a reasonable one. V
Moreover, the fact that the basement of the buildin� in question contained residential units does not
impacf the phrase "completed structure" agpearin� in the definition. That languaoe comes from the
phrase `"ThSs portion of a building is not a completed structure and serves as a substructure or
foundation for a building." The purpose of 2hat sentence is to prevent an attempt to Iawfially occupy
a"basement" as a fully completed "structure." In other wozds, a basemendfoundation cannot be a
habitab3e buildin�.
3. �ia�f found that tfie number of d�uelling units in the remodeled building wili remain the number
of dw�lling units indicated on the existin� Certificate of Occupancy. It is reasonable for staff to
iss�ie p�rmits based upon an existing Certificate of Occupancy. Likewise, it was reasonable for s[aff
ta coficiade that the existing nonconforn�ing status of this buiidin� has not changed. Although there
was ��%ldence that not all 6 un3ts in this building have been continuously accupied, there'is no
evide�Y�e was presented that wouid indicate that the owner of the building intended ta discantinue
t�e.�ver�ll nonconformin� use of having 6 residential units in the buiiding. Flucfuatipns in
o�cu�9a�icy rates are a reasonable and expected siate of affairs. 'The owner of a nonconforming use
lias a v�sted r�ght in maintaining the use. Absent some showing that the owner discontinued the
overall,nnnconforming use and not some "compartmentalized" aspect of that use, it was reasonable
for Staff to conclude that the nonconforming 6 units could continue.
4. There is this aspect of the appea] that you may also consider: Staff concluded that the project did
not constitute an expansion of a nonconformin� use. Staff appears to base this conclusion relying
on the following language in Leg. Code § b2.106(d):
A nonconforming use may be extended throughout any parts of a structure that were
manifestly arcanged or designed for rhe use, but it shail not be extended to occupy
any land or larger area of land outside the structuze.
This lan�uage is intended to permit the "intensification" of a nonconfor�in; use but anIy in those
parts of a structure that were "manifestly arranged or designed for the use." You must decide, based
upon the record, whether the attic of this structure was "manifestly arranged or designed" to
accommodate a residential unit. For instance "manifesfly arran�ed and desi�ned" might be
intergreted to inctude a requirement that the water, sewer, venting and elecTrical fixtures were all
present or "roughed in" to the attic for future use or that the space was desi� for more than
storage space_ Zf the record does noc support suct, a determination, it would be reasonable to
conciude that the attic space was not "manifesYly anan�ed" or not "desi�ned" for occuoancy as a
residantial uniC and that this constituted an enor on the aart af StaffTO conclude otherwise and would
he a basis to grant the appeal.
5A :9D�-EFA Emplcyer
.�
��
05�5�
BZA �iema Langford �'ark
Aua St 30, 2fl4�
Pagethree
Zn addition, I,eg. �ode § 62.14b(e) staYes:
4 $
.
A nonco�tforming use shall not be enlarged, uniess The planning cammissian
appravzs" a peFmit for an en3argament as sei forth in sec. 62.109(d}, iTader this
section, intended to regulate both nonconforming uses and structures, it is zeasonable
to read the prohibirion against enfargament of nanconformin� uses to apply equally
to uses and suvctures.
Although staff has reasonabiy found that the nonconforming use has not been eniazged - there area
stiI16 dwelIing uniis within the buitding - the appellants aile;e thac the nonconforming strueturewilI
be enlazged by the constxuction of the new dormer. Appeilant states that the cubic content of the
atfic wi12 incraase and this inerease eonstitutes an i11e�aI enIar�emeat of a nonconfomung structaze'
that can only be accomplished with the pernussion of the pIannin� eommission foilowing the
findings raquired underl.eg. Code § 62.209(d), The increase in cubic space will require that theroof
line of the buiIding be ra9sed some 3 feeP. Staff points out ihat ihe overall heigh[ of the bui2ding w�ll
s[ill be within the height limits in an RT2 district and that the buildin� is and wi11 rerttain in
compIiance with these height 3imits so that There is no enlar�ement of any noxiconforzning usa This
may be a reasonable iaterpretatian af the code with respect to hei aht.
However, it is also worth noting that I,eg. Code § 62.106(i) provides that reasonable repairs may be
made to nonconformin� uses so Ion� as the c:�bic contenr of Yhe bulIding zs not inczeased. This
appeazs to be a statement of legisiarive intent that a nonconforminb structure must remain within its
ori�inal three-c3itneasional foot pzint so that any increase to the dimensions of the buildin� wouid
require a review by the pIanning commission under Le�. Code § 62. i09{d). You might decida that
the increase in the cubic content of the nonconforming structure is an enlargement of a
nonconformin� structure, which can only be b anted by the plannin� commission under L,ea. Code
§ 62.109(d), and that this was an error on the part of Staff and would constitute a basis upon which
to grant the appeal.
Jn conclusian, most of fhe findin�s reached by staff are based upon reasonable interpretations of the
coc3e based upon facts. However, certain aspects of the proposed constmetion and some of the
Staff's interpretation of the zoning code, in iight of thase aspects, could be construed as errors.
Those errors would be based upon inierpreta[ions of the code are essentialty policy, not legai
dezerminations. PWW.
�
_
An-aDA-EEO Emp2o��er
���
;,c�,sr��=
• ?��1(tJ�:
'—dc
�C7 �� �. 7 �Z
�
�Ji���tc cau� =a�-��,`:a__a=_,: _
co�sm�ucTZOr; ne:,.: j`�/S� ���u�i: �� o: s:�:,>c.v�.:
?F,iu'?IT-� COiiNT`? ASSESS��c' S R�CO�i.S ' �CE�iSE �iCGRDS CSr`? D=�ECTO�X'
l`1�y— /� � � ' '�'�
�
�g3� - �f� _ z � �s, � �-��� z ��s = �v..��
r9�� c-2.%� S ��> t 5{ 1 k`v� t rZv �Z�.Z�'�`�
t9�� — �,,�s � +�t"5
j 9br - r�-t; � ,
; ��� —b ;,�i� � � , jst
��5 r� ��� a��: � r,� �:�� � - z�Y��
2- z,��-�
f�� ���--
? EG_AT DESCF2TPTi02�':
�'
�
LOT SIZE'.;:':�.-
CRQSS STRE�iS;
ZONE
X
.922
1960
196's �i���
1975
�—��
USE liNZTS
(C/NC) ?E?L"iZTTEA
C
3�Oi� S :
RcQUiA�
LOT SIZc'
c�:_�.F:cc�: r. u��.: �? a�����c:
>P:ZNC ST9�US sOR � '
� � R:..=°iL:Yii: L II�E:
f
� EG�T - Cv�?F^vR?S��iG `-,.
v � :-' �0_`i=�:��:_.`�� _�� �i__._ `!vi':-C�� _'wi S=Z�
_..,.., :� l�\i-C.�iA`��•:t^"_ev ,;5'
�
�- i 5�
�,
..��,L�-
,�
�
e
9�'
LOT SIZE
(CjNC)
C
ZO\5:�� : S��
�0 K=Cv�
f �/
' _ � `� :.
___-.- ' i / e . 9. /`; �6��3�
,� -
t
�
�
�
< =
-
��
���-
�
_�
� �
, ��
� .
,��,,�
� �
_ ��._� � �
- � __ � ��- ���;��,_.
��� �� �� �
� �o���g ���ea� Ap�licat�o� �'o�a� �� �° ��
�
----_ �� �
��P�,�CA�
Tom
�Address_85 Langford Pazk '
i
�Ciip_St. Paul St. MN Zip 55108_Daytime phone_6�1-645-2721
� — — —
;Name of owner (if different)
�PROPERTY ; � �
!L4CATION iAddress_95 Langford Park
�
' ;Legal descriptiQn: _�ect-20 Twp-029 Range-023 St. Anthony Park, Minnesota .18 Ac Nely 2 Ft Of
i
Lot 10 And All Of Lot 9 Blk 38
�
�
�'�'�� OF _�Vde are appealing far an Administrative Review of a decision by the Plan Review Staff to allow an V t
fAPP�AL: ?addition on the Top ofthe structure at 9� Langford Park.
�s
___�____ _ ---_ . _ _ - _ - -_ _ _--- _ _
'��'PE OF APPEAI.: Application is hereby made for an appeal to ihe:
_X_ Baard of Zoning Appeals , City Council
runder the provisions of Chapter 64, Section _64?04_, Paragzaph _(a) of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision
imade by the,Plan Review Staff on July li, 2004. File number: tt��
; GROZINDS FOR APPEAL: We have two grounds for appealing the decision to pro-vide a building permit. _�
;FIRST: The Plan Review Staff concluded that The owner of the building at 9� Lan�ford Park could convert the attic :
'to a story because they considered the bott�m level of the structure to be a basement rather tl�an a story. If the
bottom 3eve1 is considered a basement, the building, after the conversion of the attic to a story, wouid be considered a�
3 story stnzcture which is in compliance. However, we consider this hottom level to be a`story' rather than a
`basement' (according to the definition of basement in Sec. 60.202. S of the Ciiy Zoning Ordinance} therefore '
making the addition a 4`" story which is iliegai. °
SECOND: 5ec. b1.101 (foomote - ej states oniy one family can be living on a parcei less than 10,00Q sq. ft, t�Iso,
his section states thaf to dztermine the maximum number of rooms, you divide the parcel size by 1,100. This parcei :
s 7,�00 sq. ft., resulting in no mcre ihan 5.$ rooms. Prior to construction, the building camprised sis 2 bedroom
���e:�ts, for a total of 18 rooms. Ei°en if these nan-conformities would be considered to be "grand falhered,' this
dsftion is a significant ad�iitien zo a non-conformazy and shoul� #herefore not be allowed.
' pa�es are attacned plus le:ters from neiahbors) �
_____._� __.__��_._.__ _ _ �� ... _ .
�__��_��__�__,___....... .___ ______.___� �____.. __._.
aplicant's Signature ��� ���- 7��'� ��``l'Cit} Agent
�5 -J Sg
` (E •� t E t 1�. t-1 ` t � E f . t E E t, t.'i;
Basis for Anaeal: First, #he I.owesY level is a`�torv ' r�Qt. a`Basement'
According #o Sec. 60.202. 33. of the SY. Pa�aI Zaning coda, a Basement is defined as `:Tliat portion of a buiiding
which is partlg or whotly below gzade but so iocated thaf the t•enical distance �om the ayerage �ade to tt}iie floQr
is less thar� the verticat distauce from t�te average grade to the ceiling (tha# is, more than hatf v��ay above ground).
This portion is not a completed structure and serves as a substruchue or foundation for a buildine."
For two reasons, we beIieve that The bottom Ievel of the building at 95 Lanaford park is not a basement and is
therefore a "story." v
First, referring to the dracvings below, the average �ade is 5.14 feat below the ceiling oPthe first level and the
average grade is 3.85' above the floor of the first level. Hence the vertical distance from tbe average grade to the
ceiting is MORE tkan the verticat distance from the average grade to the floor.
Second tivs bottom level is a"completed structure" rather than a"substructure or foundation." Before
construction this level was 2 seif contained apartments which were entered directly fram street leuel. After
construction, it witl be a self contained condominiiun unit with the entry at street level. Hence, this Ievel. is a
completed structure, not a substruciure or foundatian of the main building and is therefore not a basement.
Therefore, the addition to this buiIding should be considered a 4' floor and not allowed.
Fonrth Storv is not "�randfathered" a[�proved•
From discussions �uifih the plan Review Staff, the point was made that even if they had considered this 1 level to
be a story rather than a basement, it may we1I be that the building would have been cansidered a four story
bailding before the remodeling, in which case it would have bean "grand fathered° in as such. Thexefore the
addition would still have been allowed.
Regarding this possibility, we stil2 disagree with this perspective for the following reasons:
1) Priar to construction, this top levet was an'attic,' not a`story.' Sec. 60.20i. A. defines an attic as an
unfuushed space immediately below the roof of a main building. Prior to construction, this space was
unfuushed and not part af the livabla space of the 6 tmit apartrnenT complex. It was used purely as a storage
area. $owever, after the addition, this new lavel will be a finished story, bringing the building to 4 stories,
wbich should not be allowed.
�
2) Even i�this level was considered To be a stor}� raYher than an attic, it musi be proven that the building, prior to
construction, was a IawCulIy nonconforming buildang (per Sec. 6fl.214.N - a nonconforming bui2ding is a
lawfizl building esisiing on the effective date of Code adoption (October 24, 2975)). Ifthe building was, in
fact, uniawful prior to construction, this fourth story should not be allowed.
3} Even ifffiis building can be proven to be Iawfullv nonconforming, with the top level considered to be a story
rather than an attic, the new construction is materiallv adding to this nonconformity. Tfiey are not just
remodeliag ti�iathin the �va11s of the prior suvcture. They ae altering ihe struchue by basicall� dropping a 32 x
42 x 10 foot rectangular bos on top of the existing Dutch Colonial roof swch�re. This addition is a s�°nificant •
expaasien of a not�coniormitv and should iherefore not be aiiowed.
(attachmenr - �;uge 1 of 4)
��
r
Prior to consii the building comprised six 2 bedroom aparnnents for a total of 18 rooms. Even if you
waived the 10,000 s4. ft. limit, only two 2-bedroom condominiums wonld be allowed by code. Is this issue then
considered fo be `grandfathered' and therefore the permit to buiid should be given? There are four paiuts to be
made regatding this consideration.
1) Was it esfa$lished that this pre-existing nonconformity was lawful? (per Sec. 60.214.N - a noncouforming
building is a lawful building existing on the effective date of Code adoption (October 24, 1975)). ff the
building was not a lawful non-conformity, then the addition should not be allowed.
2) Our under'standing is that one of the 6 apartments had not been used as a residence, instead had been tzsed as
storage, ioi over a year. If a non-conforming use is suspended or abandoned for any significant period of time,
then the right to continue this non-conformitv is lost. Hence, they should not be allowed to build out b
condoriiinipins in this building when oniy 5 apartments were used.
3) Even if ttii� building can be proven to be lawfully nonconforming and 6 condominiums allowed to be built ,
within i'ts �valls, the new construction planned is materially adding to this nonconformity. They are nqt just
remodeling within the walls of the prior sfmcture. They are altering the structure by adding over 25°fo more
square faotage of living space. This addition is a significant expansion of a nonconformity and therefore is
illegal.
• This structdre as not, in our opinion, in keeping with the intent and spirit of 2he code. Tlus addition is larae,
obt��usive, arid anyone looking at it would say that this is a four story structtue that as not in keeping with our
historie neighborhood.
�
(att�achnzenF - puge 2 of ;)
� ��
�fter construction, Yhere will be 6 fatnilies living iri six condominiums on Yhis parcel. Accordin� to Sec_ 61.1Q1 (e)
�nly one family can be living on a pazcel less than IO.00O,sq. ft. �lso, this section siates that to determine the
maximuru number of rooms, you divide the pazcei s3ze by 1,100. This parcei is 7,SOQ sq. fi., resultin� in no more
than 5.8 rooms bg this calculaYion.
�5-� 5 � �� ,,�� � � �
A arant Pattern of Probiems with this Pro'eet �,�= ��
This buiiding is atready non-confozming in man�= parts oi the code and should nat be expan�e� in anv wap. There•
2tave also been a number of issues with the pmject itse2f.
1) Prior to construction, the building 3uas aon-confornvng =n the follo�ing ways:
a. As stated before, this building is r�ay over the limit on number of families allowed an this parcel size.
b. The building is only set back I S feet fram the front property Iine (vs. ZS reqnired) — This
noncanformity is especially abtrusive with the new construction becausa tke 60 foot wide frant of the
building is now over 45 feet above grade only 15 feet back from the property line. And this side of the
buitdinb is on the neighborhood park. The prior raof line was the edge of the roof, sloping away from
fihe front. This roof edge has been raised by at least 1 S feet. Again, this is an expansian o£a
nonconformity.
c. 1`he side setback is oniy 2 feet on the existing building (vs. 8'6" feet in the code)
d. The buildings cover 43% of the parcel (they got a variance to exceed the 30°/a in ihe code}
e. The buildings are now also 2 feet seY back on the other side of the property (vs. S'6" feet - they got a
varianca to put the gazages there).
f. The rear setback is 23 feet (vs. 25 feet in the code — again, they oot a variance £or this)
2) The varzances were made solely to increase the value of the properry {so the owner coutd sell them at a profit
as condominiums) and according to Sec. 64.203 {6) "The request for variance is not based primarily on a
desire to inerease the value or income potential of the parcei of land," the variances probably shouldn't have
even been given in the first piace.
3) In getting the variances, the owners provide neighbors with site plans that DID NQT show The addition to the
building. It only showed the new garages nest to the main buiIding with no addition. Three variances have
been b anted which i�e would not have sx�pgorted had we known of the intent to raise the roof of the building. �
We were not informed of the overalt pIan to do this — just the plan for the oarages.
4) There have been a number of issues with the project itself. �
a. According to the Plaiuung Staff, t�'�ere have been two or three different contractors and at least two
different architects involved in this project. �
b. According to Planning Sta£f, one of the contractors was fined by the City for starting work before a
valid permit was obtained.
c. According to Planriing Sta#f also there is a siop arder on the interior remodel permit application until
further engineering data is submitted.
Based on all of These facts, we request that the Board of Zoning Appeals overturn the Plan Review Staffls decision
to alIow the expansion of the fourth floor at 95 Langford Park.
� �
�
tattachnaenr - p¢ge 3 of =�)
�-t5�' _
Fi�uxes showint elevafion of i storv �� r c„__ -, _-�
� ��
� ���` `��� -
e F�wres below_ the first story elevation for each of iour sides is shown. e current �ade is represented by
the line through the ractangle. The numbers such as 201 _9' aze from a topogzaphical map of the site which shows
orly the corners of the buildine. The danensions of the sides are �om a site plan. The �ade mazk is my
estimation based on my own measurements. I beIieve the grade mark is at Ieast accurate enouGh to demonstrate
that this level is more tl;an half out of ti�e ground. I calculated the average � by taking the geometric area
Ceilin� at Elev 210
?01 9'
Floor at Elev 201
9� feet
]2 feeC
Figure 1, East Elevation, i S ` story � i fee,
206.Y �— 30 feet
� Figure 2, North Elevarion, I s ' story
,y�
209.9'
Figure 3, West Elevarion, 1 s ' slory
z�o
�� �'
��� �.
i i r��r
2031'
209.9'
7' 301 9` 23 f'eet � 20t 9�
7 feei ?i f et
Fignre �, South Elevation, 1'` stora
r Average �rade is calculated geometrically' around the perimeter. Averaae grade is 20�.85
wbich is 51�}' below eeiling and 3.85' above floor. clearl} less �han % belocy grade. ���
�
(arlcichnient - prsge -1 of �j
a5� r s�
,;
Y� '
1 . .� . . _ .. '
r �., ..� ,,,1
L �-j,?;�6� ....��
U J j�J ZG�L'��
f��. S.J !.°" `C`t.'biGC l� i-U liLtt� / Y�¢'I�tL14f.J(.]4 Lt�
� n U� ff f
(,i/�-�-/ f�24�`4Q-GC'V7v��LLt�C'w��
3�C� 5f �� �e �
�Y {��.,,,,�' �1 � �, 5 5 l� Z
l.�'w,. �1-�� �dzi�,clC
�iL GL2L(Gvl� � u,l � �Zly�. L''u1 L?f'f'LOL�c4'19 � �
"! v
J 'N.�:, � �' a1 .. ,{ / J �
i-�-zyYi.:3.CsY) l3'J/G7/ Gl�eJir.2(iZtusti(� !ji}utL c� ��I7 �tssy�i.4 c.�f�.�.�' .
�� i J
��ca �s.Fe��� l)wJ �u,�u�✓f,tee:z lnc ka�°� �--�9�
�✓1 D'2c�tit -�r� �2su,�� q�.:ast� 3�� S't�ii' cxctvt,c•L� ��,�,,�T�1�
/} � 9
GGLl(.� (_;�, Lt^-�
� '� ��1ac2�c'(� J`/c2c� U(i-tiw �c�,: %Gc��+�y -�
CLUI° G�Y1E ,� ��C G� , "i-C7 ` GGZ`e2a - I� 1' J
(/ � � , �- c t-� rp�c � [/J�
-'ti� � a zu ' .�t,. �o Azu� -
y� � l4<< �2cC�l� c�i t/� �.('c��z -�s z ����
� u t-e c * t � �� t�, a ct�;L �
.Lf �GFt,�t �L�n�.l�.,�lu.nio'�u� �1a �!/�� c3Cti �CJt��NU:-�� r.s-l�cw�
j J �l
�IL� �ul � Gv�7`f1 r� t��2e-�' �c�c�, G�t� c�r� -�cs,�"� C�/e 9��i1 t`
�!�'L�'�/lr/ZF N C{ �.���(�'c. ?'�it�.�3tiu �f /� 1 `" f- � ff �
� � � /TZL•221iL12 �fk:✓//i: (iL�y4� � "�'
/'� A'
`-��'�M���'�C��ntLl `;�-�(�'CC.��t �'1���l:�... � \I
U ��, U
�.�,? "�. '���I�, � G'cn u.�� %� c��� sd��:���, rc cti� `�
c .- u , L �, ,f �� , � r � ,. � � � � j � Cl
U ! - - �'1 C �42 ��c.Lt -C�ian,�-d4� � � � .. A
/ CCi� � �
.�Y1.t1f� L4`Y��"YVVwtL i}- � LLL1i_� dQ�G� 1 /tiq �'k'JLL'I �c� �If �
� � ����^,�t � � �.E.� _ f
tf
� � �
L �t �,� kia, c� {dh,� � ��,�.�. � t �r �-�
��
,
2�-��r 1 �-�a�J�d 5�� �
L
�� �>�;U° G1-(p�'
`�
`J
�
•
ti � �'
•
�. �
p�=1 ��
.u. �.y �
�� ' � �
`, �-; ;l� '�' ` �v--�- ;�'"r�`:?- 33
•.� 6 �
` v ,.:-�/'.��' �� �.'v..,: �i .� U-:�'��i
if
/.�i"✓' .i _�,,;.�, _
n '
. Zsv �� �✓ � ,' , ,��`-'—i5.% �'1`"`_�'<'`.r�4
� � , , 1
G �� L ..��F,�._ r _ � ,�'/`�:�� , _- �_�- �{;��,� ; - -
�!�' -�L�-!C"' `-v. i "` _
- ��;,-'(,..�✓i �- ' -� �: �' '
y � ��- v � .—_ � � e,� �. ;�- �. 3 –
f;, � -r,�--�,.�-'� �``-'`�- "
� ;5.�..�,,-�--i Z�!✓r: � _ ° � � , �
�:�/�'-''a � �� � � G ��'-'�- ` �� ,�.��x �
�� , ti i ��
'� �V°�— .� L' � YJ"e.'ai�i2.�'�
`���h� . �', Y.
r j ` �J'l.
,L�-�2; �2 �:rc .`r ��s,��:' ���^"'z" `�
.� l,L�_X, � �. ,
i.:✓✓L. , �a.=�'�
� :.JY .`.�t.��'Y�X y �
� }'E'i"� � ✓y�,c�` .. �.-: �"� 'G"�G`i`�`�� . .
`��LL%`^'�� •_: �° � ..sti✓�?
!� i -`� ��b..,c. -:i. C"'S`_`'u ' �,� v.,_ ^ �-
C � � • w �z-Z,:`� �V`a"`'-� ��' X,,. �,
•7v / t � , �, �4� '�G L-1=.,
U'
'J 7 / �: �=- � �� � - `"�,.�_
l.n: � `� �`��� � �,.�-�-`�`-a'�' .
�� ; �Yt''C
�� 'h�� ��� �
��� �� �'�� �� ��'�
,`? �� ;./� `� ��.s�./i'�
, �,� ���
,��..� ��'`--4�—�''� "" r� .�..;�..
.k �✓�t'dIT-1 t' ; , . _ .. . , ... . .
Y. Lt+ :!v
�-'j � �c�+1 �� :��� `��- '�- .
� , `?� �,,.� .�'�"�,
l � _
�
'� 4T-'Xr- i
�-��i !/L '"' �- .
�
� �
�� 15 8
�li� �aa�s���s
State R��r�seniatiue
1uI�2$, 20fl4
Zaning AdniiuistraYor
4>ffice ofLiEP
350 St. Peter Street - Suite 30Q
St. Paul, MN 35IQ2
� �
� ��. �
- r �.� . ,�_ �� -�
��
�`�� �����
���� ��
�'�: � . �,
�
I am rvriting in support of the appeat by Tom i-Ialmau regarding the build'utg at 95-97
Langford Fark.
I am a resident of St. Anthony Park mysetf, and I share the concern of my neighbors and
constituents about deveiopers coming in and negatively impacting the inte�ity of the
neighborhood. Several of the neighbors that wrote letters in support of Tom's appeal
have been residents here 30, 4Q, even 60 years and ue very concemed about the historic
chartn of the neighborhood. Also, the Iocal Commvnity CounciI has always warked hard
to mainiaitt the attractiveness of the neighborhood, aud it would be a shame to i�ore
their long and loyal ef£arts in that respect.
It seems ta me as if the addition at 95-97 Langford violates a number of aspects of the
Zoning Code.
1) Is the building now folzr stories or three stories? We think it's four, thus too high.
• The Zoning Administrator states t&at the bottom level of the building is a
`basement,' $asements are defined in Section b0.203 of the Zoning Code.
Since this level less than halfway below ground and is a completed
structure, it is a`story,' and not a`basement.' Hence, the addition is a 4
story and shouldn'T be allowed.
2) If the building is considered to be four stories, the Zoning Adtninistrator says the
expansion may be legal because the 4` floor is "grandfathered." But, we don't
tl�ink you can expand a nonconformance.
• Section 62.101 states that you can't make a nonconformance more intense,
and the addition must be fovnd to be compatible with the sunoundin�
neighborhood. This expansion is clearly more intense, and the neighbors
are tuuversally opposed to zt.
• Section 62.106 {d) states YhaY a nonconformance can only be extended in a
way it was manifestly desi�ed. This 4 Ievel w desi�ed as an attic
and therefore shouldn't be ailawed to be converted into a condo, and
62.I06 (e), states that a aonconforming use shall noT be enlarge@.
• As a building that is nonconforming in height (4 stories}, Section 62.106
(i) stafes that the cubic content of a nonconforming building sha1I not be
increased.
3) If tile bztiiclin� is considared to be three stories, we stil? dan'i think you can legatly �,�
expand tfie top ievel.
�
❑
_
SYaiz O(r:r� guiidng, tQG Ccns;tt:t[cn:�v=.. 5�. Paui. PAinnesot� 55i55-�i29E i6t2j 2�6-3824
T�L�;�t2} 2£6-Bn9E =a: io" i2} 2�f-�v23
•
4)
�)
•
�._ 05-15�8 ��---
'�� � [ ( 'p / ' " /.: 4 ��
'j� ��-S _ j � : l :`� �
V
• Even if deemed `coniomlin�' in height, the buiiding is still
`nonconfornring' to code in ternis of setbacks and'nousing density.
5ection 62_106 (i) states that the cubic conient of a nonconforming
building shall not be increased.
SNe 21so flon't think you can nut 6 faurily units into this lirtle lot.
• At only ?500 sq ft, the Zoning Code states thai tlus lot is only big enough
for one family. However, 6 condos were approved based on the "grand
fathezing" point that there used to be 5 aparnnent units in the buiiding.
• Section 62106(g) states that the nonconforming use of a building is lost if
it was discontinued for a year. Has the owner proven to the Planning
Comrnission that these 6 units were continually rented (per Sea 62.102)?
SeveraJ neighbors say one unit was often used Yor storage. Hence, only 5
condos should be allowed as a maximum, and even ihen, without
enla:ging the b4il�ing (per Seatia:� 52.1L'6(i}).
The planned gazages violate code too — they are set back less than 2 feet from the
north property iine with na variance on that property line.
• The Zoning Administrator says fhis setback is grandfathered because the
main building is aiso set back only 2 feet from this property line.
However, Section 62.104(b) says that a noncon£orming use cannot be
enlarged to occupy a greater area of land. These garages clearly do.
• The garages are considered `accessory buildings.' Saction 62.105 says
that accessory buildings must compiy with Section 63.501, which s#ates
that or. a comer lot, the structures shall be set back from he street a
distance equal Lo that raquired of the principai structure. In our zone, the
Code requires the front of principle strucYures to be set back 25 from the
property line along a street.
With ali of these issues around nonconformance, this whole site plan should have gone
tluough the Planning Cammission according to Section 61.202 of the Zoning Code. Tn a
quick review ot'the agendas of the Planning Commission over the past 2 years, we
couidn't find where tfiis property was discussed. Sec 62.I09(d)(�) requires a petition of
2l3s of ihe neighbors in support of the eapansion of a nonconforming building. The
neighbors are unifarmiy opposed to this expansion.
I think that it's pretty clear from a legal perspective that the building is in violation of
code and should not proceed as planned. I'm also concemed on another level. If it is this
easy ia break the rules, how can we have confidence in future decisions of the Zaning
Aclm,inistratian? If this permit is not ovenurned, T think it wi11 be difficult to explaial hotiv
`shrugging your shoulders' is an acceptable solution to neighbors who would like ta see
the Zoning Code enforced.
Sincerely,
;'�, n � f
, �,��:,-t�� �,��-�"�,-��
Alice Hausman
State Representarivu
�� �
_ _�. ,_
os-�5�
July 20, 2004
The Board of Zoning Appeals
Office of LIEP
350 St. Peter Street Suite �00
St. Paul iVIIV 55102
Dear Madam or 8is:
Please see the attached letters from the foliowing neighbars:
• Jane Bose
• Hans and Iiristin Wiersma
• Alice Magnuson and Sharon Nelson
• David Skilbred
� Raymond Keller
• Phillip and Jutie Vogel
• Paul and Ann Brev
• Phillip and Janet Duff
• Scott and Alison Larsson
• Roger and Carol Upham
These neighbors kave asked that their letters be attached to my appiication for
Administrative Review ofthe 95-97 Langford Park project. We would appreciate it if
you could please aTtach them To the application and include them with tha prior ietter
from Charles and AnnaLisa Tooker.
Thank you,
�� �
r--�-'
Tom Holman
� - r _�:�-� f" j �,� ���.
� � --�.,,:_.�
Tom Hoima[�
85 Langford Park
St. Paui� MN 55308
�
_
� �.
i
�
,
—
� ~ � ��
��� . �
ti3�zs. Vg.�zc i�. BosE � y_ ��-�I
2Z61 �'ua.sIDE ati�,�vZ,� `. ; �^;; ?• v—
� l �
ST. FALZ 3� � iY:c�OTii 5�? 08 4C D
���� s ;
; '�-�`'r�� � cs" tr� � �v. �}--�
�.;j�� � �� ` #� � >� � c�
�� �� ��
.� �� Jr �� �
��3�G
,� � �G.. LC
_ ' ��� ` r 7, �` ` `#
i�(�
��:t� v
r ��v; f� �
i�� ��
� ��-�`� -� -�`f „
���ti'' . -�" �,,� �c.:,��*-P 3:��„�` � �""-
` .�UiCt �,:a,[.� � :�L_ "
Y�G� �,� - 77'� � (,� y a"c. 3' '�
J ' '`' t,u�n v.� �{ `1 d��.:,; C ` � S � � � y ,.�
�L L4 S �� �.'ti, " _'. � � ( �i° �iA.�A;l{�'• y ° �"�` � n
"�-- ^to _ � ,g'
E
� �' V�5'�' � � j=c �a.t'"� d "/� '� c
�.i '�f,l:!Y.�i,���'ir' tl�,v�C" �y ;_.� ts:c���3
it ='
� {� f�.k? i�.:-&JL`.. �'�,�'i
°r'Y :_ �i�Y41� .k � �t HY'\'t ;j� �4 .
� �..�.__ �� 1) i�?� � �f c .! � � ��� d � ^���` 3�
� le� �3t' ��r_' �- , � '� �° _
iynR:sC°::�t/r. C_ +( �\ r .. � }�� � �
��e t � -�.,�` .�-(i.�"" `v c;�._ .,�,,.., .vi-�`
\ [\ �`� ` � . {�,-� +``''` �
v C� C't c3 t� ��i r i C.i.��� �^-y`
i �"!' �U e�lJ� � y �'
�� a'��:Ji4 9 8 � �,�r.� t�" b�`!".c�
-.1,.�, 7 �v%33 '�`� � �, yn. S Z- �' 4`"'�„'
y��t.��^-� � ; �� �. � ,: � �,z,�
�l- ���U
�'-- � ,:, l�e_�= _=�--- ;., u
�e� 4> k•.. �'� i jGi.e i"�' � c'` z� ;� ��v�
-°'t 1 G � G �� , t�✓ t� : 4"��
���,��'^ L_ ���, �.t.,� `t�, v' `,'� �'`"{ �m�� �,.st" i��- •�
��.�-- fr� �, �C; �t � � � �
� j : t, � ��, �:: o� � � � ��,�,i;:
.� a.,� �- � v,,, S �.,,�,"�'
� • � � �`- �" �--� c << �'-' �``
�,h S`-S�� `� � �>_ `�-
i'- �,..c��' _ � 1 ` �` � 41s
� � � �" ��"ls�s.� t
L y -�k. ":� 9..'
y .��*�1i,s,��l�%t. ��� —:'�a `�-�£-�;�Y�`-Gx.'�.. �"r
�LT'n 1 ,�cl.:ir's ; ;��
�:..�r � Z (.
�+�`�` ��&-�° �,3 :., t-
'��}r-�: t� 4T'tJ m€�
'���ti;�'� � �'U•. z f
i. � -�-i.c� ° `
\ ;�� 1 ��� y Lt.` :�1���.�-4'ac �'�` { -
1,i�-�-�--
� � n
..�.{� � j {i ,-..��, �
� �' �� . F�—e' � �
l
US � 5
.tuly 19, 2�3fl�
Board of Zoning Appeals
City of St. Pa�t
350 Sf. Pefer Street
Saint Paul, MN 55i02
To Whom It lUtay Concem:
We are residents of St. Paul, in the �eighborhood of St. Anthony Park. We are vuriting to you ouf
of deep concem regarding a construction project on our biock af 95 Langford Park. If is an
apartment building #haf is being expanded quife beyond its existing structure. it is fhe only large
apartmenf buiiding in the area and aiready was quite imposing. it is an obtrusive structure, right
on the park, and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
We oppose fhe expansion of this apartmenf building. This building is already non-conforming an
a number of aspects of the zoning ordinanca and should not be expanded at ali. We support the
proposed appeal of Tam Noiman objecting to the construc#ion of a fourth floor at 95 Langfard.
There have been three variances have aiready been granted to this property, and they should
not have be abla to also ra+se the roof to add a�other floor. It is our understanding that the city
planning depaRment was led to i�elieve that the bottom floor is a basement thus making the
addition oniy a 3` floor, however this is not true, because in our family's 35 years in this
neighborhood, thaf bottom level has always been compfete and inhabited apartments rather
than basement. There is a complete and formal entrance from the iront Yo those `garden level"
apartments and were used as such.
The scarce amounf of green space, and parking on this !ot and the increasing number oi
inhabifants in the expanded apartment complex wili noi work in this space and in this
neighborhood. Already the trees and lawn were removed to build a large row of garages at
which our neighbots musi now look. We beiieve you have been misiead in the nature of this
building and #he current project and wish your assistance in stopping the expansion of fhis
buiid'mg.
5incerety,
Hans and Kristin Wiersma
2285 Gordon �venue
St.Paul, MN 5510&
659-659-2583
� ���
� - =� aY� � , J �,� S
•
, �
��
�
.r��y ;s, 200�
To: Board of Zoning Comrnittee
City of St. Paul
From: !�iice �lagnuson, 2231 Knapp St.
3t. Paul, ib71V 55108
Sharon Nelson, 2231 Knapp St
St_ Paul, MN SSi08
:�
Re: 95 and 97 Langford
St. Paul, MN 55108
I'his letter is to express concem about the remodeling pro}ect at 95 and 97 Langford Park.
Th8 proposed remodeiing to make five apartrnent units into six condominium units is
�rogressing di�'erently from the proposal that was presented to the St. <4nthony Park
rieighborhood. The concerns include;
• The building and proposed four garage units cover a greater percentage of the
land than is allawed. The gara�e foundation, as poured, is attached to a neighbor's
garage.
• The ariginal proposal did not include raising the fourth floor roof to a height
greater than allowed. The height of the roof line needs to be raduced.
• The building, before 1975, coniained five apartment uniLS. Now the proposal is
for six condominium units. This formula puts more indiuiduals in a stnzctnre than
the code allows.
• Work �egins on the project at 6:15 Alvi each day and continued un#il R:30 PM or
later. t�ne night The work cant�nued until i0:20PM. This is distupted to nzighbors
who have smail cflildren, the elderly and the working popuiation. Phone cails
were made thr�e times to the city about this concern
• The work that has occurred ao date has destroyed and altered th€ original integrity
o£the buiiding_ That cannot be replaced.
1
The proposal of changing the uuil�ina from apartments ta condom;niums is a saund one
bnt the proeess for this project is nQt compatible w7th thz e�sting neighborhood.
T
� '
C7�—fS�
65-�S�'
Qffice of LEIP
350 St. Peter St. suite 300
St. PanI, NI'�i I 55102
Deaz Sir or Madam,
,�� _ i �� �.
�
�"�.�a��'i
In the matter o£ the Zoziing appeal brought by Tom and Holxnan for the properiy 95
Langford , I would like to reiterate what has already been stated by iVIr. Holman and
supported by feilow neighbors.
The building project is non -conforn�ing on the issues 2: number of units available per
land parcel2: the addition of a fourth floor to the structure 3: variances granted for the
purpose of maximi�ing personal profit and 4:other issues raised by Mr. Holman.
I support the zaning appeal brought by Tom Holmart.
22d7 app St.
St. aul, MN 55108
651-644-8810
�
_
� �
�' ���� �
� 18 .�u�y, 24C�
The Boazd of Z€}uing Appeals
Qffice of LIEI'
350 SL Feter Street Suite 300
5ain4 Pau�, Minnesota 551Q2
T am writing to support tlie proposed appeal by Tom Holman objecting to the constniction
of a fourth story to the buitding at 95 Langford Pazk. I opgose aap e�ansion of the
building since the developer's initial plans shorvn to the neighborhood presented a four-
plex with amenities in the ground floor. The only additions shown were an elevatar on
the west side of the Isuiiding and four garages for wkich a variance was requested.
Having rece3asd the above variance, the greed driven developer has secured two other
variances. One which allows #he first flnor atloeved to be catled a basement even though
fC has entries at the street ievel in front and a half #loor entry at the r�ar and despi#e this
"new" bas�ment contained two living wiiTS 2hat had �een in use since the buiIding's
• uicegtion. This variance allows the addition of a faurth fla�ar. 3omehow the developer
Hdrnswoggied sameone in City Ha11, perhaps th� Building Inspectars, to allow living
iinits in the "basemanc" as well. Neitlaer oP these devious develagments were broup�it to
the aitention af the neighborhood since iY woulsi have upset the deveioper's pians.
With variances in hand, the deveioger suddenly a�ded a large crew warking 15 to 1 b hour
days to put in place the wails and framework in the roof tipenings which were in place a
week and a haif ahead of tsme. If completed, the once handsame Lhateh Colonial buiiding
will out-scala other bixitd°uags in ihe neighborhood and will lnok like it has gro� a big
war[ on it's roof since the develaper could care less if this railrfladed addition matched in
atty way the originai building.
In my opinson, since the ground floor as in place, I snggest yoa allow ane ar two ututs in
it �sad require #he building ,3evelopez to replace the roof and attic in tlseir ariginal
coadition.
.
Ra ond A. Keller
2252 Knapp Stceet
Saint Paul, �Iinnesata 55108-19�9
,
��
o5-I 5� �`�
� �. � .��-�� . � ` �.
69 �,�ve�oRn Pntu�i3?�s� •
s��� r�r�„ v�svr�s33aa
(6a1)654-335�:
Julv 18, 24Q4
'Tiae Board of Zoning Appeals
Offxce of LIEP
350 St. Peter St. suite 3fl0
St. Paul, 1UIN 55IO2
RE: Permit for modzfications to property at 95 Langford Park.
Deaz Board Members,
/� �� Z+
L t�:
We write to you today in suppoz of the Zoning Appeal for Administrative Review filed
by Tom Holman chailenging the decision made by ttse City Plan Review Staff to grant a
building germit for madifications ta propezty at 95 Lan�'ord Park.
After review of the documeniation prepazed by IvIr. Holman, after observing the
building modifications as they take shape, and after cansidering the impaet oCthe
changes to the neighborhood we find the modifications to the structure objectionable.
As neighbors, we support and welcome improvements to tYxis, and other, properties
that are undertaken in compliance with Iocal building and zoning codes and that do
not detract from the character of the neighborhood or diuunish the value of property in
the azea. This project does not fit thase criteria. As Tom's documentation points out,
the modified structure exacerbates an existing non-confoiznulg situation that creates
too great a density on the parcel and is out of character and scale with the
neighborhood.
We respectfully request that the Board af Zoning Agpeals grant a review of the decision
made by the Plan Review Staff to issue a buiiding permit for the modifcations and
consider reversing the Plan Review Staff decision on the following gz
The mociiFications create a 4-story structure, which is not permitted by the
zoning ordinance.
The additional uruts will increase the amount of occupants in the buzlding when
the density far the parcel size is already in v?olation of the zoning orclina�ce.
Tlie modified structure is obtrusive and incansistent with the character and
scale of the neig3sborhood.
We appreciate your carefial attention to this issue and hope tYtat pou will support our
positiorz.
Respectfully,
; �_ .
�,
- � t�-j t � '��. �
Philip C Vogel, AIt'1
^ , /
�� _ •'�
l �T'nhe H. Vflgel` : '.� -
� �
U
_
� - _ �
'r � -1 �.c'�
t-' t'i �� .J
/ f �:
`'> 1 � si' �`'%'/� ���%;9 ; i�-°t_.
J': .� J r .��� _ . .,
'"� _ --j v . J f ;' j -=,,�
s , .
�� � ,.�,� „ �
�-�r�--t_.J _
� ✓•� l� � �� _: l' Ji i��� i ' ., � � � �``�. % � r
1 .'l� ,' v �_,�" f t� ' y f
if , � , � y
� u_� � J� �!% � ' . C.i7, �r �y�. '4� :.,� _ f
� .,� .�L � ' - 6 C rG
��`/ � t � � �
�� J f '-� �y t " � ; d ' ,; ✓
j - ,' J �^ � !u- r' �,��"" � "" '
. -. . . !. ' � 4 . L�i�` �1� � /'� f� TJ C .�
. .'t-�"Ji yi. e f 'v � r '� .
!� t i r � F 1 /s f. J� / " ,� /� � � � .. f ,-6>i_ f+^ %
� �'� ��,�/ , , z.� - ' - i.; /`i'� j � f-4'" ° � �' - � � ,
F'/}`'
� , �J � _ i" _ -
...>-' .%�.� ' . __ '.�.���!. y �..���, �,.�` �.Y . �t ^-
_ '",G .
� r.-' r.
: �,. � -� f:, f ; � x� r . . ;d , , � , _,. ..';.'+r;; ,"��
_ . __, r , � / a- � ,� ./ %�
�.� ,:� ; . <r�° .lv � �
--.M'; � .{ / , ,{ � !�-" � I ' � '
,r ✓ �
f ,�„ �J('�///�' �,�'�,.G''3�,;� .
�l. ,;' .�L �'..�c' , i : ''` r . d/..r fj/%„�`i.'� r.._ ,�. i .
f i
f� ' � f ., � �'� �« l O .�. � � ./ I i�f�s l � � �'f )-.^.'� � ... '
f
- . . �~ 1� _'���v �� ./iK�� � � ' _ � i � T
(
f J ' , �
,{ � i � r ' � ' /• �� ' �..��,�i _ JJ .',�.
��'! /� �.�( �'-�r� � �' c . ....- .i S � 1 � ,
�+y� r , . �' '�� �? s ` " � . . ' � y `y ,� GL� ' �� �
F`,S ��� 3 �2�i 1 4 '.f�� .� ...L� '-C f � j!L �' .c"Y �. G � "C�fi f
. �' � /
G-iJ !;'3�'�'��-�;✓1� , ,� ; � `
;.�r` /'''{_ .�Y,��'I�^, ,%�.1.^,'.�"i`.i��'"! 1"'-.t`. f �� /.. � r"":. � c'- y ,...�`X �'.al��,r�q��1
y _ r� ,
, s` 1 .� i . �,' - � ' .
� f. y .t �,' , -�'.�` _ .;•n_ ?-= _ _ t"-� �.�-.,� _ r.� r ��, �. �, � r;; '.°�. �
i G -,�
r:?�' ji . > � "`- "�f � � � r �/i'� r _ ° l t r "j
i +' �.,., ' /J
` � . i ,- � I s % �1 t , £-' .y �1" ' i J �_�-.
�• �/�uL.�E �� �
� � � � y �
�
' / _s�✓� ' .li'�
_ .. -,. -� i _ _ /..
_i��
�
0.�-15g
? -- 3
�����r� � ��� ���
2147 I�napp Street I�Tor�a
5t. Anthony Par� MI� SS Ifl8
Ju1y 16, 20iD4
The Boatd of Zonang Appea3s
�ffice of LIEP
35d St Peter St. Suite 3fl0
St. Paul MN 55102
Dear sirs,
����;,� �
{� ,.��-��;��,:
__�__�-
I ara writing in reference ta wark being done on the property iocaYerl at 95 Langford Park,
in here St. Anthony Park.
The building is being expanded faz beyond yvhat is typicai aad appropriate of the
ne�ghborhood and far beyond what the iot size and park�ng situation can bare. OVhat was
an interesting looking build"ang befcare the recanstruction that is taking p3ace is fast
becoming an monofithic eyesore.
Tfus is has became a four-story structure which is nvt a3lowe+d in neighborhood. My
understansling is t�at the contractor's position is that it is a tt�ree story building on a
basemerrt. I know what basemenis are...they are undergzound; they have washing
machines and spiders...the main floor is obviousty not a basement as it has always had
apartments and is mostly not a�nderground.
This building 'ss already non-confazzning in multiple ways and absolutely shoul@ not b$
aliowed to expand an any way. If this was any empty iot and someone wanted to b�itd a
singie-family house on it, there as no way that thay would be granted the 2atiF�de #hat this
siruct�re been granted, t�re �oaaiaactors being granted Ieniency for some reason #ha# I'm
not aware of?
I would 3ike to see all constrtiction sto�ped immediately and a campleie review of all
plans to take place during a communily meeting. Under na eircumstances wou2d I want
ta see ihe construction of #he garagss to taice place with flut a cammunity review of fhe
pa'oposeci glans atad ara envirarunental impact study done on #he additionaF paricing.
eonges#ian created. That is a very bnsy and dangeroe�s eornsr that the building is �n and
tha Iast #taing it netic3s is mare on-street �arldng it> taice pface. r �
� ��
�
�
C�-t5g -
< y ` � ,��;
� � �� -< ; x�
� lt's �ar� for me to 'ue?ieve th�t if a ne;� plan were bran�t to ihe zoning appeaLs board
Yhat su�ested #hai "ire an area af pri�naciiy single family hnmes, we're gaing to use every
square anch of a iot to erect a four story structure and multipie garages directty across
from a park", tttat you would let them get away with that. Did you authorize them to
build on this small lot what is apparently being built? I feel that the cantractors are reaIly
trying to gut one over on aur commzznity and I hope you are not supporting their effarts.
A prompt review of this matter is called for.
I look forsvard to your response and appreciate your attention ta this matter.
;t�utiy, ;
Ej ;
' , ;���
< �
Duff & J , uff
�
Cc:
Councilmember Jay Senanav
Ward 4
310D City Naii
15 West Kellogg Soulevard
Saint Paui, MN 55702
,
.� 1�
❑
�' Y
a �� ..:...�:
i '
�;
s
.>., .:,., � �s�;��s:.;: t ��
. ,��... , >-
. :Fk � J[F 3F:8:^w"J:Y. i4
i •
. ss i- > e• s _ s s.f s s- ,_5 s� :r.. ' s� s +c f• c re f_tx., e ' =� e•
i Sii �+il . � : tc1 E t�� i i'i�? -" �;' is_ f:i 4 v4 F G . f i fc' . E P f�}i�.1 �
t... F 4 � &x : i F' ' ..3 4:.2 " 't ? . .F{ "v�. . 4.k 4�i . e'
� i{ � I flfti f ffF Ge f � f; �[t if t f �� if GdY. :f � d{q.�
a z a�t
:1 3 . i` ! �" 4 .tt :Y.ri e { �� 7 E fi RfE i � ♦ < . ie:� ; .: !shGif 3
{ 4 " .S • ..i2'i "3 F" ' 3: ��} �.�4" * P�' • is 3i "'i
. i.. ! •� S S e 5.4:3 S` S • ,t , .w .,i ' i . F . � 3 * , }: • �+�. r '
S" Es �� i!Rf� i ix t '.c . � i. f L 4 E F i.i�4a:ek .. {}
�i €5' " 3 i f` "4� � t �.F
+� = 1� . F� €�� ! . f ! F + F i1 s� tt ' dF � � t:' � i : i�. " :s[[e"
t 7.2 .1.. e, Yr't tEtit3:�E.if.�17t"Q} E1.Y Y�•
lY� Y,F" i�� P� M.' 3.i:i
.,�i�an o�a �`t�+� fie�€rr i�_place ta€the � avozilt� also �zin ifie apgea�aace of
��ing anai utu �T na � be hi�tDrtc.
� fic�pe E�e city wi�� mauce ta�p#�ae �ava#ia� axpa�ia� of t�sb�di�g.
�i�xrel�,
������
�����
� � ���a�
r�i�-l. �.�ssan
�
. �,;
.� C'
$i13[E£..II��flIIlik�.3�£3�S - �
�� - E�`II��.� � � n
�' ff��3FFt� �Hii�� `+,, � �
��
J'Sf�.S� �IFS-.�#iEEF,.�� 3�34
Sai�i.��; ��53{32
o5-i 5 8 �� � _. � - ,
_- `>>- - �._ -=
July i 9, 2004
2191 Knapp S#.
St. Paal. LIN �SI08
The $oard of Zoning Appeats
Office of LIEP
350 St. Peter Sizeet 5nite 300
St. Paul. MN 5�102
Greetings:
We are writing this letter to support the proposed appeal of Tom Holman objecting to the
construction of a fourth floor at 9� Langtbrd Park.
We understand that the city planning departrnent feels ihat the botiom #loor is a
basement, making the addition only a 3 floor. W e disagree with This assessmeat,
because the bottom level is pretty much out of the ground on at least t,�� sides and it has
aiways been rented as complete apartments. This should be cc�nsidered the ground or
first of three floors. Raisin� the roof would niake the buitding four stories.
We aIso understand that this buzlding is already non-conforrninb oa a number of aspects
of the zonin� ozdinance and feel very stronUly that the building should not be espanded.
We understand that three variat�ces have already been granted, but the roof should noY be
raised above if s present level.
This is an obtrusive structure that is not in keeping with the character of the
nei�hborhood.
Best regards,
Roeer and Carol Upham
� �
�
_ .� C���S�'
PRpPERTY V�/lTHi�i 350 FEET t3� PARCEL: 95 - 97 t.ANGFORD PARK
-_ / . „
� �
��, �
� f�
\ \
>i /G ,!
✓� �.
�
�
'`�
3 %'/ i`
►
�, _-
� � � � �;
�
\
N
�rV E
S �
�
65-�'S�
�' J . R � f 3 . . .
� -�� � ���
C
�
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
4.
i0.
11.
12.
13.
l4.
15,
15.
17.
SLJNR .Y-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD
FIAZEL PARK I-IA.DEN-PRflSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE
DAYTOi�i'S $LUFF
PAYiv�-PHALEIV
NOI2TH HND
THQMAS-DAI.E
SUIviMIT-UNTVERSITY
WESTSEVENTH
COMO
HAt1�I "�'VE-MIDIVAY
ST. ANZT-iONY PARK
TvSERR:�.M PARK-LEXINGTON FiAhiLINE-SNELLING H?.�iLINE
MACA�,ESTER GROVELAt�3�
HIGI-T`t.AND � ��
SUMh`?T HIL,',
DO�,V!� TOW�
������� ���� �°��`�/vx��v�
�
CPITZEN PAI:TICIPATTOIV PLANIYING I3ISTRICI'S
05-�5� �
� v�-
C �--� �t"'4 >' �`
• Co�#�nt �f hand o��s far Hoiman a��eai of 95-97 La�agfa� Par� �ermit
{Secretary Cogy - wi�.h pictures)
August 26, 2004
(listed in arder of presentation referenc�)
i. Response to the nndings of the Zoning Appeais Staff Repork
2. Pictures of the building model
3. Pictures �f before construction and after construcTion
4. Letters from Jack Sluck, resident from 1955-1977 and Pernilla
Lembke, resident from 1969-1994
5. Polk Directory data
6. Zoning Code Violations
• 7, Legal Basis Outline with Zoning Code Excerpts
8. Minnesota Sta#ute 2002 Sectian 4b2.3�7 subsection le
9. Request of the Board of Zoning Appeais by Tom Hoiman
, t` �?
i�,
r �, _ , -_ �_, _
. _ -. �
eJ- i 5� , `� "� �
Resnonse 3o the findines of the Z�nan� Av�eals Staff Re�ort of.�uPv 3Q 2004 �2e• 45-97 �.auaford Park
+"T'ne �ro�es-t�- �wner is in the rnicldle of remerleling the bualding ' �
o This permit was appealed w�thin 5 days af Yhe start of ceustruction on the top floor of ihis ouiid'sna.
c This was at the START, nat the iYIIDL�LB - The reason the bnildin,e loaks as comgleYe as it is:
d Ihep worked prettp much from 6am io 30:30pm every day from the start of the 4`�' floor
consiruction, and ii's all Trusses and gre-fab walls. They put it up very q�:ickl�`.
•$ut they didn't get it nearly to its c�urent state in 5 days. After tl�e appeal_ they worked for �
weeks, pretty much 12 hours a day fmishin� the framing under the explanation that Ehey
were `buttoning up the building. `
• "The project also includes replacing the exisaing dormers on the upper floors �,vith a new dorme>. "
o The zoning code does not define a"dormer," but GVebster's diciionar9 does a pretty good job. A
dormer is "a roofed structure containing a window projecting through a sloping roof."
o This addition is not a dormer – It is � 1 feet long a� runs aiong the entire lettgth of The buiIding
from front to back. It sits 3 feet ABO VE the entire previous mof, not PROJECTING THROUGH
it. This addition adds about $ODO cubie feet of new space inside the building.
• °The appellant alleges that by r•epdacing ttico of the existing dormers by a single larger dormer, the
building exceeds the number ofstories. "
o This inaccurately states wha# I am alleging. Among ottcer thin�s, I'm alleging flzat the Zoning Code
has 5 sections that disallow� adding on to a building that is non-conforming in use and structure.
• "There has always been living spnce on ald four TeveZs of the building, c�n� this has not changed. Yd'Izat the
appellant refers to as the `attic' was fn faet finashed living space. "
o bUe have letters and statement froin residents af this buildiu ; from 1958-200� stafang that ao one
ever Iived in the attic, and that the center section was unfinished (about 13C0 sqfr). �
o There were little storage rooms on the ends with piaster on the wa11s and radiators (about 250 sq.
each), but, with no legal fire eYits, this level was not even occupy-able,
o Now, it is a completelv finished new story added on Top of the building.
� °The Certificate of Occupancy also certifzes zoni�g complia�sce. "
o In fact, we see this as the other way around – the zoninc compliance is required BEPORE the
Certificate of Occupancy is given.
o Per Zoning Code, Sec. 33.05. (C) Certificate of Occapancy is issued after final inspection by the
buIlding official - when it is found that the building or structure complies with the provisions of this
Code, tfie fire marshal shalI issue a ceriificate of oceupancy.
o Per �oning Code Sec. 61.241.(c) The zoning administrator shatl determine whether loCs, sCruchzres.
or uses are tegally nonconforming by consuliing buiiding recards, city directories and other
per[inent evidence for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of chapter 62.
•"For zoning purposes a residential vacanev cloes not constitute a discantinuance of residential use. Only
the plrysical removal of the dwelling zrnit would resu�t in nonconforming stc�tus. °
o Section 62.106(g) staTes ihat a nonconforming use is lost if discontinued for a year. :�1D
Minnesota Statute 2Q02 section 462.357 further clarifies the City's Zorring Code, stating that any
nonconfornuty, including occapation of premises may be cantinued unless the occupancy is
discontinued for a period of more than one qear.
e Data in St. Paul ciTy direciories show that from 199i-1994 there were only 5 ututs and 2 of them
were listed as "vaeant." Recoxds of Certificates of Occupane}� orily exist only goirg back To 1997.
c We believe the process required by Sec 62.109{e) of the Code Eo establish the non-conFormance to
raise the use from � unzts to 6 never occurred. The neitrhbon who lived �ere frum then to no�v -
netier provided a 2i � s petition ta de s�. whieh is requised by Code. �
�' ,
a
of 95-97
- = �;v
�-r
� ��=-.:.
a
�-i � � •
���.
�; �
Scale of Ac3dition - vs. Neighlior House �
{� �_
L�
t —
� 3� . � F
`�
�� _
� � _.
�.°� � . . .. ..
�f
�� �".
-� ��� "`'�. 2 < 3..� _.
����
_ st ��� r' � ., �
�
�'. y
g �. .x
5 � � ��
�'t,
�'o{
�' ��
�� — — �
— :;
� 3 � _ s L
_ � � �
�` � �:�
� �' �
a :�
��'� _�. ��
.�>��,
�.
3 �
� � i
E' � t � � �
P ,.
N �-
1. ^it £ _ rt'—r`.,
� � r Y �:
~� � y �4_
�.��' y�� �a.'� _
��� €
� � e�� �
���� ��� :x ,
� -�� '., � ..,:
�' �'. .='.`�- k.
r �'�`. r°��'3-- ' n r - ,
.
,,•? ��- . ...
a
� :s � �
� _ 3 .
_ � :_%
�lA
j�i �
�' y�
S
?� �
. _ 3 2
�� �
��
." j`:
" ^ h 4
� j
f. � � �
ys '�
S=: � I
�=
�
��
��,-- _
� � �� �
�
�, # e
d�" , �_
�
� �
� �
�
� { . �� "
g � 4 �
' '
� �€-� r� �:. . .
�� ; �� � ° €.:
� �� �""a.� `:; �
_ ��-°� �}. � �_ � .
°��` '� - � � �
�_ � �
�
�
0
0
N
b0
�
�
N
�
O
U
�.
�
� .: .
�, �, .- -
,,;,; �
�
0
0
N
�
�
f-�-i
s..
C
s.
O
�
s.
�
N
ti
�
C
'�
�
,^.0
�
i
�
c
3:.
V
O
O
N
�
�
`�
�
C
O
C
N
e�
�^
�
�
�
c�
�J- l' S�
,
- �
�
�
-� - - �� .��-� -
�� �
���t-i� �,�°�
�
3oh� and Anita �1uck
3�I> Spain Piace�f�
YfinueapoIis, VL'�i 534 i g_7?3 i
�
�
gu�si S, 2Cd4
To when it may concern:
LL e resided at a=}-plex apartment at 97 Langford Far'�, St. Pau2, Nll�i SS I48 fram 7une ],
195� to 3une 1 I97�.
41%e utilized the attic portion of the 4-plex far storage purposes as did the other 3 tenacts
who occugied the ather spaces in the apartment building. Thera was never a period when
any thought was directed toward expand'ang the attic as additional living space, and �fl
one was ever a resident in that portion of tha apartment.
To get to the attic, yau had to climh the baok stairs and go across a landing and through a
litile doar. There wasn'i even a flaor in the aitic, oniy a sub-£loor. There was no ?iving
space ihere, oniy storage, and the rafters Nrere expcsed.
We would be willing to appaar as a witness at any proc�eding to festify to these faots.
Sincerely,
���'�" !�`'��"`-vr�.
Jack Sluck
Attomeq at Law
��
fl5-1�8
� ��- ��
_ ,;
` :�
;:; � � tr' �=� "
r �
� �
� �`�i..G��'�. ` �` '"> ,✓���� , ',
,
� ' � --�'�- ��� '
C���
�` �`� � - � �' ,��' � --��-- � ..�,���--� -�= �=�
��� _ ���-�-�,�� .
��
� �� ,�,� ���'�� �
��� �M� ��
--�.- �� �,�=� - �-� �.��- ,���� �
��� ���.��� - ' �
���� �,,�-���-- �
�� �
�, �
0�-15?
�'�ik I3i�asturv �ata for St Pau3 —199i #o i996
�; Apt � 1951 i 1992 i i993
, i ;�eme}la L�nokz ; P Lembke ; X
I 2 ; Clz£�ord-Sh%ardtaw { C t�ardlaw ( X
� �„ � � � �� -:
; �; -�.�. �-_ �-��=_'
4 I Bazbara P.ndersou ; �nderson f X
j � �°.���`� � «� " `,� ��„�=
(T'r�e Po3k directories were not pubIished in 1993)
; 199�
j P Lembke
I E Lewis
Hauluiond
1395
P i'c,*xiblce
3 �iiche:�b
Rita �ishc
HL MeQa
C Pu11inQ
�.
�.��iu� ;��,
1996
�S Bumstea/ 3 ;
Da�id Hanne:s
Rita $ishop
H L �Iegarrv
C Pullina �
In i 997, 9 total residenYS are listed — Certificates of Occupancy for 6 units star[ in this year to the present:
{D Hanners, D Harrinb on, C Bonia, T Palm, J Ro3es, A Golford, E Litchman, J Otterson, and C Nfitcheil}
-1
� �
---------------------�
� ,
' Apartment
� �
� � 1 �
�
r --------------------�
' Apartment �
�
4 '
�
' ----- ------=
------- ----------�
� ,
; Aparfinent
?
�
�------------------ '
�� Apartment 6
Certificate of Occupancy
issued in 1997
__. . _ ._ .. _. __.. ..._ .. .. _.
Praposed Condomflnium Layout (2004)
---------------------------
Condominium
6
l�
---------------------� - --------------------
; Condominium � ; Condominium ;
� 4 ' '
� � 5 ,
; � ,
=------------------ �----------------'
r --------�---------� ,-----------------,
; Condomizuum Condominium
; � � , �
_ , �
; � �
� ,
�
� , �
-------------------- �------------------�
---------------------------------------------
; Condominium `
�
� � �
� �
� �
=------------------------------------------- �
���
05-� 58
�}
�,
, .�iW
e-�. "S' it-; F
� �
!C �
O
� �� E
� � �
�
�° G
�
@ �
� �
e'^F
A+ @ �
N '�
� �
fD
� �.
c� �.
� �
�
� �
� O Q
� O U�
�
�s � �
o �
� '�
�
n: �
� �--
� �.
N
i �� � ,
�
�
U' � ,v'-
���,` i ic�',�
�
1�� a
N� f N ` �
�I�)�
1��� Y '
)� d
�r� �
� �: ss
�� �.
C O
� � �
� � I
� � �
� � �
~ N �
��a
� � bl
hi
q� � .� � .ts
��., v C C
� `, •�- �.
LD � � v�i
C
N (� �,�C �
o � k
� p, '
n N
�-�S .=+
� � I
N
�
r*
fi� O
p ��'- G� � G�i
� � � �
N �
�' x � �
� �¢�,
� �' �
N I
C ! �
I I
N
Q. � ,
��
� ��i��
.�
� f� i� �
c, ��'�
� rl�i
S � �
W Cv t f i
N i ��., � I
'.`+�
1
�
� � ,
...- _ _,
z�
O �
`�*' �
c '�
'. W
� �
�`+1
��
w
�
O
�i
��
m
�
�
O
�
fD
�
W
N
F �'�,'
5�..
�
LL.
t ��!
� �� f
f �! �
� :�� i
J
i � i
j I� i I
�' i
i ' � ',
7 �
� j '
� ; ';
���
i I
f � E
I
:��� ��si�:
cn � c� c� i c: s c�
CZ I C` C� � C: ? L:
- Gti f G� G� �. Cti' 1
K��i�3IN�A1�N"
.--� � r... •--• i � .r
Oi'O�O�CIC
� �� i Ch .? � �--
..� � tU Ci. � � ( 1
��'� F fr I ti
I t i � ( .,
R ( � C7�
� �l���
rn � � ro i �.
� Qci r� ! '�
r� i� O f �
i � � I
����0`� �
O O ❑ O O
� A� A' � `�j
G � ��
^..
m � CG �-�t �
n O. �. �
�
!- I (�i�
.-� .-� i r.. r--y
� � � � �
� Q � �""
W C p ~. �
N � C !!�D �
� � y R .
�
�o l,� �' w
Q �
���� !
01� � c.nj I ' i-Ajwii�;r � _ �
{ i ! � �� I � �� �; �j �� ; O
�
�..
��I + Iti` � � f � ��`' t ��
,�i i�r � i � ; �� i�
��� (:r_t i ,r zr..;� �r�.�f �=
c� t� � �ts �� �� �cr jr� fce ��_t �.
O �� fi �� �C �f: (.t's {!` � i �
Gt�t3i � ��iN G�i011�[C`��'
t i... _ r� t< i r-: ,.wr... t r� 4 f/�
��1 � � �A` � � S
��- �� �
) 4 J � � Q
t� �±A �-
� n
�
� � " o`
b �� �
�� � �
a � p1
� � �
�� I !
r-, i ! I ! �
��
E�
�
�
��G�����I�� ���
z�� z �z� � �,
� ������ � i �� i
�-- �•- ; r w��-�. i I
i�;� ( �r����� + ��I
�i� �� If ��1� � � �m i
G��. v�'Y��.I� i .p
�C (C C �" iG� � t i�`t
4 � �� �� �� j� � � i
,..; �s_: � � '
(�•j����.���i
�tJ �r: itc„ jru :
�„' ,:, ; �.�' i
�
i
w
\°
0
-t?
�
c
;� �
'�
L.
�
Cil
N'N Ui(v
�� ...i�W�W
�..� +--•
i � � � ! a
f4 �'� ��
����,c
�
���
�
r°'
�J �
� F{
`. t�IN�iv
� � tJt U
CD � I (�D N
��r
'
'-� W � �
O � �t�'fN
�����
��z
� i �
� �z
�,{m
r � ^`•
T � .�
'J � C.
�. : r
;
, i
I�
a
-:
�.
�
CJ
O
S�+
�
i ie ' _�
1
�4�� �
C�, (
�
' � � �[f
I `
L
i
�1_s :
L��; �asis ior Clasms �ainst ±hQ �ermit Issued for �d�ansioa �t 95-97 Lanaf'ora Park
-' �� _��,
�. �'I,T3S'T C�.�1jI - per zhe zoning code the buildi�� can't be e�panded at ail.
a. Lti?E� �- ta preserve t�e chas�.�er ofresi�er,t;al ne��ber�aoods
i. �he overalt intent of the code is clear in Secfion 501i0 :n tbat Ciiy oi�cials should strive ta
pratect neighborhoods_ �om these �inds of non-confomlina uses and siruciures.
ii. Sec#ion 62.301 in�Yoduces the basic inient on how to handle nonconformiug �uiidinas. "T�is
section s#ates that when a nonconformance exists, you can't �ake it more intense, and the
additiom m�sf be found to be campatible with the surroundir?z neighborhood. This expansion is
c.early mare intense, and the neiahbors are universally opposed to it because we feel it's
obtrusive and doesri t fit into our neiahborhood
b. MANDATORY REQUIRENIEN'rS — regarding eYpansion
i. Se�rion b2.1Q4 states t�'�at a nonconforming use shall not be enlarged to a greater height or
greater footprint. The building is clearly higher and has a lazger footprint. This section aIso
provides insight in�o the fact that when the code refers to `enlara ng a nonconforming use,' it
doesn't just mean the "use." It means the physical building as we11.
ii. Secrion 52.106 applies a more rigorous standard for sites like this one with BOTH
�
.
nonconforming uses and structures. Four sections apply:
1. Sec#ion 62.106{d) states that a nonconformance can only be extendeti in a way it was
manifestly designed. This 4` 1eve1 ilas been continually used as an attic for 90 years,
never as space for htunan occupancy. The Code says it cannot now be changed and
canverted to and expanding as a condominium uni#.
2. �ection 62.106(e), states that a nonconfomling use sha11 not be enlarged. This roofton
addition is adding about 1500 sq.ft of living space, and the rear vestibule enlaxges the
footprint. �
3. Section 62.iO4(d}, states that the code allows enlargement under 8 conditions, including
That it meets height requirements and it has a 2!3 petition from the surrounding
neighbors. The new building violates heijht in number of siories ANA the surrounding
neighbors have all voiced their opposition. Since the code provides these specifac
requirements for enlarging then `enlargement' cannot be approved by use of variance.
4. And 5ection 62.106(i) states that work may be dune on ordinary repairs and to repair
EXIS TING structures and utilities provided that the cubic content of a nonconforming
building sha31 not be increased. This section does not allow alterations to the stsuciure. ,
Ii is crystal clear that the cubic cuntent of buildings with these non-conformances cannot
be increased, ever_ by ane sq foot, and in our case about 8000 cubic feet of expansion is
being added.
c. Alt3iough not in the "findings," the Zoning Administrator stated in Distriet Co�ncil i2's Land CTse
Committee meeting that a new iVlinnesota statute ailows for this expansion, in that it ocerrules the
City's Zoning Code regarding thesa vialations. Nowever,
i. This 1aw we±�t inio effect on Aug l, 2004, and the permit �n�as eranted well before that.
Minnesota Statues are silent until the effective date and are n3t retroactive. Therefore. this
statute didn't apply to this pennit at all.
ii. :�L3innesota Statute 24?02 5ection $b2.357 says that "Any nanconformity, includisig use may be
cantinued, inciudine throu�� repair, replaces�ent, restora2ion, mairtenanc�., or impro�emenf, but
NOT INCL�DL'�iCs EXl'ANSIOh." - Ex�ansion inciudes fooiprint� as weli as eantent and
hei�ht. This intent is canfinned �y audio transcrigts af housz debate incindin� a de�nition
provided b� ?he atthor of {he bi11, Ron A�rams
���
,
a5-e 5 �
Ap�lisa�3e �cning C�de 5es#�o�� fur Clai�a 1:
r . . .�"'_ fi
.�� �,��;
�,��t!��
See. sia+3+3.?i(3, #t�s�naa�e �e�c�r:rnr,ccieaion.- i n2 city has a iegicimata intzre� in are=2rving the charctar oi ses;dentiai �
neighbcritoad<_ by adopting ;�suia�sons re!�ting to ... stru�ur� �nd uses, and the numher of persons �xho may ocup;i a
tiw°lieng �r <_i,
Sec. 52.1�Z. - The co�e ... aifokv(s) rtonconforming =.�s2s � be changed to simitar ar iess intense rzorrconffl: ming uses. T'ne
code atiows the eniargerent of nor�conforming uses when found to be compatibie with surroune�ing neighborhoods. -
Sec. 62.1Q4. - A nonconPorming use s;�aii not be e�iarg2d *.o a gre�ter height nor extended to occtspy a greater =rea of land.
Sec. 52.3136 (d) a ncnwnformi�g use may be extended Throuahout any paKS ot a st; ucture � tat wsre mani€estty a�rznged ar
designed For the use
Sec. b2.? 06 {e) A nonconfomina use sha7! not'�e enlarged, unless [he planning commission a�aproues a permit Far an
enlargement as set forth in s2ction 62,109(d).
Sec. SZ.iUB. (s3) Enlargement ofr,onconfo�ming use. The p7anning commissior rriay germit the entargement of a
nonconforming use if... (Z) For eniargements of a structure, the eniargement will meet _. height requirements;... and (8) A
notarized petition of two-thirds of the properiy ownen within one hundred (100) feet of the property bas been subwiitQd
stating their s�pport for the enlargemenT.
Sec. 52.1�6,(S) On a building devoted in whole or in part to any nonconforming use, work rriay be done on ordinary repa+rs, or
on repair of wails, roofs, fi3ctures, wiring, or piumbing, provided that the cubic content of the buiiding ... shatt not be inceas2d.
iNinnesoYa Staiates 2fl02, s2ciian 462.357, subdivision Se - Any nonconformity, induding the tawful use or occupation of
land or premises...may be continued.. uniess: the nonconformi"ry or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one
year.
•
•
<� ��
f
t
- 05-�15� �- ; _ T f _
f - �
2. S�.�fl�+�3 C3.�'vI - T"ne Zoning Code d:sailows " stary srruc�urzs in this zone. �
a ri:st, irs important w establish the fac: that the bo�to� 1eve1 is a story, noz a base�en�
• i_ Base�ents arz den�ed in Sec�ian 5{?.2d3.B of +he Zonin? Code as 1QflR� tlran haii wzp aride�
�ounci_ i�e piar! eieva�ans show i�as th.is ba2�om ?e�-ei s� r SS Lhaa aali�.�av befo.i �*eune.
s. � iso, Setiion 60Zd3.� savs that oasaments ase not a completed m�ueture bu� a substructure cr
fouudation. Since this Ievel of �he buildina has alwa�s beeu a staudalone apar¢nenz wi+1i its
owz� daor at s�eet tevel and is planned io be eonverted to a single standaione c�ndominiva, we
wou3d consider this ?evei a`completed sinzcture' and not a substruch�re c�r founc32tion to the
other apartments
iii. For these TWO reasons, this 1eveI is a story. not a basement
b. Secend, it's imponant to establish that t�'�e top level of rhe old buildin� was an attzc
i. Attics are defined in Section 60,242.A as an unfinished space unmedia4ely beiow the rooi ofihe
main building. Regardin� the claim that this was a finished living space, the center section of
the attic that was torn aut was cainplately unfinished. There were little rooms on the ends ofthe
attic that had plastez on the wall, but they were mereiy used for storage_ No one ever lived
there. This was an att3c.
ii. Regarding the claisn that the roof was raised only 3 feet and thatrno additional story was added,
we believe this is an understatement and is only true based on the mathematical wap that
buiiding heights are caiculated. Adding 8000 additional cubic feet is a better way of lookzng at
the actuai scale of the addition.
c. Hence, we believe this is cIearly a new 4` story where an attic once was and shouId be disallowed.
Otherwise, every building in St. Paul with 3 stories and an attic could be converted into a 4 story
buildinc.
�plisab�e Zaning �ode Sections for Claim 2:
Sec. 60.203. �.- Sasement. A portion of a buiidfng that is parcly below grade and so located that che vertical distance from the
average grade to the floor is Iess than the vercicat distance from the average grade to the ceiling (that is, more ihan haff way
above ground). l'his portion of a building is not a compieted struccure and serves as a substructure or foundation Por a building.
Sec. 66.2Q2. A. - Attic An unfinished space immediatety be4ow the roof of a main building.
.
� �
,
�5
C4� �{� ���
3, 'I'�13 �'i.�� - No�-conforning nse was never iegaily established for 6 units afrer it z�as iost down t� 3
uniLS due fo noa-�zse for �ea:ez than a year.
a. The Zor�ina ;�dmir�istrator elaims that 5 units wer� proceu leg� beca�tse there is a 6 unzt Ce�ificate �
L'ccu�ancv.
i. � e beIieve that a Ceriif cate o� �cci�pancy aoesn' E trzu�ap the Zc�nina Cade.
?_ Sectioa 33.£t5.�c) slaias tl�at a Cert�caEe a� Occuga�icy zs issued �er ftnal ins��tion by
t�e tru�Iding ofncial - u=hen it is fouud ttlat tIie builciing compties �iitii the gr�,risians af
this-Gade, the fire marshai shait issue a eertiftcate ofaccupaucy.
2. �eei�on 63.241.(e) sTaTes tf�at #he zoaing adn�iaistratar'sl�a� dete�nine wIlethe"r �oas, �_ ,
struchires, or uses are Iegally ubnco�fornung by corisultiagbuFidiug records; city'
direcTQries arzd otlier pertinent evictence.
ii. - The iact that a Certificate of Occupancy was apparently issued based on erroneous '
deterniination of the Zoning Code's requirements does not now preelude us from ?nsistin� that
this building campIy with ttie Zoning Code. A lona term confinuakoa of a Zaning Code.
v"solation doesn't precIude a Iater chalIenge_
b. The Zoning Administrataz aiso states tliat yon don't lose a unit of occupancy if it is mere2y vacant.
i. However, Section b2.3fl6{g) states that a nonconfomvng use is lost if discontinued for a year.
ii. Furthermare, t�Iinnesota Statute Zfl02, section 462.357 ciarifies �is furt€�er staxing that
nonconfomuties can continue uriless occupancy is discoatinued £or more than a year.
iii. Polk Directory data shows That there were periods of more than a year when only 3 units out of
5 were occupied. Contiguous years show "vacanY' in the Polk Directories
c. Section b2.4�9(e) states that to reestablish a nonconforning use, S items are needed, includutg a 2/�s
perition from the neighbors, and the neighbors say that tliey were never part of a peiitiou to re-establish
the 5 unit nonconforming use.
i. We can prove thaT the process was never followed To raise ihe non-conformine use fram 3 uni�
to 6 because the neighbors never provided a 2/3s petition to do so, which is required by code.
zi. We believe the City Zoning Code and Minnesota Statute clearly point out that you DO lose a
non-conforming unit if it is unoccupied for more tban a year.
d. Hence, the maximum ie�at nonconforming number of units on this site is 3, not 5.
Applicable Zaning �ode Secfions for Ciafm 3:
Sec. 33.D5. (C} Certificate issued: After final inspection by the building o�cial when it is found tbat the building or structure
complies with The provisions of this Code, the fire marsha! shaf! issue a certifcate of occupancy.
Sea 53,201.(c) The zoning administrator shall determine whetber lots, structures, or uses are le4�llY nonronforming by
consulting building records, city diredories and other pertinent evidence for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of
ct�apter 62.
Sec. 82.106.(gJ When a nonconform+ng use is diswntinued or ceases to ex�st for a wntinuous period of three hundfed stxty-
five (365) days, the buiiding, or buiiding and fand in combination, shali thereafter be used in conformance with tfie reaulations
of Ehe district in whicfi it is located, unless the planning commission approves a permit ta reestablish the nonconforming use as
set for[h in section 62.109(e).
Minoesota Statutes z902, section 462.3H7, subdivision ie - Any nonconformity, including the lawful us2 or occupation of
land or premises...may be continued_.unless: the nonconformity or occupancy is disrontinued for a perrod oi more than one
year.
Sec. 62.109, (e} Reestah)rshmenc of nonconfcrming u=e. When a nonconforming use of a structure, or structare and Vand in
combinatiorr, is discontinued or ceases to exist ;ar a continuous period of [hree hundred sixty-€ive (365) days, :he planning
commission may pe.rmit ihe ree_=Yablishment of a r+oaconformirtg vse if the commission mak2s the foilowing �ndings... {5} A•
nara�rized petiticn of �vo-thirds af tfi�e crooerry awnzrs within one hundred (I00) feet of the property has been =_ubmitt°d
stat r,g tP;e(r =upport for the use..
� ,�
� �
, �
� g -- , .
SL��Y
�,,� a
��� JJ��
� 1} 'Pne adciiiion is an e.>gansion *e a nan-�ar.�ern;na •�se ar_d non-car.fern;nQ s�acture, and should not �e
31IOVvECt by CDClE. �'tu �ie2A1QI'e. �X�215i0II5 i.6 IIOIl�C^vSi.t ei52S ieLllli72 II21.��..'tl;'iOSi700d. PEI1tTQII5 2.IICI T10I
jUSi v2YianceS.
2) T'ae acIdition adds a 4�' �ioor and cestihule and snould not oe allowed by Code.
3) The whole site :s reall� onlv a 3 unit legal nenc�nfor*ninQ use vs. fi, a�d tl�eiefore onl� 3 Condominiums
should be ailowed.
�
�
U
�
�
_ _. -
� - -
_a5-15 �'
r�za� s�ss?o?� �at�s
__ . �- _�`
r�� � � �a�;�
�ey: _.:. __._:.7� __ _„ .�__�_�_.._ . . r_�w iarc�aae �Z�a ? yaaca - _ — -
vy _
C?��TER 258-3.F.Na. 2274
N� ��.. ....?c�_ry �� Zo^.i;,g; prov±�'_^.g cer'�i: or_ muni�ipai -n�eri^i e_ci�:^_a_ce5
ar_d en ._onco*z`orm`_ties; a*r:er.dinq ?1irr.eso�a Sta���es 2002, szc__on =62_3�;,
si:bdicisicr: _�.
gE =T c,S'AC`i'ED BY Tii� T_ O'c .rF SPF'?'? Or :�?=VNESOTA:
Sec. 2. Minnesota S�atutes 2�J02, ,.ec�icr. 462.�57, sub3i.isicn Ze, is
a.�nended t., reGd:
Su;�d. 1e. [1vONC0�rO�M�TZES Fny noncenforrnity, ir.ciad�ng �ne 1�wfLS
use or occupation of land or prem'_ses existing at the time o= the adcption of
an additiona? contro? undes �his chap*er, map be conciaued, ircluding thso�zgh
rep�ir s-�, - en�acement, res�ora�icn, main`�enance, N�a==i or imnro�rement, but
r,ot includ_nq zxpansion, unless;
t�7 ��e norcon�or�ity or occupancy is disconcinu2d °or a neriod o= nore
chan one year,—; or
(2) anp nonconfo�ming use i� destroyed by iire cr otner �neril te the
ehtent o° y than 50 percent o� �ts narket value, and no buildinq oermlt
has �een zpp�ied for wi�hin 180 ,�'.ays c£ when th2 oroperty is da:r.cqed. In
t2_s case a munic_pali�_v mav i:a^-ose _easonabie condit�_cas upon � bu�'di^g
perm?t in crd2r to mit_ga�e any neu�lv crea�ed imp2ct o: ad aropevty�
An_y s��sequenc use or occupancy oi che I�nC or premises shail be a
eer:formi�g use or occupancy. A mur?cipality nay_ L�y erdinanee permit ar_
expar.sior_ cr �.mposz �apcn nonccnformiti�s reasonzble reaula*ions to prever.c
azd abate nuisanees and co protect the �ub?ic heal�n, welfare, or safety.
This subd�cision does noc proribic � municipali�y i_om enforcing zn ordinanee
that anplies tc �dults-only bookstores, adults-c:.1y t,aeacer�, or similar
adu?ts-only businesses, �s defined bp ordinance.
rresented co tne qov=rnor N:a� 1E, 2C04
S�g,ed by �he gover:or May 2�, 200�, 9:i0 a.*n.
�
�
� � �
E �
� _ µ.. _ -d5 _-_�_� g . . _
�
S "'°'�.-L--r.� J
�
IZ�f)L�ES"T of the Board uf Zaning appea3s by 'Tom �ilolman, �ugnsf 16, ZDU4
yV"e aze as'sina that the Board of Zonins Appeals i=ncas iu Sie favor of the neiahbors o£ St.
��tizonp Par`x and do the follow
1_ j Revoke the permit for the main buildin� addition,
2) Require the deveIopers to restore the roofline of the main bui3ding to its pre-
existing condition, and require of fuiure permits that fhe cubic content is not
inereased.
3) Disallow the footprint to be increased which mearxs that the vestibule shouTd not
be allowed to be bni3t.
4) Limit the projecT to the 3 units that are legally nonconforming.
5} Because of pracess failures and enors through the history of this project, and
accarding to Section b I.2fl2 of the Code, the entire site plan should be reviewed.
This review should include tl�e finai designs for all buildings on the site, including
the variances previously granted for the garages as they relate to these fmai
desi�ns. Because this is a matter of such broad community interest, this Site Plan
Review shou3d be in a public forum and condncted by the Planning Commission
and not deiegated to the Zoning Administrator as is apparentiy the norm.
C�
� � �
�
_ _O5=' )��� _
ntlg �5 Lt�
aa:a��
August ; 5, 2flfl4
�annie !il_tcuicke
a�L�'.: RenovariQnafySl,angfordPlace
JoI Hardwick
City Zonin;. S�ecialist
Suite 3t�fl
Sr. Paul Mn, �5102
FAX: 65I-255-9I24
s��_��n-ss2s
I am writing tkis letter aut o£ genuine eoxieern regarding the above mentioned condo
projecf. I find it hard to believe that t�e City of Si. Paui would not be interested in havina
this praperty estheticaIly beautifieti, updatari, enhaneing the commututy and increasing
t�e vaiue of neighbortng homes. Zt sounds to me like the City is allowing one or two
neighbors to cause shut down of a snuch needed housing azea for elderty(senzor rasidents,
Would they raiher f�ava the buiIclinb as it is? Tattezed and torn. I must say, the Cify is
takiz� quite the chance of being involvex3 in not only lawsuiLs but showing weatmess in
their deaisiar�. Building pesmits have been issued. The time for the neighbors to
complasn is over...my friends from the azea chwcbes are eataemely upset over this...and
I �ersanally find at of very poor judgment in shutting #his project down.. _what a wastc of
��aluable zime?
Conaie �k`itwicke
n
�
��
� �
�--�5� ,_ _
Aug 13 D� �3:OSp �aula lar,g=slay- Roman;k c5:-ia8-aZ_3
�
TE'd "&i.L�1
,4rngust 12, 2004
Tn Whom li MaY Cnncern:
As a resident of this nrea,' it Ss my pre£�renc� ��e grop�Y at 95/9? Lan�fozd Fark �
owner oacupied_
Tx is my br-Lef iba� tum�ng �s =ehtal bmid�ng �nto ow�eZ occupied homes is�s � use
of this space as well at would mecs the gzowiag needs �f ihis cammunaty e horne
ideal cando tacation for an area resident �aho no loagez wanis to maintain a 3arg
� but wisnes to sray in this neighborhood.
NSanY of my friends at St. Ceralia's Ct�utrk loak fozwa�'d to the opp�rtunity to haue a
cozadomin3um home near oux churc�- Cor�dominieuns would a�sts is�cresse the v�lua of a2]
the homes in the asea as well as be:iefii the tax base.
The pzide in home mNnership ent�ances t3se commtmrtY while benefiting locai businesses.
I thinlc it would be an unweleome �pesvice to spesid tax P�Yer's money in tiie �ouzi casts
and alsa paying damages to ibe developez afzez all the pezmits have be� issued.
dis ute between ane home owner and a develaper t4aat most people da
This is a petsosial P
not vvxsb to paY �ar•
Lai's gei this Prolect movin� and put god neighbc;cs with other gaod neighbo:s!
Sinc,.'raiy,
r
�,� ,;1;-�� ���
�s�� s�v�
1533 Questwood Drive
FaSccn Heighu, �IN 55i73
�
��
��= - - - _ _ . _ _ ---�-
�e :a;�,aa :a:s s=��a�=.s; ar.-�
����
���
r���s s�i
��������
« �, _ �, �
��o-ust i3, 2�
7ahn Fiardwick
Ofxzce of i.icensa, inspectians ana Environmental Prfltectican
350 St. Peter Srreet — Suice 300
SaintPaul,Nll�i SSIti2-ISI(l
Re: BZA case #0�-12(k�82 (9�-97 Langford Park)
L7ear NIr. Hardwic?c and Board of Zoniig Appeals:
On "?'hivasday, August i'v, 2004, the St .Aathany Park Cammunity Councal apgroved zhe
following resoluTion:
�
�
T#�e St. Arathony Park Community Caunci2's recommendation concerning the vaziances
f�r 95 Langford was based on drawings, plans and infor�nation about the developnae�t
that were not c�mplete and did aot ae�urately reflect the projecT as it is currenct}� beinP
built. The Council's reeommendation concerning the vaziances may have been diffezent
if the Council had zeceived complefe and accuFate infozmation about zhe rszoject.
'Tha�k yan for your time and atteation to this maTter. Tf you have any questions witla zesards to
c�Ze resolur�o�, please call me. y
Sincerety
� �� � �� �--.
Me 'ssa Mache4vs
�XecUtive �ileGtOi
C; Cig� �ouneilmetnber.Tay }3enanav
��.
�
290 Lsqsr.wc3: Rvtnue, .x,aini Paul, Miamaan 55974 -e b�tlb�4-��92 roiee <i SStt549-5993 ;ax
o�-��
r�;�'-i�'�����
� „ohn �3arr�w3ck - I supparr �he rsnova#ion at 95 Lan�ord Place.
From: .4ndv 1�I1ie; �uler@co�puFer.or�>
3'0: "�ir. John Hazdwac!c" <o�.n.hardwic:c c��r ci.stpaul.ma.as>
Date: 3f? 412004 2:23 PM
Subject: I sapport the :eaovation at 9� LanvFord Pla�,.
VIr. Hazdwick,
i support the renovaTion at 9� Langford Place. My wife Janet and and I
are property owners at 2227 Aillside Avenue, which is two blocks away
from 95 Langford Place We walk past the building every time we go to
the park. Since we maved into the nelghborhood 7 1/2 years ago we have
been pleased with the cazefui and loving renovations that we have seen
throughouY St. Anthony Pazk.
From what I Imow and can see with my own eyes of the 95 Langford Ptace
project the renovarion will accomp3ish one and only one thin�. The
project wiil renovate, beautify, and improve an o7der building in our
neighborhoad. I think this is a great alternative to destroying the
neighborhood's architeciural heritage by knockine it down and building
a new, singie family mansion.
The!e is no reason tfiat this six family buiiding should be denied the
� rieht to renovazion and imp; ovement afforded to single family homes in
the sazne neighborhood.
You and?he City of Saint Paul were correct in issuing the buiiding
permit in the fsst place and I ur�e you to continue your support for
the project. T am lookin� forwazd to the completion of the project.
•
Andrew Miller
2237 Hillside Avenue
Saint Paul, MN �5108
(651) 917-08�0
� �
t
iiir//('•;7�nrnmantc°l�('ianr?ol7flSv'riinacAharri�xziriii nra1%'�aiC.�ff;noeA 3amn1('rSAi1q0(i(1� A7 R1�4.SI�(kEld
85�) 5g
.�flha� �3a� - �� Laug�'flr� P�as�
�'rain: "Step�en Shak�an" <sshakmaa@woridnet.att.ae�>
ia: <7ahn.Hardwick@ci.stgaul.�n.ns>
�3ate: �/14/20fl4 5:0� PAtI
Subject: 95 Laneford Place
z�a�e 1 �f I
� �
� } y����
We are aeae:aily posi7ave aboui the renovarion of;ha above locarion. Wa do have some concam about rhe agpeanace oftfie
YtuFd-floor addition, and we hope that the owaers will aive special atteac�on to rnaking tliat part oPrhe de✓elopment biead ia
with the e�s[mg architecTUre.
Susan and Steve Shalanan
2275 HilIside Ave.
�
� �. �
� �
l
�Ia: ;'C:\�ocaL��en�s%2�Jand°/n20Satti?:Js\har;�cvicill ncal%?.fiic�tri;�sslTe�r,�,t'rzUl(�f;F)f};_?y i RiiE,I?(?f�4
p5I5g
�
��� �
����
r:�; ' Q^.
��-'-
Page 2 0= i
�
f _ z`
f J l��}
aon� Har,�'.ursck - �S� i.cn�cr� P��c�
From: "Ardys �oen" <ardys@uisi.com>
To; <john_hard�u+ck@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 81'S 6/2044 6:59 AM
Subject: 95 Langford P1ace
� c�71 Ud{I'f7i� !P. SU�.',4'F3(i O� }i;@ ±°i,GVGtIOII ,';3{012C� �i ..�-`� �..2tlQ?J(S] ��cC2. r 8 ,C`CO(a@i :')/ Qvyl1°f iN;itC C4:P�fl ��
StfB@� f:'Ot'i iYliS �1=11�3l7�ES. f u81i�V8 �ilcL � i(S F8'l0'las':fl�i tS „'8 �{f�d Ot i!7:(Jf3 iita� �PdB S;?Ol,•}C 27i Y12�C.^,�TL
i"t tP=8 Ci8iQ3l.�?O� �';CCC� i 3Kif:t�' 8(i GI.^., UI'<t'"f3.j`.(OV20, a�8�!'�E7�} Ci..f4�t1?y �^v^ uf?C,IC<zuif'� I2 tS Qi28t, t?++1!SSi f^Qt2
❑713'Cip��'iBL{ �€'C}�RIcS L'iOGZQ �2i ti�li5 �(cu"IRlBBL.
Ardys Moen
25 Langford P�rk
St Paul. MN ��1tJ8
6?2-801-4908
�
�
}� t
C� 5 5�
��a�istap�i�r'�'. Kal�a
�'our Lan�ard Park
St: Paul� �It�i a�i{!8
(651) 547-4339
r ,�y _�� .
��,�
��
;�c � � =, T £;t,, ;
� - rr.�' . �. .
•
VIA NIAiI, and E-iVL�iIL to iohn.�ardwac�ci.stpaul.mn.us �ugust 15, 2004
License, Inspecrion & Bnvironmentat Protection (LIEP)
Ciry of St. Paut
John Hardwick 3
NLN ��2U1
Re: 95-97Langford Purk
Dear Ntr. F�ardwick:
I am writing to you to comment on the construction and renovation curren#1y
underway at the aparfineni building located af 95-97 Langford Park. I support the efforts
the current owners are making to improve and renovate the propertg.
I was born in St. Paul. T have lived at Four Langford Park for f ve yeat I have a
degree in civii enaineering and I was a construction prajecf manager for Ksaus-Anderson
Construction Company for six years. I am also an attorney licensed to przctice in
i✓Iznnesota. I w�li not comment on any of the legal aspects of the cons#ruction, the permit
process or the appeal. My camments in this ietter are Iimited to my concarns as a resident
of the neighborhood.
A2though I have never been inside the building i am somewhat familiaz with the
property because I walk my dog in the neighborhood and I waIk by the apartment building
several times a week.
Over the past few years I have observed some regairs made to #he property; the
roof was re-shiugled and the stonework at the front entry and stairs was repaired. At the
time that work was done, I was disappointed because I felt that the building was in need
of more extensive repair. It seemed to me that the repairs that were made were just
enough to keep the buildine from falling apart.
I was alsa concerned that the aarage uniis appeared to be both unusable and .
unsafe. The roof of the garage cvas accessibla from the street and alley beliind the garage.
Ttie visuai appeal of the �aza�e was a detrimeut to both the apaztment building and the
surrounding area The �arage was oeergrow=n with trees and shrubs and the handrail on
ihe rooi was in disrepair. From what I coutd see of the garage from tlie sidewalk in front
of the apartment building, it appeared as though the �ara�e units were not even used. The
side drivewav seemed to accommodate only the tcash cans and recycling bins. I don't
ever recali seeing a car drive in or out of tke drivaway. It's my perception tkat alttzoueh
the apartment buiidinQ Yechnically had several off-street pazl�ng spots the tenants and
guests of the buiidin� pazked on the street.
I believe the apaa bui?ding and gara;e neede3 a lot of wark and I was happv
to see ruajcar con�#ruction begin. The apartnient buildina is a�and buildin� that occugies
a z>er� pro�inent place on the pazk. Ii deserveci io be in better candition.
�y3v understaudin� oi ttte cons,� underway is that ihe apar�nent or the taD
i
�
� �
� � -
�
�. � %
� �l -( L °�� i�
1xu
• f oor is bei� expasde3 �:tt� a ucru:ez o� t�e �ent and a: aised r�of on tse baek. I.
appears that the "footprint' of �he buiidin� is not chaa�g - it accupies ihe sar�e amount
of square Poot area now as it did oer"ore consIl began. Zhe bricb�aor'� aad mortar is
being campletelS `re-tucked" ard new windows are he:n� instaile3. I do not know what
intericr work is �ein� doae. y
The gara6e �anits are �ein� relocated so #hat instead of'oeinQ accessed �om the
front of i$e building (whic� reqi:ired a driveway across a sic�ewatk) they are io be
accessed,fom a side street (where there is cuirently no sidewaliL). And instead of beina
"below grade" and built into the back hill of the property, the garage units are now y
completely above �ade.
At a recent community council meeting where the consh of this apartment
buiiding was the only topic of discussion, the neighbors who live ne� door (85 Lan�ord
Park) spoke of their objections to current construction project. The gentleman who Iives
next door spoke at length about the apparent legal objections to the permifs and the
apparent violations of building codes and zoning ordinances. I say "apparenP' because
while the stated objections may be made in good faith, the gentleman is not an attorney.
When pressed for the real reason he ob}ected to the projec2, he stated {and I paraphrase),
"The buiiding is too big." Specifically, the rear roof was now 3 feet tatler. I did not
respond #o his statement at that meeting but I feel T must put his comments in perspeative.
The house at 85 Langford Park was purchased by its cunent residents (tYie coupte
who spoke at the meeting) just a coupie years a�o. Shortly after purchasing the house
• (and as I understand it, before moving into the house) they began their own remodeling
projec2. While the house could not be described as a small house, it was not necessarily a
lazge house. In fact, you could say that for the size of the lat, the large deck in front gave
the house a somewhat nanow appearance. The house was also fairly plain with a very
monochromatic color scheme. There was a garage in the back that was accessible from
the street in front of the house.
The remodelin� project as i viewed over the months involved raising the house
off its foundation, removing the foundation and basement and then rebuilding the
faundation and basement. At the same time the "footprinY' of the house was inereased
by about 50% and the house became significantly wider than i2 was. The garage was
demolished and replaced with a"double-decker" garage that was now accessibie from the
alley; there is no driveway through the front yard. The garage is now rivice the size it was
before.
I think the impruvem�nts made to the 85 Langford Pazk honse are drama#ic and a
credit to the neighborhood. I question the need for a double-decker gara�e but i do see
how it adds �een space to the yazd ba�ause there is no front driveway.
Based on the dramafic increase in size ef both the house and garage at 85
Langford, I find it extremely hypocritical far the owners of 85 Langford to base their
criticism of t11e construcTion at 95-97 Lan�ford on their perception that �The buildino is
too big." i tlunk it is accurate to say that the aparmient building is aoina to be marginaily
larger iv some respects than it was before, but certainly not on the scale tkaat the 8�
Langford �ouse increased.
• The unprovements made to 9�-97 Largiord wiii beneuY not oniy the property ai
8� Lan�ford bnt tl:e rest of the nei�hbarhood as well. Atl property owners shQU1d be
ertitled :o improve their property. y�nybody opposed to the constructian s�ouid be asked
if E}�ev wouid �refer i.�z apa.�inent buiidintr tc be ieft as it was; I'm stse t1?e answer to tinat n, r'�.
y ��
-•, -._ ,. ,,
. _ .� . �� -- - � - --- �
� �5-t58 � _ _
: ,-� � �;�
�=3estia� :s == �vn.` •
It is �y oginion thaY the cons�zc*�ion at 9:.-97 i,an�ord be �owed to canti�ue
:�ith iis curreat desi�a. �han� you rar paur time znd ccasideratian of �sty *�ou�hts ou tlus
matter.
Sincere2y,
,�s;
Christapher T. Kalla
�
!� �
�
o��r5 �?
John Hardwick - 1 HXTWO'f !,
•
SL Paul t3oard of Zoning Appzals
Au¢ust 43.3004
PaQe I
Augttst 13, 2004
Joyce Maddox,- Chair
St. Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals
Ciry of St. Paul
15 West Kellogg $oulevazd
St. Paul, MN 5 5 1 02-1 53 4
Re: Board of Zoning Appeals Case No. 04-120482
45-97 Langford Pazk
Bear Chair Maddox and Members of the Board of Zoning Apoeals:
Timothy J. Keane
• Thrs Setter is offered on behalf of Stephen K. MeCarty ("McCarty") the owner of the building
located at 95-97 Laneford Pazk (the "Property"1 and Pe�gy McCarty Gnibbs, the project mana�er
for McCarty. We strongly suppart the Zoning Administrator's interpretat'ron in this matTer and
respectfully request the $oazd of Zoning Apgeals to sustain the stafi position.
BACKGROUND
The City issued McCarty a building permit on Jtme 21, 20�4. In reliance on the pennit, McCarty
entered into a construction contract with Hammersmith Company and began removing portions
of the roof and windows at the Property. On July 16, 2004, next door neighbor Thomas Ho1man
("Hoiman") filed this zoning appeal. In response to the appeal, the City issued a stop work order
for the Property. The scop work order suspended McCarty's existing permit rights. McCarty is
now unabte to finish the renovation pursuant to the permit MeCarty has also been forced to
secure unfinished portions of the huilding from the eiements. Holman could continue appeais to
the City Council, District Courk and beyond, causing project delays of a year or more. This
inabi3ity to finish the project in a timeiy fashion is causina McCarty to incnr continuing
economic damages and irxeparable harm.
NScCarty acquired the Property operatine as a aix-unit apartment building in ]997. Sznce thaT
time, McCarty continned to rent units in the Property to vatious tenants. The Pxoperry is zoned
RT-2, defined as "roFNnhouse residentiat." The Property has e�sted as a ieeai nonconforming
structure — as opposed to nonconformin� use — since the Property tivas down-zoned nearly 30
years aeo.
•
as.es!_��
?>;sei_.•:
J�
i
4
y�
t
;
1-
<.�, , ri��., ; _ .��- . .�. �_ _ � � _ �. _ . . _
�on�
�.�Gc
Si_ Pa-�3 Board cf Zoning Apgeals
A v�ust 1� 2004
Page 2
L*� Iate 2043, MeCarty propased Eo ;he Citv the construction of new 2ara�Qes and conversibn of tlta
FroperEy froan rentaI residential to owner-occupied residential. Pursuant to thhts request, the S2int
Paui O�ce of Lic2nse, Inspections and EnvironmenTat Protec2ion {"LIEE'") referted.this
appiication to the St. Anthony Park Community Councii ("SAPCC"} for neighborhood rasponse
and recommendatians. After much discussion and pubIic input, SAPCC recommended approval
of the proposal. Holman failed to raise any of his objecrions to the project during this process.
On the basis af these thorough reviews and approvals, blcCarty commenced demolition and
construction and made sienificant contractual commitments to undertal:e the renovations.
��scussia�r
Code defines a basemen2 as:
Holman�s first argumeai in opposition to the previously issued permit is thaT Yhe PermiY would
allow the Property to contain four stoties in violation of St. Paul's City Zoning Code. The Code
aIlows for a thre�story stnzcture. McCarty's renovaiions include changes to tfte roof tine_ and
dormers over the third floor. These modificatioas aze cleariy contemplated by the City Code.
Hoiman's ar�ument is that the renovation of the aitic will create a four-sioty' shvcture ia
violation of the Code. When the City issued the pennit, it determined that the 3owest level
constitutea a basement, which is not included in the caiculation of the numbe; of stories. The
A portion of a building ihaY is par[ly below gade and so located
that the vertical distance from the average grade to the floor is tess
than the vertica! distance from the average �-ade to the ceiling (ihat
is, more than half way above ground). This portion is not a
completed sh and seroes a� a subsiructure ar ioundation for a
buildi�g. St. Paul Zonine Qrdinance � 60.202$ (2004).
Under the City's definition of a basement, that tivas the correcT decision.
Furthermore, Holman elaims ihat Fhe City's origiaal decision zo issue Yhe permit was impraper
because the basement wiIl serve as more than a substrscture or foundation for the Property.
While investi2ating that claim, Holman wrote to John Hardwick at the Cit;�. Mr. Hardwick
indicated the building was and is only three stor;es. Hardwick also responded that regazdless of
the definition, the number of stories in the building would have been "�andfathered in as such."
Fiolrnan argues that the basement use shouid not be �andfathered in �ecause the top levei was
previously an attic, not a story. It is Hardwick's contenfion that Holman is asking the City to
interpret the Code in a manner "inconsistenT wi�h past pxactices." Because i# is ineonsistent uith
the Ciry's past practice a different definition cannot be implemented re�oactively. Accozdingly,
The skvcTUrz meeTS Lhe reqniremenYS for the number of stories and McCarty must succeed oa 2he
merits.
Holm�:'s second areument relates eo tt�.e nunber oi occupants livinQ at the Frepe�ty. Holman
abjzczs �hac che tran�ition from six nao-bedroom apartment unics to s� twabedroom
= iob�?vi
� •
�� ;
�i
_.. ...
- - C")S 7S�
John Hardwick - 1F
•
S� Paul Boar� of Zonins Appeais
� �wst 73, 2004 �_
Pa?e =
condominiums constitutes a violation o2 ihe Code. Tnere aze t.�,�o bases ior Zhis ciaim: (I} ihat
�he use may not have been a lawfiil nonconfor,nin2 use at the time the Code was znacted, and
(2} that rhe remadeiing will s;�ificantly expand the nonconformity. Both of zhese awmer.zs
fai7.
First at the time the Code was adopted, the Properry was a legal nonconiorming building. 'The
buiidine continues to be a iegai nonconformin� buildin�. Secand, the remodeling does not
eYpand the nonconformSty. The building footprSnt remains unchanged. The densiry will remain
the same. There were six units in the Property at the time the Code was adopted. After the
remodeling, there will be six units. Holman's argument that the increase in space will constitute
an increase in people living in each unit is unfounded and not re�ilated by the Code. Under the
Codz, The Ciry designated vazious residential districts for various densities. F'or each of these
densities, the CiTy regulates the number of families thai can live in a partieu3ar area — not the slze
ofthe families that can live in the area Accordingly, in tlus case, there is no change in the use or
the number of units. Clesrly, the CiTy canaot Simi# the size of a family, and it is pure speculation
to azwe thaT slightly larger spaces will equate with lar�er families. AccordingJy, McCarty is
likely to prevail on the mezits of this claim.
! Moreover, a reversal of the determination to issue a building permit may weil give rise to liability
of the City of St. Pau] to McCarty for damages incusred in reliance on the issuance of the
buiiding permit. In a City of Minneapolis case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a
landowner who demolished a building in reliance upan a building permit erroneausly issued by
2he Ci4y could recover in a negligeoce aciion agains2 the City. Snvder v. Ciri of Minneapolis.
441 N.W.2d 787 {Ivlinn. Sup. Ct. 1989). McCarty diligently engaged a qualified design team,
went through the required approvals processes, securad the necessary permits and is continuing
to incur ongoing damages as a result of the delays cseated by this appeal.
CON�LIISiON
Based upon the foregoing we respectfully request the Board of Zoning Appeals sustain the
interpretation of the St. Paul Zoning Administrator.
Sincereiy,
LEQNARD, STREET Ai�iD DEINP.RD
Professional Association
Timothy J. Keane
T7K:vr.
cc: Peeer Warner. �ssisTant Citv Sttor�ev
� John Hazdwick, C?ffice of LiEP
��
'_'_t555ev�
�
� _,.: . . . , � � � _,. ° . _ r.<_.. . . .� ;� � . : �.: ���_ _. _ �� � . _ � :�
' — ��c4 w....a � ..___-
wick - 4HX �U1141?_CQC�� �_ _. _ _ , . -__ �._ . ��r_ac i
Si. Pau1 �oard oi Zoning Appeats
Auwsi l;, 2D04
Pa�s 4
Peyw' �IcCarty Grubbs
Step$en K. I�IcCarty
_;'G`O:�Vi
�_ � �
�. ._"
�
�
i
fi
�
f
(�' .
f�
�5-15 �'
�
r1
LJ
John �ard,v�ick - 95 Lan�vrrl Pr�ject
�rom: "Romanik, Pautette T" <PTRomaniis�CBBtiRVET.COIji>
To: Uohn.Hardwick@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
I3ate: 8116l20Q4 12_30 PM
Subject: 95 Langford Proje�t
Mr. 7ohn Hardw
Caty Zoning Specialist
LIEP Office
350 St. Peter Street Suite 300
St Paul, MN 55102
Re: 95 Langford Park
Over the last year I have been warking with the Langford development team on this project. We have
closely considered the impact of this project on the park and neighborhood. We have not been able to
identify any negative impact that this project would'naz�e an the community.
The benefits however have been exTremely positive; estens3ve quality renovation to interior and
eYterior to improve the aesthetics of the building, corner and park. Owner occupied homes versus
rentals, ancreased off street parking, the opporCunity for peoplz to stay in the community without the
maintenance of a large home. Increased o�nership and pride of the cammunity, increased property
values, and increased taY base for the community.
I have been contacted by several indzviduals that have a high interest in ouming one of these homes.
There has been a lot of posiiive excitement around this project by people who atready live in the azea.
This delay in the completion has put the developer into a different market cycle and may impact this
project significantly.
It is unfortunate that this pxo}ect has been stalled by one home owner. It seems ironic that after he has
completed his extensive remodeling project, he would have issues with tius projecY. I da understand
that his father in-law was one of tke arciutects that ori�inally worked on the conception of tYris project.
I would hQpe that you xealize the strain that this delaylopposition has put on these neighbors. It has
created stress emotionally as well as financially.
I urge you to resolve this issue swiftly for both parties benefits.
Sincerely,
• Paula Langeslay Romanik
Paula LangesIap Romanik
Coidwel_l Banker Burnet
=00 tiillaQe Centzr 1�3rive
� ��
nIe://C�;DecaLnz�ts°/n20ard%2�SeTtineslhardEVici+LOCai°/Q20SettinsstTema\GCi Ritfi12044
. . _ . � � ,. . --
.
_ k � � `c � � r- 3�v �-_. . _ . � _ _ _._ r. . _ k _ - . .. _ _ _ . _ , . . � ...<
�
„s, _
���� � �
� �� �
August I6, 2004
Jflhn Hardwick
City of St Paul
R�: 95 Langiord Park
John.
I understand vou have received many emails concerning the project at 45 Langford
Park. I do not tivish to add to that pile but I wanted to include some of my observations as
the oeneraI contractor for framing and roofing at the 3r floor remodel.
y The 3` floor remodel of rhis buiIdin,� was originally a finished floor with 8'-12'
�,�aulted ceilings, finished plaster walls and ceilings, one large main room with four
smailer rooms/bedrooms, includin� twelve windows and radiator heat.
In order for the 3'� floor to be renovated as a useable unit_ it needed a new front
stair accass, which was accomplished by e:ciendin� Yhe stairwell for the 2" floor to the 3T
floor at the front and reusing the existing rear staiswelI. Both stairweIls did not have
ample headroom to enter ihe 3�a floor because of the existing Qambrel style roofline.
To add headroom at both stair access areas a new dormer was built. IY was
en�ineerad structura2ly saund and to code. We needed to bear the load of ihis new
dormer on the four corners of the existing building located at the width of the reaz
porches (32' by �}2'). Additional spaced to the 3`� floor was added only at the north and
south sides of the rear stairs, this amounted to an 8' by IO' area on each side, 1 SO-sq. ft.
total was added to the 3rd floor.
The 3=� floor dorme: was constructed as conformin� as possible to the origina]
design on the building, it ties i�sto the existing roof line as low as possible (4fI2 pitch) and
once all shingling, siding, win�ows, and fmislung touches are completed, I am co�denT
iY wi11 enhance the usefulness and look of this great old building.
Sinaerely,
3eff Lin�hl
� � .
l�
•
.
�
- � � t
. . 3 � v i v�Ei �"
f�llQ71SL �f) Gaat}
To whom it may concem,
p5' % S�
() r� ; �^ ' '�'�f
� h
X l
I have lived aT 2231 Knapp Streei s:nce i 976. At That time there were five, not six,
apartsnent units in the apartment building at 95 and 97 Langford Park. Two units were on
each of the first and second floors af the building and ane unat an the south comet on the
street level of the building.
Sometime, before 7oleen Rudin bought the building, a si�h apartment was added at the
street levei. Although we were not notified about this, city records and files shauid be
able to identify when ihis occurted.
TVhile I support the remodeling of the building fron apartment units ta candominium
units it appears the roof design has changed from what we nei�hbors originally approved.
We understood the roof design would remain as it was aiiginally built. What has been
added is a sienificant dormer that does not reflect the original architecture ofthe building.
_ "
Sine el�; ��- �
J��i '� ,F�' �" �,
t���gnus n i � f �'�"��' `�
3
�1
i
?��4-'e-2� G4 t;CF1 (?2��� Pi1 3(I��iE� :trAi�Y =A� i�?0, o5tB4tEz'�? �!:
��J—�5� , ,
���- ���::�,�; .
�
;�_,. Ib�r�, r���
t;i; `_.,:;.n� S�cr,ial:sE
;.�� ;�,t i c.ei� �€rL�?
17c;ic rvtr. I
1�;n� u��� ii€it� !o ssi��ur[ :he n��Y cnncio �ro}ect rcnovatio�t at �5 Lan�forc�. I iive in s�earby
1'<�1c,m `�FJoo.lx, ju�t north o(thc Si Paul Campus, a�id il��r is a real shottage of qeaiity
a!?sich��1 ti�u�ii�g in Si. Andlo�,y p.,rk a�id �al�on Nei��ts.
i�(y uric+;;rst:ii«line is tl}at additionai parl�in� wiil be gart of Ute prnject, and as one Zu3,4
t; �<«ws ii�o ��arici�i� challcn�cs Near thc li of iv1, that u�i:l be a taonus for thc cu[ire
r«i �liljurhoi�cl. � taving ih� stability of homcowners, instescl af a constant tuniovez of
r�,tlefs `�=!1 a1,o nicari a positivc autcamc Cor thc I,an6Coxd Pa� arca
i 4;�-�t} s for Y�ur t;onsideration,
`�h.\�"• �c' l \�� �
�iin��'1�C}'
;',4�iJ f �YlPUCii .�Vc^,
[',f�l(itl ��G`( ���
�5��.1
(i:'i � ti=} � �)�)�'�S.
•
���
•
`'.'�;:S:L'a��: 1 _4:�_ , . �.,14�:a='�JG
3
<
�. �r.
`� � f _ `>aL _�
A,� ,st i �, 2d04
�'in RCv�E.: C � .. L� � I ��
To �finm 3Y 14fay Concern:
it is my preference that the PraPeztP a� 9� ��°1d Pazk �e ow�aer occupzed.
It is unpoztant to liave in��tY in the £acs of this Idnd of dispute-
•
The owner approached the czty wi.th their ideas and city �anted the necrssary pexmits-
As a tax payei I wauld hate to have to pag for this land of dispute_ It appears t.o me tbaF
this couid apen all developments�'renavatisrns ia ihe fi�aucial and emotional strain of
beuag s$ut down aftea the oiLY has given it's approvals.
It is my belaef tl�at tumin? this rental bui�dxng into owner occupied homes is �ood fc3r ihe
entire neighbo;hoad, as well tt svould meet the �owing r.eeds of th3s eommvnity- Tnis is
the ideal oaado location for au area resident wbo no longer want to maixztain a large hosne
but wishes to stay iz� this neighbarhood_
5inc�rely,
e Ed
�
�� �
t
O S-i S�
� -iL
�� ��'� �� ���1� �!'��� �ea€�� �a� ����a�: os-zs-�� �
��?A� ��' Z�3�� A��'� �S ����::�1�'I��i
�€�NZ"�� ��� l�T€TiV��Ig: #fl4-1�0452
13�TT'E: r�agust 3�, 20fl4
W4iEREAS, Tam Holman has appealed a decisian by ;ke Zoning Administrator regarding tke
provisions of Section 61.701(a); 52.106(d); 66.231{a)(b) oi the Saint Paui Leastative Code
pertaining to the height and nonconforming starizs of a building in the R3'-2 zaning district at 95
Langford Par'�; and
WI3EREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Apneals canducted a public hearing on August 30,
2004 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requiremenTs of Seation 64.243 of the
Lagislative Code; and
`vVHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the
public hearing, as substaatia2ly reflected in the minutes, made the following findin�s af fact:
The apariment bui3ding at 45 - 97 Langford Park was buiIt in 19I4 and has a current
Certificate of Occupancy for 6(six) dwelling units. The Certificata of Occupancy also •
cerfiifies zoning campliance. The use of 2he building is nonconfonning because o£the
number of d�velling units; four units are permitted in an RT-2 zoning districY. The structure
itself is aiso nonconfomvng in that it does not meet the current setback requirements,
although a variance was �anted ior the rear setback as well as lot coverage for the new
gazages that aze being constructed. $oth the use and the structuxe aze legally nonconforming.
The property owner is in tYie middle of remodeling the building with the intent of converting
the apartrnent units into condominium units, The room arrangement within the building will
be changed but the number of dwelling uniis will remain The same. The project also includes
zeplacing The ex:stin� dormers an the upper floor with a new dormer.
2. The appellant is basing �is appeal on two points. First he a2leges that by replacin� two af the
existing dormers by a single lar�er dormer, the buildiug exceeds the number af stories
allowed in an RT-2 zoning district.
The hei�tzt of a bnilding is measuretl fram The midpoint between the peak and eave down to
the avera�e grade around the building. With ;l�ie new dor,ners, the height of the building will
be increasad by 3 feet. Staff does noi consider this as adding another story to the building.
There has always been living space on all four levels of the building and this has not changed.
What the appellant refers to as the "attic" was in fact finished living space. The qnesfion oi
the lower level being considered a basement or a story makes no difference since the number
of stories has not changed.
a�oe _ �{ :
t 't •
��
C� -l5 �
F�ie �oa-izc�sz
• Resoiution
�
�,�� r �� �
3. In the second part oi uis appeal, the ap�e3�ant alleJes that there � e iao many dwe:lin� units in
�he buiidina and ihat the number of rooms exceeds that alIowed �y code.
As state3 earlier, this buiidin� has a Certificate of Occupancy for sis dwe?ling units and Chis
also certifies zoning compliance. The Zoning code does not differentiate hetween agartment
units or condominium units. I'he appellant further states that one of the apartment units was
unoccupied ior a period oftime. Periodic vacancy is to be expected with any auartment
buildin�. For zoning purgoses, a residentiai vacancy does not constitute a discontinuance of
a residential use and only the physical removal of the dwelling unit would result in loss of
nonconforming status.
The cunent 2oning code reguiates the density of residentially zoned property on the basis of
misaimum lot size pez dwelling unit versus the previous way of regulating throu�h lot size per
zoning rooms. Therefore, the room count within the building may change as long as the
number of dwelling units doesn't increase.
4. In the final part of hfs appeal, The appellant mentions building setbacks and a pattern of
problems with the project.
• The oniy change Yo the setbacks af the building are those involved wiTh the co:�struction of
the gara�e which were covered by the variances �anted for That portion af the project. There
have been some probiems with one of the contractors involved with this project, but those
problems aze being addressed by the district building mspector and have no bearing on this
zoning appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the
Zoning Administrator did not err in determining that both the use and the structure located at 95
Langford Park; and legally described as St. Anthony Park, iblinnesota Nely 2 Ft Of Lot i o and
All Of Lot 9 Bllc 38; are Iegaiiy nonconforming pursuant to Sections 61.741(a); 62.106{d);
66.231(a}{h}, and may be used as siY dwelling units.
BE IT F`TJRTIiER RES�LVEI�: that the appeal is denierL
1l'��VE� �Y:
S�CONi)�D B�';
IN �AVC31t:
! AGALNS�':
�a��.��: A��u�� si, �o��
��
f
Pz�z z �: =
�! �
r1e �,`(3E'.-i2v^t?o2
Resolution
_�c?��'
�
1'iI�ZE i.�i IIT: i`io decasion of the zoning nr gTauning administraLor, planning coguanissi6n, .
hoard af zoninb appeals or city eauncil approvins a sife pIan, psrmit,, .
variaaee, or athsr aoning approva2 sha31 #e ca]id for a periad lonaer t�ian tsFa
(2} vears, antess a buiIding permit is obiained witLin satcit gerzod agd#he
erection or atteration of a buiIcling is proceeding nnder tlie terms nfthz
decision, or the use is established �vithin sneh period bp aetuad operatioa
pnrsuant to the a�tplicab3e conditions and reqnirements of the approval,
ualess the zoning ar pianuing admiuistrator grants an ex#ension not to esceed
one {1) year.
AI'PEA L: Decisions of the Board of Zonfing Agpeals are frnal subject to appeal fo #he
City £'ouncil within ?0 days by anyone a#'fected by tl�e decisfion. Bniiding
permits shall not be issued af#er an apgaal has been #"�ted. Zf germits Lave_
been issued before an appeal has been �Ied, iLen the permits are susQeuded
and cansfruciion shali cease until the City Cauncil has made a£mai
deterauinafion of the appeal.
C�R7'I�CAT3L)N: I, tlie nndersigned Secre#ary io Yhe Board of Zoning Appeals far the �ity of
Saint Paul, l�iannesota, do hereby certify that I have campared ti�e foregoing
capy with the originai record in my office; and find the same #o be a true and
correct copy of said orivinai and af the whole thereof, as based on approved
minutes of the Saint Yaul Board af Zaning Appeals meeting held on August
30, 2004 and un record in the Office of License Tnspection and
Envirnnanenta] Protsrtion, 350 St. Peter Street, Sa#nt Paul, Minnesota.
SA3NT PAiJL �OARD �F �ONTNG APPEALS
I3ebbfe Crippeu
Secretary to Yhe Boarsi
Pa_ae? o; 3
•
�
�k �
{
p5-/ 5 �'
• MINt7TES OF TI� MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
CITY COUNCIL CI3AlYIBERS, 330 CITY HALL
ST. PAUL, MII3NESOTA, AUGUST 16, 2004
PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Faricy, Galles, and Wilson of the Board of
Zoning Appeals; Mr, Warner, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of
the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protecrion.
ABSENT: Vincent Courtney*
*Excused
The ineeting was chaired by 7oyce Maddox, Chair.
Tom Ho3man (#04-1204821 95-97 Langford Yark: An appeal of a decision by the Zoning
Administrator regarding the height of the building at 95-97 Langford Park.
Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for denial
of the appeal.
Eight letters were received supporting the appeal and opposed to the project. Two letters were also
received opposing the appeal request.
No, cbrrespondence was received from District 12 regarding the variance request.
• N�r. T3aidwick read the pertinent language from the Minnesota State Statutes. The is a change to
4�2,357. Subsection 1(e} any nonconfornrity including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises
eXisfirig at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter may be continued
incla3ing through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement but not including
expansion. This was signed by the Governor on May 24, 2Q04. This state statute change has a dramatic
effect on City Zoning Ordinances. It will have to be address eventually but it does apply in this case.
Ms. Maddox stated that because of the large crowd in the room that testimony would be limited to 10
minutes. Instructing the audience not to repeat what someone before them already said.
The applicant TOM HOLMAN, 85 Langford Park, was present. Mr. Holman questioned whether that
applied to the appellant as well. Ms. Maddox replied yes. Mr. Holman submitted handouts to the Board.
Mr. Holman stated that he is appealing the decision made by the Zoning Administrator. Noting that he
has the support of twelve of his neighbors. Mr. Holman argued that the application states that the project
is in the middle of construction, however, the appeal was filed within five days of the first roof huss
being installed. He would have filed sooner. However, it took him several days to reach the Zoning
Administrator and to gain a sufficient knowledge of the Zoning Code to realize that there was a
difference of opinion between himself and the Zoning Administrator. Nofing that the amount of work
that has been done was completed in five days.
Mr. Holman azgued that the concepi that the existing dormers aze being replaced wit}i a larger dormer is
false. A dormer is not defined in the City Code, but the web defines it as a structure with a window fhat
projects out of a sloping roof. This new struchue resides completely above the old roof line and goes
• from the front to baok of the building, It actually adds &,000 cubic feet to the content of the
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
�' {
05-�5 �
File #04-120482
Minutes August 16, 2004
Page Two
n
U
building tfiat was not there before, it is not a dormer. Mr. Holman alleges that five to suc new zoning
code violations are being added to the buiTding with this addition. On the subject that there has always
beerz tiving space on the fourth 1eve2. He eontends that this is not true. Noting that tfiey have Ietters fram
residents who lived in the building from 1458. Mr. Jack Sluck is in attendance and has submitted a Ietter.
He also has a statement from the District Land Use Committee Meeting from Cazoline Collins, who atso
lived in the building. All Yhese previous residents stated that Yhe center section of the attic was
unfurished, there were little storage rooms on either side. Thete was no legal fire exit from the fourth
floor so it was not occupy-able. Code requires two exits from the floor with seven feet of head room. It
was necessary to duck to get up the one small stairway. It was not an occupied unit and it was aot
finished, The appellents believe that it was as zoning code defines, an attic. As for the certificate of
occupancy certifying zoning compliance, secrion 33.05 of the code says it is the other way azound, the
zoning compliance is established and then a certificate of occupancy is given. The Zoning Administrator
is to consult building records, city directories, things like that to make sure there is occupancy. The
records only go back to 1997. Mr. Holman stated that he has records from the cily directories showing
that just prior to that it was not occupied for long periods of time. For zoning purposes the residenfiat
vacancy does not constitute a discontinuance of residential use. Actually section 62.106(g) states that a
non-confonvance use is tost if discontinued for a year. The same statute that Mr. Hardwick read
previously goes on to say that "any nonconformity including occupation of premises may be confinued
unless occupancy is discontinued for period of more that a year." The statute ciarifies the code and it •
was not changed, it has always been in effect.
Mr. Holman directed the Boazd to the handout he provided, the chart called "Polk" shows that from 1991
to 1994 five-total apartments are listed three of them as occupied and two of them with the word vacant
in the directory. Poinring out that if it is unoccupied for more than a year, the use is losY. This is four
years in a row that says vacant. The directory for 1993 was not published, but after that it shows the
apartments filled. Startiiig in 1997 that is when he believes the sixth apartment unit was added.
Mr. HoIman refezred to the model of the building, pointing to the geen line drawn on the model. He
stated that this line shows the grade of the praperiy azound the building. According to the code a
basement is more than halfway under ground and a substructure. This basement is 60% above ground
and it is a stand-alone apartment today and it will be a stand-alone condominium. It is a completed
structure, therefore, it is a story.
Mr. Holman explained that the property owners removed the dormer roof and replaced it with this new
dormer. Demonstrating with the model. It is forry-one feet by thirry-two {eet. Mr. Ho1man then
produced a made] to scale of the Tooker's house, pointing out that the addition is tazger tban many
homes in the azea including the Tooker's. MosY of the homes in the azea are 20-25 feet across. This new
addition is much larger than many houses that already exist. This addition sets atop the bailding and
goes from the front to the back. It adds 1,800 sguare feet of living space to ttze b�ilc3ing that was not
living space before. Mr. Holman argued that they aze also increasing the foot prinf by adding tke
vestibule To the back of tha building although it is small it does add to the foot print which is not
allowed. Mr. Holman contended tfiat the plans changed since they were presented to the neighbors, the
district council, and the Boazd. The original pians did not show an addirian to the top of the buiiding. •
AA-ADA-EEO Employer �
! �
OS-/ 5 �
� File #`,04-120482
Minutes August 16, 2004
Page Three
They did show an elevator, however, that idea was abandoned. Mr. Holman stated that when the
neighbors capitulated to allow the garages to be built the neighbors had the impression that the main
building was not going to be altered. 7n fact the variance that was granted by the Board stated that "they
would renovate the interior of the existing building not add to it." The District 12 Council did have a
meering last Thursday on this matter and their statement was "the Saint Anthony Park Community
Codncil approved variances for 95 Langford Park that were not complete and did not accurately reflect
the entire project. The Community CounciPs recommendarion might have been different if the Council
had received complete and accurate information about the project." Mr. Holman contended that after the
applicants at 95 Langford Pazk received approval of the variances for the garages with no change to the
building but there have been changes to the building.
1VIr. Holman pointed out the listing of current zoning code violations at this site. When this project was
started there were five zoning code violations that were "grand-fathered in." The variances gave them
t}iree inore violations to bring the total up to eight. The addition that he and the neighbors are appealing
atided six more violations. The neighbors are Jiving next to a property with fourteen zoning code
violations with the addirion. This is not reasonable to them.
Gt�g Soule, 2915 - 345i Street Devision(?), stated he is an attomey at Bast & Flannigan in MPLS,
• tepresenring Mr. Holman. Mr. Soule stated that he hopes the City Attomey is loolflng at the legal
atia�ysis provided in the handouts, this is a very complicated analysis with a number of ordinances that
they fhink are applicable and legal challenges. Mr. Soule directed the Board to look at the page
containing iegal basis for claams against the pernut under the mandatory requirements. The City's zoning
code is very well structured and very well organized It is very progressive looldng at the many different
ldnds of non-conformities and how they will be addressed. Section 62.104 (b)(� which deals with a non-
conforming use of land. A non-confornung use of land shall not be enlarged to a greater height oz greater
foot print. In this case we have both an added height and the foot print has also been increased by the
vestibule to be placed on the building. There is a code ordinance that deals with nonconforming
shuctures when there is a confornung use. This is not in the materials. He just wanted the Board to be
aware that the code progresses very logically. It starts with non-confornring use of land alone and what
those restrictions are. Then there is an ordinance that deals with non-confomung sh when there is
a conforming use. As Mr. Hardwick stated, here there is both a non-confornung use and structure. 50
this section is not pertinent. The section of the code that is pertinent to this situafion is Section
62.106(In that is defined as a situation where you have a non-conforming use of a sh This is the
circumstance here. There aze three different sub heading in this ordinance any one of which is sufficient
to causa this permit to be illegal.
Mr. Soule stated the first section is subsection (d) which says that a non-conforming use can be extended
throughout any part of the structure that were manifestly arraigned of designed for the use. This original
attic azea as Mr. Hardwick explained was not manifestly arraigned or assigned for use of human
occupancy. These were small storage areas, but there will be additional testimony that nobody ever lived
in these siructures. There were radiators at the two end spots that are ahout 2S0 square feet eaeh. There
was some ceiling area, however, there was no way to obtain legal access to that space. No one could live
•
AA-ADA-EEO Emp]oyer �"'
�`
0 �-1 5 �
File #p4-120482
Minutes August i6, 2004
Page Four
in those spaces and no one ever did. It is clearly an area that was noT manifesUy arraigued or designed
for the use of being occupied as a separate living space. There were no Idtchens, bathroosns, no tegal
access.
.
Mr. Soule continued that the second section of this is subsecrion (e) that says "a non-conforming use
shall not be enlazged unless the planning commission approves a permit for enlazgemenY' and then
references section 62.109. Here the plauning commission has not approved a pernait for enIargement,
this space has been enlarged. Obviously this space has been enlarged. Mr. Souie contended tltat'his
understanding of cvkat Mr. Hardwick says is enlargement, onty happens when the foot print is entarged.
That is happening in a minor way with tfie addition of the vestibule. Mr. Soute stated that he could go
into further analysis of what enlargement means to the average person including himself. Arguing that
enIazgemettt means making the thing bigger, which has happened. The fourth statute is even more
conclusive. Section 62.106(� says explicitly that on a building devoted in whole or in part Yo a non-
conforming use ordinary repair, work on the walls, etc, provided that the cubic content of the building
shall not be increased. Mr. Soule stated that the cubic content of the buitding has been absolutely
increased there is no ambigairy as to the wotds "increase the cubic content of the building" that in fact
has happened here and that is prohibited by the City's ordinance that means that no pemut should ever
have been issued to alIow the construcrion of the fourth floor dormer addirion that greatly increases the
cubic content of that building. •
Mr. Soule stated that there aze two points on the Minnesota Statute that Mr. Hardwick referenced. First
the effecrive date was not 2enri1 August 1, 2Q04. This pemut was issued before that statute was in ef£ecE,
therefore, that statute does not beaz on the legaliry of the pemut. If the statute had been helpful to this
pernut it would not be helpfuI because this was before the effective date. Mr. Soule stated that he
believes from what he heard at the Dishict Council meeting that Mr. Hazdwick indicated that
enlargement would mean increasing the foot print. Mr. Soule continued that they have legislative
testimony, including one of the legislators, who is in attendance today, will explain that flte exception for
enlazgement. That is a prohibirion of enlargement, which is included in this staEute inc2udes any kind of
enlargement, Including enlarging the squaze footage, the cubic area. The interpretation of that statute
does not allow the pernut but is additional evidence why the permit could noY be ganted. Mt.' Soule
stated thaf these azguments that have just been described to the Board were not laid out in the original
application materials that Mr. Hohnan £led. We became awaze of these arguments after further study of
the zoning code. Although they are not in the paperwork submitted by Mr. Holman, they were laid out in
the conespondence submitted by Representative Housman dated July 28 or 29 which is included in the
packet and does lay out all these ordinauces and a1t of this analysis.
Mr. Sou1e stated that the other two legal azguments that they aze raising deal with things that were
addressed by Mr. Hardwick. First going from three to four stories. They clann thatthis is and was a
three story building. The basement and two stories. He does not think that Mr. Hardwick disagree@ with
Yhem that the basement is a story. However, Mr. Hardwick claims tl�at tl�e attic was a story. Mr. Soute
stated that we claim that the atfic was not a story that there were two 250 square foot secfions of the attic
that had floors and some fmished walls. But the massive section in the middle which was about I,300
square feet was comptetely cmfinished like any other attic. Baze rafters, no flooring, no walls and most ,
AA-ADA-EEO Employer ��
( 1
�
�S-�5�'
� File #04-120482
Minutes August 16, 2004
Page Five
significantly these spaces were never capable, legally, of human occupancy because of the absence of
legal fire access to them. This whole space was truly an attic not a story and the construction and
conversion of this to a living space is an addirion of a fourth story based on what was there before and
what is being added now,
Mr. Soule stated that the final argument is the issue of how many legal units are allowed to be here. Mr.
Soule noted that he had just advising a client in Minneapolis in a very similar situation to this. They had
five units in a building, where only four units were allowed, they were told that they must now prove that
all five of the units were occupied during this enrire time period. They requested to see the Polk's
Directory, rent rolls, if at any time one of the units were unoccupied for the period of a year, they lost
their "grand-fathered" legal nonconfornury. Saint PauPs ordinance specifically deals with that, secrion
62,106(g) which is again a more rigorous statute a nonconfornung structure says "when a nonconforming
use is discontinued or ceases to exist for a contentious period of 365 days the building and/or land
coinbination so after shall be used in conformance with the regulations."
IvIr. Holman stated that there is another secrion o£ the code that says that on a lot of less than 9,000
squ�re'feet, only one unit is allowed. This lot is less than 9,000. So anything more than one unit is non-
coriforming. The claim that the three units are legally non-conforming.
• Mr,, Saule stated that the McCariy's have significant tesrimony that this building was occupied for
sigiificant periods of fime, prior to the best records staff has which only go back to 1997, for a certificate
of occupancy. Just prior to that for periods of more than a year it was only occupied by three people.
Oniy three units were occupied for more than a year. Mr. Soule argued that Mr. Hardwick stated that
there is a certificate of occupancy so everything is fine. The appellants claim that the situation is just the
reverse. If there is a certificate of occupancy that was issued without substantiation/proof than that
certificate is invalid, and the zoning is what controls it not the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, that
may have been issued in error. In conclusion since it is a nonconforming use and shucture. The sections
of the code that he has been siting most of the provisions from 62.106 and the many subsections of that
would prohibit this, this building cannot be expanded as has been proposed with this and the vestibule.
Secondly the construction on the attic is actually the addition of another floor, this was never a story. It
is the addirion of a fourth story and only three stories are pernutted in this zoning district. Thirdly only
three living units are pernutted in this structure because it is a nonconformity, and the noncanformity is
lost if occupancy has not been maintained for one year or longer. Finally he suggested that the proposed ,
resolution before the Board contains significant errors of fact and law and would not be a legitimate basi•;
for the Board to pass or denying the pefition that Mr. Holman has suggested because it contains
significant errors.
Mr. HoIman stated that we aze asking that the pernut be revoked for the main buiiding addition. That the
developers be required to restore the roof line to its preexisting condition and that future permits do nat
allow the cubic content to be increased. T4iey believe that the foot print should not be allowed to be
increased, the vestibuie should not be allowed to be built. Mr. Holman stated that they believe that the
building shouid be limited to three legally non-conforming units. Because of the process failures throngh
• the history of this project and according to section 61.202 of the code, the entire site plan should be
AA-ADA-BEO Emp3oyer
'�
l.' �
U5 � 8
File #04-T20482
Minutes August I6, 2004
Page Six
reviewed. This review should include all final designs of all the buildings on the site including variances
that were previously granted. Because this is a matter of such broad community interest in the site pian
review should be in a public form conducted by the Planning Commission and not delegated to the
zoning administrator as it was in the past.
Ms. Maddox questioned whether any of the Board members had questions. Ms. Maddox e�lained to tha
applicants that they will be allowed to refute anytivng from the opposition.
Jack Slack, 3515 Spain Place NE, MPLS, stated that he was a tesident of 97 Langford Park from June 1,
1955, until June 1, 1977. He azgued that Mr. Holman and Mr. Soule had exptained the situarion exactly.
There were no living quatters in the aitic that is where he stored his army eqaipment &om World War II.
The attic was not used as living quarters at anytime during the twenty-two years he resided in the
building. Mr. Slack contended that the building is being desecrated in the way it is being expanded
today. With the attempt to expand living quarters where no living quarters existed previousIy. He
contended that he does not think that there were ever more than four people residing in the building and
one of them was the owner of the property af the rime. Mr. Slack stated his disgust that the building was
being expanded to a building fhat in his opinion shouId have continued as it was previously.
•
Scott Larson, Z231 Knapp Street, stated he lives across the slreet from the apartment building. The •
zoning code says that the non-confornung status must eacist entirely within an exisring structure which is
being changed with the addirion of the fourth floor. T1vs is why they filed tkris appeal. In section
62.109(6) the use shall not be detrimental to the existing character of development in the immediate
neighborhood. Mr. Lazson stated that this project is deh by adding a fourth floor.
Alice Houseman, 1447 Chelmsford Street, stated she lives in the neighborhood but is attending this
hearing, as a state legislator. She wants to speak to legislative intent because the law passed this session
was referenced. These issues may be controversia] but if citizens view them as fair an@ accurate
interruptions of the law, she thinks acceptance comes easier. This is her inotivarion in attending the
hearing on this construcfion project This new state law was invoked as an explanation for the zoning
decision. Ms. Houseman stated she would make two points. She consulted with the League of Cities,
their staff and legal counsel and also the house research people who tracked this. Ms. Housaman stafed
that this may have been signed on May 29�' but it became effective on August 1. She checked with both
t}�e League of Minnesota Ciries and house researeh and questioned whether there was any retroactivity
bailt inYo the law and they did not believe there was.
Ms. Houseman stated that there was a lot of coniroversy about this so tfiere was a lot of discussion about
it. The house research people went back and Iistened to the tape. Ms. Housennan briefly sumularized
that the League of Minnesota Cities went back and looked at their notes both the staff and legal counset
beiieve the phrase "but not including expansion" means not only foot print but expansion up. T'he tapes
of represen#ative Abrams on February 17, from the Iocal govemment committee. This was the first bill in
the agenda_ It was about a one hour discussion. Tha entire first side of the tape and the beginning of tfie
second fape is where Representative Abrams, the author of the bill, says in vcry cleaz language when
presses. No expansion means no expansion. Ms. Housman stated tius is the legislative intent of the bill. •
AA-ADA-SEO Employec ��
� �
Csj-/ S�
� File #04-120482
Minutes August 16, 2004
Page Seven
Barry Reisch, 2251 Knapp Street, (beguming missed on tape) the reason the neighbors do not want siz
units built there is that the buiidings fill the property, so where aze the residents going to put their
outdoor furniture, trash, bicycles. There will probably be two cazs per unit so there will be tweive cars,
although six of them will be off the street, six will be on the street. If any of the residents have a boat, a
motorcycle, a snowmobile, an ATV, that will go in the garage and than they will have two cars per unit
on the street. This property will become a problem that will spill over into the neighborhood, he objects
to that. Mr. Reisch also objects to expanding a non-confornring structure. What they are doing to that
property will infringe on the neighbors it is going to block light and air to the neighboring structures
because it is so massive. Mr. Holman's model gives some sense of that.
Ray Keller, 2252 Knapp 5treet, stated he is just across the alley from this property and he supports Mr.
Holman's appeal.
Alice IVIagnison, 2231 Knapp Street, stated she has lived in Saint Anthony Pazk all of her life. As a child
she h�d her first pork fried rice dinner at the lower number five unit of 95-97 Langford Street, there was
d'efinitely only one aparhnent unit in the basement in the mid 1950s. Ms. Magnison read her statement
"'�'o wHom it may concern, I have lived at 2231 Knapp Street since 1976, at that time there were five not
six �partment units at 95-97 Langford Park. Two units were on each of the first and second floors of the
• biir'13ing and there was one unit in Yhe south corner on the street level of the building. Some time before
Jbl�en Broodeen(?) bought the building a sixth aparhnent was added at the street level, although, we
were not notified of this change. City records and files should be able to identify when that occurred.
While she supports the remodeling of the building from aparhnent units to condominium units it appears
that the roof design was changed from what, we neighbors originally approved. We had understood that
the roof would remain as it was. What has been added is a significant dormer that does not reflect the
original architecture of the building." Ms. Magnison submitted her statement to the Board.
Kim Holman, 85 Langford Park, stated she supports the appeal. This is on a park and it is very
unattractive. There is a school at one end of the puk and a recreafion center at the other end. It is just a
huge building and there are many chfldren around.
Martin Wolf, 1280 Keston, stated he does not live close to the building, however, he does live in the
neig�borhood. Mr. Wolf stated that their neighborhood is conflicted, there was a big fight to get a
playground put in. Things are changing, however, he supports Mr. Holman's appeal. He feels that with
the school so close this is crossing a threshold with the number of units in this small space.
Kristen Weirsma, 2285 Gordon Avenue, stated she lives up the hill and around the corner. Although she
is very excited about the renovafion making them into condominiums, there aze no other aparhnent
buildings in the uea that haue such stature and such lazge numbers of peaple. The area is mainly single-
family homes, which is one of the reasons she has chosen to liue in the area. Ms. Weirsma stated that the
apartment building is needed in the mix of the neighborhood and she supports them.
There was opposition present at the hearing.
•
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
��-��
oS-15�
File #04-120482
Minutes August 16, 2004
Page Eight
•
Tim Keane, 150 Fifrh Street S. Mpls, stated he is representing Peggy McCarty Grubbs and the owner of
the property. Ms. Gruggs, 1670 Suburban Street. Mr. Keane stated also with us is Jeff Lindall the
general contractor on the project Mr. Keane azgued that staff was correct there are six dwelling units,
siz certificates of occupancy and the discussion of the loss of unconfornuty is an iznnecessary dish�acrion
to this Boazds considerafion. IvlcCariy acquired the property in 1997 as indicated 'm the record there
were six certificates of accupancy at that rime. Last year the applicant met rvith City Staff, and the
neighborhood assoczarion to discuss the conversion of this apariment buitding into condominiums, they
went through the variance process. There has been suggestion that there kas been great slight of hand
and intentional miss communication by the applicant to deceive the neighborhood, nothing could be
further fcom the truth. Mr. Keane stated that Ms. Gruggs wilt assist in clarify the time line and some of
the desigu quesrions. The code is very cleaz in respect to non-conforming use and nonconfomuty. The
foot print of the building is not being increased, the vestibule that the appellanYs make continued
reference to has always been an entry way. Nothing has changed, the foot print is not enlarged from its
original, the contractor can speak to fhat if fiuther clarification is necessary. Mr. Keane stated that these
decisions are not a referendum of popuIarity of land use. There are lots of nuances and subtleties to non
confomuties and the use of a building that clearly was built in another era, its 90 yeazs old this year. It
has cleaa falIen into a severe state of disrepair over the last generafions. The McCarty's aze putting up
wazds of a million dotlars into this rastorafion. There is a nonconfornrity as regards to the structure and
that is a side yard setback as referenced by NIr. Hardwick, that nonconformity is not changing or being •
intensified. The nonconfornvty than relates to use, we have a certificate of occupancy for six dwelling
units and at the end of the day there will be six dwelling units occupied. The other issue brought up by
the appailants is the roof ]ine and the increasing of the height of the roof line and the expansion of the
dormer. 'I'he dormer did not create a new story the third story has been there since the building was
constructed in 1814. The addition of the expanded dormer and iYs elevation does aot change tke third
story status. As to the occupancy the six certificates of occupancy should be proof enouglt of how many
units that the City recognizes that building can occupy. Testimony of previous residents should not
overcome the fact that the City has determined that building can have six uaits.
Peggy McCarry Crrubbs, stated Yhat it was never their intent to end up here. Ms. Grubbs stated that the
building did not just appear here on this site. It was built in 1914 and has been part of the neighborhood
and community since that time. Ms. Grubbs read a statement from a letter submitted from the
Wiersma's. She argued that the building has been in its present location longer than some of the existing
houses. There are homes of all shapes and ldnds in the area with aIl ldnds of additions and cfianges to
Yhem. This is not a Historic Dzshict and is not governed by anq unique design requirements. When they
began this project last December, they called the Holman's naxt door to reach out Yo them and to discuss
the project wzth them. She asked specifically who had designed their garage because they wanted to do a
similar design with above and beIow grade garages. At that time she was given the number of Mr.
Hotman's father Dan Larson, an architect, who is here today. Dan told her he was willing to design the
garages and elevator but was unable to do any of the work on the building itself because it was just too,
tizne consuaiing. Ms. Grubbs stated she hzs another azclutect Michael English, who is her former
brother-in-law. She met with Michael and Dan at the buiiding and they discussed the reconfiguration of
the building at that rime as well as discussed how the elevator would be a welcome addition for the older •
residents and that maximizing the space on the third floor with the dormer was always part of ti�e plan.
AA-ADA-E$O Emplayu �
� �' ,
c�
• File #04-120482
Minutes August 16, 2004
Page Nine
Ms. Grubbs stated that the plans that were shown to the Council in February were drawn by Tom
Holman's father Dan Lazson, because he was only deaiing with the garages, he only showed the outline
of the building without the e�sting dormers. The Ciry of Saint Paul while reviewing the plans required
an engineering report for the proposed dormer. This report demu�ded changes to the original plan for
structural reasons and after obtaining a building pemut they begin construcrion according to the building
plan. No one in the neighborhood approached them to review the plans, nor were any concerns brought
to their attention. On 7uly 16, they were blind sided by the City's stop work order. Ms. Grubbs stated
that they are investing nearly one million dollars in the building and certainly hope it looks good when
they aze finished. Once completed the properiy will be an asset to the neighborhood, off-street pazlang
�vill be provided for the residents and it will be attractively landscaped. Ms. Crrubbs requested that the
Board uphold the previous approval of the variances. She offered to submit copies of the originai site
plan approved by the City. Ms. Crrubbs stated that the she has a dated plan of the property showing the
u'sable space on the third floor and the vestibule. Ms. Crrubbs submitted photos of the third floor space as
i�tiVas �vhen the project was started pointing out things that hint at the grevious uses of the space. She
has been quoted in the September issue of Midwest Aome & Gazden, the magazine article discussed, how
bne goes about finding out clues from old buildings, what they were used for, how,they were built.
Noting that there were four finished bedrooms complete with closets, dormers, finished space, and heat.
The space in the middle was expanded by adding a stairwell up the front, there was a stairwell in the
. baclt, kowever, anyone over 6'4" would have to duck to use it. Ms. Grubbs stated she is judging the date
by the woodwork, the handles on the doors, coat racks, it had ceiling lights in the middle of the room and
those tTiings are noT being changed. There were five dormers on the buildang and they never intended the
front to be that big. The shuctural changes were made when worldng with the City, the builders and the
architect� It wound up being that big. They never tried to deceive anyone, all they have been trying to do
is reclaim the property. The building was in major disrepair if it is costing one million dollars to fix.
Mr. Galles questioned who owns the property. Ms. Grubbs replied her brother is the owner.
Mr. Keane requested that the Boazd of Zoning Appeals sustain the findings of the Zoning Administrator
and allow the carpenters to proceed with the project.
Mr. Holman stated that they aze appreciative of the McCartys' fixing up the building. However, they are
opposed to the addirion of new zoning code violations. He pointed out a picture of the back of Yhe
building in February noting that last week he was out to look at the plans and there is now a bump out
enhy way that allows them to come into this new section. But they poured new footings for it that did
not exist beFore. It is not a big deal the new area is only about nine feet by seven feet. This is important
because it makes the new garages attached verses detached. The site plan that is stamped approved on
July 2, says the garages are six feet from the main building, making them detached. However, variances
approved in February said that the garages were detached. Tl�is is a concem. Theze is also a setback
problem with the north side. Mr. Keane argued that a lat of the issues were minimized in the discussion.
Eight thousand cubic feet of additional space in addition to what was there is not just a dormer and a
dormer did not set above the existing roo£ This building now violates setbacks on all four sides.
Remember it is right on a park and the roof is over forry feet high and faces the park.
•
AA-ADA-EEO Employer /
r,
�U J
�
1 .
File #04-120482
Minutes August 16, 2004
Page Ten
Ntr. Holman noted that this building is eighteen feet from his property. They have a wall two feet off
their property and it is forty feet above his back yard. Mr. Aolman commented on Ms. Grubbs statement,
no one approached them about the plans, that was because no one lmew the plans were going to change.
His father-in-law was involved with the proj ect in the beginning, however, he was let go as soon as the
variances were ganted. Mr. Keane argued that Dan Lazson did not meet with Yhe Gnzbbs architects to
discuss the big picture on the plan, because the neighbors would have then absolutely opposed the
variances for the garages ha@ they Imown tke McCarty's were trying to make the building so much iarger.
•
Mr. Sou1e stated that 6Z.I09(d) states that in order to enlazge a nonconfornung use a notarized petirion
must be submitted with signatures of two thirds of the property owners within 100 feet of the property.
Here we have a notarized petifion o£ two thirds of the neighbors against the project. None of the
previous property owners availed this requirement and with the number of the neighbors opposing this
project it would never be approved under the exisfing code. Mr. Holman stated that when this bui3@ing
went from a three-uniY building to a six building unit in the early t990s the ownets did not use this
section of the code to expand the buitding. The code is very ctear that a non-confomung building cannot
be increased by even one cubic foot without this requirement. Mr. Sou1e contended that a peririon is
necessary for the expansion of the use and the structure and the non-conforming use could never have
been reestabIished without the perifion. Mr. Soule stated that even the certificate of occupancy could .
never cover the attic space because of the lack of legal fire e�cits. Therefore, it could not be legally
occupied despite the degree of its being a finished space.
Mr. Soule continued that there is nothing to substantiate the issuance of six living wuts in the building
when code would not pem�it that. Secrion 33.05(cj states that the certifcate of occupancy is issued after
fmal inspecrion by the building official. When it is found that the buiiding complies with the provisions
of the code. We do not tmow how it happened but given our records of occupancy which is the Polk
Directory and the testimony of the neighbors, there is no way that a C of O(certificate oFoccupancy),
could have been issued when for significant periods of time the building did not have six occupants for
periods that exceeded a yeaz. There is not factual basis for the issuance of those C of O's and this says
that a C of O is only issued after a final inspecrion when it is found that the building complies with the
provisions of this code. It even says in 62.01(c) what evidence the zoning inspector is to look at in
znaking these assessments among the things consulted are: building records, city directories, and other
pertinent evidence. The Polk Directory is one of those City directories that shows that it was not
occnpied as six units and we have supplied suuunaries of Ytus, as part of our azgument. Mr. Soule stated
that the faiture to satisfy the zoning code trumps the fact that C of O's were issued erroneously.
Ms. Bogen moved to allow the owner of the building to respond, he is the one that will be affected by
this decision. Mr. Galles seconded the motion.
Ms. Grubbs stated that she wanted to read an e-mail that she had sent to the architect {Dan Larson) about
the gazages on April 19, two months before they received the building pemut. "Dear Dan, sorry ta wait
so long to oorrespond with you. Pve been overwhe2med and have just hired a secretary to keep me on
track. 3'm putting a check in the mail for you today for your work on the garages on Langford. I finally •
AA-ADA-EEO Employer , {
���
dS-i5d'
• File #04-120482
Minutes August 16, 2004
Page Eleven
got approval from the City to buiid two sets of two garages with a six-foot grassy area between the two
siructures. I will forwazd the e-mail to you. I have abandoned the elevator and have put a large dormer
on back of the building that will cover the entire sun porch area. The new plans make it look original to
the building. I think we will have a quality product when we are finished, Work is scheduled to begin
this week. I will need drawings for the garages to build from. At one rime I saw them looldng much like
the originai plan but as double car gazages with a common wall in each as well as a separate door for
eaCh one. I look forward to hearing from you soon." Ms. Grubbs stated that the reason she menfioning
this is that our intenrions were never a secret from the beginning. VJhen we had to do some changes to
the building and the expense of the building became so great, we took off the elevator at that point. Ms.
Gr[ibbs contended that she made her intentions perfectly clear to Dan who lmew what was going on and
fiad been in eontact with everything else they had done on the proj ect. She assumed that Dan would have
kept his son-in-law, Tom Holman, informed. If there had been any quesrions or anyone coming back at
tliat time they would have stepped back and taken another look at the project. Ms. Grubbs stated she
does have other e-mails to and from Mr. Larson as they went back and forth far months on the building
pzoject.
Ivtr: Keane stated that the appeliant is asldng the Board to invalidate the determination going hack to
1997, that there was a certificate of occupancy for six dwelling units. With the suggestion that seven
• yeats ago there was not appropriate substanriation, when does a property owner get some certainty of in
tehns of moving ahead. The applicant did everything by the book. They started with the City, went
ttiroiigli the neighborhood association, extended reviews, went through the variance procedures,
subriutted their plans, went through building and wning got everything stamped and hired a contractor
and tiventy-five days after the contractor had commenced their work the City was served with an appeal.
The properry owner was served with a stop work order. At what point can a properry owner have some
expectation that they are doing everything right and can invest these vast sums of money in a plan that
provides some certainty.
Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Maddox requested Mr. Warner's opinion of the enlargement, they aze not enlarging the base but are
enlarging the square footage. Mr. Warner stated that it would be useful if the appellants would provide
the City with the legislative history that Legislator Houseman tesrified to. If we could get that
information that Legislator Houseman had about what the author of the bill tiad to say about enlargement
that would be very helpful. That would be useful for him to be able Lo give an opinion. It is not clear to
him what e�ctly is being appealed. Mr. Warner stated that he is not sure if the appellants are appealing
the issuance of a buiiding pemut, or the site plan review, or the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
It seems to be all three and if it is, Mr. Wamer is not sure ifBoazd of Zoning Appeals is the proper Board
to deal with the issuance of cartificates of occupancy. Mr. Warner stated he will have to research that
question.
Ms. Bogen questioned what the special limitations would be on some#hing like that. Mr. Warner stated
he is not sure. Certificates of occupancy are issued under Chapter 33 and is usually done by the Fire
• Deparhnent and is not sure how to deal with that.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer �
� �
05-15 �
File #04-120482
Minutes AugusT 16, 2004
Page TweIve
Mr. Wamer stated that he is going fo ask the Board to lay this matter over at some point so he can
research these questions. Unless the appellant wants to speak to him and the owner's representative to
ciarify what they aze appealing. It is clear that they are appealing the site plan process and ualess Mr.
Hardwick knows that under the changes in the zoning code, that the Board of Zoning Appeals now has
the authority to review site plan appeaIs. Mr. Hardwick stated that the site plan approvats srill go to the
Pianning Commission but the Zoning Administrator has the authority to decide whether or not to bring it
to the Plarniing Commission. Previously the Planning Comaussion decided whether or not to hold a
public kearing. In this case either the Planning or the Zonuig Adnunisirator can simply bring if to the
P3azming Commission. They no Ionger have to ask the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing.
The Boazd of Zoning Appeals has no authority to heaz any appeals of site plan approval.
Mr. Wamer stated that he coutd not give any sort of legal opinion today.
Ms. Bogen questioned, if in fact, this statute was not in effect unril Aub st 1, 2004 then it really daes not
apply to this. So why are we taking the City Attomey's time to took at the Iegistativa history when it
reatly does not apply. Whether oz not the Iegislators meant the expansion this way or expansion that way
it was not even in effect, Mr_ Wamer stated it would srill be interesting to get that informarion, even
though he understands about Yhe effective date of the stahzre.
Mr. Wamer stated that there aze enough questions that we could extend the time and he is not sure that
the 15.99 ruling is not necessarily applicable to this type of proceeding. It would depend on how others
would define the term and application related to zoning. Some people may say that it is and others may
say it is not. Given the uncertainty of that if staff can tell us when the 60`� day would be, the $oazd might
be wise fo extend that 60 days after the original application of the appeal has run. 7ust so that we can be
sure that the 120 days as a who]e can be available to the City for the City Council to hear any appeal
from a decision that this BoarB may or may not malce.
Mr. Galles questioned whether the Boazd votes it up or down here today, how does that effect the rime
line? Mr. Wamer stated thaT the City has a total of 120 days Yotal time to deal with zoning applications
and whether or not this type of an appeal is an application relating to zoning, he cannot say definitively.
But the courts are cleaz now, unless the applicant is willing to extend that time. Mr. Warner stated he
really does not think that applies here and is still worlang on sorting out what the appeal is exactlp about.
Ms. Mortoa questioned how long Mr. Warner would need to reseazch this. Mr. Wamer stated he thinks
iwo weeks would be enaugh rime.
Ms. Morton moved to lay the matter over of two weeks and an extension of the 60 days.
Mr. Keane asked for clarification of what they would be doing in the next trvo weeks. Mr. Warner stated
that he would deliver to the Baard of Zoning Appeals an opinion as to all that has been claimed and the
merit of those clauns raised by the appellan#s. Mr. Keane azgued that the appeIlant fited two basis of
appeal and he keeps dumpittg more stuff in the record.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
•
P
,
�� :
� File #04-120482
Minutes August 16, 2004
Page Thirteen
Mr. Warner responded, "ivlr. Keane, the appellant has raised a number of issues and the Board is entitled
to some opinion on the merits of the things that you say he has dumped into the record."
Mr. Faricy seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 4-2(Bogen, Galles).
Submitted by:
John Hardwick
•
�
Approved by:
Gloria Bogen, Secretary
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
C�
�
. 09f2�/2004 07.31 FAX 6i12669099 CI7Y OF ST.PAUL OFCILIEP
��..�a.�
��.�� --� �� G�-
r '" �Cs�' i.i(i`�" !/
� r� �,c. � �u'
rG�� ->�IC�,�� �'��j�Z�r d//Li�
/ � /
���"'�-
a
pjoo2fooz
:�
.�s �o�
�' �
�-�+ ) �'�„�/' ^-/ /
c i•r ,,,. �['" /'°� �'�G�� f�
�i
w� � / ' ,� � ✓L-.
�� J' l�S' l�. G�cl s� <� ;�'tcGt✓ ,�`i�t C` 1 ����
� ` ' ���G �,^ �- CC �1�� �� �C�D
�,�,r' ,� ����'� �c''� `�`� 1 ,� ,�
� � ,��� � ,�
�� � � / j � �:� �vrP l,: .,; �7 ��2J :-�'/t P � �i7ll/l� GI.C-5 "�
� �
��' ��lGy��Z C�-e�•�✓ � _ � � d �
� „.� ��� 7�L7 �� G(l���"�'7�- ` ` • F-��" % `�"�'���
" �% �� ������
�� �.�L � ,�-�����;�- -r�'..� /'
2G�3��'r>G� /,/�1.E?C''T, ����1.fi/�'��°iLld�1.//��r�C�L�
��,f�itili� "� � , ��/ Y ��G/� _ '/ �
� t� �
�l?� � „L.�'1. �t��E�C.y �iffPl�ti �'(`E",G'�c,� .d��
r l'� ^ / �
�, �,,�,- C�,.l �` .�-y�'�- l;�L�G�-�i�?-Lp-Yc,l-' -�-� _ ,
: �'�smL� � /� �
' �l��r. C .� Pl� �� � -� ..Qti. .�'v���-C-u-?� - �
�� .
,� / %
��" .��t�f� °�c,� l�' c �,;-�1���� ` � �C`��
� �/"/ {
�Z' � L�'� !/V! L `. / `"��`^ _/!' �� L�� �lj <- i t.��
�x
,.�'��-� 'e'�r. ,`" � � ? �
�
_ ���� ���ti
�
" • ✓
�'�,.x-�
�°..� �3
� 1;�.�
�•I � y `, � �
•� II ' ' .i� i � ' • �
4 .
�,�, ya � �� �� � ;. w " v ,�
�� w
s ����"�z �� ee �� . . � � � . � @ +5:� \ I
� �s'd� � � � � \ .wf .►\� �
w
� , r �+� �� �
�� , �
r �`� � � � .. .
��� r � � � � �
. ' � � x � ,� .2�' ,
` .� ..��'�"'`,
`�� a �,,
�.. .�° �
� .
.
� . ^�s�„
,� '°��. _ ; ,
� �
y , �` ,,:
e��. ,
_.�,,,,. � `-�
4.
� _.
>.
y �
.,.aa,� i'::�
. < r `-
,' A
' -x*4..: s . _
� �� � . 1 I 1 �
> :s�t.
�.� � /� §n � 3 ` .
*� .�� `e' ,o> 9 m..�q ril���3�' „i
.i
` ; ..i _..,- � Y'' '
� ^.:;.
. . �_ r
� ...�
_. r. � .. � --� � �
.._ t
. . . _ . �`. .. . ; � . :. . .,.-
.
. �.. ..__ . ..
� �- ---
�
! �� ; . . - . � �. .
*s��
n-,�::�t _ .
� . w?�w - - , .. .... ,
�
._ . � � ._-�� _..._.
,_. � ...
_.' .,� � .. . - . �_:�:: / .
�,
,-,'_
� �
� w
� ' � - r $�'" -
_. :
�
_ : ��:;
± �' .
� r At�^• - -
. ..__�.- -`_ �^-'�!�as i� 'j `- . .
. , . ... ... . -. �
- °. . z .; - �. ,. . -. -_ �.-:.� . .
�; i:
« .
� , '+'�+r�, (�rws .�.
4 vD�
y � ��
}� A' � � ..
. � i � ^ 1 � 1� i .
. � F �` �S� j.�
Y �� �.\
:�
t � �� � ' � e���{�� ' ���,,,� � „
,
� � r2 �j���+`� � LJt✓ 4 ei �
� �
.. . � �r �� �,� � �°'��° a t��' � � � �ik � �
. .
� �� . �J�pn'+ �V � n
6 ;f -'"'^. -���� lf,.:�d .� ' ,
� i� t � �
' '-{ : �:. :�bs.;�, �... i/r"" � �,! � �j.�y �
� ../ .�,�" � i` �� "� . 74 fi�
� .� .? � � •�'.__ • � L �� •a:�{ t. �e �! � i � +��,�?3 p^ j�.
Q �y i �
. I� � j * "�' � .e � � �� � . .
- , � - y y1�.� , x .
- .� �� r � kpE :�.,; i
. .._ ; '�!(� �'+,` z f` J.�l �f�S,� - e - �� � �a< •.
. . . J r 'p� '� �i�;n ` .
�,u
� - l'xvi
r>
- �
�-- ' '� � �.
_m
. .; _ _. • � . J .. . ,..^,
. - .. � " . ' '.l+t t , -
� . � `- � /.�.-
1 .
.
�
� }
` �
�'�
Z �
� e.
�
�' �
r
. � , � _�
� �J
.���� �_
� � .. �, � y
� �� F �
� �� � ��
s � �� � _ .a, ` , �� t .
� � F :t
�
�.f
.�.-F�--
� =;LL
� _.
: '�,� :
. A�
��, � �
�`'� � ��� :; -
} �.R'' ` _
h
' , - � , , ", :).. � .
, {,. 3 . A „ � .. . . .
�
�: -
�� i
�� `
e
�;,
: �_
� ,���;�r�
, , �.
, ., _ �
i y
r ,; „ :�'°'��,
.� fY �� ��..
� �
� �� �� ��
� � �� � ,� .
��, .
� �,
� .;
,
� ,
.. _--=-_
� .� ,_
.-- - ` � ,Y.
�= == ._ _ � v _
���._ ��� � � �_
_ _�r�.�
� �1
`�
,,
_ �
�
_ ,- �
fi� '�!
J �,
_ ,
. .,,
_�
�_
[�! �
.. t ' '�
OG Y
�i . � " - � F. � �4 -
� ' '�
a� . , � _� � .
� .
c . � �-�-'� _� � ;
. _ � _.- � ` �- . . -
c�5-� S g
Propertv Owners within 100 feet of 95-97 Lanqford Park
Sec. 62.109(a� Enlargement of nonconforming use. The planning commission may permit the
enlargement of a nonconforming use if the commission makes the following findings:
(8) A notarized petition of fwo-thirds of fhe proper(y owners within one hundred (100) feet of fhe
property has been submifted stating fheir support for the enlargement.
Two thirds of the 8 property owners within one hundred feet of 95-97 Langford would be 6
property owners. If 3 owners are opposed, the petition cannot be delivered. The table below
shows that at feast 6 of the 8 are opposed.
# Property Owner Address Comments
1 Anna Lisa Tooker 2227 Knapp Street Wrote letter in support of appeal
opposing the expansion
2 Alice Magnuson/ 2231 Knapp Street Wrote /etter in support of appea/
Sharon Nelson opposing the expansion
3 Scott & Alison Larson 2237 Knapp Street Wrote letter in support of appea/
opposing the expansion
4 WC & C 2245 Knapp Street Owner of this renta! property,
Christofferson reside in Hastings, cou/d not
reached
5 Barry Riesch 2251 Knapp Street Spoke at BZA hearing in support of
the appeal opposing the expansion
6 Ray Keller 2252 Knapp Street Wrote letter in support of appeal
opposing the expansion
7 Thomas & Kim 85 Langford Park Filed the appeal opposing the
Holman expansion
8 Frank Perry 77 Langford Park "!Ys too far away. / have no
opinion one way or the other."
,� . - . ����,, �, ,� y :.._- OS �
, W ` .> �_, `� ... _'� ,... � ������ � :,,�: f
, • „ :,„.,�;
=� . � " _ � . � �� � ,
_�._. , �
_ - - e � /`�\� �; � � i
vt S ,\/ t
� � -� � . � � � a�?�� : }
� k. . �r_ ' \ ` ;� �n T � 4 � i
.�__ _ �._� � ,� ,
�'� _ _ �a3 , .K = L_ .... �
� - _ _��' ``� ` l� � o-���.,.r - ,` `
� � � � 1 . . �T- �
- � 7 �'. '� / 1 �� - �3 � 1 -- ', ----- - �
Y � � /' „ ' �� ! / �'T
57 - �� ±� " o . �� � - :
� :���: _ /� �+ ( � , � 21 ���.= � �
;� \ � µ^,'`�4�TV , �. '.l �<,� f.- }�x,'�W.9..ri.t
` , ��'i , a``^.�:.�... +
,, .� ;�-'.,,,,'`.�§�''-;-�''._' � (':_ "� _. ;%���� r
�w�_�,� _ = � � , l 4
;, ,
�, �_� � , � s�. P
\ �,�� ��A�� IGt�' r� j��+ies
� � , ' (,> zzz7 ��a�
. � - -_ � �2� ZZ3 � uHA�
�" "- " �
� -------- � — i 1 � � ! ��.�_-��� _ / �3) � z 3 7 i� ��°O
4 , l _ f '` ' _ �.: / ��)ZZ4'S"1�hu�P
j ( 8$ � \ i � ' 2 � � (s)z� s' e ��upP
l � , i. ,: )� �� � µ / ��i�ZZS �. �yta�. „
F ' ` � �;. 7 � � � =�.:.::�ro o� C �s5'zGN�
, ; ` 5� � � �.��, . ` jy ��� -� �
��� �� �C
� �� .��- � �� /
' ! � ' � �_�-= , ( } /
�..� '� ' ' � �x=�, ` � ` /,C.� / �8
, .�>;, � ;:-�'✓ �� --�::>
�L� � '��
' Y � �
Q x '� �!!�� � i —�V• A`i..
� ' �`.e: L! \ ``ye;y � /
�
V � I ` ��
; . ` �
#�.$) , ���� } r :r�=
� 2��5% m 9 .\` �
; � �
•-� k'FY�; .� �_
;. .f"t:x=; � /
'� x..� �.`� �
�_,� :. ' I �
I � , _ � -------�--�
� -- ��' �"-�:R. (� //
� ;`-=�- �_>-n:" :
'��\ �r;_., �r l
� ` i l
-- �� i�
�� , `l j
� �
:J �
� ��
/�,n_.k:` i
� � \\
/ / � \ � ��.
�
i
` , �Y'�.
, t
�N� ��'`�
��
�� ` 1
:.x4F?: `� �.
\
Addendum to Zonin� Appeal
d�J' I �J�
Section 62106(k): "Accessory off-street parking lots or structures may be
constructed ... so long as they comply with the requirements of sections
63300 and 63.501 and the setbacks required in the district where the use is
first permitted."
• Section 63.501(a) requires accessorp buildings conform to all
regulations for main buildin�s.
0 9 feet side setback required — garages are set back only 1' 10"
• Section 63.501(b} requires accessory buildings on corner lots to be set
back from the street side property line 25 feet in an RT2 Zone
o garages are set back only 1' 10" from the street side property line
• Section 66.231, in an RM1 Zone (the first zone in which the non-
conforming use is allowed), a side setback of %2 of the hei�ht of the
buildin� is rec�uired
o The setback would require �20' in this case - the garages are set
back only 1' 10"
• There is no provision in the Code allowing application of a pre-existing
non-conformance of a main building to a new accessory buildings
o In this case, the fact that the main building is set back 1' 10" does
not allow accessory buildings to be added with the same setback
violation.
dS-�5�
CONCLUSIONS AND REQUEST
We are asking that the City Council:
1) Revoke the current permits at 95-97 Langford Park which allow
for buiiding expansion and garage expansion
2) Require the devefopers to restore the roofline of the main
building to its pre-existing condition
3) Require the developers to remove the garage pads and
structures
4) Limit the number of condominiums to 3— the number that are
legally nonconforming
5) Require of future permits that, per code, expansion can only be
allowed with a 2/3's petition of neighbors