The URL can be used to link to this page

05-419Counci] File # OS-419 Green Sheet # 3026432 RESOLUTION CITY OF Presented By Referred To 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date Whereas, Roger D. Youngs, in Zoning File No. OS-068754, made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals, hereinafter, the "BZA", for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning code for property located at 2125 Scudder Street and legally described as ST ANTHONY PARK NORTH PART OF ALLEY VAC ADJ AND LOT 9 BLK 48; and Whereas, The purpose of the application was to vary the zoning code standards in order to construct a second single family home on the said property; and Whereas, The BZA conducted a public hearing on March 28, 2005, after having provided notice to affected property owners and at the conclusion of the public hearing, the BZA, in its Resolution No. OS-068754, adopted March 28, 2005, decided to grant the requested variances based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant lives in the existing house and is proposing to build a second house on the western portion of the property. He states that the parcel wili not be split but held in j oint tenancy by the owners of the homes. This is a large pazcel with over 10,000 square feet but it has only 23 feet of frontage along the street and 75 feet of width at the front setback line. This is lazge enough to build townhouses or a four-unit apartment building without the need for any variances. However, the applicant prefers to construct a second single-family home which is more consistent with the surrounding land uses. This is a reasonable and pernutted use for this property. Single-family homes in the RT2 zoning district must meet the R4 standards which require a lot width of 40 feet for each house as measured at the front setback line. The irregular shape of the parcel and the location of the existing house on the site prevent this proposed development under the strict provisions of the code. 2. 772e plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The unusual shape of the parcel and the location of the existing house on the site are circumstances that limit the reasonable use of the property. These are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. OS-419 2 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City 4 of St. Paul. 5 6 This parcel is large enough to allow a larger development with greater density. However, 7 the steep slope of the property would require considerable excavating and require the 8 removal of the e�sting house. Building a small single-faznily home on the west half of 9 the site will limit the disturbance of the slope and allow the applicant to preserve the 10 eacisting house. Because of the slope, the applicant will need to submit an erosion control 11 and a slope stabilization plan in order to obtain site plan review approval. Provided that 12 the applicant obtains site plan approval, the proposed variances aze in keeping with the 13 spirit and intent of the code and will not affect the health or welfare of azea residents. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The public alley wraps around the portion of the property where the new house will be built. The relatively minor setback variance on the north side will be mitigated by the slope of the property as well as the alley and will not significantly affect the supply or light or air to adjacent properties. The proposed second single-family home is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and is more appropriate to the azea than a townhouse development or an apartment building. The new home will add to the vitality of the area and should have a positive impact on surrounding property values. S. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is notpermitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected dand is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. A second single-family home on a single zoning lot is a pernutted use within this zoning district. The proposed variances, if granted, wouid not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the valate or income potential of the parcel of land. The applicant's primary desire is to put the property to a reasonable,and permitted use given the size and the zoning classification of the parcel. Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of I.eg. Code § 61.702(a), Victor Chan, duly filed an appeai from the determination made by the BZA and requested a hearing befare the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; and Whereas, Acting pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on April 2Q 2005, where all interested parCies were given an opportunity to be heazd; and Page 2 of 4 OS-419 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Whereas, At the conclusion of the public hearing and without taking a vote, the matter was further continued to provide the zoning applicant and the appellant with an opportunity to meet and possibly resolve their differences; and Whezeas, On May 4, 2005, Councilmember Benanav advised the Council that the zoning applicant and the appellant had met but were unable to reach an agreement on the matter; and Whereas, Having been advised that the zoning applicant and the appellant had met but were unable to reach an agreement, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the BZA; does hereby Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby reverses the decision of the BZA in this matter, based on the following findings of the Council: 1. The BZA ened in finding that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the zoning code. The Council finds that the property can be put to a reasonable use because the property is currently developed with a single family home. 2. The BZA erred in finding that the lot in question met R4 standards for development. The lot has less than 25 feet of lineal frontage on Scudder Street. Measured at the front setback line, there is less than 40 feet of lot frontage for the proposed residentia] structure and less than 80 total lineal feet of frontage for both structures. 3. The BZA erred in finding that the variances were in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning code and consistent with the health, safety, comfort and welfare of the inhabitants of the City. The variances erroneously pernut construction of a second single family structure at the back of a single lot that does not meet lot size requirements for two residential structures. GranUng variances to pernut the construction of two residential structures on this inadequately sized lot is inconsistent with the health, safety, comfort and welfare of the citizens of Saint Paul and not in keeping with the intent of the zoning code. And, Be it Further Resolved, That the appeal of Victor Chan be and is hereby granted; Page 3 of 4 1 OS-419 2 And, Be It Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Roger D. 3 Xoungs, Victor Chan, the Zoning Administrator, the Pianning Commission and the Board of Zoning 4 Appeals. Requested by Department of: By: By: Form Approved by City.Attorney By: '7ti4.W� s /p—bS Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council �: � Byc Adop[ed by Council: Date ��[�1��1U��j Adoption Ce�ified by Council S cretasy OS-419 � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green SheekGreen Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet ce� �sry�� Contact Person 8 Phone: Peter Wamer 266-8770 Must Be on Council Agen 'I'1�1AY-05 '11�u1AY-05 � ' Assign Number For Rwting Order Green Sheet NO: 3026432 Depariment SentToPerson InitiallDate ContractType: RE�2ESOLUTKNJ � _,� � , .,y � .�� _ �- ..�� i�!T ..I - ,u - w . . . . , . . I. I . . ,. � Total#of � Acfion Reques�d: � Memorializing City Coimcil action taken May 4, 2005 ganting the appeal of Victor Chan, 2129 Scudder Street to a decision of the , Boazd of Zoning Appeats graoting two variances in order to construct a second single family home at 2125 Scudder Street. Recommendatiais: Appm�e (q) or Reject (Rr Personal Service CoMracls MustMswerthe Pollowing puestions: Planning Commission �' �, � this person/firtn e�er v.orked under a contract forthis department? CIB Committee y� ry CiMI SeMCe Commission 2. Has this pe�soNfirtn eeer been a city employee? Yes No � ' 3. Does this person/firtn possess a skiil rwt normaliy possessetl by �any cu�2rrt city empioyee? Yes 'No Explain all yes answers on separate sheetand aCach W green sheet Inifiating Problem, lssues, Opportunily (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvarMages NApproved: Dkadvanfages M Approved: Disadvanfages M Not Approved: Total Amount of .Transacfioo: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) May 11, 2005 4:50 PM CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: Page 1 �s-�� OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPE(:TIONS AND ENVIILONMENTAL PROTECTIQN Jmreen & Rosas, Diredor • CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Rmrdy C. Kell}; Mayos April 11, 2005 Ms. Mary Erickson Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 55102 � Deaz Ms. Erickson: NOTICE OF Yf78ddC HEARIIYG The Saint Pavl City Couneil wi1L mn- duct a public he arine on Wednesday, April 20, 2005, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Couneil Chambers, Third Floor City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard; St. Paul to consider the appeal of �ctor Chan, 2129 Scudder Street, to a decision of the Boazd of ZoningAppeals granti.ng two variances in ordez W construct a secoad single family home on property -at 2125 Seudder,Street. <Zoning File #05-065754). ` - Dated; April 11, 2005 � Mary Erickson � - nssi8canc cit}• co,�ncil secrer,ary, � ` [APri114J' � � ___- 81: YAIIL LEGAL LEDf"ER =-- �� 220957Z0 . . I I wouid like to confiim that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, Apri120, 2004 for the following zoning case: Appellant: � Zoning File #: Victor Chan, 2129 Scudder Sireet. OS-068754 Purpose: Appeal a decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals granting two variances in order to conshuct a second single family home on property at 2125 Scudder Street. I,ocation: Staff: District : Boazd: 2125 Scudder Street. Recommended approval. District 12 Plamiing Council recommended approval. Approved on a 5- 1 vote. I ha�e confinned this date with the office of Council Member Jay Benanau. My understanding is thax this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you wiil publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks ! Sin re , � � _ J Hardwick, Zoning Specialist IAiflRYPROFFSSION�iLBUILDING Telephane: 657d66-9090 350StPeterStreetStdte30Q Facsimile: 651-266-4524 SaintPaul,M'nmesom55702-ISIO Web: www.ci.nypauL�ror,us/liep AA-ADA-EEO Employer �-�tL9 =�r�r PAl L�' �l RAqA' APPlICATION FOR APPEAL JJ'� OfLzC�ea I1RS[18di6RS ¢A(l �'i[VL7'O11D2¢ilfQl.PrOfCCl[OK 300Lo�y professionrrt Building 350S� PeferSt, S`uite30U .SnintPmrl, MNSSIO2 651-26(r9008 APPUCA11tT � Address � City �� Name of own MN Zip�y�� Daytime phone PROPERTY Address �!`� �� '�Qe.f; �; ('�,�,� � MN i�io� LOCAT1011! � � �� P � �� tegal desc ' tion: Q� ,�dd- a � �8 TYPE OF APPEAL; Apptication is hereby made for an appeat to the: �9 Board of Zoning Appeals �,1 C'rty Co � it under the provisions of Chapter 67 , Section �0 ; Paragreph _ of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision - made by on 200 � . Fiie number: �� -4�$Z �� GROUNDS fOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has 6een an error in any requirement, permet, decision or reTvsal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or ihe Planning Commission. , /�� f skeet if \ Appiicant's signatufe '"�� v� Date ��` �� City agent �-- ��• �Ll�,S - `� �' `�t� o5-yty • The Appeal : This appeal has the following Appellants : Victor Chan of 2129 Scudder Stxeet, Richard Brown of 2138 Knapp Street and Mr. & Mrs. Lohse of 2142 Knapp Street and possibly Mr. Brusic of 2134 Rnapp Street. More may be added on at a later date. ( I) My ( victor Chan • s) concems are : (a) The 75 ft. assumed frontage is unreasonable because the actual stxeet frontage is only 23.65 ft. ; (bj The construction of a single fami.ly house with a separate driveway and garage together with a 1300 sq. ft. space is way beyond a'•guest house� setting. The end result is allowing 2 single family houses jammed into one lot without subdividing. (c) The driveway of this proposed new structure is perpendicular to a steep and narrow alley. That presents a precarious and hazardous drivi.ng situation particularly in the winter when the a11ey becomes eatremely icy. This is a safety issue for the driver and my property and should be weighed heavily on the decision. a (2) Ri.chard Brown (of 2138 Iinapp) is very concerned about the precedent this decision will set and is worried that there would be . a lot of home owners building additional backyard houses throughout St. Anthony Park and St. Paul. (3) At this time the Lohses of 2142 Knapp and the Brnsics (of 2134 Knapp) are objecting and would like to reserve their rights to express their objections by affidavit or present them at the hearing. (4) Although Mr. Roger Youngs had mentioned he had talked to ALL the neighbors at the hearinq, he actually had never talked to any of my house members, or the Browns, the Brusics or the Lohses. It was understood that the St. Anthony Park Community Council recommended approval based on Mr. Youngs communicating with the neighbors and obtained their support. The Board of Zoning appeals followed the St. Anthony Park community Council to recommend approval for the same reason. In reality, we doubt very much the Council or the Zoning Board would recoaunend approval if they knew many neighbors who objected were never contacted by Mr. Youngs. This is also our reason to appeal because Mr. Youngs wrongly represented our opinion at the hearing. (5) Name(s) of our legal counsel will be furnished when we make our final decision as to whom we will retain. (6) I would like to stress that the concerns expressed herein are � not the only concerns and would like to reserve the right to present the rest of them at later meetings or hearings. � a5-41 q APPLICAT{ON FOR ZONING VAR(ANCE OFFICE OFLICENSE, ZN�PECTIONS, �ND E'NYIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350St PeterStree� Suite 300 SaintPaul, MN55102-ISIO 651-26�9008 APPLICANT Agent � � PROPERTY Name �G D4ek IOCc.JCfS Comparry � paaress 2l 2 J s� wdd •��G S� (_�.._R GS/-Z c�r S� Pa k( sr�c��? z� s s �o5lo�rs,ne w,«,e GS/- z2g q>t 9 �P�h+iMerest of applicarrt (owner, mntrad piudiaser, etc.} _ D u�wJ � iE t� of ovvnet (rfcGlEererd) Addresstlocation._,2125 Sc.u.eE� C.4. ,5�; ��additianalsheet�� T�g��4� � :3L� �krrF fa,ef ��1�G.e uaur�-4i dFUsy � cc�C.vl� � Lots¢e_ �5r��y /F�c�aw� Pre�ntZoning��PresentUse /22 s:�.��; e� P��au� t4d�(:�ao,,al IZ.�s�dr.v� — (sa.�c� ��.1 1 _ Variance(sj requested: J, �o-� w��i1�.. Z � �,�.� �Bqc� Zoning office use only Filenumber o� �� F�$ 3 .6'0 TeMative hearing date �O Section(s) �a� a �3 � _� � S ` 02-� -- + .,,. .. � �. 2. What physiqi characteristics of the p�operty prevent its 6eing used for any of the pertnilted uses in your mne? (mPo9�PhY, size and shape oi bt, srn1 mnd'�ions, ex.) J4 �� .--.� �� -�' -- 3. Ezplain how ihe strid application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would resuft in peculiar or exceptional practical d�fl'iculfies nr ezceptional undue hardships. casHi�xs use ow�r 4. Expiain how U�e granting of a variance wili rrot � a substan&al dehiment to the pub�ic good or a substaMial impaument of the intent and pwpose of fhe Zorting Ordinar+ce. • � •. Applicant's signature��._G�r. �G��'.j Date Z- Z 2- �S � n5-4i q • Attachment tc> the Roger Youngs reguest for variance xs: �s ^ -.;� �� _ 6 � 1.) Variance reqaested: To add a small, second house on the h�llside of this unusual lot, we need variance for the foIIowing: • The actual lot line across the front of the existing house daes not have the requu'ed 80 feet to fhe aetual surveyed Iot line. There is 80 feet to the nomival line, where the alley physicalty runs at the momesrt. •� The distauee from the north side (tfie back} of the propased house to the alfey is 20 feet. Attachecf is a copy of the survey with the variance requests highFighted. 2.) Physica! ckaracteristics greventing it being used: This property is a Iarge, triangular lot on wtuch the cuFrem house and garage take up onty a sma11 portion (see the attached survey plan). The existing hause and garage sit on the flat part of the Iot, and there is a large, unused hi21 thax was created by the formation of the aiteys. • 3.} Whp a strict aggIieatiog cef the code is uot apgropriate As is shown by bQth the sucvey and the site plaq the Iot easily aecommodates two • houses. There is ptenty of square footage, but the unique shape and topograghy of the Iot prevent building a second home under the strict pmvisions of ihe code. 4.) How granting the varianee wiFt nat be a detriment to the pubiic good In the gast, tUis hi2t fias heen eansidered unusable and has been rather an eyesare to the neighbors because it easily becomes overgrown. We wairt instead to put this land to good use aud beautify it by building an auractive, sma11 house in keeping with the aeighborhood. (See drawing.j Additionally, we are requesting a variance to buitd a honse closer to the atley than the code allows, whereas three different neighbors cureirtly have garages that pratrude into the surveyed atfey and portions of the atley itself cut into this property. For the groposed use, tke entire gropez2y will be heid in jaint teuancy and not be sold as a sepazate lot. � � _y t p , ,� ....� .. . �� . . � { i . ' � � J�: �--�: � � . `'� r t 4 � _ ' .'t� �, (''�'� i t ! � \ r' � �� :.: '� 1 " - r:" l' f` = \ — . L'L . � � � � �i.1[tj�.; \IF . � � ;.� :,.�:jl'�f V � �} �i` r�'f;�� if'+��Y i . li � :� t't • �� 1 � t °� 7 ��' � �'��': ` �� " �`j::�F�ai� � 7� ! , !(i� � ��,5 ;�; i i � � \ t;`.; :: vrY �,��. } t(' ' � ;`Ti rl! 1�::� _;' ~ 1� �;;: �:' �:� �'� .;. .� ; `? �� '• i� . i '•- � . i: � : .. i ;.': '� i , �,n ?:i��' � v � Sf'.:' 4i: ,� �' , � � � ; ; i ;;'.; i ;�; � .�� ,��. `�`� ~ ! . , ,—•- ':� {.,��,� '+; i I �] � � „' ,.i > �; . ..: . . 'ii: 1 Rw�inra�� p I � ' � �� l�1 �'�' - ��5�� aa'r`� � , �`�"�� 5 g�'s 7 ".ie'. ��j� �� o{ �� .�t ��` �.�. •.:;;;.� � �``� �,:-'�� ' t J ,�-,; �`.� �`.... ��' � �ii <i j; . f ,y . ' �_ � _ ,_-� � _- ` � � \ /4 1 �` I \', . .: \ S _i� � ��.i ., . . {t l • F, Z `' � ,� ,. Y , „ : `_ - 'v \ ' l } , ..j ,f 1 i_ •., . y �, � �r Q Q G � � _t5 �� ti c c a � d � � ` 5 , � { � �I ' : � � O > ^ � t � g � ` � X d I � s � o �� 4 ,; . 'Js 1 � a s r� � � � � � � � � D'�� s � ' o' �� s � e �� , � \ I � a �� w � � � N X � � a7 Y '' 'v� 7� a� � �� / �3 �� `' �`� � w `3 Y o S,_ ��'y�� 3 '� 4 J \ 4 �� / \ \ '� . � � � � o � • • •/ , � � i -D � �. d � E i � � �. , b I1..� _l V ' � o _ � _�� d ' � � \ ; � � � � O ` os �, � q � 05—y 1.9 nuc��c ..�:_ xuv�� . ' . . � � . . . � I I � - ` - � .., 1" � .I- �\ ! � � � \ �-- — — — '--�. . � i,' `ws` --�� —�'" � y �'" znn�.�� . �� ..i' Ht9 � �`2ef��` µ�� C ^`m / � \ . \ �N�fl R�t.�>� � /' \ ti �' C. � / �/ / `� � � 2p � . � � � f ��n�� ..GW.YS ' v � n �-`S. � , -�jo- ffiO nv�a r �sa \ r �' �� —• � . � ��..u.� nn � � � . � A 3]ST � / �\ � � / \\ h � . � � '\. ' . , \� �g`� \ � � ��i .� . . . . .a. ..�� ` . � '. � � � \ � % \ � " \ \ \ \ \ ' \ `\\-�_."� �_.::,�\.`\ � \ � � � / � � `�. / _ � ,. � � \� � - / � � / �\ � \� / � / � m m , a,�, z�r a,� /��—.--------- � . roe ME w�ms ov ma sntvn; tra ensr uxe OF LOT 9 IS AT AN q54116LLD �qRPiG 6 5 00��6' 1C � . .. � - , � � ..,, V� i ` ,:.-! ., I I ' " . L�� '' . _ . --- 1- - — — -xzu� - . — ��Gw.. . . . . � _ _ _ _ g _' � w . .. .' . � � �: � .....� .: � . ' I: ��.�• - - 'I ' ' � �. � FfN f.l\II�IY I Fy' I � i � �� n I •�i �♦ 1 ' I � Z . ' • F � I � � . ' fl ' ' w HWY I ' I I I , ' � ' . ` I I ' '. � � i � . '� r� :�----�--��---�— R936i �� - �NNg - PIE � F �' lSln �� s „ k � GRAP�C SCALE . . (IIkffi') tIQL�9D'R f/yUTC RlIY. Olf6lt UIY1Q5 WY �tbR1�FR St�AIE tt�E C�pT S�iTDDSIt sfRSBT oESYR�IH%J:� �A . -10T 9. e,IX%"4$ s! numc3ly.PnRlt NORW. RAUS£Y CWMV. 1@INESOiA' i0t�if�.R YRM IHAT pMi AF 1HE VACAtEO' ALLEY AQ,RWWG Lt(itNU � ' �" � mmns �mw ua�au�xr Frnum � uxmres rowx ea� [.;� mroi� m+a�fr 0 oEnRS ww uuwlFNt 3r n eva�ES uart eaE —s— oExohs swmwer gvm 0�Ilei6 WKKaE p� pEMq6 t¢FANfdff BO% —Sf— pEN016 Slfldl �6R �� ENO�ES F3ECINC IEIFR AC Ofe%11� IuL 4S --�i— OFTb'IQ WIER YFtI x( 6A016 NYMAtf! a MM6 Qitll BI9N �E— Op0ffi QFCINOIT � �FIWl6 NI.IF.QVPLK [� �EHp�g G�S IRiER �('.i pFtmR4 4M15. q„ mans oceaae xa'm'xaF q�s uitn wz x mssa oFmmFS sor e�v�na W W W.CARLEY-TORGFRSEM.COM �^^�^ei mnb unt u� .�r. n� _. C. (651 � 484-3301 Pnpmee q � a�wc Ry cuect aw� Nat I mn a aub Rmtste�ee tona Suvsj " � p � ro w couxrc rsocn r smE �as .c +a�i+-L--- � . [rtrte cwxaar. wa ui n �. � E � � E � : inK (R�) �95-srts yym. ft§g. Na. t�isi oote �� • Y ...ereeeeu ok� @a�AL SQMCE SWCE 1948A .w. u.. 04-t�9 FJe Na1 � � "CY ' ' t./a�:. . . '� I � i �I� I � ..��?. O :Z'.. ;V.\ � s M N . o N .� O I I �. ��. � o� �._ :. ^�;: � � : � ^ _ � I � � l.. �o � i 1'-� y'�O. � o._ . o �� i � • � `' .f�:.. ��y�_ ,� , - ; , . - l. .::`�. � , ,i. i � � - ��.I . ' �.� � �, � .' ' + OS . h � - .. .� � � � .OS . . OS � �I :� � � � : c_Y- •. : •�,-.:� .. � _, �„�.. . . . . ^ j � / . -."'r:. . . . . �� ;4%��i' �� . .. . .� _ . . - . '� S9t . - ._ OS .. . _-. . - .. os- .. _ .. . --�� , -�. _ +. .�", ' .v0 . 1BTf ' � ° v :03- � � O Q - .' ._' _' . . .� O '. � } � : � � � ` `' b _' cV K) er � � . Lef�.; cp b � � '_J _ '__ 1 " . �) _�—o __ - . N. . . � �y� O -.) of' � � -- — _ I "' - � �, — O�i oi�i � V � V — � `" N . 1.. 4 O ' � i N � . . ' N ....� � , -- � � N' M � ��l. 7y � « a �. u // } �� N yl � N T - _� � \{/��, s.�/ � �, N " '(, \ � , i ,� , _ . , _ .. . `_� � � r u 4 n � Z. _ � V V / N / 0 r N � 0 N \ 0 — — � � N �/ o °°°� CD � � `` ` �" � W /� � n. � � ' ' � a' V " .. `. � — N V. i � °.r � /� m ti� �i� t,y- . �. � . � : �' `; � � W ; U Op� � \ �`� u C '� ^ � '�v t�� . •` t �� \ o � . /� � y� \ . � � x� v / � i , h � ' O? �� ( / D / +s 0 �� 4� m� � � b b �A a o T V : ---- -� �°, �--- � = , ; r .. o a •� � �� M � �,. — , _. t . • .� . A � T: :.- F � �_ � t, j} •,� u \� '�F � 7 t �fi �g1.� .. i�� n 8 c� io • r �' J�"�� i. . ..`� �, .. � G) � � . ��. �:.;; . � .. . . e�''�! -�✓ ��;.:r . .� r� � ' � p \� l r. - � � �� a ti' 0 • _ M :e o5-u �� 03114l2005 11:58 6515495993 ��1�� ,t��rt� ►#.�.�.�. ►�i,,+► St. Anthony Park Community Council March 14, 2005 7ohn �azdwick OfFce of License, Inspecbons, and Lnvironmental Procec[ions Ciry of Saint Paul 350 St Peier St. 5uite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Mr. Hazdwzck, PA6E 02 On Thuzsday, March l0, 2Q05, the St. AnChony Pazk Community Council unanimously agprovcd the following resolution: SAPCC approve,a the major variance a[ 2�25 Scudder Sace[, as described in the applicarion for majoz variance file # OS-06$754, due [o the hazdship created Uy the unusual2ot co�guration, subjecc co soIicitaGon of neighhoz comments and concems. P2ease contact me if you have atty queseions about ihis xesolution. $est Regards, Nina Axetson Community Organizer � � u �j � 890 Gromwel! Avenoe, Satnt Panl, Minneron 55 t 14 > 651 /649-5992 volce r G51l644-5993 fax :�a_r��:�'�■1�� o5-4�q � 7 I. SUNP..iY-BATTZECREEK-HIvHt�lOdD 2. HAZE; PARK fLADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE �. DAYT�Jl1'S BLUFF �. PAYNE-PHALEN b. 1VOt END 7. THOMAS-DALE 8. SU1t4MiT-tNFVER.SIT'Y 9. WES 1 SEVENTH 10. I l. 12. 13. 1�. ��. 10. ii. COMO HAML,TNE-14IIDulAY ST. AI9TF30t 7`I PA RK R4ERR;AM PARK-LLnINGTON HA2:2LINE-SrIELLING HAiviLINE N1AC?.LESTF'R vROVEL�;�'VD � HI�� II SU4i�T HTLL I�O �LTiTO t��7`: � �� 65-c�� , CITIZEN PP.RTICIPA 1 PLANNING DISTRTCTS C�5�U�q � � . BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT TYPE OF APPLICATION: APPLICANT: HEARING DATE: LOCATION: Major Variance ROGER D. YOUNGS March 28, 2005 2125 SCUDDER STREET FII,E #OS-068754 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ST ANTHONY PARK NORTH PART OF ALLEY VAC ADJ AND LOT 9 BLK 48 PLANNING DISTRICT: 12 PRESENT ZONING: RT2 ZOIVIIVG CODE REFERENCE: 66.231 REPORT DATE: DEADLINE FOR ACTION: Mazch 22, 2005 Apri15, 2005 BY: John Hardwick DATE RECEIVED: February 24, 2005 A. PURPOSE: T`wo variances in order to construct a second single-family home on this lot. 1) A nunimum lot width of 80 feet is required and a width of 75 feet is availabie, for a variance of 5 feet. 2) A rear setback of 25 feet is required and a setback of 20 feet is pmposed, for a variance of 5 feet. B. SITE AND AREA CONDITIONS: This is a large irregular shaped parcel that slopes steeply from the rear down to the street. There is an existing single-faxnily home with a detached garage on the east side of the properiy. Surrounding Land Use: Primarily single-family homes. C. BACKGROIJND: The applicant is proposing to constrict a second single-family home on the western portion of the site. D. FINDINGS: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. Page 1 of 3 \� 05-4�9 File #OS-068754 StaffReport The applicant lives in the e,aListing house and is proposing to build a second house on the westem portion of the property. He states that the pazcel will not be split but held in joint tenancy by the owners of the homes. This is a large parcel with over 10,000 square feet but it has only 23 feet of frontage along the street and 75 feet of width at the front setback line. This is lazge enough to buiid townhouses or a four-unit apartment building without the need for any variances. However, the applicant prefers to construct a second single- family home which is more consistent with the surrounding land uses. This is a reasonable and permitted use for this properiy. Single-family homes in the RT2 zoning district must meet the R4 standards which require a lot width of 40 feet for each house as measured at the front setback line. The uregulaz shape of the parcel and the location of the e�cisting house on the site prevent this proposed development under the strict provisions of the code. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owreer. • The unusual shape of the parcel and the location of the e�tisting house on the site aze circumstances that limit the reasonable use of the properry. These are circumstances that • were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Pau1. This parcel is lazge enough to allow a lazger development with greater density. However, the steep slope of the property would require considerable excavating and require the removal of the existing house. Building a small single-family home on the west half of the site will limit the disturbance of the slope and allow the applicanY To preserve the e�sting house. Because of the slope, the applicant will need to submit an erosion control and a slope stabilization plan in order to obtain site plan review approval. Provided that the applicant obtains site plan approval, the pmposed variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and will not aff'ect the heaith or weLfaze of area residents. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor wi11 it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish estabZished property values within the surrounding area. The public alley wraps azound the portion of the property where the new house will be built. The relatively minor setback variance on Yhe north side will be mitigated by the slope of the property as well as the alley and will not significantly affect the supply or light or air to adjacent pmperkies. � Page 2 of 3 � � o5-U�� • File #OS-068754 StaffReport The pmposed second single-family home is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and is more appmpriate to the area than a townhouse development or an apartment building. T`he new home will add to the vitality of the azea and should have a positive impact on surrounding properry values. S. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit a"ny use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the properry in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it aZter or change the zoning district classification of the property, A second single-family home on a single zoning lot is a permitted use within this zoning distric� The pmposed variances, if granted, would not change or aiter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. The applicanYs primary desire is to put the property to a reasonable and pernutted use given the size and the zoning classification of the parcel. � E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMD'I�NDATION: T'he St. Anthony Park Community Council recommends approval of the variances. F. C012I2ESPONDENCE: Staff has not received any correspondence regarding this matter. G. STAFF' RECONIlVI�NDATION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approval ofthe variances subject to the condition that the applicant obtains site plan review appxoval for development an the steep slope. � Page 3 of 3 `� �-y �y CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONIlVG APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER: #Q5-068754 DATE: March 28, 2005 WHEREAS, Roger D. Youngs has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 66.231 of the Saint Paul I.egislative Code pertaiuing to 1) the minunum required lot width, 2) the m;n;mum required rear setback, in order to consizuct a second single- family home on the Iot in the RT2 zoning district at 2125 Scudder Sixeet; and WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning AppeaLs conducte@ a public heartng on March 28, 2005 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the L.egislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals hased upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: i 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. • The applicant lives in the e�sting house and is proposing to build a second house on the western portion of the pmperty. He states that the parcel will not be split but held in joint tenancy by the owners of the homes. This is a large parcel with over 10,000 square feet but it has only 23 feet of frontage along the street and 75 feet of width at the front setback line. This is lazge enough to build townhouses or a four-unit apartment building without the need for any variances. However, the applicant prefers to construct a second single-family home which is more consistent with the sunounding land uses. This is a reasonable and permitted use for tfiis property. Single-family homes in the RT2 zoning distdct must meet the R4 standazds which require a lot width of 40 feet for each house as measured at the front setback line. The irregular shape of the parcel an@ the location of the e�cistiug house on the site prevent this proposed development under the strict provisions of the code. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the Zand owner. The unusual shape of the pazcel and the location of the existing house on the site aze circumstances that limit the reasonable use of the pmperty. These are circi�stances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul, • Page 1 of 4 j� l �-y�9 • File #OS-068754 Resolution This parcel is lazge enough to allow a larger development with greater density. Aowever, the steep slope of the pmperty would require considerable excavafing and require the removal of the e�sting house. Building a small singl�family home on the west haif of the site will limit the disturbance of the slope and allow the applicant to preserve the e�sting house. Because of the slope, the applicant will need to submit an erosion control and a slope stabilization plan in order to obtain site plan review approval. Provided that the applicant obtains site plan approval, the proposed variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and will not affect the health or welfare of area residents. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established proper2y values within the surrounding area. The public alley wraps around the portion of the properry where the new house will be built. , The relatively minor setback variance on the north side will be mirigated by the slope of the properiy as well as the alley and will not significantly affect the supply or light or air to adjacent properties. • The proposed second single-family home is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and is more appropriate to the area than a townhouse development or an apartment building. The new home will add to the vitality of the azea and should haue a positive impact on surrounding properiy values. S. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected Zand is Zocated, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classifzcation of the properry. A second single-family home on a single zoning lot is a permitted use within this zoning district. The praposed variances, if granted, would not change or alter the zoning ciassificarion of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of Zand. The applicanYs primary desire is to put the property to a reasonable and permitted use given the size and the zoning classification of the pazcel. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 66.231 are hereby waived to allow: 1) a nunimum lot width of 75 feet, and Page 2 of 4 t� o5-��y File #OS-068754 Resolution 2) a rear setback of 20 feet, subject to the condition that the applicant obtai�s site plan review approval for deve[opment on the steep slope. In order to construct a second singl�family home on the Iot on properiy located at 2125 Scudder Street; and legaliy described as St Anthony Park North Part Of Alley Vac Adj And I.ot 9 Blk 48; in accordance with the application for variance and The site plan on file with tke Zoning Administrator. MOVED BY : Faricy SECONDED BY Porter IN FAVOR: s AGAINST: i bIAILED: March 29, 2005 s TIME LIlVIIT: No decision of the zoning or planning a�1m�n;ctrator, plauning commission, • board of zoning appeals or city conncil approving s site plan, permit, variance, or ofher zoning approvai shall be valid for a period Ionger than fwo (2) years, anless a bnilding permit is obtained witlun snch period and the ereetion or alteration of a bailding is proceeding nnder the terms of the decision, or the nse is established within snch period by actaal operation parsnant to the applicable conditions and reqnirements of the approval, anless the wning or pianniug administrator grants an eatension not to ezceed one (1) yeaz. APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are fmal snbject to appeal to the City Conncil within 10 days by anyone affected bq the decision. Bnilding permits shall not be issned after an appeal has been Sled. If permits have been issned before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are saspended and construction shall cease nniil the City Conncil has made a final determination of the appeaL CER1'IFICATION: I, the nndersigned Secretary to the Boazd of Zoning AppeaLs for the C�ty of Saint Panl, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a trae and correct copy of said original and of tLe whole thereof, as based on approved minntes of the Saint Panl Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on March 28, 2005 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 350 St Peter Street, Saint PaaI, Minnesota. • Page 3 of 4 ,� C�S-Z/l c� • SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board • � Page 4 of 4 � � o5-4�tq NIINUTES OF TI� MEETING OF TE� SOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CTTY COiJNCII, CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, MARCfI28, 2005 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddo�c, Morton, and Porter; Messrs. Faricy, Galles, and Wilson of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Wamer, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hazdwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection. ABSEN'T: Vincent Courtney* Gloria Bogen�` *Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddolc, Chair. Ttoger D. Yonngs (#05-068754) 2125 Scndder Street• Two vaziances in order to construct a second single family home on this lot 1) A minimum lot width of 80 feet is required and a width of 75 feet is available, for a vatiance of 5 feet. 2) A rear setback of 25 feet is required and a setback of 20 feet is proposed, for a variance of 5 feet Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval, subject to the condition t1�at the applicant obtains site plan review approvaI for development on the steep slope. Staffreceived one phone ca11 opposing the variance request. One letter was received from Distdct 12 supporting the variance request. The applicant ROGER D. YOIJNGS, 2125 Scudder Street, was present Mr. Youngs stated he has spoken to all of his neighbors and only one is opposed to the proposal. The neighbors were concerned about pazldng and did not want him to add to the problem, Wluch he will not be doing with the garage and two additional off-street pazking spaces. The second concern was that he might put a line fence down the back of his properry. He stated he rvill not do that, because his neighbors would not be able to use their garages if he did. Ms. Porter questioned whether Mr. Youngs planned to sett the new home. Mr. Youngs replied no, Brenda is going to live in the home, we will own it in joint tenancy. There was opposition present at the hearing. Victor Chan, 2129 Scudder Sireet, stated he lives next door and opposes granting the variance. Mr. Chan sfafed thaf he did not lmow where the figure of 80-feet of frontage came from, he thinks tbat street frontage is only about 30 feet. The house is built on the back of the lot and had no sheet frontage wtiat so ever. He noted tl�at the alley on the west of flus site is impassable in the winter. Ms. Baker, 964 Ashland Avenue, stated she is the person who will be living in the new home. She noted that they had a surveyor do the survey and they established t1�ax there aze 75-feet of frontage on the siYe. She believes tt�at she will be pulling mto her garage at the same place in the alley that the neighbor Mr. Chan will be pulling into lris alley. Mr. Youngs stated that the City does not plow the alley and the neighbors along his alley did not want to pay to have it plowed so it has not been ptowed. Noting tbat \� nn-nnn-�o �,toy� • • U o9-Ui y � • • File #1115-068754 Minutes Mazch 28, 2005 Page Two they shovel up to tfie neighbors garage and they leave the rest of the alley unplowed. Mr. Youngs stated that there is 80 feet of frontage, i£ measuring is done where it looks like the aliey is now. But it is technically not there and the Chan's garage extends two-feet into the alley on the other side. Mr. Galles questioned that both homes would have a Scudder Street address. Mr. Youngs replied yes, 2125 and 2127. Hearing no further testimony, A+Is. Madd� closed the pnblic portion of the meeting. Mr. Wilson quesrioned whether site plan review would cover the steep slope stabilizarion. Mr. Hardwick replied yes, tt�at is part of the site plan review process because of the steep slope. Mr. Faricy moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6, subject to the condition that the applicant obtains site plan review approval for development on the steep slope. Ms. Porter seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 5-1(Galles). Submitted by: John Hardwick Approved by: Gloria Bogen, Secretary AA-ADA-EEA Employer �� o5-4j9 �-f'0 S/-za_s 2125 Scudder St. Saint Paul, MN 55108 April 15, 2005 Ms. Mary Erickson Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: Zoning File #OS-068754 � ,..^�q�n�.�;}1 ^�r,4:�T APR 19 2005 Dear Ms. Erickson: We wouid like to respond to concems raised by Victor Chan in his application for appeal. 1 a.) Because this is a triangular lot, the lot width measurement is taken at the front of the house, not at the street. The frontage there, as per the certificate of survey done by Carley-Tortersen Land Surveyors, is 75 feet. That is why we requested a 5 foot variance. lb.) We aren't sure where the ternunology "guest house" setting that Mr. Chan refers to came from, but we've always thought of it as the "big house" and the "little house." The first floor of the proposed home will be 690 squaze feet and the second, 621. This will result in two single-family dwellings on a large pazcel of more than 10,000 square feet. As you can see from the survey on page 7 and the LIEP drawing on page 10, the lot is unusually shaped and large. It has more than the required square footage for each house. We do not want to subdivide the lot because we want to own and live on the property in jointtenancy. 1 c.) The location of the house and driveway were determined by the Landscape Architect we hired. He considered the slope of the alley and its relationship to the driveway. He also considered the width of the a11ey, both as it is now used and as it is in the survey. He designed a curved entrance with adequate turning radius. In addition, the alley will be widened on our side at the driveway entrance by paving where grass currently extends into the surveyed alley. Tius will help compensate Tor fne reduced widtn of tne aiiey where the Chan's garage protrudes into the surveyed alley. 2.) The size and unique shape of this property are not matched by other properties in this area, as shown on the drawing by LIEP, page 10. Consequently, we don't see how granting the requested five-foot variance would set a precedent for the city of St. Paul. 3.) We don't know what the objections aze from the Lohses and the Brusics, but we would be happy to respond to them once we hear them. 4.) The minutes do not reflect what Roger remembers saying at the meeting. He said all of the neighbors that he had talked to had responded favorably, not that he had talked to �-y�9 all of the neighbors. He acknowledged in that hearing that two had initially raised concerns, and told what those concerns were. One said that neighbors on Scudder had worried that the house would add to on-slreet parking congestion, but expressed support when they saw that a gazage and additional pazking space were part of the plan. A neighbor on Knapp called to express his concern that Roger might put a line fence on the north side of his properry, wluch would make it difficult for this neighbor to use his garage. (As can be seen on tYae survey, several gazages intrude into the alley.) Roger informed him that he does not plan to put up a line fence as part of building a second house. This neighbor then said that he was sorry the hearing was at an inconvenient time far him because he would have come to support the plan. The St. Anthony Park Community Council decision was not based on Mr. Youngs communications with neighbors. The Zoning Board had notified the neighbors of the nronosed vasiance hearin� by the Council, but no one came to that meeting. After that meeting, drawings and pictures were distributed to many of the neighbors, some of whom contacted Roger and voiced the concerns stated in the pazagraph above. We think that John Hardwick from the Office of License, Inspections, and Environxnental Protections presented the case for approving our request for a variance very well. (See pages 12-14 ofthe packet.) If there are other concerns, we would be happy to address them. Sincerely, ��.�� ,� �'�� Roger Youngs Darla Baker Cc: Jay Benanav, City Council Representative Nina Axelson, Community Organizer John Hardwick, Zoning Specialist Victor Chan Other neighbors (with full packet) PS: On a personal note to the neighbors, we wish we had personally notified you of what we are planning. We didn't expect opposition because we thought it such a small variance, we believe it will increase property values in the neighborhood, and we think it will beautify what has been a rather ugly hill. Also, we knew that neighbars had received notice before the St. Anthony Park Community Council hearing, and no one came to oppose it in this foruxn or contact Roger with concems. We apologize for not making this effort. If you would like to talk with Roger about any concerns now, piease cail him at 651-645-0033. 04115/2005 12:45 FAX 6572669099 CITY OF ST.PAUL OFC/LIEP � 002/002 05— �1 I y lfs= �/-�-ds -�., �b y� 2134 T{napp Sueet St, Paul MN 55108 April 14, 2Q05 Zoning Adminisuation OfCice of LTEP 350 Sc. Peter Strec[-Suite 300 St. Paui MIV 551(YL-1510 Deaz Zoning Adaunistration, File #f05-086248 (2125 Scudder) We are pleased that Victor Chan has decided to appeal your decision to permit the conscrucuon of a sec�nd dwelling on the lot at 2125 Scudder. Wc were out of �own ac �he cime of the tirst heazing and therefore were not able [o express our opposition co chis pfanned consuvction. We live in che house in baek of 2125 Scudder, across [he alley above the pzoposed dwelling. We oppose this second dwelling on the Scudder lot for chree rea5ons: 1) Cmwding a house into this subsize lot wi11 destroy some of the remaining green space left in St. Anthony Park and change the feel of the neighborhood. It will also escablish n precedenc for other variances that c7owd an already well-built up area. 2) The house as proposed on the drawings left at our door is overly elaborace for the neighborhood and for the location. It is much too fancy foz the small footprint allowed for it by thc configuration of the lot. 3) The d.rivcway to �he underground g�rage on the propo�ed house is dangerous. This alleyway i� used by ncighborhood residents, children on bikes and on foo�, and by [rades people. The driveway, which will necessitate baeking ou�, will pose a danger to all of these passersby; several years ago I was hic by a car backieg from the currenr driveway of 2125 Scudder. The alleyway into which the new resident wili be backing is nanrow, on a grade, and restricted by a guardraii on the -- opposite side. There is s�mpiy not enough room to back a caz out satciy or easily from the proposed access; it w�ll he necessary for the drivet to back bfind into an azea where pe�ple do not expec� traffic. We urge you to rejec� this plan ior che sake of the beauty of �he neighborhood and for the safecy of the immediate residen�s. Very truly yours, �y� �u l�ucy M. Brusic 'Z��,��- Robezt M. Brusic C. Chan 04/78/2005 07:53 FAX 6572669099 CITV OF ST PAUL OFC/LIEP � 002/002 �S� From: Cindy Bevier/Mark Seeiey <mseeley@umn.edu> To: aJohn.Hardw;ck@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 4/17/2005 1 �:50:27 AM Subject: 2125 Scudder, file # OS-086248 i � i�• ' • We will not be abfe to attend this hearing bepuse of work commitmenfs, but would like Yo comment on the case. We do not remember receiving the original no6ce for the two variances at 2125 Scudder, but have no objections to a small home being built, not designed to crowd lots of students in, charging horrendousty high rents. We are amazed that Mr. Chan wouid find objections to this design as he owns so many of the a fore mentioned properties so nearby. Our only concem is that there be off street parking provided as we do nat have enough already. Sincerely, Cindy Bevier Mark Seeley 2�21 Como Ave S1 Paui, MN 55108 os-y� q Re: City council public hearing to consider appeal of a decision of the Boazd of Zoning granting variances(2) in order to construct a second single family structure on the property of Roger Young at 2125 Scudder St. File No OS-086248 My name is Richazd Brown. I live with my family at 2138 Knapp St. Our property shares the alley on back line of 2125 Scudder, just across from the proposed structure. I'm here to support Victor and Lonio Chan's appeal of the Zoning Boazd's approval of variances to Roger Young to build a second "single-famil�' house and to say my opposition to this plan and proposal for several reasons. Firstly, I'd like to say that the fact that there's a majority of neighbors in attendance either in person or by proary to voice objection to the Zoning Boazd's granring these variances points to a failure of the process to collect the community's response to this proposal. The failure of Roger Young to solicit a truthful , thorough, and representative response, despite his claim, and the failure of the St.Anthony Park Community Council to collect response, as a matter of procedure, and then recommend for approval without it, both contributed, I feel, to an incomplete and misguided process. I couldn't attend the Zoning Board's hearing. I wasn't aware of until it was too late. But my absence then shouldn't discount or discredit my opposition now. My opposition is this: 1. The site plan places the proposed structure in a small corner of the property, wlvch if observed, seems intractable as a site due to the awkwazd ailey access and consequent safety problems, and the slope of the site. 2. Because of the proposed separation of the drive to the structure, its independence from the e�sting drive, I can only conciude that in the fixture this section of Roger Young's property, held in joint tenancy, could conceivably be sectioned off, resulring in lot and a house with a street address on the alley. This is a precedent that entirely concerns me. Is this the right kind of growth that the Zoning Board is sanctioning? For these reasons, I strongly suggest the coixncil consider rescinding the granting of these variances by the Zoning Board. Thank you. �� 05-y� 9 � 2134 Knapp Street St. Paul MN 55108 April 14, 2005 Zoning Administration Office of LIEP 350 St. Peter Street-Suite 300 St Paul MN 55102-1510 Deaz Zoning Administration, File #OS-086248 (2125 Scudder) We aze pleased that Victor Chan has decided to appeal your decision to permit the cons`uuction of a secend dwelling on the lot at 2125 Scudder. We were out of town at the time of the first hearing and therefore were not able to express our opposition to this planned construction. We live in the house in back of 2125 Scudder, across the alley above the proposed dwelling. We oppose this second dwelling on the Scudder lot for three reasons: 1) Crowding a house into this subsize lot will destroy some of the remaining green space left in St. Anthony Park and change the feel of the neighborhood. It will • also establish a precedent for other variances that crowd an already well-built up area. 2) The house as proposed on the drawings left at our door is overly elaborate for the neighborhood and for the location. It is much too fancy for the small footprint allowed for it by the configuration of the lot. 3) The driveway to the underground garage on the proposed house is dangerous. This alleyway is used by neighborhood residents, children on bikes and on foot, and by trades people. The driveway, which will necessitate backing out, will pose a danger to all of these passersby; several yeazs ago I was hit by a car backing from the current driveway of 2125 Scudder. The alleyway into which the new resident will be backing is narrow, on a grade, and restricted by a guardrail on the opposite side. There is simply not enough room to back a car out safely or easily from the proposed access; it will be necessary for the driver to back blind into an area where people do not expect traffic. We urge you to reject this plan far the sake of the beauty of the neighborhood and for the safery of the immediate residents. Very truly yours, ..%'� � �2��'�-r/h'c,�. �� Lucy M. Brusic ��e�� Robert M. Brusic • C. Chan os-yiy Statement to the St. Paul City Council My name is Charles MacKenzie who resides at 2129 Como Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. I have been a St. Anthony Park resident for a very long time. I am issuing this statement to e�ress my support for Victor Chan's appeal. I agree with his reasoning eapressed in his appeal particularly the issue of the alley being too narrow and hazardous. I also feel that if Mr. Youngs is allowed to build a new house in his backyard, that can set a precedent for the rest of the City of St. Paul. Additionally,I would like to inform you that I have never been contacted by any representative from the St. Anthony Park Community Council or Mr. Youngs. If you have any further questions, feel free to call me at (651)497-7875. C�� z�-) � � �� Charles Mac � zi 05-4�� Statement to the St. Paul City Council My name is _L�L1�.�.�._ who resides at �� St. Paul, Mn. � I am issuing this stat�to ex ress m su ort for Victor Chan's a eal. I A Y PP PP agree with his reasoning e�pressed in his appeal particularly the issue of the alley being too narrow and hazardous. I also feel that if Mr. Youngs is allowed to build a new house in his backyard, that can set a precedent for the rest of the City of St. Paul. Additionally, I would like to inform you that I have never been contacted by any representative from the St. Anthony Park Community Gouncil or Mr. Youngs. If you have any further questions, feel free to call me at �05 j�l.,� �,— � 1 a� � � � �� L�� a5-Ui9 Statement to the St. Paul City Gouncil My name is Janet Ward who resides at 2121 Scudder Street, St. Paul, Mn. I have been a St. Anthony Park resident for a very long time. I am issuing this statement to express our support for Victor Chan's appeal. I agree with his reasoning e�ressed in his appeal particularly the issue of the alley being too narrow and hazardous. I also feel that if Mr. Youngs is allowed to build a new house in his backyard, that can set a precedent for the rest of the City of St. Paul. Addiponally, we would like to inform you that we haue never been contacted by any representative from the St. Anthony Park Community Council or Mr. Youngs. If you have any further questions, feel free to ca11 me at Co SI -(, �-1-y- - � �{ y-9 ane� ��,