Loading...
05-704Council File # �S_ ��� Green Sheet # 302 7522 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Refesed To Committee: Date /D 2 Whereas, Alan Butts made application to the Board of Zoning Appeals in File 3 No. OS-103923 for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of the Saint Paul 4 Zoning Code for propefty located at 1083 Sherburne Avenue and legally described as 5 SIMONPTSCH'S SUBDIVISTON OF BLOCK 11 & 14 OF fIYDE PARK LOT 20 BLK 1; and 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Whereas, The puipose of the application was to vary the standards of the Zoning Code so as to grant a height variance in order to construct a new two-story detached gazage; and Whereas, The Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a pubiic hearing on June 6, 2005, after having provided notice to affected property owners, and the Board, by its Resolution No. OS- 103923, adopted June 6, 2005, decided to deny the variance application based on the following findings and conclusions: The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. 1. The applicant states that he does not have enough room to store all of his personal items in the house and he would also like to be able to park his vehicles in a garage. He is proposing to build a two-story, 24 by 33-foot garage in the rear yard. A garage is a permitted accessory structure and is a reasonable amenity for a single family home. However, the proposed garage would have a footprint larger than the house and with a second story would look more like a second house on the lot rather than an accessory structure to the house. The plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were created by the landowner. 2. There is nothing unique about this property that would justify the requested variance. Any hazdship incurted is self-created. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. 3. The applicant's house and front yard are neat and well maintained but the rear yazd is a solid mass of vehicles, equipment and various material. When staff visited the site there were seven vehicles, including a tow truck, a fork lift and other power equipment not typicaily associated with a single-family home, along with car parts and various other 05 - 70� 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 items stacked and parked in the reaz yazd. The applicant appears to be a"collector" or is running some kind of business. There have been several complaints filed with the City over the last 3 yeazs regazding the material and vehicles parked and stored on this property. It is doubtful that all of this material would even fit in the proposed gazage and granting a variance would do nothing to reduce the amount of items or guazantee that there would be no more exterior storage or parking. The requested variance is not keeping with the spirit and intent of the code nor consistent with the health and welfare of are residents. 4. The proposed variance will impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, and alter the essential character of the surrounding area and may unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed garage would be a full two-story building. Aithough it would meet the required setbacks there wouid be significant impact on the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The proposed garage would be lazger than the house. There are other large garages in the azea but they aze single-story buildings that look like accessory structures. A two-story building of this size would alter the character of the neighborhood and could have a negative impact on surrounding property values. 5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not pernzitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. An accessory building is a permitted use and provided that the garage is not used for commercial purposes or as additional living space, the requested variance would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of Zand. Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 61.702(a), Alan Butts and Teri Tarver duly filed an appeal from the deternunation made by the Board of Zoning Appeals in Zoning File No. OS-119559 and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the Board of Zoning Appeals; and Whereas, Acting pursuant to I.eg. Code § 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on July 6, 2005, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and, at the close of the public hearing, the matter, upon a motion, was laid over to July 20, 2005, for the purpose of determining whether the applicant might submit an alternative design for the proposed detached gazage; and Whereas, the applicant subsequently submitted an alternative design for the said garage and that the said design was reviewed by the staff of the Board of Zoning Appeals which agreed in principal with the alternative design but noted that the alternative design would nevertheless still require a variance to build; and Page 2 of os- �o� 2 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 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Whereas, The altemative design plan subsequenfly appeared on the City Council's July 20, 2005 Discussion Agenda whereupon the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the original variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals as well as the newly submitted alternative design, does hereby Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul, in light of the alternative design submitted by the applicant after the July 6, 2005 public hearing, does hereby uphold the decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals to deny the applicant's original variance based upon the findings contained in the Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution No. OS-103923. However, the Council, pursuant to authority under L,eg. Code § 61.704 and based upon the altemative design submitted by the applicant following the July 6, 2005 public hearing regazding the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in its Resolution No. OS-103923, does hereby modify the Board of Zoning Appeals's determination in order to grant the variance(s) necessary for the applicant to build the detached garage proposed in the applicant's alternative design submitted after the July 6, 2005 public hearing based upon the following reasons: This matter was laid over at the close of the public hearing on 7uly 6, 2005, so that the applicant could consider revising his garage plans. The applicant submitted an alternative design for his garage that has a different roof pitch and is shofter in height than the design submitted to and rejected by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The applicanYs revised plan lowers the height of the garage to 18.5 feet instead of 20.5 feet. The roof pitch changes with the lowered height of the garage. The Board of Zoning Appeals staff has reviewed the new design and would recommend that it be approved. With the change in design, the proposed garage is now more in scale and character with other neighborhood garages. Subject to Yhe condition that the new garage is not used for any commercial purposes or as additional living space, the Council approves the variance(s) necessary to build the gazage depicted in the alternative design based upon the foilowing findings: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant states that he does not have enough room to store all of his personal items in the house and he would also like to be able to park his vehicles in a gazage. He is proposing to build a two-story, 24 by 34-foot garage in the rear yard. A garage is a pernutted accessory structure and is a zeasonable amenity for a single-family home. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this properry, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The size of the lot as well as the location of the house on the site limits the area available for an accessory structure. These are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. Page 3 of 5 oS- 7�- 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the znhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The applicanYs house and front yard are neat and nicely landscaped. The applicant has plans to landscape the rear yard in a similar manner once the new garage is built. There is a limited amount of land area in the reaz yard. If a garage with a larger foot print were built, there would be little green area left. The requested variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and will not affect the health and welfare of azea residents. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properry, nor alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed garage will meet all of the required setbacks. The applicant has submitted letters in support from both of his immediate neighbors. The proposed variance will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. There are other large garages in the area. The proposed guage will allow the applicant to eliminate all of the exterior storage which will greatly improve the appearance of the property. Provided that the garage is not used for commercial purposes or as additional living space, the requested variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood and should have a positive impact on surtounding property values. S. The variance, if granted, would not pernzit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land fs located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classifzcation of the property. An accessory building is a permitted use and provided that the garage is not used for commercial purposes or as additional living space, the requested variance would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. Page 4 of 5 D S - 7�- 2 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the 3 value or income potentiat of the parcel of land. � 4 5 And, Be It Further Resolved, That the appeal of the appellant from the decisaon of the 6 Board of Zoning Appeals is hereby denied subject to and consistent with the revised findings of 7 the City Council set forth granting the appellant the variances necessary to construct a garage 8 consistent with the alternative design prepazed by the applicant following the July 6, 2005 public 9 hearing before the City Council; and, 10 11 Be It Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the 12 applicant, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning 13 Appeals. � Green Sheet Green Sheet . DS- 7� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Departmentloffice/council: Date Initiated: ca -��TyA�� �a��-05 Green Sheet NO: 3027522 Conqct Person 8 Phone• Denartmer�t Sent To Person InitiaUDate Peter W. Wamer � 0 ' A rn 2G6-8710 p��gn 1 'tv Attorne Must Be on Councii qgenda by (Date): Number Z a or�s �ce 03-AUG-05 For �� 3 ouncil OMer 4 erk 5 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Memorialize Council action of July 20, 2005, granting variances to applicant based on new design wlrile upholding BZA decision to deny variances based on original design. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Mswer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this personlfirm ever worked under a contract for this departmenY? CIB Committee Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this personlfirm possess a skill not normafly 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): Resolurion is required to memorialize Council acUOns. AtivantapeslfApproved: Comply with Charter requirements. DisadvanWpes If Approved: None. Disadvantages If Not Approved: Council action will not comply with Charter requirements. ToWI Amount of . Transaction: CostlRevenue Budgeted: Fundins� Source: Activity Number. � Fi nancial Information: (Explain) os- �o� June 17, 2005 CTfY OF SAIN'C PAUL Rmidy C. Xelly, Mdyor Ms. Mary Erickson Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: OFF[CE OF LICINSE, WSPECf[ONS AND II�7VQtONMEhTAL PROTECIYON .Imieers E. Rasas, Ilbector COMMERCEBUILDING Telephone: 651-266-9090 8 Foiu�th Sdeet F.ost, Suite 200 Fatximile: 657-266-9124 Sa'vrtPaul,Mmneeom55107 Web: www.lien.us I would like to confuzn that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, July 6, 2005 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Alan Butts & Teri Tarver, 1083 Sherburne Ave Zoning File #: OS-103923 Purpose: Location: Staff: District : Board: Appeal a decision ofthe Board ofZoning Appeals denying a height variance in order to construct a new two story detached garage at 1083 Sherburne Ave. 1083 Sherburne Ave. Recommended denial. District 7 recommended approval. Denied on a 7- 0 vote. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Debbie Montgomery. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda ofthe City CouncIl at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the heating in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks ! Sincerely, John Hardwick, Zoning Specialist AA-ADA-EEO Employer ... =o" OF PIIBLIC HEARINQ � �� 1�e saurt ra„t cYey coiui�u wn �nauct a pvblic hearing on Wednesday; �.JWy 6, 20p5 at�5:30 p.m, ur the City�Council Chambers. Third Floor C4�3'�Hall, 1S West Kellogg Boulevazd. to consider theaPP� of Alan Buits and Teri 1�arver W a dedsion of The Boazd of Zonin�s APPey1s denying a height vartance in �order to con5hvet a nea' two-sfory� detached garage at I083 Sherburne Avenue. (Zoning File �No. 05-1'03923)" . Dated: June 20, 2005 MARY ERICKSON ' - ' _ Assistant GYty.Council Secretary - . (JUne 23f � 22099I90 pAUL LSGAL I,F,DGER . os-�o� SAiNS PAUL � Al1AA C1fiY OF SAINT PAUL Rm�dy G Kelly, Mayor OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENV420NMENTAL PROTECTTON Janeen & Rosas, Director COMd�RCEBUII,DING Tekphane: 651-266-9090 8 Founh SYreei East, Suite 200 Facsimile: 65Z-266-9124 Sairzt Paul, Minnesota SSZOI Web: www.lieo.us June 17, 2005 Ms. Mary Erickson Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Aa11 Saint Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: I wouid like to coufirni that a public hearing befare the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, July 6, 2005 for the following zoning case: Appellant: Alan Butts & Teri Tarver, 1083 Sherbume Ave �oning File #: OS-103923 Purpose: Location: Staf£ District : Board: Appeal a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeais denying a height variance in order to construct a new two story detached garage at 1083 Sherburne Ave. 1083 Sherbume Ave. Recommended deniai. District 7 recommended approval. Denied on a 7- 0 vote. I have confinned this date with the office of Council Member Debbie Montgomery. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you wili publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks ! S � er , � J Hardwick, Zoning Specialist � AA-ADA-EEO Employer 05 -7 o�F � APPlICATtON FOR APPFe� Depar[meKt ofPlannzrzg and Ecorzomie Dwelopment Zoain j�(;g,+g��+j� j�ej j,�p i400.euyg�rr.�� zs��Fa��� �uc� ��aa� SauuPau�MN5510LI634 �, '� (65I) 266-6559 APPLICANT PROPEi2TY LOCATION Name Atan R„trc E.2.'1�"`�'.QS; jcirvc�- q�� 1083 Sherburne Avenue C�� St. Paul St. MN Zip 55104 4aytime Phone 651-9g3-7n4� i Zoning File Name ��- 1 C��C1��i Address/Location 1083 Sherburne Avenue TYPE OF APPEALc Applicatian is hereby made far an appeal to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals �Gity Council Under the provision df Chapter 64, Section Faragraph of the Zoning Code, to appea! a � decision made by the � X�$� �� d-. (� C'A I'1-NJ.�Q t� U s l -�- - i on ' "� u _� 20�. Fi[e Number: �� •— ! Dc7� a� (da of ecision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explatn why you feei there has been an error in ariy requirement, permit, decision - or refusal made by an administrative officiat, or an error in faot, procedure Or finding made by fhe Board of Zoning Appea{s or the Planning Cammission. ; I �"�' aa �i �! {eF+i�\�!Y• i� ! � � �. , „ , . ,� +� • , �, � �'s � ` ► �'i �� r s y. - a • � �s ��. �° j s S ; ��� ,� � � . .. i �, � k� !� �� �. � � . s !� `' ► ., �� . �, � �; � r � �. �:}�"� � ' �� ��.. � � s (` %���i.� ��� `-i�r'��z�c�.'i�o C�h't9.c.i�.¢Jot�Cs j' C�i sku�' �il1G�Q0, � � zzz�i:�e ���,�.o�,�ln� ?� z �tr� �'�2�L�����'��e� l✓ �-�t,0{�G...�..`� t� `� �13, _ 1, � �ueneo4 �4ta. �k�C'=t��.,� u� ncGar��� c�� �, '�I �E►Le.�,'tidr k;�1 - J ` �`�G��° - 7�e. �� -�Q. Q.,�� ���,. ,� � (attac�iE�ionalsheet if n ces ry�� � 4 Applicant's � �( UQIhiCQ.Q,D,4QP.rl C,pf''{� `l y' � �Ct3�z.�, �J � I �-'� l ta� �s b.�.i -l�t. �L'La.k 7L�u ..�.a.�L �� �n.�a��.LQ.. �1�-t��� �f � Qate_l� CityAyent_ r�� � ���� � � -�/j;f��� a5 -zo'f BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS STAFF REPORT TYPE OF A.PPLICATION: APPLICANT: HEARING DATE: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLANNING DISTRICT: PRESENT ZONING: REPORT DATE: DEADLINE FOR ACTION: Minor Variance ALAN BUTTS 7une 6, 2005 1083 SHERBIJRNE AVENUE ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 63.501 SIMONPTSCH'S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 11 & 14 OF IIYDE PARK LOT 20 BLK 1 7 RT1 May 25, 2005 7une 27, 2005 FII.E #OS-1039�3 BY: John Hardwick DATE RECEIVED: May 18, 2005 A. PURPOSE: A variance in order to conshuct a taller garage. The masimum allowable height is 15 feet to the midpoint of the peak aud eave, 20.5 feet is pmposed for a variance of 5.5 feet. B• 6ITE AND AREA CONDITTONS: This is a 39 by 125-foot lot with alley acc�ss at the rear. There is an e�stittg cement slab in the reaz yazd. Surrounding Land Use: •Piimarily one- and two-family homes. C. BACKGROUND: In August of 2004 the applicant requested this same variance and the Boazd denied that requast. He is now re-applying to build a two-story detached garage in the rear yard, D. FINDINGS: 1. The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant states that he does not ha�e enough room to store all of his personal items in the house and he would also like to be able to park his vehicles in a gazage, He is Page 1 of 3 � `J � � Gt5 7oy File #OS-103923 , Staff Report proposing to buiid a two-story, 24 by 33-foot garage in the rear yard. A garage is a permitted accessory structure and is a reasonable amenity for a single-family home. However, the proposed garage would ha�e a footprint larger than the house and with a second story would look mare like a second house on the lot rather than an accessory structure to the house. 2. �'lie plight of the Zand owner is not due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were created by the land owner. There is nothing unique about this property that would justify the requested variance. Any hardship incurred is self created. 3. T7xe proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is not consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The applicanYs house and front yazd are neat and well maintained but the rear yard is a solid mass of vehicles, equipment and various material. When staff visited the site there were seven vehicles, including a tow truck, a fork lift and other power equipment not � typically associated with a single-family home, along with car parts and various other items stacked and parked in the rear yard. The applicant appears to be a"collector" or is ruuuing some lflnd of business. There haue been several complaints filed with the City over the last 3 years regarding the material and vehicles pazked and stored on this property. It is doubtful that all of this material would even fit in the proposed garage and granting a variance would do nothing to reduce the amount of items or guarantee that there would be no more exterior storage or pazking. The requested variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code nor consistent with the health and welfare of area residents. 4. The proposed variance will impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, and alter the essential character of the surrounding area and may unreasonably diminish established property values within the sun-ounding area. The proposed garage would be a full two-story building. Although it would meet the required setbacks there would be a significant impact on the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The proposed garage would be larger than the house. There are other large garages in the area but they are single-story buildings that look like accessory structures. A two-story building of this size would alter the character of the neighborhood and could have a • negative impact on surrounding property values. Page 2 of 3 � Cs-1o�f File #OS-103923 Staff Report S. The variance, ifg�-anted, 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 located, nor would it aZter or change the zoning district classification of the propeKy. An accessory building is a permitted use and provided that the garage is not used for commercial purposes or as additional living space, the requested variance would not change or alter the zoning classification of the properiy. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of Zand. E. DISTRICT COiJNCIL RECONIlI'�NDATION: As of the date of this report, we have not received a recommendarion from District 7 although they supported this reques4 at the previous hearing. F. CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has not received any correspondence regazding this matter. � G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION; Based on findings 1 through 4, staffreoommends denial • of the variance. � � Page 3 of 3 05- a�4 • ;•, � j ixs. ! ��I � i�� APPLiCATtON FOR ZONiNG VARIANCE OFFICE OFLICENSE, INSPECTIONS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 S2. Peter Street, Suite 3Q0 SaintPaul, MN55102-I.i10 651-266-9008 Cify Agent APPLICANT Zoning office use oniy File number �S. ta�{�� Fee $ � Tentative hearing date _ Section(s) ' PROPERTY Address/Locat Legaidescripti (ama�h additio. ' Lotsize �� � Proposed Use � Present Zonin -� Present Use v� �1. Variance(s) requested: � 2. What physical characteristics of the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topography, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) 3. Explain how the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or exceptional practical di�culties or exceptional undue hardships. , CASHIERS USE ONLY • 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. additional sheets if Applicant's � Date 7 9 /`�-� D5-7oy Ag�Iication for zoning �ranauce Re: 148� S'�er�t�rne �venue Saint PauI, �1L 1 55I04 Qnestio�s 1-¢ � �. d 1. �or varianca (height) 2. Size and shage of 1ot . � .��z c�s-�o3 a ` a. Lack of ample stora�e space or aYsility to make i#. b. Law basement csiling attd we are both 6" or over. s. Lack of safe on-street parking. If allowed we cau2d bizild a�ture �rge �nough to sto-re our aerso�al items and vehicles off street. t�ur veIiicles have 'oeen hit sevezai times in tiie last tlxea years. The worst dama�e �einb a little over $154D.fl0. tiVe are in need nf storage for a large amount of persoaal itams, a�hich; we curren�ly pay apprflximately $200.00 a montii io rent a steraae locker, rvhich amounts to around �720Q.Q0 in three years. This cost has become an extreme burflen on our furauces. Our previous residence �ad a lar�e use-abie basement, and �arage far these purposes. We 23ave a targe cotiection of outdoor equipmeaf, i.e. Ia�vt�owex, trin�er, furniture, snow blower, etc. These iierns have suffered, 3riuc1�, damage just from beinb �#ored outdoors for the Iast three years. 5Ve have tallced to all neighbors iuho eould possibly be a£Fected by our buildin� pta.nc. They have 3?' gave tkeu c�y s tv our giar�s as �sc�sse3. 'Ne a?so feel t�at building such a structure we wiIl heip to beautify the neiahborhood, as we cvill not have to rely on unsightly/tamporary outdaor storaae, which the city inspection department severai times in fhe last ihree years has cited us. There are also, two e�stiag large garage shvciures currently ia our aliey. In addition, there. are ser eral other large garage s�tructures within a three-square bloek area We do not feel our garage structure will be aay larger Thau existing slaucture 1liank you, for your cansideratioa in This matter, �'���� Alan 7. $' ` ,� �� Dated �> `� �� �� l � � � �. � � � _� -------------- -��.� , � — � ; - i � — t—�- : � —�—; a rt I. � I 1 1 � I � � E � �--'—� i �� � �. I �..� i i � � ,� ��'�������i M �;��! � . �^ � � z LQ F} K� � � � _ __ � �� —� —� � I j�� i�� I i �� '�i � I �� 4�a � I I � I � I � � ; i I i 1 I � � f �� " � f I � � 1 { . �f i � i'� I I I ' , �" � � i I I� � I �� _ � li � � I�� � � i � I� i � � I� -`Z$'' zf � - _ � f =�a- � � � i a Y : v i � _ . .1 � �i� � \ J � � � ti� —o, ; -s� -� ,o 7 .�.� -�---- _ -• ----� - -- I ' � I I � ti � � , i � : i j � ; j „ � ; � =� � � i � - ---�-- __ I �, . ___ o��__� - Y i I. `�?s �. t I .` � i} 1 � � - }� � i � 'S � b ui � � 1 ' = �"J ��� �t � ,� � 5�l j �i � � ' _ l_� _ �__� � i " __ — _� I e os-7o� . . �_�. T `�.��-_ - � ����� i� � I� �. � � i� �. ---�.. ; ,._: .._..r 4q. , -. ; �. � �; � �� � � �� ( � , i �`�— a ; ; ��i ; �. .i � � � -, i O Y J •� � i ( � � i � a t j,l e�ii ��i � a, I i � � �- . � � `n I a �� �y I� f i ! I S � �� � 1 � Ii �� � �— ps �a� �� `a � �� . a� u+ � �� �� �� ��i s • � N � (�I � �— ----- „ � '[ � N � � �-; I ! `` ` ( -.., � '�� r � � �� � ' �* I � °t �' � '� .��`� I sL ! � �' • � _ t � � � — — — ----, i i I � � �I I�� i �I-==i 1�=� ��� �� �L � �i 7 1,==� !�� i�_�, I�_ � i�--° . r � I� lE �r , 1��=� t_ __ � � � _, ��-� i� � �� � t �`f :) ; =�.�;i i; ::,;� �: � ii ;� �; ;��; `;; �jl ''•i�; `'it� ti,� _��ri�'f}�� �lt.ti��: �if"ij3';i{ jt; :i �i11, �; fi �( � r�;l. �: '•'i': �ii �,i} ':, �ji�(°' �;;�< :;: �"'`;I! ,; . �ji � �,i � :•� ' ,;. �'.' f ; � �� ; � � � � �� .: � �.,�:� �... y -- � � b � � �}" • .t::s..-� 3°"`h 3�:� -' * s �- - r T ' -c .. -. °-�r� „ �'��"°' — .e.-= -3 ^ - >+�"� L -} r � �x < -r �LO 0 (� �'dFlE- a:` F a "� $ G ,�.,r=' :�r4 "�',�i'"�, ��'"z'" �"� . � �' � :���� �.^ �,zr>x,�s .�:��}�..... ,-�:c, . r__.�T. '��a_,<.c.«...,._..a=....-n ..o_ ...,_.. �.�..aE. . _ �v." To: district7@integraonline.com Cc: Janeen Rosas ; John Hardwick Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 3:36 PM Subject: 1083 Sherbume TaiY, Mr. Butts may re-apply for a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeafs for a two-story garage at 1083 Sherburne Ave. without paying another filing fee providing he submits the application by May 1, 2005. If he receives a variance, either from the BZA or the City Council on an appeal, a buiiding permit must be obtained within two years for it to remain valid. � If you have further questions, please contact me. Wendy Lane Zoning Manager 651-266-9081 � � OS-� o� ! MINUTES OF'Tf� MEETING OF TF� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCII, CHAIVIBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, IvI1NNESOTA, AUGUST 16, 2004 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Faricy, Galles, and Wilson of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attomey; Mr. Hazdwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office'of License, Inspecrions; and Environmental Protecrion. ABSENT: Vincent CourtneyM *Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. Alan Butts (#04-1249901 1083 Sherburne Avenue: A height variance in order to build a new two-story gazage. The matimum allowable height for a gazage is 15 feet with 20S feet proposed, for a variance of 5.5 feet. Mr. Hazdwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for denial. No correspondence was received opposing the vaziance request. No correspondence was received from District 7 regarding the variance request. The applicant ALAN BU'I`TS, 1083 Sherburne Avenue, was present. Mr. Butts stated that he is a very crearive � individual who likes to build things and does collect go-carts, video games, pinball maclunes which currenfly he has no place to store. He does not have a shop azea to work in and has trouble keeping tools available. There is a large amount of tratfic through his back yazd azea. Mr. Butts stated that he has even had police chases in his yazd. Many items have been vandalized or removed from lus yard. Windows in tus vehicles have been repeateclly broken. It is impossible to do any type of work to improve his property with the vandalism. The basement in his home has a very low ceiling, he is tall and cannot stand upright whIle walking in his basement. It is also hazardous to go into the basement to do any type of work beyond trying to store things there, which aze being destroyed by the dampness. Mr. Butts stated that he is asking for this space to be able to store some of his personal items and be able to work on his hobbies. The yazd will immediately improve and will be maintained if he is allowed to build this garage. Because he will then have the storage space to place items. Noting that he does have unusual items azound his home. Such as the fork lift, which he uses to place the luge boulders in his front yazd landscaping, while creating the pond. He has had many favorable comments from his neighbors about this landscaping. Altkough fhere aze many unusual things in the yard, ihey aze used for purposes around the house. Mr. Butts sTated that he has spoken to Mr. Dannielson who has received many posirive comments from Mr. Butts' neighbors about his landscaping. Mr. VJIlson quesfioned whether Mr. Butts had spoken cvith the District 6 CouncIl. Mr. Butts replied yes he had. Ms. Maddox questioned what Mr. Butts' profession is. Mr. $utts replied that currenfly he is working for Mr. Jeff Roberts doing odd jobs as well as maintaining some other business items for him. The previous job he just finished was doing container and compactor repair for Aspen Waste Systems. Ms. Maddox questioned whether Mr. Butts would be doing any of this work in his proposed gazage. Mr. Butts replied absolutely not. All work in the gazage would be of a personal nature. Mr. Butts stated that he has done a lot of work impxoving the pioperry in the time that he has owned it. I�is desire is to continue to improve his property. The proposed gazage will be lower than the finished house even � though the foot print will be larger. There are severat lazge gazages in the neighborhood, although they aze not as tall as his proposed gazage, the foot print is the same size if not larger. Many gazages in the area have larger AA-ADA-SEO Employer ' �' a5-7o`f foot prints than the homes they accompany. FIle #04-124990 Minutes August 16, 2004 Page Two Tate Dannielson, 687 Dale Street North, representing I}istrict 7. Mr. Dannielson noted that there have not been a lot of responses from tfie District Councils to notifications from LIEP(License, Iaspection, & Environmental Protection). There has always been a short tum azound time but it seems to be getting shorter. It is becoming nearly impossible for the DistdcYs to have a solid meeting and get a complete understanding of each applicanYs situarion. It is becoming more difficuk to get a good feel for how the neighborhood feels about these requests. Mr. Dannielson stated that this is the first time he has been able to come to a BZA meeting and support one of these projects. Mr. Dannielson e�lained that Mr. Butts is the first person m tUree years, who calted him before applying to the City for the variance. He advised Mr. Butts to speak to his neighbors. Mr. Dannielson stated that Mr. Butts then went out and spoke with his neighbors_ He stated he knows this because the neighbors called Mr. Dannielson and left him messages supporting this project. So Mr. Butts has done his due diligence to be a good neighbor. Part of his motivation has been that Code Enforcement has been on him about his cars. This is a situation tfiat Frogtown runs into aII the time. T'here aze neighbors that like to wark on cazs and work on their cars. Sometimes we have neighbors who aze collecting cars and doing business with cars, that is what Yaya Diatta of the Zouing Department is for, to go out and check that stuff out. Mr. Dannielson stated that he doesn't know of any situarions whexe anyone has gone out and found Mr. Burts working on a business. There is no evidence of Mr. Butts working on a business. What he sees is a genfleman who likes to work on cazs and other mechanical equipment. Mr. Dannielson wntinued that Mr. Butts finds himself with a house that does not work for his hobby. He is trying to do better, he is hying to be under code compliance and get his cars put away and registered. Mr. Dannielson suggested that the Boazd help him do that. There aze times when people have hobbies that aze not conducive to the neighborhood. When neighUors recognize that it is ok with them and there is an oppoxtunity for them to fix up their property in a nice way it should be eacouraged. Mr. Dannielson requested that the Boazd approve this vaziance for the applicant. Ms. Maddox questioned whether Mr. Dannielson thought that the proposed gazage would stick out in the neighborhood. Mr. Dannielson replied that five feet wili not sflck out, Mr. Butts' properry is not as wide as some of the lots in the neighborhood. Mr. Dannielson questioned whether their had been a picture of the front of Mr. Butts yard, showing the landscaping. Mr. Butts provided a picture. Ms. Maddox questioned whether the Boazd could keep the picture. Mr. Dannielson noted that this picture shows what can be er.pected from Mr. Butts in the future. Mr. Butts' home is one of the nicest on the block. Mr. Dannieison s[ated that he has been to Boazd meetings where the applicant's have planned to build two story homes on the small lots in Frogtown. Which will block out mucfi more fight and air tfian tfiis gazage, that will be ott the back portion of the property. This will not be a major impact to anyone's bedroom or eye sight through out the neighborhood. Mr. Wilson questioned Mr. Dannielson (could not hear). Mr. Dannilson stated that it is his understanding that Mr. Butts will be putting in a lift to get larger items up to the second floor of the gazage for storage. Mr. Wilson questioned whether any business were being done in the gazage. Mr. Dannielson replied that there is no indication that any business is being done in the gazage. Noting that he had asked Mr. Butts several times because he did see a tow-iruck in the back yazd. Mr. Dannielson, stated that Mr. But1s pmmised him that the trucks aze not being used for business and he hopes to get them out of there and back into sforage. Mr. Dannielson affumed that when there is a business going on in the neighborhood, he averages about Lwenry calls a week from the neighbors because they recognize it and complain to Lim. Neither Mr. Dannielson nor the City have come up with any evidence that Mr. Butts' ptoperry is being used as a business. There was no opposiiion present at the heazing. AA Employer � � �� � a5-70� � Hearing no fiuther testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. File #04-124990 Minutes August 16, 2004 Page Three Mr. Hardwick stated that rhe applicant deserves to have a gazage. In fact he can have a gazage with a foot print of up to 1,000 sqnare feet, he can buiid it with a little lazger foot print than he is showing presendy. Under the current height limit of 15 feet, a lot of storage room can be had without exceeding the height limit. If that is what he is looking for. There will not be the head room that a full two story building will allow, but there will be a lot of space. Staff is not saying that Mr. Butts cannot have a gazage, his back yard is big enough that he can have a gazage up to 1,000 square fe@t. With a gazage that big you can get a lot of storage azea without exceeding the height limit. Ms. Maddox noted that the Board has many times looked at gazages larger than the house. Mr. Wilson quesfioned the deadline for acrion. Mr. Hudwick replied that the Boazd has until September 5, 2004, unless the Boazd needs more information, at which time the deadline can be extended for another 60 days. Mr. WIlson quesfloned continuing the case to allow the applicant time to revise his plans. Mr. Hazdwick quesfloned whaT the point would be. If the applicant wants to come up with a design to build a garage that does not need a variance he is welcome to build it, as long as he gets the necessary building perntits. Ms. Maddox � questioned whether Mr. Wilson were considering giving the applicant a couple of feet rather than the requested 5.5 feet, Mr. WIlson stated(?). Ivli. Haxdwick questioned whethec he just heazd Mr. Wilson say the applicant could build the gazage without a height vaziance? Mr. Hazdwick stated that the Chair raised the question whether Mr. Wilson would be willing to allow a lesser height vaziance that the 5.5 feet requested. He quesfioned whether Mr. WIlson were suggesting that the applicant build a gazage within the existing standards. Mr. Wilson stated that it all depends on what is being proposed here. Mr. WIlson seemed to be looldng for a compromise rather than denying the vaziance request. Ms. Bogen stated that it would just make sense to just deny the request and let the applicant reconfigure the garage so he does not need a variance. Ms. Maddox stated we would have to renotify if the variance request is changed. Mr. Warner stated that it would actually be a mofion to approve stafPs recommendation for denial. Mc. Galles stated that it is hazd to stand up a pac-man machine when the roof is pitched. For the neighbor who has invested in his home, wants to stay in the neighborhood, is an asset to the neighborhood, how those things are balanced with what is reasonable is difficult. Ms. Bogen moved to deny the vaziance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, which failed on a roll call vote of 3-3(Galles, Morton, Faricy). Ms. Maddox stated that the Board does not have a consensus. Requesting any motion. Ms. Morton moved to lay the matter over for fwo weeks, until August 30, 2004. Mr. Galles seconded the motion, which passed on a voice vote 6-0. i �� AA-ADA-EEO Employer MII� UTES OF Tf� MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CPTY COUNCIL, CHAMBERS, 330 CTTY HALL � � ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, AUGUST 30, 2004 PRESENT': Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Otteson; Messrs. Courtney, Faricy, Galles, and VJilson of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. VJarner, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hazdwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT: Gladys Mozton* '`Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. Alan Butts (#04-124990) 1083 Sherbiu�ne Avenue: A height variance in order to build a new two-story gazage. T1ie masimum allowable height for a gazage is 15 feet with 20.5 feet proposed, foc a vaziance of 5.5 feet. Mr. Hazdwick s»mroari�� the previous heazing on this case with a recommendaflon for deniat. Noting that Mr. Dannielson from the distcict council supported this pzoject. The previous hearing had ended with the Boazd in a three-three tie. Ms. Maddox questioned whether there were any slides. Mr. Hazdwick replied that no he had not brought the slides for this case. He did provide a photo of the front of the house. Mr. Hazdwick noted that the house is very nice and well maintained. It is one of the better looking homes on the block. However, the back yazd is full of stuff. There were seven vehicles, a fork lift and other stuff. Which was the reason the applican4 was requesting to build a lazge gazage. To be able to store all the stuff in the back � yard. Ms. Maddox quesfloned whether the gazage would be lazger than the house. Mr. Hardwick replied it would have a greater foot print than ffie house. Ms. Otteson quesrioned whether the applicant was quesflon about running a business in the gazage. Mr. Hazdwick replied yes that quesflon was asked and the answer was no. The applicant was not running a business. Ms. Otteson quesrioned what the applicant does for a living. Mr. Hardwick stated he hates to speak for the applicant. But he thivks that Mr, Butts use to be in the cat business but is now doing landscaping. Ms. Maddox quesfioned whether there were other quesuons for the applicant. Noting that they could reopen the hearing if necessary. She quesuoned whether the Boazd members felt comfortable with the informaflon provided to make a decision. Mr. Wilson noted that the garage would have a lazger foot print than the house at this point. Ms. Maddox replied that is correct. Mr. Wilson stated his understanding ffiat the applicant could build a larger gazage, however, it would not have the height. Ms. Maddox quesfioned Mr. Hazdwick whether that were correct. Mr. Hazdwick replied that is correct. Ms. Maddox noted that there was no opposiflon from the neighbors about the height of the proposed garage. Ms. Bogen moved to deny the vaziance and resoluflon based on findings 1 through 6. Mr. Faricy quesuoned what staffs recommendarion was. Ms. Maddox replied to deny. Mr. Courtney seconded the mofion, which passed on a roll call vote of 43 (Wilson, Galles, Otteson). � Submitted by: Approved by: C� 1 J � AA-ADA-EEO Employez PROPERTY WITHIN 100 FEET OF PARCEL: 1083 SHERBURNE AVENUE - - - ----- ----- -- ..... --- -- _.. _. . -- � ---- --- - ......_ _- -- --- _ --- -- -------- - CHARLES W CREATED BY LI EP N Sf� � �: � 7. a. 3. 4. 5. b. 7. B. 9. 10. I i. 12. 13. 14. :5. 16. 17. ---- ---. ._.._.. . .. . . ... . _ — ..0�.-?1?_ tL----�-- SUNRAY-BATZLECREEK-HIGH�JOOD HA 7. 8, PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HTLLCREST �NEST SIDE DAYTL�N'S BLTJFF PAY�tF?-P�3AI.EN NORTI-I END THOMP.S-DALE 5L7�yI hf IT-ZJNI VE i2STI`]' ��/EST SEVENTH COMQ HAMLTNE-tviIDWAY ST. AI�TFIOiVY PARI{ MERRIANI PARK-LEX3NCTON H,� 2vILINE•SIvTELLING HAArILIi*TE MACAL�ST'�R uROVEL�'VD HIGIII_AND �� SUrYIN�IT Hi I;OWI�'TO�;IN IN ������ ���� _6��(o3�a� CTIT�EN PA�TICIPATTON PLANNING DISTRICTS OS-'� 0 4 CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NUMBER #OS-103923 DATE: June 6, 2005 WHEREAS, Alan Butts has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 63.501 of the Saint Paul L,egislative Code pertainiug to the maxiinum allowed height of an accessory structure in order to construct a two-story garage in the RTl zoning district at 1083 Sherburne Avenue; and WE3EREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on June 6, 2005 pursnaut to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the I.egislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the pubtic hearing, as substantially reIIected in the minutes, made the foIlowing findings of fact: 1. The property in question can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant states that he does not ha�e enough room to store all of his personal items in the house and he would also like to be able to park his vehicles in a garage. He is proposing to build a two-story, 24 by 33-foot garage in the rear yard, A garage is a pernutted accessory shucture and is a reasonable amenity for a single-family home. However, the proposed gazage would have a footprint larger than the house and with a second story would look more like a second house on the lot rather than an accessory structure to the house. 2. The plight of the land owner is not due to circumstances unique to this propef and these circumstances were created by the land ownef-. There is nothing unique about this property that would justify the requested variance. Any hazdship incurred is self created. 3. The proposed variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is not consistent with the health, safety comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. P¢ul. The applicanY s house and front yard aze neat and well inaiutained but the rear yazd is a solid mass of vehicles, equipment and various material. When staff visited the site there were seven vehicles, including a tow iruck, a fork lift and other power equipment not typically associated with a single-faxnily home, along with caz parts and various other items stacked Page 1 of 3 � � � � � p,5-�oy � File #OS-103923 Resolurion and parked in the rear yard. The applicant appears to be a"collector" or is n,nn;ng some kind of business. There haue been several complaints filed with the City over the last 3 years regarding the material and vehicles pazked and stored on this property. It is doubtful that all of this materiai would even fit in the proposed gazage and granting a variance would do nothing to reduce the amount of items or guazantee that there would be no more eaterior storage or parking. The requested variance is not in keeping with the spirit and inteut of the code nor consistent with the health and welfaze of area residents. 4. The proposed variance will impair an adequate supply of Zight and air to adjacent property, and alter the essential character of the su�ounding area and may unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed garage would be a full hvo-story building. Although it would meet the required setbacks there would be a significant impact on the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The proposed garage would be larger than the house. There are other large garages in the azea but they are single-story buildings that look like accessory structures. A two-story , building of this size would alter the chazacter of the neighborhood and could have a negafive ixupact on surrounding properry values. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would notpermit any use that is notpermitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. An accessory building is a pemutted use and provided that the garage is not used for commercial purposes or as addirional living space, the requested variance would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. . 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of Zand. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paui Boazd of Zoning Appeals tkat the request to waive the provisions of Section 63.501 to allow an accessory sfructute with a maximum height of 20S feet. In order to construct a hvo-story garage on property located at 1083 Sherbume Avenue; and legally described as Simonitsch's Subdivision Of $lock 11 & 14 Of Hyde Pazk I,ot 20 Bik l; in accordance with the applicafion for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Ad.uiinistrator. ISHEREBYDEIVIED. Page 2 of 3 l� 05�70y File #OS-103923 Resolution MOVED BY: Bo SECONDED BY: courtne IN FAVOR: � AGAINST: o MAII.ED: June 7, 2005 TIMG LIMIT: No decision of the zoning or pianning administrator, planning commission, board of zoning appeals or city conncil approving a site plan, permit, variance, or other zoning approvat shall be valid for a period longer than two (2) yeazs, nnless a bnilding perwit is obtained within snch period and the erection or altera6on of a bnilding is proceeding nnder the terms of the decision, or the use is established witLin such period by actaal operation pursnant fo the applicable conditions and reqnirements of the approval, nnless the zoning or plauning administrator grants an extension not to exceed one (1) year. , APPEALc Decisions of the Board oF Zoning Appeals are final snbject to appeal to the CYty Conncff within 10 days by anyone affected by the decision. Buildiug permits shall not be issned after an appeal has been filed. If permits have been issned before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are snspended and construction shall cease nntil the City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the nndersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Saint Panl, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have eompared the foregoing copy with the originai record in my office; arid find the same to be a trae and rnrreet copy of said originai anH of fhe whole thereof, as based on approved minntes of the Saint Panl Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on June 6, 2005 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and Environmental Protection, 8 Fourth St E, Saint Panl, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS d � Aebbie Crippen Secretary to the Board � U �� . Page 3 of 3 May 31 OS �4:�6p �' DISTRICT 7 . ..; ?L-AS�NING ;, � eour�cii Prapertv: 1083 Sherburne Zanin� Review � i Issue: A variance in order fo consfr¢ct a talIer garage. The maximum aiiowable height is 15 feet to tke midgoint of the peak and eave, 20.5 feet is proposed for a variance of 5.5 feet Communitv Resr�onse at Meeting**• Pros - The house needs a garage and the smalt variance seems reasonable. - The house is very well maintained and the garage design wiil only enhance Qie house's beauty, wl�icfi increases neighbor$ood properiy values. -'Fhe owner's basement is abnormally small and having a large garage to accommodate needed storage is a Iogical soIution. - IYs encouraging that ttie applicant is planning to put in a lift. It would be great if more people would install efficient storage devices in a meh setting. 651-948-2088 ds-Z�yP.2 � �. ast�zsa-soss (ot{�of ('��' � ssrnsaso�z {r�rJ l.L�,J_,._.���tsU7CfT@iri2egraonftrte.com (e-maiTJ 689 Narth Oale Sfreet SaintPaul, Minnesofa 55103-16d4 Cons - The Iarger garage will stick out next to its neighbors' shorter garages. Commnni Response Outside of Meetin�**� Pros Cons - The neighbor aE �075 Sherbume aIso has a two-story garage and is very supportive of the applicant's proposaI. Respectfully submitfied by: Tait A. Danielson Communify Organizer District 7 Plqnning Council GFCDC - TEie neighbor at 1074 �herbu��e ctaims ihat the applicant owns several cars and believes he plans to fix them in his new garage. ,------ � ` �• i=� * Prior to the meeting all properties wif4in 350 fk oFthe properry in questfoa vvcre informed of the issuc. + Thc applicant was nofified nf tlte community meeting immediately aFter District 7 received a eapy of the applieatiun from tIre Cify. ** Ait Iisted responses were given by individuals living, working or o�ening property in the boundaries otDistrict 7 Planning Counci7. �. � �� �� ■��� �: 'P i i°s �, *Y ._ �. � � � �'� '' -��� . .�� � -�� �.. � �,� . . � .J� .. �& � . . . . . . . . � . . . . `��-�� _ _ _ �''�..,..`.,�-�"���.� �— .�-,^�� —" , `� �: �°��--� �- �, .� -rt �-�,.. � � , � ` � �"` _ ��� � �'�s ~°� � ; a� �t; -����� °_� ��� sX � -'� u�. : T � � � , S � � w e f ` ur ` ". '�` �^-""� : b � t ao-w��+.e. +� � 6ra.=va., hli � � c � �" .a�� �� . . _ rc, . '�Fn' , . ..v.� _'�� "'y�.. v�,'.5a..h,..i �i $v"`i' �� n�� w� : _.�r ,�,'-,��. � <E 1 ,. � c � e �, a ,, � . . _ _:..:..� 5i 05 •7a�f � � � � �s � � ;- � � � � � � �� ;- V� � _._____ � _� . E i i � � � F � � L.Y � � � l � Y+" F 2 � i ; ; ', � : . E - {...., {. � �, .., �t , i�i`: � S, �' ' � � R� �� ��� � . � *j t t y t � F � t Y �� 4 _ . i ; ; � 0� �� o`� I 1 LJ a ,? ;; �R � • • 0 �� � $'; Cjst C � `? _ �rtcS�'ixo Q 4 t 9 �` ` � C � t� — � ,� �- f "-- ? r � �., �`- _ _t t., . � � c`` , [ i � " .._ __ __.� {�.. • . i ' � ' �., �'l,.r�z . � v� � S # "� ` � . rv , � � �7 C3 � � � � "� � s:' � � e �� — # � � i c E � � . . . _ _...........r—�-_.�...,..__.... � . #«__.�_...a.........»�...�.. � �'S 4" � �� L, J � f �� � A � � � � � J } � � � �x � i� Y y y�.� ..v� _ r aSf�� �y� f` �'.-. s �4 ' �'S 'Y =y . y � : K {- ii .� �� _ ..� ���-� �� �^mu- 4 4�. �vh .s � � � F �� °� .a:as, ����. *._�. i. � �:.� � a��� � ' r .:. � � , �:: t,- a ; .. .. � . �� :. :.� � � �..: 3 , .. � ���� ,�.` . '. ' '� 7 �� 3=. � . .. ���� � � . � . � . . ���� : . �� � r � �� �� �,r : .. _ sry��E'� `��,� 'c � ;�°"" - i °` r ��`'��� � . � . .� ..� � � fr` ������' °•�'�: �� � _ � a "� .��. �. ,� 1.= . -'`: � �.,� ` Y��,r�9 a�'�.. : � •�����'����# , ,� - fu9 �-� F � � a . � . � � � a� �w � '� r .�. ° - ae,'''"'^' `� +,� �. � : _ " � �� . �i`,���..�,'�.�"` �3 �� 4Y � e � s � *� j `�ex, ; _ _ . � t �- ���� r� �� ��a ���'�� �: ��� . ,. � �`�-���� � G . E -t r i'�� � h . , f. _._.. . . . .. fit4� t3�'�i";3���`��� ��� � � 1 � ' ' � R � .. , v �.. ... � � -� 3.�.,^,�.�y ,.* r a = �5. x �S ��"r" � ��u� w f v�, �'� 3 � �� ��,k�.. 'F p � ' � � ���a �°'�� w "' 9x�v � v � ���� , �� � —F 2"�" 3 ` � t n� �£ ' � ' i",b,�,�� M� ' ; &z.� . . � �`t'§ �s ,� s. ` t i : , -? �U ' � . _ . 3�xEiA,"J� F} . -. o . . . � !�� � � � � � > ± t �A ,� � q, .g g , � ' � . . _ t � y . . . . ��'�+,�� -� t � � � � , � ��� , � �� � f i ,* � , � x � rW '�"s� k'.�f � a'�s� c � :� a » � �,,�- . , t, � . "'a... f ay,-�`r�yG � -'' � � ,F,_ ' r„s z��� . .. ��: . ^'5,v � . swrr`n �- �Y"c. ° ,� 1 ; c f' r�S "' a � . . �,; . �' a`�% m a3f `' �� �" � � �v. �' �" � f � ' � ' . ,�� " 3.� �, � � ..Y:b �°� 2k : Te y. . " . `�'��� � # � .. . n'—t i �.v. !� . "e . °., .sn��- J _,. ... . �j{ ,., ; 2 : 2 ^, . . .. . � _. �t � � a . _ ...... � m� k LL �� �. � tM � � '�'�` ��� � ., u t I � � ���' 3 a ; , . '. . � $"s { � , . �a.'�.. } ; ' . . ......t. . .. � �� X . 3 . ; 3 � : ��,..4��; � ,�� � � E ; ` � . � . . :-�,tr'- ,� 4 `��� t}��S g a � � z �� ' ' � n y ���a , �! � ,'`h° t# 'r �'��, y, � �7 .. - �'? ����"` .., ..'z � k � � �" . . � ..�� � ���� t-a� �'j : . �' k � � . "` �'��� a � ��*� �� t m. 5 . •• � � ^.., �. . f i..�' ..�' v�'.Y � ' � .: : > � ' ...? e .`� ' . -J-:..' _� � aif S�. � ; . . _ ".�^d�24�. : f _ � 4 � g •: n n w°° a < t' - - . `�iFy � . . ' ; . .�e � . .-.: � e. � ' . . . e ..: r � � � J �[� . y � �.." yY�.���'x: � � '3r c � � ,t` .� �. �. ^,, ''' ,:�:. . .;; �.,...."��,'�.�'u..k.m...� :�-� ��a;�;;.�x�-, �'�. _, w... ...:.:� .,: -� o �� p5-7a4 � � �� ; �F;t�F��� i Y�13�;�i� 1�?�3 ��� i�� �='�r�G��: iC�83 ��i�R�(����,�V���3�� ��rt± $'Y � !s « {j i y � ° ,� �y �� � � � � — ��I � � �� �" -- � rt � t. � `.�«e '- € �s'� s�3� I _��� ��� a c £.. E _= s � L ° �'--------^� � �� � �� � �� I � E �4.X#s.4� " � 3f�; � �?. t � E 1.F[ FF'lt\L�i3 � t � 5� �: �`, �. � �N'.' .� . . � _ < ..>.., �.,.». � � . �.._ ,. 6 y � � � YT � � � � S � � £ 1 � i 1 I _ � � a � �__..._._..� � �. . �° ; a.4 � µ 4 �: � c� oS-Zo s� E " t`i t x (' x� �E ;i Y $�� tt � _���� � f � �� _� �`��� � �, -r i : �.:,�" �g r.� . € �: ,6s � 'jjj � � s .�m . � 3 }�� � $ 1 �£ � � � . r � � . �..�4 ° �F: -. � : �Y'1 k" 4 � a �$k 3rt ' ��x � % { ���t"���y��-, ti �.:!�:4-�2 . . . . . � V'� d �tt� F �R• xn . � @ ,� he� R` 4. '- } '°� � y � li! � � Fv � ti � �� � ��y� S . . . - . v����'it:md3 ye �PF 45-�0� ! Variance Approvai Petition 1083 Sherburne Ave. Whereas, the owner of 1083 Sherburne has applied for a minor variance in arder to build a new two-story garage. Whereas, under St. Paul City Code the ma.�um allowable height for a gazage is 15 feet. i3Ti�ereas, the appiicarit is proposing a height of 20.5 feet for his new gazage, for a proposed variance of 5.5 feet. i3'hereas, the owner's basement is too small and he needs addirional storage space. Therefore, we the undersigned neighbors of 1083 Sherburne do not believe a 20.5-foot tall garage will in any way disrupt our quality of Iife and we support the owner of 1083 Sherburne• in building the garage of his choice. �`�'� C�a� �� � � ��v� c � �� �� � � ;r , C�.�, e a ���.. ���-- ����� r '' G. ��ro�}S s ����� �� s�� N���� z�, ,� , .� . , Po ?S �12cy��vr� �v'� J�� L� � �f�d�t �(`�^'y !� J � �a ����� � ����� ���� �'� n !� ���� ���-��� ����.¢ � ���o��r�(,�,�� ��i � �� �, I� �-� /�-v� 1�0 � n� � � � � /�-v OS-�o� J Variance Approval Petitiott 1083 Sherburne Ave. Whereas, the owner of 1083 Sherburne has applied for a minor variance in order to build a new iwo-story garage. Whereas, under St. Pau1 City Code the m2ximum allowable height for a garage is 15 feet. Whereas, the applicant is proposing a height of 20.5 feet for his new gazage, for a proposed variauce of 5.5 feet. Wbereas, the owner's basement is too small and he needs additional storage space. Therefore, we the undersigned neighbors of 1083 Sherburne do not believe a 20.5=foot tall garage will in any way disrupt our quality of life and we support the owner of 1Q83 Sherburne in building the garage of his choice. i, .'' � Variance Appraval Petit�on 1083 Sherburne Ave. �'hereas, the owner of 1083 Sherburne has applied for a minor variance in order to build a new two-story gazage. Whereas, under St Paul City Code the ma�um allowable height for a garage is 15 feet. Whereas, the applicant is proposing a height of 20.5 feet for his new garage, for a proposed variance of 5.5 feet. VVhereas, the owner's basement is too small and he needs additional storage space. Therefore, we the undersigned neighbors of 1083 Sherburne do not believe a 20.5-foot tall garage will in any way disrupt our quality of life and we support the owner of 1083 Sherburne in building the garage of his choice. :� `Si a;t�e � ��--�.�' ��� u t�;�`Iam� �„��'��� ����ka��� ~��� �t,t,s��. ��� Je�s�r� �[�c�� �o�� c�'�les � �.��� ����.� � ���" � ��� J �'������� �� `a , ` �l 1�c�.� t �� 05-�.0� June 4, 2005 To �Vhom It May Concem: My name is: Charles W. Rosner Address is: 1Q80 Charles Avenue City, St., Zip: St Paul, MN 55104 My property is north, across the alley from 1083 Sherbume Ave. To my understanding there is a variance required for this properiy owner to install a�ew garage that is 5' to 5'6" taller than the city permits. Living at this properiy at 1080 Charles for 35 plus years I have seen many changes in this neighborhood. There are now privacy fences 6' tall that biock out the view from my back yard to where I used to be able to see clear now the block: I myself have changed my garage from 1 car to 3 car in 1983, I haVe no objections if this properiy owner inereases his property value by installing a new garage that just happens to need a variance for this. Sincerely, C�-%���� cn�i�s w. �OSner 1080 Charles Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 651-644-5651 Home • � L�V ��`'° - - �� .,�4 .�- �..�- � � � �r� v 5' ,r�= ,l�e. 651-4�6-0475 �Tork 730a�n-4:OOpm �`''� °� �`� - � � ��ryz`.�".� �---- KA'[NLEEN R. MICi:U � �. �V�S� ��-- . DISTRICT 7 .,, PlANNING ` a, � COUNCIL Zonin� Review n LJ Prouertv: 1083 Sherburne Issue: A variance in order to construct a taller garage, The ma�um allowable height is 15 feet to the midpoint of the peak and eave, 20.5 feet is proposed for a varisnce of 5.5 fee� Communitv Resnonse at Meetin�x*: Pros - The house needs a garage and the small variance seems reasonable. - The house is very weil maiutained and the garage design wiil only enhance the house's beauty, which increases neighborhood property vaiues. - The owner's basement is abnormally sma11 and having a large garage to accommodate needed storage is a logical solution. - It's encouraging that the appiicant is planfZing to put in a lift. It would be great if more peopie woutd install efficient storage devices in a metropolitan setting. Cons d5-�o�{ 651/298-5068 (ofFce) 651/298-5072 (fax) dis5ict7@jnfegraonline.com (e-mai!) 689 North Dale Streef Sainf Paut, Minnesota 55403-1644 - The larger gazage will stick out ne}R to its neighbors' shorter garages. Communitv Resnonse Outside of Meetin�_ Pros Cons The neighbor at 1075 Sherburne also has a two-story garage and is very supportive of the appficant's proposal. • T'he neighbor at 1074 Sherburne ciaims that the applicant owns several cars and believes he plans to fix them in his new garage. ' Prior to the meeting ail properties within 350 ft of the property in question were infarmed of the issue. + The apptipnt was notefied of the commnnity meeting immediately after District 9 received a wpy of the applitation €rom the City. "* Al! listed resPonses were given by individuxts living, working or owning property in the boundaries of Disfrict 7 Planning CounciL Respectfully submitted by: Tait A. Danieison Community Organizer District 7 P(anning Council � 05-7.oy • MINUTES OF TFIE MEETING OF Tf� BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY EIALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA,, 7UNE 6, 2005 PRESENT: Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, and Morton; Messrs. Courtney, Faricy, Galles, and Wilson of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspecfions, and Environmental Protecfion. ABSEIVT: None The meeting was ct�aired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. Alan Butts (#OS-1039231 1083 Sherbnrne Avenue• A variance in order to construct a taller gazage. The inaYimum allowable height is 15 feet to the midpoint of the peak and eave, 20.5 feet is proposed for a variance of 5.5 feet. Mr. Hazdwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendarion for denial. No coaespondence was received opposing the variance request. No conespondence was received from District 7 regazding the variance request. The applicant ALAN BUTTS, 1�83 Sherburne Avenue, was prasent. Mr. Butts stated that he found errors in the findings of the staff report. He had submitted packets for the Boazd for them to refer to. • There are 29 homes total on his block, 20 with larger foot prints than 1083 Sherburne. There are six foot prints that are approximaYely the same size. Those two foot prints also have accompanying garages which aze larger than the foot print of the house. There are three foot prints smaller than 1083 Sherburne, they also have a larger gazage than the foot print of the house. 1080 and 1976 Charles the garages d'uectly behind his property have foot prints approximately the same or bigger than the house. So that is not an untypical characteristic to the neighborhood. There aze also immediately adjacent to him. The garage he proposes to build would be a9.3 square feet lazger than the house foot print. At this point he has a basement that he finds is unsuitable and unusable as per City Code. The City Code typically requires a 6.8 foot roof to be an occupy able room. At the high point of his basement he has a 6.2 foot clearance that would not be there if he had not rebuilt the steps. At the low point of his basement it is 67 inches or 5.7 feet. Noting that he could not even put a freezer in his basement, he has tried several times and now the freezer sets in his ldtchen. The other chazacteristics of this lot aze that it is smaller than a standard sized lot in the City of St. Paul. A typical lot is 5,000 square feet his lot is 4,875 square feet, which is smaller. His lot is only 39 feet across the back, a typical lot is 40 feet. Now his house takes up 780 squaze feet, the gazage he proposes will take up 819 square feet that puts his land use at 32.8% which is very close to what code allows for use of land at this point. The statement that he can build a 1,000 squaze foot garage, although he has not checked out the validity of that, but he would be over his land use if he built that size of a foot print for a gazage. Once again he would be in front of this Board for a variance. Mr. Butts stated that he owns several lazge vehicles. He owns a jeep which is 6'4" he owns a tow-truck which the Boazd has seen a picture of that measures 7'6". He owns a 1970 Ford which measures 7'2" and he also owns a 99 Ford F-1050 which measures 6'10". These are alllarger vehicles and he needs a larger • garage space to accommodate them and a gazage door opener for the garage door. He does not feel that 8 feet of pazldng area is asldng too much. AA-ADA-EEO Employer 0�-� o�f File #OS-103923 Minutes June 6, 2005 Page Two • Mr. Butts stated that he recently went to Mr. Hardwick and asked whether there were any altematives to avoid coming before the Board, again on this issue. Mr. Hardwick's alternarives were to cut down my second floor, which would not accommodate my vetucles. In the front of the packet there aze two pictures of the house in quesrion. You can see that I have taken a lot of time and effort to make my house stand out within the neighborhood and also be a good communiry person as well as neighbor. Secondly you will see two hand drawn layouts of the floor plan of his house. The first page is his first floor, the second page is his second floor. As you can see from these drawings there is no storage area within the house in the livable azeas of the house. This includes simple things such as coat closets, pantry storage for food in the kitchen and he did not build these features into his hoizse, Next is a picture of the high point of his basement. It is a picture going down the stairs which he recently rebuilt in an attempt to accommodate lazger items down into the basement. After that is a picture of the laundry azea. The beam in front of the picture is typical of the height of the rest of his basement, that is 5'7" as you can see there is duct work tucked in and out of the ceiling, which creates a lower ceiling. Next is a picture taken standing in front of the dryer toward the front of the house that shows the low ceiling height. The third picture of the basement is once again a picture taken facing toward the back of the house to once again show the height of the ceiling. You will notice a floor lamp that is obviously set into the picture to give a reference to height, Next is a colored map created by L1EP (License, Inspection & Environmental Protection.) The colored portions of the map show where there are taller gazages located in his neighborhood. As Mr. Hazdwick said they are probably considered a story and a haif not a full two- stories. The two garages you will see in the first picture aze the two garages direcfly behind his house, • one of a lazge foot print and one of a second story. Mr. Butts stated he has gone into that garage and has seen a full second story. In the opposite direcrion is a white garage with a second floor and is located two doors down from him and is located on the same side of the alley. Next is a picture of 1042 Chazles which is the opposite end of his block and once again has a rather large garage with a stairway and second floor. There is a picture of the garage that is of the current second floor of that garage. The owner stated he wishes that he had more storage and it is extremely inconvenient for him to place anything up there, as you can see it is pretty much a crawl space. Next is a picture of 1039 Charles which is not only is the structure considered a garage it is also higher than the actual living azea. The gazage behind this residence is actually higher than the house, Mr. Butts stated there is a second picture of this garage. Next to the garage is an RV pazked, RV's aze tall so you can see that the garage has a full second story just by the height of the RV. Last is a picture of 1047 Chazles which is the smallest two-story building he could fmd in the neighborhood. Once again there is a second floor unbelievably tucked above this garage. You will also see a picture of tlus tow truck, he asked whether the Board would want their caz towed by this huck? Noting that he does not run a business with this tnxck and has no intent in running a business with this truck. It is simply there to a11ow him to move heavier items that eust in lris yazd. There is also a petition signed by his nnmediate neighbor who could passiblq be affected by this structure. There is also a note from the neighbor directly behind 1083 Charles; from Charles Rosner who is very much in support of this and would enjoy seeing this structure go up, from what he has been told. Finally there is a note from the Dish Council6 wluch supports this project. Mr. Butts stated that in this neighborhood while there aze many unique characterisrics most being of small nature, he does not tl�ink it is conducive to building a good community when you deny people the ability to live in it. He stated that to deny this variance would fiuther degrade that commimity. There is also a theory brought up that this gazage will block light and air from his neighbors, any type of structure that he builds whether it • is of legal code or above legal code will block off light and air to supply to the alley. It will not block off air and light to a neighbor. Mr. Butts stated that when he told his neighbor this, he jokingly said "oh my AA-ADA-EEO E�loyer o5-�oy� • File #OS-103923 Minutes June 6, 2005 Page Three god, you mean I do not have to look at KFC or smell the stuff coming from it, gee what a loss." He does not believe that the garage will block off any light or air to any of his neighbors. Furthermore, he noted that he plows that alley and does it on a continues basis in the winter and does not ask his neighbors for any money or any type of reunbursement for doing Y1us. This will continue as long as he lives here. Therefore, any light missing from the alley will not be of any significance as there will be no ice or snow build up as long as he lives there. Anybody eise who may live here in the future will possibly need the same type of storage. Although they may not have the same type of items, they will need the same type of storage. Because as he has stated before, at this point walking in his basement is dangerous. Most basements are 7-8 feet tall, his is not even at 6 feet. According to City Code it is not even an occupy able room unless he once again gets a variance. Ms. Bogen questioned what Mr. Butts used the towtruck for? Mr. Butts replied he moves items around within his yazd and sometimes to pick them up. He does like to do landscaping and as you can see froxn the first picture of the house. Mr. Butts stated that he has a lazge pond and a small waterfall in it. Some of those boulders were placed by that truck you aze looking at. Some of those boulders weigh close to two tons, which is something he personally cannot move. Like he has said he uses the truck to move items around the yard or go retrieve items he is going to use for his yard. Mr. Butts stated that as John pointed out there is a lot of stuff in that back yazd. The cars have been reduced as he sold 4 of his vehicles so that is not an issue any longer. Most of the items in the yard at this time are items to either • build this garage or landscape the yard. Ms. Bogen stated she just noticed that the towtruck says 24 hour service on it. Mr. Butts stated it was on there from the previous owner, he just did not take it off. If you nofice there is no business sign on the side of the vehicle. You can see that there has not been any business sign on the side of that. Once again he asked whether the Board would trust their car to a truck like that. The frame is broken and bent in half. The main purpose of the huck is for the use of tlte winch. Mr. Wilson questioned that the pictures of 1080 Charles, 1076, 1042 and even 1075, none of those are a fpll two stories. Mr. Butts replied no they are not a full two-stories. Mr. Wilson stated that when you talk about comparison, those are more of an attic verses a second floor. Mr. Butts stated it is more of a loft space is what it has been referred to by the people he has spoken to about it. Once again to be able to store the things he has to store in the future, like a mattress or 4' by 8' sheet of plywood is simply not a possibility up there. Mr. Butts stated he agrees, there are no full two-story garages aside from the one at the end of his block. He contended that he has a choice he can either go out or up to build the gazage and either way he will end up in front of the Board. Mr. Butts stated he would personally rather go up than to degrade the green space of the neighborhood that is already seriously degraded just because of the lot sizes. He feels it would be better to go up. Mr. Wilson stated Mr. Butts is talldng feet. What we are talldng here on the average height is from the rafters is 16 feet. Mr. Butts responded no, he is at 8 feet at the second floor point. Mr. Wilson stated plus the second floor. Mr. Butts replied yes, the second floor is also 8 feet. Mr. Wilson stated that Mr. Butts is at 16 feet at the rafters. NIr. Butts stated yes, and in an attempt to not block more light or air, he purposely made a very low sloped roof line. Obviousiy if he had gone with a higher pitched roof he could have gotten his height but would have degraded his head room in the storage area he is trying to create. Mr. Hardwick had told him that he could put some gables on the roof, but once again that is a greater expense, and Mr. Butts stated he is not a rich person. Mr. • Butts stated he has designed something that is simple and easy to maintain for anybody that may own that Property in the future. He stated he couid build a garage with a very steep pitched roof, but than once AA-ADA-EEO Employer �5�70�1 File #OS-103923 Minutes June 6, 2005 Page Four again he would be degrading the light and air of his neighbors and he would be maldng that very hard for any individual to maintain that roof. Right now the way he has drawn that roof anyone could get up there and easily lay a roof safely. Mr. Wilson stated he is seeing apples and oranges here when he looks at the other garages here. He stated he did not see any change from the previous request Mr. Butts brought before the Boazd. Mr. Butts stated no, there is not much change from his previous request. He contended that some of the facts in his previous request were obviously misstated. Such as the fact that he owns a smaller lot than a typical lot in the City. A typical lot in the City is 5,000 square feet, his lot is 4,800 square feet, and rather than degrade the green space he would rather build up. There are lazger structures in the alley. His structure is not going to be much lazger than the shuctures within the alley it is just going to have a different roof on it, and because of that roof pitch it is going to end up needing a variance. Mr. Wilson questioned that Mr. Butts would need a stairway to get up to the second floor. Noting tl�at a 24-foot(?) width is marked on the plans, he questioned whether the stairway would be a drop stairway? Mr. Butts stated the stairway is intended to be a pern�anent staizway. Mr. Wilson questioned wfiat would be stored on the second floor? What would Mr. Butts carry up there? Mr. Butts stated if you notice there is one bay that is cleaz to the roof. He stated he intends to put a lift in the bay so he can store 4-cazs in a three-caz space. If he had an item he could not carry up to the second floor he would easily place it on that lift and place it on that second floor. � Ms. Bogen questioned that Mr. Butts plans to lift a car up to the second floor? Mr. Butts replied no, it is • not going to be placed on the second floor. He has 12,000 pound standazd garage drive on car lift. In arder to keep his velucles off the streets of Saint Paul he intends to drive a caz onto the lift that he does not drive often, put it in the air and than park another caz underneath it. This type of lift will accommodate it. Ms. Maddox quesrioned what it would do if we reduced the height to 2.5 what would that do? Mr. Butts repiied it would further cut down his space for parking. He feels that storage in his mind has to be usable and accessible for many large items. For himself as well as for others. Mr. Butts sfated he is wilIing to come down 2 feet by coming down on the pitch of the roof. If he changes the pitch of the roof it will ultimately be higher that what is pictured here. Mr. Aazdwick questioned Mr. Butts, referring to the photograph of the back yard, you have an awful lot of stuff back there. Mr. Butts stated that is correct. Mr. Hazdwick quesfioned if you were allowed to build this gazage aze you telling the Boazd that all of that stuff will be gone. Mr. Butts stated that he is absolutely telling the Boazd that. He is telling the Boazd every item you can and cannot see in that picture will be out of my yard. He very much wishes to have a back yazd that is reflective of his front yazd. Mr. Butts stated he enjoys beautiful surroundings and currently he is unable to do that. As stated earlier many of the materials that e�st in that yatd are for the purpose of building that garage. He has lumber, block and he also has insulation, and several pallets of rocks that will be used for landscaping within the back yazd. Mr. Hazdwick questioned if the Boazd granted your request subject to the condition that once the gazage is built you will have noflung stored in the back yard. Mr. Butts stated thaY would be absolutely acceptable. Ms. Bogen questioned why Mr. Butts has insolation? Mr. Butts stated the insularion is intended to • insulate the roof of the garage. The reasoning for that is that he does not want to end up with a situation AA-ADA-EEO Employer Q5 7oy • �J File #OS-103923 Minutes , 7une 6, 2005 Page Two where ice dams build up and destroy the roof of his building. The best way he has found to combat that is to insulate the roof and keep it the same Yemperature as the outdoors. Hearing no fiuther testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. Ms. Bogen stated she is still having problems with the distance from the ground up to the eve being 17.6 feet, which is in itself above the maxim� allowed height for a garage so based on findings 1 through 4 move to denial. Mr. Courhtey seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 7-0. Ms. Maddox instructed that the variance had been denied and Mr. Butts could appeal the decision to the City Council within 10 days. Mr. Butts stated he wished that the Boazd would have let his neighbors speak. It is unfair that they came down and were not given a chance to speak. Ms. Maddox quesfioned that they all had an opportunity didn't they? Mr. Hardwick repIied no, Chair forgot to allow them to speak. Ms. Maddox apologized and offered to reopen the public portion of the hearing so they could all speak. Mr. Butts stated no thank you, you have done enough. Mr. Warner stated he did not even catch that the public had not gotten to speak. Ms. Maddox re-opened the public portion of the meeting. Boa Lee, 689 Dale Street North, stated she is from the District 7 Planning Council. Ms. Lee commented that they did have a meeting on this issued on May 24, 2005. Neighbors recommended approval for the building of the gazage. The reasons being that the house does not have a garage, and needs additional storage space. Neighbors felt this would help him get his vehicles off the street and would also add to the (could not understand end of comment.) The only con's we had were that the lazger garage would stick out taller than the other shorter garages surrounding it. The district also received one phone call from a neighbor concerned about the number of cars Mr. Butts has and were concerned that with this new garage he planned to offer auto repair in the garage. But the ulfimate decision was to support the project. There was no opposition present at the hearing. Hearing no further tesfimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting, and apologized for not allowing the audience speak. Mr. Warner stated appazently he speaks for his neighbors. Submitted by: Approved by: • John Hardwick Gloria Bogen, Secretary AA-ADA-EEO Employer os-�o� Saint Paul City Council: Tuesday, July O5, 2005 We aze neighbors to AI and Terri and live across the ally. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend the meeting regazding AI and Terri's garage building plans. However, we would like to voice our concern with the situation. We aze aware that the building plans would exceed the allotted height for St. Paul codes. We are not concerned about whether the exceeded height will block airflow or block the sun to prevern snow from melting in the alley (which our great neighbor Al plows whenever there is a snowfall anyway). Our concems are more so with a government that will not adjust for a citizen that has support of the neighborhood and a plan that will add to his property and improve the overall appearance of our neighborhood Residents in our neighborhood have signed a petition and have been in overwhelming support of A1 and Terri's plans. As our elected council, we feel it is your job to support the St Paul neighborhoods that value and support each other as well as continue to improve their property. Community is important to our neighborhood. We support AI and Terri and feel it is our elected counciPs duty to show its support to our neighborhood through approval of the building plan. Sincerely, and P ul JaFobs ��YE � ���� � If �nti ` d like o contact us, piease feel free to do so. Ann and Paul Jacobs 530 Le�ungton Pkwy N St. Pau155104 651.644.1037 DS �oy Findings 1083 Sherbume Avenue 7-20-OS This matter was laid over at the close of the public hearing on July 6, 2005, so the applicant could consider revising his garage plans. The applicant has revised his plan to lower the height of the proposed garage to 18.5 feet instead of 20.5 feet and the pitch of the roof also changes with the lowered height of the garage. BZA staff has reviewed this new design and would recommend that it be approved. With this change and the staffl `s recommendation, I would offer the following findings and motion on the applicanYs appeal: The BZA did not err when it denied Mr. Butts' variance application. The proposed gazage plan was too tall and out of scale with surrounding gazages. The redesigned garage plan is now more in character with the neighborhood. Based on the Council's authority to act as the BZA when it considers an appeal, I would like to exercise that power and move approval of the modified variance consistent with the new size of the garage noted above, subject to the condition that the new gazage is not used for any commercial purposes or as additional living space. In support of this modified variance, I would move the following findings: The property in guestion cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The applicant states that he does not have enough room to store all of his personal items in the house and he would also like to be able to park his vehicles in a garage. He is proposing to bixild a two-story, 24 by 34-foot garage in the rear yard. A garage is a permitted accessory structure and is a reasonable amenity for a single-family home. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The size of the lot as well as the location of the house on the site limit the area available for an accessory sh These are circumstances that were not created by the applicant. 3. The pYOposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The applicant's house and front yard are neat and nicely landscaped. The applicant has plans to landscape the rear yard in a similar manner once the new garage is built. There is